Tuesday, 1 September 2026
Sitting date: 1 September 2026
Tuesday, 1 September 2026
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Start of Sitting Day
Karakia/Prayers
BARBARA KURIGER (Deputy Speaker) (14:00): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and the peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Presentation
Petitions
SPEAKER: Two petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.
CLERK (14:01):
Petition of Josaiah Fue requesting that the House legislate to make cost-effective artificial sound emitters mandatory on all electric and hybrid vehicles sold in New Zealand to warn blind and low-vision pedestrians
petition of Rulandi de Villiers requesting that the House legislate to allow grieving fathers to receive parental leave equal to that of mothers after the birth and death of a stillborn child.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.
Papers
SPEAKER: Ministers have delivered five papers.
CLERK (14:01):
2025/26 annual reports for the:
Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner
Māori Purposes Fund Board
2026-2030 strategic intentions for the Parliamentary Counsel Office
2026-2030 statement of intent for Invest New Zealand
Government response to the report of Māori Affairs Committee on the briefing on accountability settings and outcomes for Māori.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Select Committee Reports
SPEAKER: Eighteen select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK (14:02):
Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the:
briefing on intellectual property and current copyright legislation
briefing on the upcoming reports of the Science System Advisory Group
Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee—Second scrutiny activities report for the 54th Parliament
review briefing on the 2024/25 annual review of New Zealand Growth Capital Partners Limited
reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the:
Modern Slavery Bill
review briefing on the 2024/25 annual review of Education New Zealand
review briefing on the 2024/25 annual review of Education Payroll Limited
reports of the Health Committee on the:
petition of Cheryl Boyes
petition of Greg Rzesniowiecki
reports of the Justice Committee on the:
Corrections (Management of Prisoners, and Prisoners’ Property) Amendment Bill
inquiry into the 2025 Local Elections
reports of the Petitions Committee on the:
briefing on Government responses to committee recommendations
petition of Jazmine Watson
petition of Katja Feldtmann
petition of Shane Clarke Witehira
petition of Suzanne Edmonds, and the
petition of Whaioro Trust
report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege concerning evidence given by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to the Education and Workforce Committee.
SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The question of privilege, inquiry, activities report, and briefings are set down for consideration.
Bills
KiwiSaver (First Home or Farm) Amendment Bill
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Omnibus) Bill
Introduction
SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of two bills.
CLERK (14:03):
KiwiSaver (First Home or Farm) Amendment Bill, introduction
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism (Omnibus) Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading. We come now to oral questions.
Oral Questions to Ministers
Prime Minister
Question No. 1
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:03) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:03): Yes, and, in particular, our Government’s commitment not to introduce a capital gains tax because that would put a wrecking ball through the economy.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he accept that only employing 54 extra nurses over the last two years has contributed to a deepening crisis in our public health system?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m actually very proud of the fact that we have added 2,100 extra nurses to the healthcare system in New Zealand—and we have 900 more extra doctors, as well, since we started in Government.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, why did the number of nurses employed by Health New Zealand drop by 120 over the year compared to the year before, or will he now concede that his Government has had a hiring freeze in place?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, there has been no hiring freeze. I can reassure the member: we have added 2,100 extra nurses from when we started in Government.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If there is no hiring freeze, why were there 120 fewer nurses in our hospitals last year than the year before?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we’re recruiting for 2,300 from memory. But I just want to reassure the member: the good news is that we inherited a terrible state in the healthcare system, and we’ve actually added 2,100 more nurses; we’ve expanded 120 places for nurse prescribers, 120 places for nurse practitioners, and we’ve also hired 900 extra doctors—that’s a good thing.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which of the 13 Health New Zealand districts that have fewer nurses now than two years ago does he think had too many nurses to start with?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’d just say to the member that we’ve got 2,100 extra nurses in the healthcare system. That’s a good thing. I’ll tell the member, I know you might be interested in some numbers, but let me give him some because we are very focused on improving the outcomes in the healthcare system, as you would well appreciate. Here we go. Improved childhood immunisations: when that member took over, it was 92 percent and when he left, it was 67.5 percent; we’re improving that to 74.2 percent. When we look at shorter stays in emergency departments, it was 89 percent when he took Government, and it was 67.5 percent when he left.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: So why are hundreds of New Zealand-trained graduate nurses waiting without jobs now while our hospitals run short in terms of their nursing rosters?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, we’re hiring a huge number of nurses. We’ve got 2,300 full-time nursing roles being recruited for. We’ve already got 2,100 additional nurses in the system. I think the member should just accept that’s a good thing for our healthcare system. It’s in all of our interests to improve the outcomes, and isn’t it fantastic this Government’s added 2,100 extra nurses and 900 extra doctors in two and a bit years.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Has Health New Zealand been holding more than 1,300 nursing roles vacant for over two years now, and if so, isn’t that just more evidence that New Zealand cannot afford three more years of a National Government?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’ll tell you what, in answer to the second leg of the question, I mean, what they cannot afford is, actually, worse cancer treatment times, child immunisations that are worse, wait times in emergency departments that are worse, and first specialist assessments and elective treatments being worse. That’s what happened under a Labour Government, and New Zealanders don’t want to go back to Labour running the healthcare system—God help us.
Prime Minister
Question No. 2
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (14:07) 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) (14:07): Yes, and I just want to reassure the member that we won’t be introducing a capital gains tax, an inheritance tax, or a land tax.
SPEAKER: Just wait until the whole House is quiet so that you can ask your question.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Why did the Prime Minister, just two weeks ago, so confidently declare in response to our questions that no one had their main benefit suspended and that he was “very supportive” of the mandatory reviews, now that we know that those mandatory reviews actually did wrongfully suspend benefits for seriously injured, sick, and disabled New Zealanders?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, those statements were correct at the time with the facts that we had at that time, but, subsequently, what’s important is that the issue has been resolved. It’s important that it gets fixed, and that’s what we do in this Government: we fix the problems that we encounter.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister asked his Minister for Social Development and Employment when she found out that main benefits were being wrongly suspended on top of winter energy payments, and if so, when did the Minister for Social Development and Employment first become aware and when did she tell the Prime Minister?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I haven’t, because I really want the focus on fixing the problem, which is what we do in this Government.
Chlöe Swarbrick: How many New Zealanders who are seriously injured, sick, or disabled have had their benefit wrongly suspended, and how many of those have now received back payment?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: If the member puts the question on notice, I’ll make sure she gets a full answer. But what’s important here is actually how you respond to challenges and actually fix problems and get solutions for people, and that’s what we’ve done here. I appreciate it’s not an ideal situation, but it’s a very rapid response from the Ministry of Social Development. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Hang on, just a moment. The question has been asked, and the questioner should hear the answer, not the interruption from the other side of the House. Has the Prime Minister finished?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.
Chlöe Swarbrick: How can the Prime Minister and his Minister for Social Development and Employment so confidently declare that everyone who has had their benefit unfairly and wrongly suspended has been paid back if he and his Minister can’t even say how many people had their benefit wrongly suspended in the first place?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said to the member, at the time and with the information we had, that was the correct answer, but what’s much more important is that I want my Ministers focused on fixing things. We can discuss the process as much as you like. Put the questions on notice, and we’ll get you some proper answers for that. But with respect to actually fixing the problem so that people actually get the money in their bank account and things get sorted and fixed, that’s what we focus on on this side of the Government.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Has the Prime Minister now changed his view from being “very supportive” of automated decision making, which has led to countless seriously injured, sick, or disabled New Zealanders having their benefits wrongly suspended, and, if so, what is he actually going to do about it?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: In answer to the last leg of the question: we’re fixing it.
Social Development and Employment
Question No. 3
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (14:10) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many beneficiaries have had their benefit payments wrongly suspended since the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Act 2025 came into force?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:11): I acknowledge that a number of beneficiaries have had their benefit payments affected since the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Act 2025 came into force, and I apologise to those affected. Some benefits have been wrongly suspended. What we don’t know at this stage is how many. The situation is extremely unsatisfactory. The Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) focus has been on ensuring payments are resumed. I’ve directed MSD to conduct a review, to look into the issue, and at how many people have had their benefits affected. I’m expecting the outcome of the review on 10 September, and will have more to say then.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many people receiving a disability allowance have had their payments wrongly suspended since her changes?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I answered that in my primary question, and I said that we don’t know the number at this stage, and I will have a full review and report available on 10 September. Mr Speaker, 1.3 million New Zealanders are paid regularly by MSD. I accept that this is a significant problem, and the situation is extremely unsatisfactory. That’s why we are looking to exactly what has happened, why, and how many people are affected.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How many carers receiving a supported living payment have had their payments wrongly suspended since her changes?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve answered the question—the primary question—which basically said we don’t have the detail of the numbers involved.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can it be simultaneously be true that the Government doesn’t know how many people were affected, but it does know they were all paid back?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There are two separate issues here. It probably helps if I identify two of them. One was a policy error, that led to people not getting the winter energy payment. I was notified of that on the Thursday night, and by Saturday morning, all of those payments had been repaid. The second is delays around processing, which is not a policy issue; it is an operational issue, that MSD have apologised for. They have been working at pace to identify those who have had their payments stopped, and repaid them, but I want to be confident that there is a full review of this, and that the issues have been resolved, which is why I’m waiting until 10 September to ensure that I provide accurate information to the House.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Will she concede that it was her rushed law changes that meant seniors and veterans missed out on their winter energy payments, and that other vulnerable people also didn’t receive the support they need?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. I have just gone through the two issues. The first is an issue of policy, which was a mistake. That was nothing to do with the legislative process, because it was the error and omission in the policy—
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Policy, law, implementation.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, I do know how laws are made in this House. That member might not, but I do. The second is an operational issue, which is processing delays, and, as I’ve said, I’m committed to getting to the bottom of this, and that’s why I’ve asked for a review, which will have more details on 10 September.
Hon Marama Davidson: When did she first find out that processing delays resulted in main benefits being wrongfully suspended, and when did she disclose that information to the public?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That information was provided to the public with an apology by MSD on 17 August.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I know that Ministers are required to correct information as soon as possible. The apology from MSD was not in relationship to main benefits but in relationship to the winter energy payments that were cut, so I find it baffling as to why the Minister would make such a claim when she knows it’s not factually correct.
SPEAKER: Well, I thought that was the question. Does the Minister want to make any comment on that?
Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order, the question was on main benefits being suspended. The commentary from MSD was on supplementary assistance—
SPEAKER: Ask the question again.
Hon Marama Davidson: When did she first find out that processing delays resulted in main benefits being wrongfully suspended, and when did she disclose that information to the public?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: On 17 August, MSD apologised and made a statement. [Interruption] No, the member is incorrect. What he is referring to was a question in the Estimates debate where I was asked about policy and policy having any impacts on benefits being not paid, and I said no, it was not the policy that was the mistake; it was the operating delays, and that is why I’m getting MSD to do a review into what has happened and why.
Finance
Question No. 4
NANCY LU: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Finance and asks: What recent reports has she seen—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just hold on, hold on. When you’re ready—Nancy Lu.
NANCY LU (National) (14:17) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:17): I’ve seen a report from the international ratings agency S&P Global Ratings affirming New Zealand’s AA+ sovereign credit rating with a stable outlook. AA+ is a high rating; only 18 economies in the world are rated AA+ or AAA. S&P notes that the Government is pursuing a policy agenda focused on fiscal consolidation and economic revitalisation. Over the next few years, it expects the New Zealand economy to grow in strength and expects the Government’s deficit to reduce. I know many people are still doing it tough, but S&P’s report is further evidence that Kiwis can look forward to a growing economy and a better set of Government books.
Nancy Lu: Are there other signs that the economy is recovering?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The latest ANZ Business Outlook survey came out yesterday, showing that business confidence in firms’ own outlook for the future remains at high levels. Perhaps most importantly, a growing proportion of firms also reported that their own real business activity has increased markedly over the past year. ANZ’s conclusion from the survey is that “there is widespread optimism that the worst is past and that the economy is getting back on track. Risks are easy to point out, certainly, but we share that optimism. The lift in past activities suggests the bounce-back is already underway.”
Nancy Lu: What could put the economy recovery at risk?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Higher taxes would hurt business and hurt the economy. I’m thinking here, for example, of a capital gains tax on commercial and industrial property. Factories, sheds, warehouses, garages, office buildings, labs, shops, and other buildings are an intrinsic part of productive businesses that employ people and pay wages. A capital gains tax would impose a new tax on them. Scrapping Investment Boost would also increase tax on New Zealand businesses to the tune of $6.6 billion. Worse, it would be an increase in tax for businesses who are doing exactly what the country needs them to be doing, which is investing in growth, in the machinery, tools, equipment, and other productive assets that raise wages for New Zealand workers.
Nancy Lu: What information has she seen on the take up of Investment Boost?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said previously, we’ll get the first proper idea of that next year, when all businesses have filed their 2026 tax returns. However, I have recently seen preliminary information on the minority of firms, primarily small and medium businesses that have already filed tax returns. Of those business that reported some additions to fixed assets, 49 percent—that is around 33,000 firms—reported that they had claimed Investment Boost deductions. The total value of assets on which Investment Boost had been claimed is $2 billion, and the average value of assets on which Investment Boost has been claimed is $61,000.
Nancy Lu: What is the significance of that $61,000 figure?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I said, for those small to medium businesses who have already filed their tax returns, the average value of assets on which Investment Boost has been claimed so far is $61,000. Let’s compare that to another scheme—say, an accelerated depreciation scheme that only applied to assets worth less than $10,000. In that case, a small business claiming on that average value of $61,000 would get precisely nothing. They would be paying more tax than they are now. Compared to the status quo, they would be discouraged from making that investment. That’s what I mean by the risks of imposing more taxes on business.
Economic Growth
Question No. 5
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:21) to the Minister for Economic Growth: Is it still the Government’s plan to “grow the economy, to create more jobs, and to provide more opportunities for New Zealanders to have higher incomes”?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth) (14:21): Mr Speaker, yes, and the latest evidence shows the recovery is strengthening. The latest ANZ Business Confidence report says that the economic bounce back is already under way, with reported business activity up more than six points in August, and employment intentions at their highest since February. Westpac’s latest report says that growth appears to have resumed this quarter, and S&P says, “New Zealand’s growth outlook is improving”. There is, of course, always more work to do, but this Government is fixing the basics and building a stronger economy that creates more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders—all done without taxing more.
Hon Ginny Andersen: How can her Government claim to be lifting incomes, when 42 percent of Kiwis received a pay rise less than four percent and so many New Zealanders just can’t afford another three years of National?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I’d acknowledge that people’s circumstances vary significantly. There will be workers who haven’t experienced pay increases, just as there will be others who have received generous pay increases or promotions or changes in work circumstances. Equally, people face different cost pressures according to their lifestyles and demands. As I said in the answer to the primary question, there is no doubt that economic conditions have been tough for many New Zealanders over the last little while. When I look at Treasury’s forecasts, I’m given confidence by the fact that 220,000 new jobs will be created over the forecast period, and that real wages are forecast to grow faster than inflation, meaning more New Zealanders will have the opportunity to get ahead.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with the Kiwibank economist who said that “The cost of things has increased twice as much as the wages that the average Kiwi is getting.”; and if so, does she understand why New Zealanders just can’t afford three more years of National?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I agree with the statistical track that is very clear, that history—you can debate all sorts of things, but what you can’t debate is that inflation hit 7.3 percent under the last Government, was out of the target band for more than 30 months, and that during that period, prices rose dramatically faster than wages, which set many New Zealanders very far back. That’s why our Government has been on a mission to control spending, keep inflation in band, and drive real productive growth. I note that alternative approaches are possible, and for the book on how to spend more, borrow more, and tax more, just ask Willie Jackson.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she agree with Employment Hero’s general manager that falling wages represent “real-term losses for workers,”; and if so, where are the higher incomes her Government promised, given that New Zealanders just can’t afford three more years of National?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I absolutely agree that the goal of increasing productive growth in an economy is to see New Zealanders’ wages rise faster. That’s why this Government delivered the Investment Boost tax policy in last year’s Budget, because Treasury and IRD advised us that it was the single—
SPEAKER: Sorry, can I just ask the Minister to hold off for a minute. There’s only one person that answers for the Government, not a chorus.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Although it’s always nice to have one.
SPEAKER: Beg your pardon? Well, it’d be all right if they were in tune; I’m not sure they were.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Which is why we advanced the Investment Boost tax policy, because, in the view of our independent officials, that policy would see real wages grow faster than would otherwise be the case without that policy. Why? Because it would encourage productive investment that would raise productivity and allow firms to pay their workers more. This Government has a track record of delivering policies that will actually increase wages, rather than just leaning back on the old trope—that Willie Jackson wants to go back to—of spending more and taxing more.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Why should struggling Kiwis endure three more years of working harder and falling further behind when a change of Government means that “Better starts now?”
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because a change of Government would mean more borrowing, more spending, and more taxing, and sticking with this lot means no new taxes.
SPEAKER: That’s enough. I hope that’s the end of the advertorial session in today’s Parliament.
Housing
Question No. 6
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (14:27) to the Minister of Housing: Is the Government considering removing interest deductibility on residential property?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:27): Unlike others, no.
Dr Hamish Campbell: What evidence has he seen on the relationship between removal of interest deductibility for residential property and rent prices?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On 1 October 2021, the ban on interest deductibility for residential property started being phased in. Between October 2021 and March 2024, median rents for new tenancies went up by $80 per week or over $4,000 per year. In March 2024, the coalition Government announced the reversal on the ban on interest deductibility, and since then, rent increases have fallen to a 25-year low.
Dr Hamish Campbell: Is banning interest deductibility on residential property likely to put upward pressure on rent prices?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, and it is of an enduring mystery to me and others that there are people in support of it when it harms the very people that everyone in this House should be trying to help.
Dr Hamish Campbell: What reports has he seen on interest deductibility for residential property?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’ve seen many reports, and I’m still making my way through IRD’s 2021 and 2023 regulatory impact statements, which, unlike some other people, I actually bother to read. To remind the House, the 2021 regulatory impact statement states, in relation to removing interest deductibility, “[IRD] has advised against any of these options to deny or limit interest deductions … additional taxes on rental housing are unlikely to be an effective way of boosting overall housing affordability.” Removing interest deductibility would “put upward pressure on rents and may reduce the supply of new housing developments in the longer-term.” Overall, they said, removing interest deductibility would have “negative impacts on rents and housing supply”, “high compliance and administration costs for an estimated 250,000 taxpayers”, and “[would erode] the coherence of the tax system.” This is stupid policy.
Hon David Seymour: Why did the Government move to restore mortgage interest deductibility as rapidly as the 2025 tax year, and was it because of the ACT-National coalition agreement?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The answer to that is—well, in relation to the first part of the question, we moved quickly because it is good policy, as I’ve just outlined for the House the reasons why. In relation to the second part of the question, the answer is yes.
SPEAKER: Well, that’s good to clear that up.
Climate Change
Question No. 7
Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (14:29) to the Minister of Climate Change: What is the Government’s position on the Paris Agreement?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change) (14:30): The position of the Government is the same as it has always been: New Zealand is a signatory to the Paris Agreement and is committed to it.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Does he agree with Winston Peters, who said at the end of last week: “We will pull out of the failing Paris Agreement”?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Political parties are responsible for their own comments; I am responsible for the Government’s position. That position is that we are in the Paris Agreement.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Who is correct: the Prime Minister, who said that staying in the Paris Agreement is “a non-negotiable” in coalition talks, or David Seymour, who said this week that “you can’t decide what you negotiate on.”?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, similar to my response for the last question, I stand by the Prime Minister’s statement, and I am not responsible for other political parties’ statements in regards to their own policies. But, as a Government, our Government position is clear, and it is that we are in the Paris Agreement.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Well, then, who is correct: the Prime Minister, who said that leaving the Paris Agreement would make New Zealand poor and other countries would kick our products off shelves, or Winston Peters, who said that the Paris Agreement “is senselessly hamstringing our economy.”?
Hon SIMON WATTS: New Zealand remains in the Paris Agreement and is committed to our targets. We know that these targets are extremely difficult to achieve, and many other countries are also in similar positions, but the Government’s position is clear: we are in the Paris Agreement.
Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Can New Zealand afford another three years of a National-led coalition when they can’t even agree about our commitment to combating climate change?
Hon SIMON WATTS: What this side of the House cannot afford is a transition to the other side with a Government that will introduce nine new taxes, which will ruin this economy and ruin our country. On this side of the House, we are committed to fiscal discipline and supporting New Zealand to thrive.
Revenue
Question No. 8
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (14:32) to the Minister of Revenue: What reports has he received on the level of overdue student loan debt?
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue) (14:32): I’ve received Inland Revenue’s latest student loan quarterly report, which shows that as of 31 March 2026, overdue student loan repayments totalled $2.7 billion. That is a huge amount of money owed to New Zealand taxpayers, and there is a real cost when that is not repaid. Every dollar that goes unpaid is money that cannot be spent on education, healthcare, or other public services.
Ryan Hamilton: How much of the overdue student loan debt is owed by borrowers who have left New Zealand?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Overseas-based borrowers account for 93 percent of all overdue student loan debt, and that is despite overseas borrowers making up only 18 percent of all student loan borrowers. Kiwis who stay here overwhelmingly meet their obligations. The problem is concentrated among people who have left New Zealand and who fail to pay back what they owe.
Ryan Hamilton: What do reports show about the age of overdue student loan debt?
Hon SIMON WATTS: More than $1.9 billion of overseas borrower debt is more than five years old, and around 24,000 people have debts of more than 15 years of age. This is not a case of people missing the occasional payment. A significant amount of this debt has been outstanding for years, and that is why recovering overdue debt from overseas borrowers is so important.
Ryan Hamilton: What action is the Government taking to recover overdue student loan debt from overseas borrowers?
Hon SIMON WATTS: This Government has significantly increased funding for Inland Revenue’s compliance and collection work, including $29 million through Budget 2024 and a further $35 million through Budget 2025. Inland Revenue is using broader mechanisms to collect overseas debt and student loan debt, including overseas collection agencies and legal enforcement to pursue borrowers who do not meet their obligations. That action is working, with more than $243 million collected from overseas borrowers in 2024-25, and, in the last year, we saw an increase in collections of over 20 percent. We know that there is more to do, and we have a plan to achieve it.
Prime Minister
Question No. 9
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:35) 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) (14:35): Yes—particularly our intention never to implement an inheritance tax.
Hon Marama Davidson: Does he stand by his statement made at Waitangi this year that “iwi and hapū have a significant contribution to make to the protection of our natural environment. … It is why our reforms to resource management law contain strict provisions to uphold Treaty settlements and always will.”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.
Hon Marama Davidson: Who benefits from last-minute amendments to the new resource management legislation which allow another six years of degradation to the Waikato River, and why is he prioritising one industry over Treaty settlement commitments?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of the question.
Hon Marama Davidson: What role has his Government given industry polluters in influencing whether Treaty settlements are overridden?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We don’t give them any role. We uphold our obligations under law.
Hon Chris Bishop: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Plan Change 1, which gives effect to Te Ture Whaimana, which is the settlement referred to in the previous question, will be the basis for the new natural environment plan developed by Waikato Regional Council in the coming years?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I can, and that’s why we actually need to make sure that it’s aligned with the new Resource Management Act laws that are becoming law now.
Hon Marama Davidson: Did any members of Cabinet recuse themselves from discussions on amendments to the Planning Bill or the Natural Environment Bill?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I can assure the member that we manage any potential or real conflicts appropriately.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Tell us about those donations.
SPEAKER: Question No. 10—Arena Williams—
Tākuta Ferris: Supplementary. Sorry, supplementary.
SPEAKER: —and no one else.
Tākuta Ferris: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: My apologies—Tākuta Ferris. Sorry, I didn’t see you there.
Tākuta Ferris: Can the Prime Minister confirm that during this parliamentary term alone, the Waitangi Tribunal has faced an unprecedented burden of work, with nine urgent inquiries and one priority inquiry into policies and actions of his Government, and, if so, what does this say about his Government’s ability to demonstrate being a good Treaty partner?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What it says is we’re a very busy Government getting things done.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I hesitate to interrupt the flow of questions, but as the Prime Minister resumed his seat from the earlier question about conflicts of interest, Chlöe Swarbrick yelled out, “Tell us about those donations.” Now, it’s tempting to ignore her, but it’s not just angry and immature behaviour; it actually brings the whole House into disrepute to have those sorts of epithets shouted around, and I think you should ask her to withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: I didn’t hear that. This afternoon has been a politically charged afternoon where various parties, in both questions and answers, have put political questions. We’re obviously going into that season. I appreciate that the member may have found that comment to be concerning. I didn’t hear it. I’m not asking for a withdrawal, because it shouldn’t be on the record.
Tākuta Ferris: Of the nine urgent inquiries, can the Prime Minister identify one where the tribunal found his Government had strengthened rather than weakened its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and, if not, does he accept his Government has taken Crown-Māori relationships backwards?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely not. I mean, look at the 13 Treaty settlements that have been advanced. Look at the fact that we have improved regular attendance with Māori students from 51 to 54 percent. Look at the reduction in Māori youth offending—down 28 percent. Look at the 4,000 fewer Māori victims of violent crime. In this Government, we’re interested in improving outcomes for Māori and non-Māori. I appreciate you’re not.
Tākuta Ferris: How does the Prime Minister explain the tribunal’s repeated intervention into his Government’s actions across Treaty principles, Māori wards, Oranga Tamariki, takutai moana, te reo Māori, the regulatory standards, citizenship, and education, and what solutions does he have to protect Te Tiriti o Waitangi in all future lawmaking?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We understand our obligations, and as I said, we’re a busy Government, so it’s not a surprise they’ll have a response to lots of things we’re doing.
Tākuta Ferris: Will the Prime Minister commit to requiring MPs to be capable of demonstrating at least an intermediate level of knowledge and understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the country’s history in line with the current body of evidence to ensure Parliament and Government decision-making is consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi; if not, why not?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I commit to is Ministers who actually get things done and sort this country out, and that’s what this side of the Parliament has been doing.
Commerce and Consumer Affairs
Question No. 10
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (14:40) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Is his statement that the Government is “all about more sustainable food price increases” consistent with the Minister of Finance’s promise to “reduce food prices for Kiwis”; if so, how?
Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (14:40): Yes, what we’re saying is very straightforward. We’re getting food prices under control. Food inflation is now 1.9 percent compared to 12.3 percent three years ago.
Arena Williams: If the Minister’s goal is sustainable food price increases, how is a Māngere family of two working parents and five children with just $123 a week left for food supposed to afford enough bread, rice, and noodles to eat, let alone meat and vegetables?
Hon CAMERON BREWER: Again, as I said last week, we acknowledge that, overall, Kiwis pay too much for their groceries. That is why this Government is focused on competition reform. That is why we’re focused on reducing the barriers for new entrants, increasing penalties for fair trading breaches, and supporting the Commerce Commission (ComCom) in its compliance work.
Arena Williams: If the Minister’s goal is sustainable food price increases, which meal does he expect the 38 percent of Victoria University students who are already skipping one meal a week because they cannot afford food to skip next?
Hon CAMERON BREWER: Where we are having some success is that in the year to July 2026, overall food prices increased just 1.9 percent. Fruit and veges, for example, where she was wanting an example, fell 1 percent in the year to July 2026. That is a big difference to increasing 22 percent in the year to June 2023.
Arena Williams: Is the reason this Government has changed its policy from reducing food prices 15 months ago to now being “all about more sustainable increases” because it has failed to deliver on the cost of living and is now changing the definition of success?
Hon CAMERON BREWER: No, we are totally focused on getting food prices under control, and that is why we are squarely focused on competition reform, reducing barriers for new entrants, increasing penalties for fair trading breaches, and supporting the ComCom on its compliance work—and, dare I say, keeping taxes low to give consumers more money in their back pockets.
Arena Williams: Do sustainable increases in food prices meet the National Party’s promise prior to the election to bring down food prices, and, if so, can Kiwis afford another three years of National?
Hon CAMERON BREWER: We have certainly brought down food price increases. Can I give you some empirical data. In the three years to 2023, food prices increased 21.9 percent. In the three years to 2026, food prices increased 6.8 percent. Yes, we’ve got a long way to go, but it’s a lot better than the last Labour Government.
Prime Minister
Question No. 11
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:44) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:44): Yes; in particular our intention not to introduce a wealth tax.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Has his Government upheld the Crown’s obligations to Te Tiriti o Waitangi through his time as Prime Minister?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Can he name the Tiriti protections his Government has strengthened?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, as I said, look at the achievements that we’ve done in this Government: 13 Treaty settlements advanced. That’s fantastic news. Think about the Nelson Tenths that we’ve sorted out after being unsorted for a long time, and progress in education, progress in justice, health, and housing.
Hon David Seymour: Supplementary?
SPEAKER: We’ll just go for the three here.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations should be legally enforceable against the Crown?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We expect the Crown to uphold its obligations under law, as I’ve said before.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he accept that the current system, where the Crown is not accountable to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, has led to the entrenchment of poverty and poor health outcomes for our people?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I disagree completely. I think, as I said, I’d go through some of the achievements we have delivered for Māori across New Zealand. Go look at the improvement in regular attendance. Go look at the investment in Māori education. Go look at the reduction in youth offending and the reduction in Māori victims of violent crime. That stuff matters. It really does matter to people who are going through pain and suffering as a result of that. Look at the health outcomes in terms of young Māori being immunised. Look at the housing programmes we are delivering. Look at the economy that is being enhanced by virtue of things like fast track, which is creating the Hananui aquaculture project that Ngāi Tahu desperately wants to be able to get up and running so that they can create jobs and opportunity for their people. That’s all very positive stuff, because we focus on outcomes, not histrionics.
Hon David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the reasons the rangatira signed Te Tiriti was to ensure law and order for themselves and their hapū and whānau, and if so, has the Government delivered—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: No, wait up, Mr Seymour. No one speaks while a question is being asked.
Hon Willie Jackson: It’s a terrible question.
SPEAKER: It might be a terrible question, Mr Jackson, but remove yourself from the House if you don’t want to listen to it. Quietly, we’ll now hear the Hon David Seymour.
Hon David Seymour: Is Willie Jackson going to leave first?
SPEAKER: No, no. Don’t ruin a situation that we’ve just managed to settle down.
Hon David Seymour: Does he agree that one of the reasons the rangatira signed Te Tiriti was because they wanted to secure law and order for themselves, their hapū, and whānau, and if so, has the Government’s reducing violent crime by 25 percent been a very good example of it upholding its obligations under the Treaty?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I fully agree. I think every New Zealander wants to feel safe in their home, in their business, in their community. I’m proud of the 46,000—
Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It would be interesting for that person who just asked that question to provide the evidence as to what backs that question—[Interruption]—because it’s misinformation and it’s telling fibs. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Sorry, everyone else just needs to be quiet. You can certainly ask that question of the Prime Minister, but not the member asking the question, and unfortunately it falls into the category of a debatable point. Now, we’ll hear David Seymour’s question.
Hon Willie Jackson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just a moment. It’s getting wildly out of control here. Do not speak while someone is taking a point of order.
Hon Willie Jackson: Sir, the problem with the question is that he’s telling a lie. He’s misrepresenting. It’s not in the Treaty, sir. It’s not in the Treaty.
SPEAKER: You can’t make that comment at all, so you will withdraw and apologise or leave the House—one of the two. It’s your choice.
Hon Willie Jackson: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Tell the truth.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order. I’d be happy to provide some of the historical context that Rawiri Waititi requested.
SPEAKER: That’s fine. OK, that’s good. Do that all off-air.
Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Hang on a minute—just hold on. Are you taking a point of order?
Hon Nicola Willis: Yes. I think it was questioning your ruling for Ginny Andersen to yell out “Tell the truth” immediately after you ruled that Willie Jackson withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: Yes, well, I didn’t take it that way at all.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. It is incumbent on this House—
SPEAKER: Hang on. What is this? A point of order?
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: A point of order.
SPEAKER: OK. Well, don’t start by telling me what you think I should be doing. Ask a question or put a point of order according to the Standing Orders.
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I think it is important—to the Speaker—that you ensure that Ministers are telling facts, especially facts that are known to every academic researcher, in every settlement in the tribunal, and we know why Te Tiriti was gifted to Aotearoa—
SPEAKER: Yes, good. [Interruption] Thank you. [Interruption] Sit down. It is not a point of order. It is, once again, a debating point, and if we’re going to continue down this line, people will be able to continue it outside the House.
Rawiri Waititi: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: Excuse me, why is your co-leader standing, and has he called?
Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes, twice.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order. After all that disruption, I still haven’t been able to get an answer to my question from the Prime Minister.
SPEAKER: We’re coming back to a point where the question can be answered—hopefully, briefly.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m very proud of the progress on restoring law and order for both Māori and non-Māori, because 46,000 fewer victims of serious violent crime is a good thing; a 22 percent reduction in serious youth offending is a good thing; an 85 percent reduction in ram raids is a good thing; and a100 percent increase in police out on the beat is a good thing. New Zealanders feel safer under this coalition Government, period.
Rawiri Waititi: Has the Prime Minister read the Matike Mai Aotearoa report, and what specific recommendations, if any, is his Government prepared to progress?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, can you repeat the question?
Rawiri Waititi: With absolute pleasure. Has the Prime Minister read the Matike Mai Aotearoa report, and what specific recommendations, if any, is his Government prepared to progress?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I don’t believe I have read that report.
Hon David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister proud of the Government significantly reducing the number of Māori students who leave school without a qualification after that very number rose, shamefully, under the previous Government, and, if so, has he seen any recent television interviews where someone, who perhaps should have known that, didn’t?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m proud of the record. I mean, we’ve seen that. We’ve seen higher proportions of Māori leaving with qualifications under this Government and under the previous centre-right Government as well, and that’s a good thing. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Waititi, we’ll just wait while people finish their—[Interruption] Really, if I was to take any action, it would be to send the whole lot of the House out of the place, but that really wouldn’t be much help to anyone. Rawiri Waititi—and no one else.
Rawiri Waititi: Does he accept that the Crown has an obligation to consider constitutional arrangements that give practical effect to both kāwanatanga and tino rangatiratanga?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The way we do that is we deliver better outcomes for Māori. As I’ve said, we have lower Māori youth offending, fewer Māori victims of violent crime, and more tamariki Māori immunised at 24 months. We have a number of social housing projects and providers activating social housing. We get things done. We don’t just talk about it and do performative histrionics, on this side of the House.
Rawiri Waititi: Does he consider that the present constitutional arrangements adequately protect tino rangatiratanga?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.
Rawiri Waititi: How?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Because this is a Government that actually gets things done for Māori rather than just doing performative rubbish like we see from that side.
Local Government
Question No. 12
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (14:53) to the Minister of Local Government: What difference will the Government’s rates cap make for New Zealand ratepayers?
SPEAKER: Just a moment. There is just generally too much conversation going on, particularly on the side of the House to my right.
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (14:53): For too long, ratepayers have been hit with steep and unexpected rate increases, including median increases of 14 percent and 9 percent over the past two years. Our rates cap will put a brake on these excessive increases by requiring councils to keep annual rates increases within a target range of 2 to 4 percent. That means more affordable and predictable rates for households and businesses, greater discipline over council spending, and a stronger focus on delivering the basics ratepayers expect.
Rima Nakhle: What will the rates cap mean for household rates bills over time?
Chlöe Swarbrick: Higher costs everywhere else.
SPEAKER: We’ll just have the Minister answering.
Hon SIMON WATTS: Rates are a significant household cost and repeated large increases compound quickly over time. By putting a clear limit on annual increases, the rates cap will help prevent household rates bills from continuing to rise at the pace New Zealanders have experienced in recent years. This will mean a meaningful difference to family budgets over time and much greater certainty about what households can expect to pay.
Rima Nakhle: How will the rates cap change the way councils make spending decisions?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, the days of double-digit rate increases are coming to an end. Councils will need to make tougher choices, they will need to prioritise their spending, and focus first on the services communities expect them to get right: roads, rubbish, parks, pools, and essential infrastructure. Ratepayers are expected to live within their means, and it is only reasonable to expect councils to do the same.
Rima Nakhle: What does he expect councils to do now to prepare for the rates cap?
Hon SIMON WATTS: Councils should be acting now to get their costs under control and prepare for the new regime. Under the new law, from mid-2027, councils will be required to have regard to the target range when preparing their long-term plans. I expect councils to have a clear pathway to operating within it before the cap becomes mandatory. Councils know rates capping is coming; they should not wait to start making the responsible decisions ratepayers expect.
SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.
Debates
Ministry of Social Development—Benefit Payment Losses
Urgent Debate
SPEAKER: Members, I have received a letter from Ricardo Menéndez March seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, delays at the Ministry of Social Development that led to benefits being suspended. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. I call on Ricardo Menéndez March to move the matter of public importance.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:56): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a case in which the Government needs to be upfront with the public over the extent and the impact that these suspensions have on people’s livelihoods.
The Minister for Social Development and Employment may wish to talk about this issue as if it was a matter of the front line being able to implement her wishes. But, at the end of the day, the suspensions occurred because the Minister chose to drive through a policy that would have seen automated decision-making, aka machines, spamming beneficiaries with requests to send information, not so that people could get access to their correct benefit entitlements but rather so that the Government could meet its arbitrary target of kicking people off income support.
What we now have seen is an unknown number of beneficiaries having lost their income support, their lifeline, leaving them without the means to survive. The Minister has not been upfront with the public over how many people were affected; nor has she been able to offer an apology in the same way that the Prime Minister was able to do so. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Sorry, Mr Menéndez March—apologies. There is far too much talk going on in the House. If you’ve got business elsewhere, go and conduct it elsewhere, not in here.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just don’t think it’s credible to claim that everybody has been back-paid when the Minister cannot even tell us how many people were affected. Even just today, in the House, when pressed on this very same issue, it feels like the story just keeps shifting, because now it turns out that the people that the Minister was talking about, when she talked about back payments, were only in relationship to the winter energy payments. So now what? The people who had their main benefits being suspended have not had those back payments?
So there are questions that remain. What were the types of main benefits that were suspended? This is, I think, a critical question that we deserve answers on. If we look at the mandatory reviews legislation that went through in the House, under urgency, only two types of main benefits are included: the emergency benefit and the supported living payment. The supported living payment suspension, I think, is particularly concerning. For members of this House who may not know, in order to qualify for the supported living payment you have to be deemed by a medical professional to not be able to actually work for two years or more. That’s a really, really high bar. It is the case that you are not deemed to be able to work for two years or more due to injury, sickness, or a disability.
You have to be pretty sick or pretty injured to have a doctor write a letter for you and for that doctor to tell the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) that person cannot work for two years or more. We’re talking about people who have it pretty rough; who often will be struggling to cover their bills, their medical expenses; who often will be living below the poverty line.
We’re talking about people who do not have an additional property, who do not have taxpayer subsidies to cover properties that they do not have debt on. We’re talking about people who are often living pay cheque to pay cheque; people who cannot afford to fall behind on rent, because if they do, they could easily find themselves homeless.
And I am not making this statement to be alarmist. I say this having come from the front lines in organisations that were working with the very same families that are now being subjected to these mandatory reviews, that have led to the wrongful suspensions of main benefits; people who have to climb through such hurdles, including MSD potentially challenging those doctors’ certificates, to prevent them from going on to the supported living payment.
I think it’s just simply also not credible to pass the blame fully on the ministry for not being able to implement the Minister’s wishes. The ministry already had warned us that the front line was oversubscribed over the course of this term. There is documentation showing us that MSD was flagging concerns over their ability to implement the Government’s policies due to the front line being oversubscribed.
Even as recently in the passing of the legislation that would see 18- to 19-year-olds having their benefits cut, and the documents offered to us, one of the main risks identified by the ministry, of being able to implement this agenda, was that the ministry was struggling to keep up with the pace of legislative reform. So the Minister knew that MSD was struggling—and just simply saying that she expects things to happen won’t make them happen just through wishful thinking. It requires adequate resourcing. It requires a Minister making sure that the pace of her legislative agenda is done in a way that puts that agenda under adequate scrutiny, not through constant use of urgency in the House, skipping over a select committee process, that in the case of these mandatory reviews, we could have adequately unpacked whether the front line had the capacity to actually process all the Confirming your Circumstances documents that would have come through. It would have allowed MPs to actually hear from MSD over their ability to implement the Government’s agenda. And, we would have had access to community organisations and beneficiaries raising their views over whether this policy would have actually supported people to receive their rightful entitlements, as opposed to leaving them without their main benefits, an unknown quantity of those we still are not really any clearer about.
I think the key concern here is that all we’re asking for is answers, and a Minister to actually come forward and offer an apology to the people whose lives were turned upside down. We heard through the news, through advocates at Auckland Action Against Poverty, from a great person called Pip, who provided comment—someone I actually had the privilege of working directly with over the past month or so, to identify the steps that she had been taking on working with MSD to see a recourse for many beneficiaries who were affected by this. She spoke about the fact that people’s lives were being put on the line, and she talked about how she felt that the Government was playing with people’s livelihoods. She expressed it to me, and she expressed that directly to media, and when we have people at the front lines telling that to all of us, I think the least we should expect from a Minister is a fulsome apology and clarity over what she knew and when. For example, even today in question time, when the Minister referred to the statement provided to us—or to media—on 17 August, there was actually no proper statement on the fact that main benefits had been suspended because MSD couldn’t get to them. It actually only referred to supplementary assistance.
There was a paragraph which talked about suspensions that occurred because people didn’t provide the right information—aka blaming beneficiaries—but at no point in that statement, did MSD or the Minister take accountability over the fact that main benefits predominantly—likely—from people that are sick, injured, or disabled were cut. If it is true that MSD apologised on 17 August, two weeks ago, then the Minister could have potentially been giving us factually incorrect information in the Estimates debate that occurred last week.
I asked her directly whether main benefits had been cut, and she said, with a lot of confidence and assertion, no. It took multiple further questioning from the Opposition back then to even get a “possibly”. How can that stack up? Possibly is not even a yes; it’s a maybe. Then she’s telling us today that, apparently, she had been very clear since 17 August—something here is not adding up. This is not a political football. All that we’re asking for is for people’s lives to be safeguarded, for people to have adequate income, for disabled people to live well, and a guarantee and clarity not just that everyone has been back-paid but that the potential harm that people could have experienced while they had their benefits being suspended was accounted for.
Over that period that those main benefits were suspended, people could have entered into debt, people could have entered into homelessness, people could have entered into hardship, or their health outcomes could have worsened. A back payment is not enough. This Minister needs to explore even the option of compensation for any harm. We’re asking the Minister to apologise, to provide clarity, and to actually move at pace to offer the reassurances to beneficiaries that they rightfully deserve.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (15:07): I have apologised for this. It is simply not good enough that people who were entitled to the winter energy payment didn’t get it and also that people who have had main benefits suspended when they shouldn’t have. I have apologised on multiple occasions, and the member might shake his head. I’m incredibly frustrated by what has happened there, and, again, I will reiterate for the House exactly what has happened.
I was briefed by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) on Thursday, 13 August about two separate issues relating to the confirming-your-circumstances process. This is a process that was part of the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Act 2026. They introduced annual mandatory reviews for a range of benefits and supplementary assistance payments that required clients to confirm their circumstances. The intent of the legislation was to add in an annual check-in point to ensure that clients are eligible for the assistance they are receiving. That is not an unusual expectation. We want New Zealanders to be receiving the support they are entitled to and not receiving support they are not entitled to. Two things have gone wrong with this, so let me be clear again. I have answered oral questions in the House, and I will reiterate, again, what I have already said on this matter.
There were two issues. The first issue was in the policy work that was undertaken. The issue of winter energy payments that relate to superannuitants was omitted in the policy process. That omission was carried through into legislation, which was then carried through into the way the IT system was set up for the automated decision-making. It was not an error in and of itself in the automated decision-making; it was an omission in the policy process. That meant that the winter energy payment—for which there is no eligibility test, and it, therefore, wasn’t required to be considered in the confirming of circumstances—was not paid. This matter was brought to my attention on Thursday, 13 August, and by Saturday morning, 15 August, every single person who had their winter energy payment stopped had it put back into their bank account. That is what I expect MSD to do when an issue is found—that their urgent attention goes on resolving the issue. That’s issue number one.
The second issue was delays in processing the confirming of circumstances. The expectation was that more people would confirm their circumstances online, rather than through a paper form. What happened then, as a result of this, was delays in processing the confirming circumstances responses. Again, I was notified of this on 13 August. MSD provided information on 17 August, laying out the issues that had occurred, and again apologised to those affected, and focused on ensuring those who had had payments stopped, whether it was a main benefit or whether it was a supplementary payment—resolving that issue to make sure those payments were made.
Do I have all of the details that members opposite are asking? No, I don’t. That detail will be available on 10 September, and I want the House to have confidence that the information that I provide is accurate. In terms of what happened, when, and the numbers, that will be in that review. MSD have told me that they have provided payments to those where supplementary payments or main benefits have been stopped. I want to be satisfied though, through the detail of a review, that there has been no further issues. That’s what I’m expecting on 10 September.
I say to the House again, it is incredibly frustrating that this has happened. It shouldn’t have, and for that, and for those who have been affected by this, I apologise.
I want to address the accusation that Mr. Menéndez March has made about statements I made in the Estimates debate. I was asked if main benefits were wrongly suspended as a result of my policy. The answer is no—that is correct. The suspensions were not a result of my policy—
Ricardo Menéndez March: I said processing delay.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON:—they were a result of the processing delays—
Ricardo Menéndez March: I did say that word.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON:—which is an operational matter for MSD.
Ricardo Menéndez March: I said those words.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Do you want to hear the answer or not? You’ve made an accusation for me, so I think in terms of an urgent debate being called, I should have the opportunity to put it on the record of the House.
I was then asked, “Did any of the delays result in the suspension of main benefits?” I said that there were delays, but that this was not a result of my policy changes. The third question: when specifically asked if any of the delays resulted in benefits being cut, I answered “possibly”—this is correct. As I say, it is not good enough, it is frustrating—MSD has apologised, I have apologised, and we have focused on fixing the issue and ensuring New Zealanders had the money put in their bank accounts as quickly as possible. A review is under way and I shall have more to say after 10 September.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (15:13): Mr Speaker, New Zealanders cannot afford another three years of this National Government.
SPEAKER: Yeah, sorry. It’s not a good way to start a special debate on a particular issue, so concentrate on the issue.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure. What is incredibly frustrating is that we have been trying to get answers and accountability from this Minister for Social Development and Employment, and it has been like pulling teeth. She is using semantics, dancing on the head of a pin about whether something is a policy, is a process, is IT, and so on, and time and time again, we’ve got her back in this House to address these issues, and they have had to apologise, they have had to give additional information, so I do want to pick up on a few things that the Minister has said about the timeline. The Minister said this issue was raised with her on 13 August. That is when I asked written parliamentary questions about whether any superannuitants had not received their Winter Energy Payment. From that question, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), obviously, had a look at the number and scale, and it realised there was an issue and alerted the Minister to it, but a key point is that in June, Labour notified the Minister and MSD of potential issues with the winter energy payment—10 weeks before MSD raised the issue with the Minister. This is 15,000 senior citizens—superannuitants and veterans—who did not receive their winter energy payment in the coldest months of this year, which had some of the coldest temperatures on record.
The Minister’s response was to throw her officials under the bus and blame it on policy. The Prime Minister’s response was to claim that it was an IT issue. What they are not taking responsibility for is that it was their rushed lawmaking process that allowed this to occur in the first place.
Now, the second issue, which has required the second apology in just a week, was that we then learnt that because of the same piece of legislation, a number of beneficiaries—a number we cannot confirm, by the way—have now missed out on their main benefits. The questions we asked in the Estimates debate—and it’s interesting if we reflect on that. The Minister refused to answer questions and said that she had run out of time, and yet on such an important issue, the whips should have given her more time because there was more time available. She just did not want to answer the questions.
Now, we asked the questions “As a result of the mandatory reviews and the requirement to provide more documentation to confirm your circumstances, were any benefits cut?” and “Did anybody miss out on their payments?” Again, like pulling teeth, we finally got there, and the Minister said, “Possibly.”, but what I find really difficult to accept is that the Minister, today, has said that she was briefed by the Ministry of Social Development on two separate issues: the two issues we had been raising. So she was aware that some benefits had been suspended wrongly due to the mandatory reviews and the requirement to provide the information.
Now, when she was asked that question directly, and the Prime Minister—he said no, but the Minister was told about that issue on 13 August. Then the Minister, in Estimates, said “No.”, and then “Possibly.”, when, actually, the answer should have been “Yes, and I just don’t know how many.”, but that’s not the answer that we got. We got “Possibly.”, and then “That’s it. I refuse to answer any more questions.” It is not good enough—
SPEAKER: No, sorry, I need to just pull the member up there because she will be well aware that that Estimates process is something that is set out by the parties as to who they want to be talking to, and time is proportionately allocated. To start saying that towards the end of that, there was time for the whips on the other side of the House to make more time is incorrect, and so it is not reasonable to say that the Minister would not answer questions in that circumstance—she could not.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure, although she did go on and answer some more questions after it, and so I think she was being too picky about which ones, actually, because she said that a number of times—
SPEAKER: I’m sorry, but that’s a direct challenge to the Chair, and I’ll take that up by looking at the—
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: OK. I don’t intend—sorry.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Sorry, let me finish what I’m saying. I will look into that, and if I’m wrong, then I’ll make the appropriate apologies to the member. Point of order, the Hon Duncan Webb.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Mr Speaker, I appreciate that there may be differing views on the accuracy of the member’s points that she’s making in the debate, but that’s hardly an issue for an intervention, and it just appeared very much like you were entering into the debate on the floor about the accuracy or otherwise of her assertions.
SPEAKER: No, I was making a point about a process that the member himself will know I was very keen on that would have meant that Ministers would always be able to answer questions and not be restricted by the time constraints that the Standing Orders currently put upon them.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: With the remaining 30 seconds that I have, I say that I have made my points. There have been numerous occasions in this House where we have asked the Minister directly for information relevant to these two issues and we have not received sufficient answers to that. We are asking questions about the number of people receiving disability support who have had their benefits wrongly cut. We are asking questions about those on supported living payments who have had their benefits wrongly cut due to this mandatory review process. The Minister would not concede. She doubled down and said that she does not take responsibility for what has happened, and she should.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (15:20): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to say this: if people are entitled to any benefit, they should receive that benefit on time and they should receive the correct amount of benefit as well. I want to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Louise Upston. The Minister has already apologised. The Minister has been quite transparent about what happened. The Minister could fix this issue only when she became aware, and she has also put out the time line of when she became aware and what is happening next. So that is very, very clear to all of us.
Having said this, I want to also acknowledge that people, if they don’t receive their benefit on time, yes, they go through a lot of hardship. There will be people who go without food; without money for rent; and for the winter energy policy error that happened, obviously without money for power. There are two issues, as the Minister outlined. One was an error in the policy—in the legislation. The second was the operational issue of processing delays. I’m really glad to see that the Minister has taken full accountability and it looks like everything is under control. It is being looked at and now we know that 10 September is when we will find out exactly what has happened. I’m also glad that those who missed out on their payment—that is being fixed.
I say that we wait for 10 September. Yes, it’s not a good thing when mistakes happen, but when mistakes are identified, they are fixed, that is actually something that we should acknowledge and commend the Minister for taking full charge and trying to fix it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hon MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) (15:21): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to acknowledge that this is a very regrettable situation, and it is unacceptable. The non-payment of the winter energy payment and the wrongful suspension of some main benefits has been genuinely impactful for people and our most vulnerable New Zealanders—our lowest income New Zealanders. We’ve certainly had feedback to date of the real-world impacts of this mishap. I would say, though, that the Prime Minister has apologised for this on behalf of the Government. The Minister has apologised for this. The department has apologised for their operational inefficiency on this matter. The problem has been fixed in terms of the back payments that have been made.
Importantly, a review has been ordered. The Minister has acted quickly on that, and we will have an answer on 10 September. New Zealand First would expect that the lessons will be learned, and that this situation will not reoccur again in the future. Thank you.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (15:23): I think it’s a real shame that we’ve had to be dragged into a debate like this when the Minister has struggled to come forth with information that we should have known not only in real time but we should know by now how many have been affected—how many of our whānau who are struggling, who are unable to buy kai, who are unable to pay their power bill, who are unable to pay their rents, and what compensation is happening to be able to address those for many of our whānau who are living off all sorts of horrific loans to be able to get by week by week.
It really feels like in the last three years this Government has done all it can do to dehumanise those that are reliant on benefits. I think it’s really important that we stop accepting that you apologise and it’s done—it’s done and dusted. The Minister apologised. The fact is known that the Ministry of Social Development warned of the state of play and warned that they were not going to be able to keep up with the urgency which had political agendas to it and has absolutely affected whānau that we know that cannot rely on advocates. They live out in regions where they don’t have any support, and they’ve had to go to bat for themselves and get through all of this. That’s the real heartbreak of this is that these are real people. They are our own whānau who, through no fault of their own, have had to end up in a situation where they are reliant on a benefit. That in itself has its own humility that you have to consider. I think there is this whole aspect here that cap and hand, they’ve been left out, when we’ve got an agenda here that has done nothing for the last three years but absolutely benefit bash.
Sanctions, treating them with this whole mistrust, and disciplining and making sure that, “Hey, you’ve got to play it my way or you won’t get paid. But, by goodness, if I make a mistake, it’s all OK.” I really challenge those in this House who’ve had to ever live that way, ever had to rely on a queue to get through and hope that someone’s going to answer it, and then you get to three or four other people and you don’t get the case manager. That is what we’re dealing with, at the same time trying to think, “How the heck am I going to be able to feed myself tomorrow?” So to sit here and listen to this weak excuse of accountability, to say, “I don’t have the numbers but, trust me, on 10 September in less than two weeks I’ll get it to you.” That’s unacceptable. We’re being asked to have confidence in this Minister. This isn’t once, this isn’t twice. I think that’s what we’re talking about here to this House.
We’re talking about our communities who are the most vulnerable. When you have a community that is pushed aside and expected to have politicians drag out the answers from the Minister, drag them out in the House, drag them out in the media, have half a dozen press releases to try and get to the bottom of it, and then have to push for an urgent debate. There’s something really wrong in this nation when we’ve got a Government that doesn’t pride itself in looking after our most vulnerable community members: our kids, your kids, your elderly, your neighbour down the road, all reliant on something that they never ever planned on being on. I think that’s the real heartbreaker of this, that we’re sitting here debating, trying to find out why we haven’t got all the answers we should have.
How many of our whānau were affected? How many of those reliant on benefits were affected? How many? Quiet. What are we doing to look after those who’ve had to endure extra interest, extra costs because they were late? Do not think that the community out there looking after them is not going to charge them extra because they were late—they will. Many who have to live off all sorts of horrific shark financing, all sorts of horrific ways of being able to get through week by week to pay their costs of living. That’s what’s even worse is that every party in this Government has talked about the cost of living crisis, and here we have our most vulnerable suffering because of this, and we’re expected to just accept the notice that “I don’t know how many. I will get back to you by 10 September. I have apologised. It’s finished for me now. I want to move on to other stuff that can involve campaigning. We don’t know what compensation.”
I want to ask this House why the heck Aotearoa should have confidence in this Minister, because Te Pāti Māori doesn’t. We do not have confidence in this Minister. We do not have confidence in the Government that so cruelly lets its community down—its most vulnerable community down—without any answers, any transparency, without providing any advocacy, without dealing with the trauma of what it’s like to go hungry, and I feel real aroha for our communities that have had to endure this. That’s the real shame of what this House has got before it. Kia ora.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (15:28): I have to tautoko that kōrero from my friend Debbie Ngarewa-Packer and Willow-Jean Prime too, because missing out on winter energy payments, the reality is it’s just so dangerous. We’re actually talking about peoples’ lives that are actually at stake, because people have to choose between being warm and maybe their grocery bill, their kai bill, their whānau bill.
That’s what I think gets lost in so much of this kōrero but also in some of the kōrero that’s gone down. It again points to the big hammer being used on communities. It’s symptomatic of what’s happening sometimes within the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), who have taken very much a philosophical line that this Government is rolling out: “You don’t make a phone call back in time, you get your benefit cut off.” Young people lose their support, parents are given the whole responsibility now of looking after big families, all because of this hard-edge approach from MSD.
The Minister has apologised. I accept that. The Prime Minister’s apologised a couple of times. But apologies are not going to sustain whānau who are struggling very much in Te Tai Tokerau, who are struggling very much in terms of West Auckland, in terms of South Auckland. The reality is that vulnerable whānau should not have to choose between being warm and buying a kai. That’s what we’re talking about here. This is how bad it has got, and that’s just the reality. The other reality is, as Willow-Jean Prime has said, the Government was given plenty of notice—10 weeks’ notice—and the response from this Government has been poor. It has been pathetic, actually. It’s OK to roll through all our urgency and roll through everything else, but good Kiwis, vulnerable Kiwis, are missing out. This was first raised in June. Why has the issue been totally forgotten? It’s just unbelievable.
Of course, it’s not clear how many people have lost this winter energy payment. We talking about between maybe 4,000 and 15,000 people—15,000 people in terms of unpaid bills, hunger, and illness—but it raises the questions that have been raised today: what priority is there, from this Government, for vulnerable people? Where do they stand? I know we may trot out this type of rhetoric about gas lobbyists and tobacco companies and these sorts of people who have been funded—landlords being funded and resourced. People see that—they see that—and then you see this group of Kiwis; these people are on struggle street. They need help; they need a Government. Some of them don’t care who the Government is; they just think a Government should do its job and support them at the coalface—look after them; look after their payments. Some of these people just live from week to week. They’re in our communities, and the Government has badly mucked up in this area.
At the time of the winter energy payment, both Minister Upston and the Prime Minister said it had been resolved and it would not happen again. However, it turns out that it did happen again to other beneficiaries due to Ministry of Social Development (MSD) staff not being able to keep up with the amount of “Confirming Your Circumstances” paperwork that came through all at once. While MSD and the Minister claim the issue was resolved and back payments have been made, we still don’t know. How many people did this impact? Again, we still don’t know. We’re talking about perhaps up to 15,000. What did they have to miss out on? Do we want to know that? Do we want to know about what these people have missed out on? And here’s another question: will these people be properly compensated? It’s OK to say, “Your benefits are back on”, but what compensation has been thought about, to look after the stress, the strain, the struggle in terms of looking after themselves and their whānau.
I put that on the table today. Yes, it’s OK to reconnect the payments, but what about some compensation for the huge level of stress that so many of these families and so many of our communities have gone through? I put that to you, and I also want to add that we can’t afford another three years of this Government. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (15:33): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in this urgent debate. This is an error that should not have happened, and the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Development and Employment have both apologised for this. I note that as soon as this issue was raised with the Minister, it was acted on very rapidly to fix it, which has been done.
For superannuation payments, the Minister had advised the House that she was advised on 13 August and the back payments were organised by 15 August. The Minister has identified the two issues that were created and have been fixed, and she has ordered a review into this, with a rapid turnaround, reporting back to this House by 10 September. I look forward to that report.
This is something that, clearly, should not have happened, but the Government is taking it very seriously and has acted very quickly on it.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:34): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is an example of the Government reaping what it sowed, and I want to focus on an aspect of this debate that I don’t think has had enough attention today. That is the fact that the reason for what are now acknowledged to be errors that were made—that resulted in some of the poorest people in New Zealand not receiving payments that they were entitled to, that they relied on, that they were using for things like food, petrol, and power—the reason that that occurred was because of the choices that this Government has made.
The first choice that led to that was this Government’s choice to use urgency in this Parliament more than any other Government in the last 20 years. Now, urgency is a political choice. There is nothing to do with political mandates that requires urgency; it is a decision to bypass the usual scrutiny that Parliament has, in order to get a law into place quickly, and there are risks. One of these risks is that you get it wrong, and what happened in this case is that the Government did get it wrong and the people who paid for that decision and those series of choices are the people who can least afford to pay. That is something that is important.
Another aspect of this Government’s processes that needs to be looked at is the fact that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has said that she has tried to address this and she has been accountable. Well, there is evidence to suggest that there could have been more accountability if different choices had been made. That’s not only about urgency; that’s about the way the Minister accounted for herself in her role as the Minister in the chair during the appropriations debate. Now, there is an issue here with the appropriations debate, and we’ve got the rest of the appropriations debate this afternoon, and undoubtedly there are going to be issues to do with the amount of time that Ministers have to answer questions and the time that the Opposition has to scrutinise them.
Let me be clear: that is the job of the Opposition—to scrutinise Ministers—and the job of Ministers is to be accountable for their actions. In this particular case, we saw, during the Estimates, and we know that it works in a time when parties have a block of time and they have to allocate it. I remember, when I was a Government whip, being extremely strict with backbenchers and Ministers about the time they used. In this case, we have seen an example where Government MPs—I’ve noticed several from the National Party—asking questions of the Minister during a time when Ministers should have been held accountable for their actions. I have read the transcript when this particular bill was discussed with the Minister during the appropriations debate, and she refuses to answer questions. She refuses to provide clarity, and she refuses to be accountable to Opposition members.
The reason, she says, is that she doesn’t want to use her other colleagues’ time. Well, her backbenchers used her time to ask Ministers questions that didn’t necessarily require an answer—that wasn’t sought by the Opposition—and it shows an overall mismanagement of this House. There is a bill here that has taken away money from those who need it the most. It hasn’t happened once; it has happened twice. The reasons that there was an issue, the Minister stated, was because of the policy work involved. When the issue is policy work, that is usually always picked up during a select committee process, which wasn’t present here. But, luckily, our New Zealand Parliament has further checks and balances in place to allow accountability. In this case, it was the Estimates of Appropriations that was used to attempt to get some accountability from the Minister, and again we faced a brick wall of accountability. We got the Minister stating that she would not be held to account for this, because of the way her party had managed her time. The way that this bill has been handled and the way that the Minister has been held accountable to this does not hold this Government or this Parliament in good light for the way that it can try to make sure that errors don’t occur and the way that it shows that it allows Opposition members to hold the Government to account.
As I have said, the people who are affected here had to make choices about whether to feed their families, whether to eat, whether to heat their house, whether they’d be able to travel to work. These are choices that New Zealanders shouldn’t have to make, and these New Zealanders cannot afford another three years of this National Government making these kinds of mistakes and leading them to be hit in the back pocket.
Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (15:39): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The situation that has occurred has been an error and has been explained in as much as it has been understood up to this point. Further explanations will be coming after a review. Although apologies have been made, we can all acknowledge that the impact on those people has been massive, and it isn’t acceptable.
The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.
Privilege
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—Misleading Evidence Given to Education and Workforce Committee
Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee) (15:39): I move, That the report of the Privileges Committee concerning evidence given by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to the Education and Workforce Committee be noted.
I rise as chair of the Privileges Committee to present and speak to the committee’s report on the question of privilege concerning evidence given by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) to the Education and Workforce Committee. The matter came before the Privileges Committee following a ruling by the Speaker on 24 June 2026. The Speaker determined that a question of privilege arose from evidence given by MBIE officials to the Education and Workforce Committee on 4 March 2026 and referred the matter to us for consideration.
The question the Speaker identified was whether MBIE had attempted to deliberately mislead the committee. This was a significant inquiry, and it goes to the heart of one of Parliament’s most fundamental functions: holding the executive to account through effective scrutiny. It also went to the relationship between Parliament and the Public Service, a relationship that depends on honesty, transparency, and respect for the important role of select committees.
The background is relatively straightforward. On 4 March, during a hearing held as part of the Education and Workforce Committee’s regular scrutiny of Immigration New Zealand, questions were asked by the Hon Phil Twyford about the Biometric Capability Upgrade project, known as the BCU project. Officials acknowledged there have been risks around delivery and referred to work being done on the future direction of the identity programme. They did not, however, disclose that the BCU project had, in fact, been terminated in December 2025. Subsequently, in written responses to the committee, the ministry, again, referred to work undertaken in response to reviews and to a changed approach being taken, but did not disclose that the project had already ended. That position became public only on 16 June, when the Minister of Immigration tabled a review of the project. The committee then learned that the project had been terminated months earlier, that there had been severe governance and delivery problems, and that Budget 2026 included $31.2 million to write off the failed project.
The question before the Privileges Committee was not whether the project itself had failed, nor was it our role to examine the broader management of the project. We were not tasked with relitigating operational decisions or pursuing questions of policy. The task was much narrower, but constitutionally important—whether Parliament had been misled. We approached that responsibility with some care. We heard written and oral evidence from the two officials whose statements were under examination, Nic Blakeley, the ministry chief executive, and Alison McDonald, the former Deputy Secretary for Immigration. We also heard evidence from the Hon Phil Twyford, who raised the original complaint. We received advice from the Office of the Clerk, reviewed documentary evidence, and provided those who might be subject to adverse findings with an opportunity to respond before we finalised our report.
The evidence we received was helpful and candid in many respects. Mr Blakeley accepted that the evidence provided to the committee had been incomplete. He apologised and acknowledged that the ministry had been inadequately prepared for questions concerning the project. He told us there had been no deliberate decision not to share information and explained that officials were concerned about commercial and budget sensitivities while negotiations relating to the project’s termination were under way. Miss McDonald similarly explained she understood the questioning in a broader context and that concerns about commercial sensitivity influenced how she responded. She also accepted that a fuller response should have been provided, potentially through a confidential process.
The committee considered those explanations carefully. We accepted that there were genuine concerns about commercially sensitive information. We also accepted that neither witness appeared motivated by malice or personal gain. The crucial point is that officials appearing before Parliament do not have the option of providing the answers that they know will create a false impression. If there are constraints on what can be disclosed, those constraints must be stated openly and clearly to the committee. As our report notes, it’s not unusual for officials to be unable to discuss particular matters in public. Committees deal with these regulations regularly, as colleagues in the House will know. Witnesses may indicate that information is subject to commercial sensitivity, budget sensitivity, Cabinet processes, or other constraints. Committees can consider private evidence, secret evidence, or other arrangements that enable parliamentary scrutiny to continue while protecting legitimate interests.
What happened here was different. The committee found that the ministry did not tell the Education and Workforce Committee that its answers were constrained by commercial or budget sensitivities. Instead, the evidence presented conveyed the impression that the project was continuing and evolving, when, in reality, it had already been terminated. After considering all the evidence, the committee reached two key findings.
First, we found that the Education and Workforce Committee was in fact misled. The information it received was incomplete and gave an inaccurate impression of the status of the project. That incomplete information inevitably affected the committee’s ability to perform its scrutiny function.
Second, and more significantly, we found that the ministry deliberately misled the committee. The evidence showed that officials knew the information they were providing was incomplete and intentionally chose a way of answering that withheld the fact that the project had ended. The committee concluded that the Ministry would have been aware that this approach was certain to leave members with a false understanding of the project’s status. On that basis, we found that a contempt of Parliament had occurred.
That is a serious finding. The Privileges Committee does not make such findings lightly, nor should anyone regard them as routine. The contempt jurisdiction exists because Parliament cannot fulfil its constitutional responsibilities if committees cannot rely on the truthfulness of evidence given to them. The report we’ve issued therefore emphasises a broader principle. Financial scrutiny is one of the principal ways in which Parliament holds the Government and the Public Service accountable for the expenditure of public money. That accountability depends on accurate, complete, and truthful information. When information is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading, the ability of committees to fulfil their constitutional role is diminished. For that reason, the committee states clearly that officials appearing before select committees have an absolute obligation to tell the truth. Truthfulness, responsibility, and good faith are foundational obligations of the Public Service and essential to the proper functioning of our democracy.
The committee was also concerned that senior officials appeared unaware of the mechanisms available for providing sensitive information. Extensive guidance exists from the Public Service Commission, the Department of the Prime Minster and Cabinet, the Office of the Clerk, and committee staff. The committee considered it troubling that these options were not properly understood or indeed utilised.
Finally, the question arose as to what sanction, if any, should follow. The ministry apologised to both the Privileges Committee and the Education and Workforce Committee. We consider these apologies carefully. We concluded that, while a contempt had been committed, no further sanction was necessary. The finding itself is a serious matter. We consider that publication of the report and the House’s consideration of it in this debate this afternoon would provide an appropriate and sufficient consequence. On behalf of the committee, I commend the report to the House.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) (15:47): I rise to speak on behalf of the Labour Party in this debate. On 4 March this year, Nic Blakeley and Alison McDonald from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) came along to Parliament’s Education and Workforce Committee to answer questions about Immigration New Zealand. I asked them questions about the department’s Biometric Capability Upgrade, an IT project that I understood had been having problems. Alison McDonald, then Deputy Secretary of Immigration, said that there were risks around delivery and that the ministry was exploring whether there might be a better all-of-Government solution.
I then asked why the independent review reports had not been released publicly. Nic Blakeley, the ministry’s chief executive, replied by offering to look into that and explained that “We’re in the process of working out what the programme looks like going forward.” Following that hearing, the committee asked the department in writing, “What work has Immigration New Zealand done in response to the findings of reviews into delivery risks for a major biometric and identity technology upgrade?” The Ministry responded in writing, “Extensive work has been undertaken in response to reviews that have identified risks. This work has positively guided a change in the approach to upgrading MBIE’s identity management technology as part of a wider programme of work.”
Two months later, Minister Erica Stanford appeared before the committee and told us that the Biometric Capability Upgrade had actually been shut down four months earlier in December, and that an independent investigation that she commissioned discovered poor project governance, significant delays, rushed decision making, and unclear project requirements. She told the committee that she had been misled by the department about the project’s viability, and that, in her words, creative accounting practises had been used to keep costs below the mandated threshold that required Cabinet approval—$31 million had been written off.
Parliament’s Privileges Committee, investigating my complaint, found the incompleteness of the ministry’s responses caused the Education and Workforce Committee to be misled. On the crucial issue of intent, the committee found the ministry knew that the information it provided to the Education and Workforce Committee was incomplete, and that the limited manner in which the ministry answered our questions about the BCU project was intentional. The committee found the ministry would have been aware that in choosing to answer as it did, it was certain that the committee would have been misled as to the status of the project. On this basis, the Privileges Committee found that the ministry deliberately misled the Education and Workforce Committee and, in doing so, committed a contempt.
To quote the Privileges Committee, “Financial scrutiny is one of the few mechanisms available to select committees to hold the executive accountable for the public money it administers. Accountability requires the provision of truthful information. Inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information impedes select committees in their ability to carry out their essential task of scrutiny of the executive.” The Privileges Committee goes on to say, “We wish to be very clear: officials appearing before select committees have an absolute obligation to tell the truth. Being truthful, responsible, and acting in good faith is the very essence of public service. To fail to meet these obligations is an insult to the entire public service.”
What should we make of this? First, this is serious. A contempt of Parliament is any act or omission that obstructs or impedes the Parliament in the performance of its functions. Parliament cannot do its job of holding the executive accountable if public servants come along to select committees and don’t properly answer questions. This should be a wake-up call to all public servants who come to Parliament and appear before select committees. If you do that, you must properly answer the questions. Second, let’s acknowledge that the way our system works means that public servants are often under huge pressure not to say or do anything that will upset their Minister. The control of information and the timing of its public release is at the heart of the day-to-day contest of political life. It is central to the shared work of Ministers and senior officials. Parliament must assert its right to get answers, to be briefed properly, regardless of the list of reasons Ministers and officials may have to be less than forthcoming—a list that may include Budget secrecy, commercial sensitivity, matters under consideration, or things that are just plain embarrassing. This Privileges Committee finding, in upholding my complaint, does assert that right.
Finally, the issue now is about accountability and whether we MPs deal with this issue in a way that strengthens or undermines public trust in our institutions. We should do everything we can to protect and preserve a Public Service that New Zealanders can be proud of—a Public Service that stands for honesty and integrity. What should happen now? Should Nic Blakeley remain in his job? The Public Service Commissioner, Sir Brian Roche, declined Nic Blakeley’s offer of resignation, saying it would not be fair nor proportionate. He said that accountability is fixing the problem and that Blakeley had only been in the job for six weeks at the time he misled the committee. Immigration Minister, Erica Stanford, says she has confidence in Nic Blakeley and that he is the right person to turn the situation in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) around. I have every reason to believe that Nic Blakeley is a good person, and many of my colleagues who have dealt with him professionally regard him as a good public servant.
With all due respect, none of those things is material here. The Privileges Committee has found a senior public servant deliberately misled this Parliament. What are the public to think if that public servant continues in his role? That it’s OK for public servants to mislead those who they’re accountable to? That you’ll get a telling-off if you do that, but it’s OK to carry on in your job? Nic Blakeley’s position as chief executive of MBIE is untenable. It’s Labour’s view that the seriousness of the Privileges Committee finding requires the Public Service Commission to now demonstrate accountability by implementing a formal disciplinary process with a view to releasing him from his position. We are disappointed the Public Service Commissioner did not undertake a formal process and has already announced that Mr Blakeley will remain in his position. We think this was the wrong process and the wrong result.
It is impossible to imagine any more junior employee in the Public Service having deliberately misled those that that person is accountable to and then remaining in their role. It’s unthinkable. Anything short of a formal disciplinary process by the Public Service Commission now fails to do justice to the seriousness of the contempt and sends a message to the public and to everyone who works in Government that accountability doesn’t matter. That is not a message that this Parliament should send.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:56): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This call is on behalf of the Green Party in relation to the question of privilege concerning evidence given by MBIE, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, to the Education and Workforce Committee. Previous members have outlined the timeline of events, and I think there’s not much point in labouring the timeline, as it’s been well canvassed. Instead, I will focus on, from our perspective, why Parliament being deliberately misled on this specific issue is of particular concern to us.
Any incident, of course, in which senior public officials deliberately mislead Parliament—particularly during an act of accountability, as was the case in the session that occurred on the 4 March—is concerning. The particular concern we have, in this specific case, comes from the fact that, already, there was public reporting over the fact that the biometric capability upgrade and its connection to the Migration Five pact was shrouded in secrecy. The context of the specific subject area was one that related to this ministry basically trying to comply with our Migration Five pact obligations, or commitments rather, to automate the sharing of people’s biometric information with the likes of the United States or the United Kingdom.
This is not just any IT upgrade that would have seen just simply an interface change. This is an IT upgrade to do with the sharing of people’s biometric information, and in this specific case, it had to do with the sharing off biometric information of asylum seekers and refugees that would have been passed on to regimes that do not have a particularly good track record when it comes to human rights and the treatment of those groups, which is why the fact that Parliament was deliberately misled, as we found in the Privileges Committee, is, I think, even more shocking and is why I echo the calls from the Hon Phil Twyford of further accountability for the people involved in misleading Parliament.
I think the report speaks for itself when it comes to the fact that there were multiple attempts by members of Parliament to ascertain the status of the biometric capability upgrade. I acknowledge that, in the heat of exchanges in a public hearing, sometimes people may not be able to articulate their answers in a way that is fulsome or maybe as transparent as they would have liked. That’s still not OK, but that’s why the post-hearing question process can be used to seek further clarity. In this specific case, there were attempts to use the post-hearing question process to actually elucidate the status of this project and, perhaps, maybe seek clarification of oral answers that may have not been sufficient. It wouldn’t be the first time, I think, that an MP has sought clarification through this process from officials or a Minister, when perhaps the answer we were given just didn’t feel like it was as close to the truth or factually correct as we were aware, or had been told of, or perhaps through whistleblowers—or whatever.
I think the fact that there were multiple attempts made this all the more egregious. The fact that, on top of that, this Privileges Committee report was parallel to incidents in which the immigration Minister herself was also commenting on the fact that she felt like she was misled by her own ministry when it comes to the information that was provided to her on the status of the biometric capability upgrade speaks of broader concerns as to whether the people at the top of the ministry had been forthcoming, not just to the members of the Education and Workforce Committee but to their own Minister, as well.
In my view, it is the combination of those facts that makes the findings salient moving forward, because ultimately the context in which the biometric capability upgrade was going on still exists, and I think there is a lot of answers that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) need to give to members of Parliament of how they have been conducting themselves and their approach to meeting their commitments to the Migration Five pact. So far, what I feel we’ve seen has been a systemic and deliberate attempt to not be fully transparent with the provision of information in relation to this project.
I am concerned that this is part of a broader attempt at not being forthcoming over how MBIE is handling our relationship to this pact and the nations involved in it. As has been actually publicly canvassed, as much as this may sound like alarmist, by journalists of the likes of Gill Bonnett, who has done extremely good and thorough coverage of this issue over the past year or so, highlighting that already, since before 4 March, concerns were held in relation to the status of the biometric capability upgrade. So it’s not the case that on 4 March these concerns magically appeared; these were concerns that were raised through media reporting way prior to that, which adds fuel to the fire of the fact that I don’t think it’s credible—and it clearly wasn’t for the members of the Privileges Committee—that MBIE could have hid itself from providing full transparent information, that they could have not foreseen that perhaps there was a level of public interest on this issue and that they should have been better prepared to actually be truthful and fulsome in their answers to the committee.
I think, in scrutiny of the executive and the ministries, this report, in my view, should be a wake-up call also to the processes that we have and use to ensure that we get fulsome answers from ministry officials. I think, too, often we’ve used the theatre of the public sessions as an excuse for a lack of adequate answers or exchanges. Sometimes, that is due to the limited time that these sessions are afforded, which does not by any means excuse deliberately misleading Parliament. I think it further adds to the fact that I think these exercises should be treated as a genuine space for accountability, than rather for “Gotcha!” moments.
If what we had was a case where members were genuinely trying in good faith to ascertain information about the project, and we instead just get the merry-go-around from officials over, for example, whether this was just commercially sensitive information when, as others have already outlined, if this had been the case, they could have sought different recourses for that information to be provided to us. Because we did have public officials with quite a bit of experience in front of us at the time—not just Nic Blakeley; we had Alison McDonald, who was a very experienced and very senior public servant. I think, again, it just makes it not credible that neither of them knew or sought advice on what other avenues they could have provided this information to us through. If it had been the case that it was so commercially sensitive, they could have just said so.
Lastly, I just think, also, that simply telling us that the project had been discontinued and that they couldn’t perhaps tell us further details because those details were commercially sensitive could have been something that could have told us. I just think the fact that misleading Parliament under the guise of commercial sensitivity actually sets a terrible precedent, and that is something that is very, very concerning.
I also want just to reflect on the consequences that were afforded to Nic Blakeley and Alison McDonald in relation to the broader issue of deliberately misleading Parliament. There’s been a bar being set today, and this kind of touches on the comments from the Hon Phil Twyford around what is the level of acceptable consequences. Often, I think members have concerns about whether even other MPs maybe deliberately mislead Parliament or otherwise. I think the judgment that we have used for Alison McDonald and Nic Blakeley is one that I hope we all reflect on when we perhaps accuse each other of the same thing, because I think the accusation of deliberately misleading Parliament is one that does get sort of thrown around a lot. I think if the Privileges Committee is going to set a bar for senior public servants, we should reflect, also, on the sort of bar that we set for members of Parliament, as well.
With that, the Green Party welcomes the report. We welcomed the call from the Hon Phil Twyford for a greater accountability process and disciplinary process to happen, as well. I think that is fair and just. I say this well knowing that, at the end of the day, MBIE holds a huge amount of power in the immigration space over people’s livelihoods. It’s not just a matter of whether the interface is good enough.
Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (16:06): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the report presented by the Privileges Committee. I would like to start by saying that this is a very serious issue, and I would like to make it clear why it’s such a serious issue, because, ultimately, it is about trust. It is about people’s trust in Parliament, people’s trust in the Public Service, but, also, Parliament’s trust in our public servants. So it’s a very, very important issue and when this matter was referred to the Privileges Committee, the Privileges Committee had one very straightforward question in front of it, and that was: did the ministry deliberately mislead the committee?
The Privileges Committee did thorough work on this. After considering all the evidence, the answer to that question was yes. The select committee found that the ministry deliberately misled the committee and, in doing so, committed a contempt of Parliament. This is a very serious finding. When officials, when public servants appear before a select committee, basically they are appearing before Parliament, and it is the select committee’s job to scrutinise our public servants, to scrutinise Government’s work and all the spending for Parliament. It is important that the information that select committees receive, they can fully trust. In this case, we were told that the way the information was presented was because the correct information was commercially sensitive and they didn’t want to talk about it.
Now, we know that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is a large ministry, and they have a huge amount of experience in appearing before select committees—they’ve appeared before so many select committees. I’m actually quite surprised to see that they didn’t know that they could actually ask for a closed session instead of it being a public session. It could have been a private or secret, depending on the level of sensitivity, but they did not do that. They should have expected that there would be questions about this project, the biometric capability upgrade project, and when those questions came up, instead of saying that the project is already terminated—this was in March, when they appeared before the Education and Workforce Committee—they gave the impression that the project is still ongoing, whereas the project was terminated in December 2025.
I also want to note that Nic Blakeley, the ministry, has apologised to the Education and Workforce Committee and to the Privileges Committee, as well, but this apology doesn’t take away the underlying issue here. The underlying issue here is to differentiate between a mistake and deliberately misleading. Mistakes happen; mistakes happen by public servants, by Ministers. We know here in this House that many times when Ministers give a response to a question later on, if they see that the response given wasn’t correct, they come back and correct their response. Similarly, MPs make mistakes. At the end of the day, everybody is a human being and people make mistakes, but it is quite different from when Parliament is being deliberately misled, and it is quite actually sad to see that our public servants thought that they could get away with this.
The issue was not of a simple communication failure; it was a lot more than that. They had ample opportunity to come back and correct that, if for some reason they didn’t have full information when they appeared before the Education and Workforce Committee, but they didn’t do that. There was no justification there, for them to say that it was commercially sensitive information, and that’s why they didn’t want to talk about it. They could have simply said that they didn’t want to talk about it because it is commercially sensitive information, and people would have understood.
I also want to acknowledge that public servants have a difficult job. Yes, they have to deal with a lot of complex issues. They have to deal with a lot of different kinds of situations, confidential information as well. I recognise all that, but it is really important that our public servants are honest to Parliament. They must understand their obligation. I hope this case sends a very strong message to our whole Public Service and they understand the magnitude of this issue that has come up, and I’m glad that this came up. I want to acknowledge the Hon Phil Twyford as well, for writing to you, Mr Speaker.
Ultimately, what I want to say is that this issue is bigger than this project, the Biometric Capability Upgrade (BCU) project. It’s bigger than MBIE; it’s bigger than individuals involved, because this is ultimately about our democracy, and Parliament scrutiny should be respected. Parliament must be told what is true and should be provided with information that is complete as well.
The finding of the Privileges Committee that yes, they have committed a contempt of Parliament, in my view is a black mark on Nic Blakeley and Alison McDonald’s CVs, and their careers. I hope that this sends a very, very strong message to all public servants, and I really hope that this doesn’t happen again.
SPEAKER: The question is, That the report of the Privileges Committee concerning evidence given by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment to the Education and Workforce Committee be noted.
Motion agreed to.
SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill.
Bills
Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill
Committee of the whole House—Estimates Debate
Debate resumed from 25 August.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill. The Government has indicated that the Minister of Housing and the Minister for Children will be available today to speak to their portfolios. In leading off the debate, the chairperson of the relevant select committee should take care not to be overly political and should ensure their call gives 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.
There is one hour and four minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has 15 minutes remaining. New Zealand Labour has 13 minutes remaining. Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 14 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 43 minutes. New Zealand First has 15 seconds. Te Pāti Māori has 12 minutes. Tākuta Ferris has three minutes. Mariameno Kapa-Kingi has no time remaining. The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans, as contained in the estimates of appropriations.
The question again is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriation for 2026/27 stand part of the schedules. Members, we start with the Minister of Housing.
Committee of the whole House—Estimates Debate
Housing
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:14): Point of order, Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Was that a point of order? A point of order, Arena Williams.
ARENA WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. In the Business Committee’s determination on this matter, they resolved that the Minister of Housing and the Associate Minister of Housing would be available—and he has appeared. Madam Chair, I also note that the select committee chair for this appropriation is not available to take a call, so I ask for five minutes extra to take a call in his place.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Well, I haven’t actually finished my introduction yet, either. The question, again, is that the Votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriation for 2026/27 stand part of the schedules. Members, we start with the Minister of Housing. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio for 35 minutes, noting, Minister, that National has 15 minutes remaining.
Hon Chris Bishop: I’ll keep my remarks terse.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you—and—Arena Williams.
ARENA WILLIAMS: I seek leave for five minutes to take the call of the select committee chairperson, to give a five-minute account of the chairperson’s findings on this report.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That’s fine, but it will come off New Zealand Labour’s time.
ARENA WILLIAMS: Not what I asked for. Would you put the leave?
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Are you seeking leave for—
Arena Williams: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): “I seek leave for that time adjustment to be made.” Is there any objection?
Hon Member: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Arena Williams.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:16): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Minister of Housing for being available at this 11th hour. My first question to him is about a genuine point of engagement that the select committee had in his Estimates hearing. There had been 532 people released from prison to no fixed abode at the time of that hearing, a 24 percent increase on the previous year. The Minister expressed his own personal concern about that number. It was too high, as he said. We agree with that. What has he done in the intervening period to improve that number?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (16:16): The first issue is getting accurate data around people who leave prison, and where they go, is difficult. OK? The starting point for all of this that we don’t know enough about what happens, and we’re doing some work to dig into that. That’s the starting point. I’m dissatisfied about the amount of information that’s there. At a level—and I think the member will appreciate this—once you’ve served your time, you leave prison, and I think the State has a responsibility to make sure you have adequate housing. There is an issue about how much we investigate people’s circumstances, so there is a practical problem there. We don’t track everyone around society. That’s the starting point.
We’re doing some work, as I talked about at the committee, around what is probably best described as priority cohorts, which is a fairly mechanistic way of talking about people, because people aren’t cohorts. People are people. What I mean by that is: we’re doing some work around making sure the social housing system is prioritised for those who need it most. I think if you asked most people, they would say, “Well, yeah, social housing, State housing, should go to those who need it.” Most people would agree with that, but it’s not really the reality. Or, certainly, it’s nowhere near as calibrated enough as it could be. Some of the early data—we’re doing that work now—it’s going to take some time to do. We’re applying the social investment lens to it, we’re using the Integrated Data Infrastructure system, which the member will be familiar with. I suppose the key point is we’re digging into that now. We’ve got a long way to go to fix this system, no doubt about that.
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (16:19): As the Minister of Housing might remember, during the Estimates scrutiny session, one of the points that I’m most concerned about in terms of the Estimates is the changes to the income-related rent subsidy, and subsequent changes from there. Since those answers were provided, I’ve been able to dig into some of data. To refresh the Minister, this is a change that will impact over 80,000 households, and for those households their rent may increase on an average of $31 per week.
Now, one of the rationales that the Minister gave at the time for this work is work that has happened to identify how many Kāinga Ora tenants can afford lower quartile rents. But, after doing some digging, I found that, as of 20 July 2026, there were just 2,569 rentals listed on TradeMe that are below the lower quartile rent. The changes that the Minister has decided to make affect approximately 26,000 households that the Government thinks can afford a lower quartile rent. What work has the Minister done, since making the announcement or before that, to actually know if those tenants—who they are assuming can afford lower quartile rent—will actually be able to find a home within that lower quartile rent range, and do they exist?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (16:21): Very briefly, the work on the review of social housing is a long-term, multi-year reform effort, and we’ve set up an advisory group that is working with senior folk in the community housing sector and experts in the field around designing the changes that come from here. That work is under way, and if we are given the privilege of a second term, we’ll continue that work.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:21): Further to that question, in the Estimates hearing, we couldn’t get a number out of the Minister about how many more social houses are being built and how many families are still waiting for those houses. It goes to the point of Tamatha Paul that there are, as the Minister claims, about 30 percent of people who are in social homes now who can afford low rents, and yet that’s on the back of a Government that is not making it clear how many more places are being provided for those people who need them. He’s also changed the rules so it is easier to evict tenants; 90-day evict-at-will provisions are back under this Government. Law changes that make it harder for exactly these tenants to remain in secure homes are back on the agenda, and so what is it, as part of the Government’s programme, that actually enables any of that? If it were true that these people need to be housed by the private market, then surely it would be the Government’s policy to improve the factors that mean it is possible for them to house not only themselves but their children in private rental homes.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (16:22): The member seems unfamiliar with the publicly available data on all of this stuff. I would encourage her to go to the public Housing Dashboard, which will give her—down to the individual number, broken down by territorial local authority area—the number of people on the wait-list, which is around 19,000. It has come down by 7,000 with this term and time of Government. It will also tell her, to excruciating detail, where social houses are around the country. That data is all publicly available, and I’m surprised, frankly, that she doesn’t know that. Between 30 November 2023 and 31 July 2026, 8,488 social homes have been delivered. That’s a net number, by the way, taking into account demos and sales.
She also asked about various different funding commitments. Budget 2024 funded 1,500 new social homes, funded from the removal of the First Home Grant, which was an ineffective way of supporting first-home buyers. We’re actually getting more out of the money appropriated for the 1,500 than we thought. From memory, it’s about 1,600—around about that. It’s around about 1,600. Don’t quote me specifically, but we’re getting more than we thought we would. It might be 1,550—here we are; I’ve got it right here: 1,554. It’s more than we thought. In Budget 2025, we funded 550 new homes for Auckland specifically. Again, we’re getting, actually, more than we expected—about 637 to 669. Budget 2025 put money into the Flexible Fund, which was meant to be 675 to 750. We’ve actually just announced 823. Time is against me, but I could give you chapter and verse about how we are building in the right places, including the East Coast—Tairāwhiti—and the Far North where the need is real great. Then Budget 2026 put more money into the Flexible Fund with 1,800 to 2,250 homes. All up, when you add all those together, there are 4,800 to 5,200 additional social homes and affordable rentals. And I haven’t even counted the Māori housing funding, which does continue on from some of what the last Government established, but we’ve also made sure we getting really good bang for buck through there.
Here’s the take-home point: at the end of this Government’s time in office, for the first time in New Zealand history, we have a four-year funded pipeline, not just a made-up pipeline—funded as in there is money there, appropriated in the Budget, ring-fenced for the community housing provider (CHP) sector, a funded four-year pipeline of community and social houses, and we have the liquidity support behind the Community Housing Funding Authority, which is part of the reason why we are able to deliver so many more homes than we initially budgeted for. By coming in behind the Community Housing Funding Authority, we’ve lowered the cost that the CHPs are facing through the debt that they have to finance. By doing that, we’re also getting more bang for buck for the Government. It’s a good news story, as they say, and I’m sure the member will welcome it.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:25): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, let’s focus on the Flexible Fund homes then. Of the 1,800 to 2,250, it’s unclear, firstly, how many of those are social housing places for families on the register. There’s another category which is “Other”—why? And of those Flexible Fund homes, they don’t deliver anything until 2028-29. What’s being built in the meantime?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (16:26): Sorry, I didn’t catch the second part of that member’s question, but I think I know what it was. In terms of the Budget 2025 Flexible Fund, which is the 823 we announced today, we’ve publicly released the mixture of social and affordable rentals. From memory, it’s about 35 percent affordable, 65 percent social. We’ve made a deliberate decision around the affordable rentals piece. Let me just walk the member through the logic very briefly since I’m conscious of time. In the Flexible Fund—again, this is one of the advantages of it—rather than just a giant wodge of operating funding, there’s capital in there as well, so it’s both operating and capital. By using the capital in the Flexible Fund, we can do some stuff with the affordable rentals, and it’s actually a more economic use of Government money to do some affordable rentals.
The second issue there is that there is a cliff-face between social housing and the private rental market. In fact, it goes to the point that Ms Paul was making before around the cliff-face between once you leave social housing, you’re expected to go on the private rental market, and it’s difficult. Affordable rentals kind of fill in the gap a bit, and this has been recognised. Megan Woods used to talk about it as well. There is a real role for affordable rentals there. In relation to the Budget 2026 Flexible Fund, we don’t know what the mix of that will be yet, because we’re not in procurement yet. That is for 1 July 2028 to 31 December 2031. That will go into procurement, probably in quarter one or quarter two next year sometime.
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (16:27): I’ve got two quicker questions. The first one goes back to that Budget scrutiny week session that we had. I raised with you, Minister, a graph that showed how Tenancy Services have progressively been taking longer to return bonds. Could you inform the committee how you’ve taken action on that since that session?
The other question that I had is in relation to the announcement around Arlington public housing here in Wellington, in Mount Cook, and the money that is set aside for that development. I wanted to ask the Minister—obviously I know and he knows that the land is a dud—whether himself and Kāinga Ora and potentially the council, if he can answer that from their perspective, had a look at land that Kāinga Ora owns around Wellington or could acquire because they sold off land on Adelaide Road, that prime car park brownfields space that might have been a better alternative to build more public housing on at a more affordable cost than what you’re dealing with Arlington. Could you just talk to us about what process and alternatives you explored now that that decision’s been made?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (16:29): On the bond return issue, yes, I remember the conversation well. I also spoke to—at roundabout the same time; it might have been slightly before or slightly after—a group of residential property managers who gave me chapter and verse about the problems with the new system. Part of the challenge is we’re in the middle of what’s called the bond modernisation programme. The old system was flunking out of date. It’s actually, I’m advised, performing pretty well now. I’m happy to have feedback to the contrary. I do get the occasional email from people saying that this is not working properly. There’s been a bit of an IT transition issue. We’re essentially moving towards a much more digital system, so it will be easier for the vast bulk of people using the system to use, and that’s under way. I’m happy to receive feedback. If the member wants to write to me, I’m happy to look at it.
But I did go away and say to the team—it’s an under-appreciated part of the housing market, Tenancy Services and the bond system, but it’s really important. If you’re waiting to get your bond back, it can be, you know, two, three—I remember those student days, waiting to get 1,500 bucks back. It’s like, “I want my money, because I’ve got to pay the bond with the next one.” or “I just want my cash.” I remember that. The member Tamatha Paul’s closer in age to that cohort of people than I am. That’s the first issue.
On Arlington, I mean, I think the member’s familiar with the background to it. It was $296 million for 300 social units. The previous Minister of Housing directed that they all be social housing units. Then the cost came in at $423 million, which was too much even for the last Government. They blanched at that so the project was put on ice. Kāinga Ora’s done a lot of work on it. Obviously, the foundations have been laid there. They’ve done a lot of work about the use of the site. I’m not an expert on site economics or engineering or anything like that, but they’ve stress tested it pretty well, which is why it’s taken a bit of time to get to this point. I’m pretty happy with the outcome. I appreciate the member wants more houses on the site. I’m advised the economics are very challenging because of the way it’s laid out and ground conditions and things like that. Again, I’m not an expert; I’m just relaying what I’ve been told by the people who do know this.
In relation to the wider point around the wider Wellington developments, I mean, just today, Kāinga Ora (KO) has announced they’re redeveloping the old dungers in Strathmore—Ngatiapa Street, I think it is. I forget the exact name, but they’re demolishing them and then they’re going to start construction in late 2027, early 2028, from memory. I know that will be widely welcomed by the community.
I mean, this is the thing. There’s a sort of constant refrain that KO doesn’t build anymore. Like, nothing could be further from the truth. They’re building all the time—building all the time. In fact, Tama Potaka and I visited four new homes in Waiwhetū on Friday, I think it was—it might have been Thursday. Time just fades into the mists—and we were in the middle of urgency. We visited—this is a great story. Very briefly, we visited one old 1950s KO dunger in Lower Hutt. Four new houses—two two-bedroom units; two three-bedroom units—standardised, optimised design; average build cost 2,300 bucks a square. When we came in, the average was 3,400 bucks; now down to 2,300. An 80-year-old moving into one of those units in the back, A20 on the housing register; and a whānau in the front moving in who are currently in transitional housing—that’s a great outcome. That’s what I call value for money and that’s what I call making a difference.
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (16:33): Thank you for those answers, Minister. Last week in the House, I asked him some questions around his comments that the amount of shelter available to those who are rough sleeping didn’t sit comfortably with him and we weren’t able to get into a conversation of figures. But to bring it back to the Estimates, the funding available in this Budget for homelessness support has been reduced by $16 million and is $75 million less than 2024 and 2025 despite the fact that some organisations like Community Housing Aotearoa, the peak body for all community housing providers in Aotearoa, are reporting that we are experiencing the highest levels of homelessness in this country’s history. But you wouldn’t know that if you looked at the Estimates, because what we see is a reduction in funding for Housing First and for transitional housing and for initiatives designed to reduce homelessness.
Can the Minister of Housing talk about what Budget bids he made or what sits within these Estimates to address the fact that there is not guaranteed shelter for any person who is rough sleeping in this country, particularly given that it has been reported in the last week that four people rough sleeping have died on our streets, including one person who was reported to pass away outside Minister Goldsmith’s office this week.
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing) (16:35): There’s no doubt that there are a number of people doing it really tough out there, sleeping rough, and with some pretty poor housing conditions. There’s a lot of serious housing deprivation out there. On the other side, there’s a considerable amount of pūtea or money that’s allocated to addressing or redressing homelessness. Our mantra is always trying to make sure we get the right house in the right location with the right support for those in very serious housing need.
There was a mention of statistics and there are variable statistics over whether or not homelessness or rough sleeping has increased or decreased in various towns and cities throughout the country. There is a homelessness insights report which has been contributed to by various housing advocates and housing organisations. That report says that in some cities like Auckland, those that are rough sleeping have come down. In other places, they might have stabilised. In other places, they might have gone up. Clearly, there’s a need for some more consistent and aligned statistical information-gathering. But there is a considerable amount of pūtea and funding that’s put into responding to homelessness, whether it’s rapid rehousing or Housing First or transitional housing or even, indeed, emergency housing, but we know that emergency housing is a last resort for those with a genuine need for temporary accommodation.
In relation to the comment about Housing First, last year, we actually announced 300 additional places in September, and what we found was that at that time there were a number of places that were funded with organisations but weren’t being used. When the accountability blowtorch of Minister Goldsmith was applied to those housing providers and the work that our teams do at the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, we found out that actually over 100 places were then filled that were existing before we announced the extra funding for the Housing First 300. Since then, over 725 people have come in through Housing First—new folks that have come through that system as a result of our announcements—and, of course, making sure that we’ve got accountability throughout the system right up through to the Ministers and our officials as well.
In addition to that, we observed that there are some serious challenges around outreach. We announced $10 to $11 million last year, which went into four locations: Hamilton, Christchurch, Wellington, and Auckland. We doubled down on that. We announced $14.5 in allocations elsewhere to improve the provision of transitional and outreach services across other locations including Whakatāne, Wanganui, Waimakariri, New Plymouth, Napier, Tauranga, and now Kim’s Way in Masterton. We are doing a considerable amount to respond to that.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (16:38): There are 13 minutes left in the housing debate, but the National Party’s got one minute left and I can see the clock counting down. It’s now 59 seconds. Can I move that for the remainder of the 13 minutes, we just allow a free-flow exchange around housing issues and we don’t deduct time and whatnot. This is a ridiculous process of time deductions. We’re happy to answer questions. I’ll try and keep them brief.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): This is a Business Committee decision.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:38): Point of order, Madam Chair. I seek leave for the Minister of Housing to have an untimed response for the remainder of the housing Estimates debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I don’t believe I can put that leave, because it’s a decision of the Business Committee.
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:39): I have two minutes and I would ask that the ACT Party take some calls in this debate about what their preferences are for housing. I would like to ask them what their approach is to the Housing First places. It’s a serious question for the Associate Minister of Housing who resumed his chair. We are not clear in the committee how many more places have been funded. In that answer, he said there were 725 places that have been taken up after 100 places were funded and not taken up by the providers. The providers are telling us and are on the public record as saying that they are absorbing 895 unfunded places. These are Housing First providers who are in our communities—every electorate MP will have met with them—who are saying they desperately need more funding. So what is the story with the unfunded places?
I also want to ask the Minister whether, since his announcement, he has reflected on his own comments to the select committee that the ministry’s homelessness insights report was inaccurate and “not my data”, or is he saying that the other reports are more accurate than the Government’s own data?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (16:40): Very briefly, we’ve never said that they were inaccurate, but they are a compilation of data from Rotorua, Christchurch, and Wellington. They are not official statistics; they are largely a compilation of data that comes from councils and community groups.
I mean, I feel like we’ve been over this multiple times: there is no one perfect measure of homelessness. Is it a problem in New Zealand? Absolutely. Are there too many people sleeping rough? Absolutely. Do we all want to do something about it? Yes, but it is not just a money problem. If it was a money problem, the $30 billion we’ve spent on housing between 2017 and 2023 would have fixed it. It didn’t; it got worse—officially got worse.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The Minister’s time has expired, but before I take another call, I’ve had advice that with the leave of the committee, we can request that the Ministers are able to answer the questions without time limits, but it will be only for this particular segment. So, Minister, if you did—
Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing) (16:41): In response to the assertion that there were 800 funded places, what I said—and you might check the Hansard from 10 minutes ago—was there were 300 additional Housing First places. There were also an existing 105 places that were funded, but weren’t filled. They were vacant, and that’s why I said that we all have to have accountability in this space—Ministers and officials but also, importantly, the housing providers—to make sure that the funded places are filled. Since we made that announcement in September—and I’ll spell it out so everyone can understand—724 people have come through those 405 places, because people come in and then they go out and they might go to transitional or other places, OK? So that was as at 30 June 2026.
There are a number of other arrangements in place where people might not go to Housing First. Although they’re rough sleeping, they might go from rough sleeping to transitional housing. There are also some immediate access places that are now being funded through various budgets up at Kāhui Tū Kaha and the Auckland City Mission. They, again, are a slightly different method of supporting people that are facing homelessness concerns, but those two are a pathway for people.
Hon Members: Madam Chair.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’m sorry, members, but—
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (16:42): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I seek leave for the Ministers to have a free-ranging debate in this period of the Estimates housing debate to answer as they wish.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection?
David MacLeod: Yes, objection.
CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Assistant Whip—Labour) (16:42): Point of order, Madam Chairperson. I, therefore, then seek leave for another Government party to share some of their time so that the Ministers can give this debate the respect it deserves.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): They don’t need leave—
Hon Chris Bishop: You can’t do that.
CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): They don’t need leave from—
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (16:43): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to use this opportunity to talk about one of the actions that’s happened under this Government that I really would have loved to have asked the Minister of Housing about, and that is the ceasing of the building in Carroll Street in the Dunedin electorate. The Government likes to say that it’s making good decisions with taxpayer money, that it’s efficient, and that this is all about blown-out expenses, and so on, and yet we had a housing development that was so significantly important in Dunedin, in Carroll Street, that was going to provide much-needed accommodation for some of our families. For no rhyme or reason, with very little discussion and very little accountability now, we have seen this development stopped, and that is an utter waste of taxpayer money.
We know that we have people in Dunedin who are living in subzero temperatures at The Oval. There’s a section of my electorate which straddles Rachel Brooking’s electorate where we have what’s called “Tent City”. It is a sad indictment on our society that we have people living in subzero temperatures in these tents, unable to access accommodation, and yet just up the road—probably a couple of kilometres away—a full housing development was being built by Kāinga Ora. It had gone through the business case, the land had been bought, the building was getting done, and then, for no reason, suddenly it was stopped.
This is not just the Carroll Street development; there are other developments around Dunedin and the whole lower South. I am aware of some developments that were going to take place in Invercargill, where, arguably, the temperatures can be even colder, and the Minister’s response at the time, when we asked questions about why the developments were being stopped, was “Oh, we’ve got to make sure we’ve got the right house in the right place for the right family.” Well, tell those people who got evicted from the housing development in Invercargill, who had nowhere else to go to, that they were going to be the collateral for this Government to, basically, stop its building programme with what seems to be like a real dependence on the private sector for the social housing needs that this country desperately has.
I just want to put on the record that had the Minister been able to answer the questions, these are questions that people from Dunedin have raised continually with Rachel Brooking and myself. It comes up all the time. It comes up from my children every time we drive past The Oval, and we see those makeshift tents and we see people huddling there with blankets on because of the cold temperatures. We do not understand why this Government will not support housing developments that were already almost at completion and, instead, decided to pull the pin. We also do not understand why a place like Dunedin, which has done very well in the interrelationships between people and between organisations to help with housing, has, in a way, been a victim of its own success, because now we are finding that our charitable organisations in our NGO sector are getting caseloads from Cromwell and other places coming to Dunedin.
Those are my questions from the people of Dunedin. It’s a shame that the Minister can’t answer.
ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (16:46): Mr Chair, tēnā koe. A couple of questions from me to the Minister of Housing, and I’ll start off first with this one: how many vacant houses are there currently in Aotearoa—if the Minister can answer that. Supplementary to that question is: what impact would a vacant house tax have on homelessness, and how many homes would the Government expect to be filled? I’ll leave that there for the Minister to ponder.
I want to also revisit rangatahi homelessness with a specific question: why has the Government continued to return $1.25 million a year from rangatahi transitional housing when its own housing system is reporting more people living without shelter and when rangatahi homelessness rates are still on the increase, especially in Tāmaki-makau-rau? How many rangatahi beds or supported accommodation places were lost because that funding was returned? How many rangatahi are currently waiting for transitional or supported housing? How many are Māori and how many are in my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau?
What specific appropriation prevents a young person leaving State care, youth justice, hospital, or prison from entering homelessness? Does the Minister measure how many rangatahi are discharged from public services into homelessness; if not, how can he claim his spending is preventing it?
Lastly, will the Minister reinstate that $1.25 million and direct it back to Māori-led rangatahi homelessness prevention?
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (16:48): To the Minister of Housing: is he comfortable with the fact that this Budget and these Estimates are silent on providing additional, immediate-access transitional housing beds in New Zealand in the middle of a homelessness crisis? There are 65 immediate access transitional housing beds in the whole country, and they are all in Auckland. What about everybody who lives everywhere else?
Where are they supposed to go when they are moved on in a few months, when this Government’s legislation is enacted and when those people who are committing the crime of sleeping on the streets as a result of the choices that this Government has made—where are they to go if they don’t live in Auckland? Where are they meant to go, and how is he meant to sit in discomfort about that fact and have an Estimates Budget that does absolutely nothing about it?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (16:49): I seek leave for one minute of somebody’s time just so I can respond—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Hold it a sec.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —to Parliament and do my job.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Hold it a sec. Does anybody on that side want to give the Minister one minute? Or over there—anyone? Yes, no?
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Speaking to the point of order, we are happy to offer the Minister of Housing time, but my understanding is that it needs to be agreed by the whips.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): What was that? So you’re going to give him a minute?
Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: The Greens are happy to offer a minute to the Minister.
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (16:50): Immediate access transitional housing did not exist 12 to 18 months ago. It is a new response piloted by this Government, and only this Government, to respond to pressing needs. Yes, it exists in Auckland, and yes, if there are proposals in Wellington, and Julie Anne Genter and her colleagues have written to me about it, I’m sure the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport will assess those proposals from reputable providers. It didn’t exist 18 months ago. We have boosted transitional housing. We have boosted Housing First. We have made sure that the Housing First places that are already there, that weren’t being filled by the way, that providers actually go out and fill them, and Tama Potaka can give you a chapter and verse.
We’re making a difference on the ground. There is significant support going into addressing the real hard edge of the problems on the ground, but the immediate transitional housing didn’t exist two years ago. We created it in order to respond to the specific issues the member is raising.
Committee of the whole House
Children
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the Minister’s time in the chair has come to an end. We now have the Minister for Children. The Minister is available to speak to that portfolio for the remainder of the debate. National doesn’t have any time. Have you got an ACT Party—
Joseph Mooney: I thought it was the chairperson but that’s fine.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Or a deputy chair? Willow-Jean Prime, let’s go over here.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (16:51): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Well, it’s very clear throughout this entire debate that the Government has not managed their time sufficiently to be able to address each of the portfolio areas. We had this issue in Social Development and Employment. We just saw that in Housing. Now, we have Children. I hope that with the time that we have remaining, the Minister for Children from a different political party does have a bit of time and can engage with us.
With that, I want to start on reports of concern. We have seen reports that the number of reports of concern have increased significantly, and I want to know what is in the Budget to address that increase in reports of concern. I also note that, in terms of the performance measure, the target is 95 percent responded to, but that is consistently not achieved, so can the Minister please talk to that.
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (16:52): Before I start, Mr Chair, I think I’ll just go through a little bit of the Budget initiatives. First of all, I’d just like to acknowledge the work that Oranga Tamariki staff do each and every day. These people are out there every day in our communities making a difference in people’s lives, and I think we need to acknowledge that. Since becoming Minister of Children, my focus has been clear. It’s on the safety and wellbeing of children and young people, and that must always come first.
Through site visits up and down the country, I’ve had many conversations with front-line workers, and I know firsthand that the staff understand better than anyone else how important their role is, which is why the question from the member is so important, because it is raised around the reports of concern and around the pressure that is on the system. There has been a 45 percent increase in reports of concern over the last few years. Some of that is because we’ve changed the reporting measures in how we report, because the way we were reporting beforehand left some gaps for young people where repeat reports of concern weren’t considered as separate reports of concern, they were considered as one, so that has been part of the rise.
In this year’s Budget initiatives, the total 2026 Budget package for Vote Oranga Tamariki brings in an extra $212.8 million over five years, as well as $800,000 of capital funding across three areas of Government priority, and $93.5 million operating and $800,000 capital expenditure funding over four years for additional staffed care placements for increasing numbers of children with high and complex needs. It will also enhance the range of care responses and intensive clinical services to prevent escalation of needs and placement breakdowns, providing better outcomes for children and their families, and, ultimately, less repeated reports of concern; $90.5 million over four years to respond to the increased number of reports of concern and to implement efficiency measures that improve delivery timeliness; $27.7 million over two years to progress the implementation of the recommendations made in the Dame Karen Poutasi Review—that funding will enable Oranga Tamariki to respond to increased demand for services, including increased reports of concern and Family Court applications; $1.4 million over five years to address the implementation costs for Oranga Tamariki arising from the resolution agreement for the Statford v Attorney-General High Court case, and this funding will meet costs arising from the transfer of old land assets under the resolution agreement and the lease block backed Oranga Tamariki.
In regards to the reports of concern, Oranga Tamariki continues to address the numbers received, which have substantially increased since mid-2024. The Budget has provided targeted funding to help Oranga Tamariki meet these pressures and deliver safe and timely services for tamariki and rangatahi. Recruitment is continuing for more national contact centre support workers and allied support workers, which will help improve front-line capacity. This sits alongside other improvements under way across intake and assessment, including a new online report of concern form, making it easier for notifiers to share concerns, and further recruitment efforts are happening.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (16:56): Is the Minister for Children confident that the 95 percent target will be met in 2026-2027?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (16:56): Those that are reportable on my ministerial priorities, I made reportable for that reason so that it is out there and there is the continuous pressure to make sure that they’re doing better and reporting on that. We are doing our best and we have seen slow but steady upward successes in all four areas that I’ve made my priorities, and I expect it to continue rising.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (16:57): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister for Children didn’t answer my question. My question is: is the Minister confident that the 95 percent target for reports of concern will be met in 2026-27? I look forward to the Minister answering that question. I will also ask the Minister, how can the House expect that those performance measures will be met when an additional $33 million worth of cuts to preventative programmes has happened in this year’s Budget?
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Are you going to take a call, Kahurangi Carter? No? Willow-Jean Prime.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I’m not sure if the Minister just needs more time to get answers to those questions that I’ve asked or if she is refusing to answer those questions.
Hon Karen Chhour: Keep talking.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That’s all right. Look, Kahurangi Carter.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh, refusing to answer those questions.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yeah, so, Willow-Jean Prime, if you want to take a call, just keep saying it.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Sure. Thank you. Well, it’s very clear that the Minister is actually choosing not to answer those questions. Just to make it clear for the House, I have asked, is the Minister confident that the 95 percent target for reports of concern will be met in the 2026-2027 year? Further to that, I want to ask questions about social workers and the front line. After highlighting that we have an additional $33 million being cut from prevention services, my question to the Minister is, how many children in statutory care are not getting regular contact with their social worker? How many children do not have a social worker allocated to them? And are front-line social workers being protected? Are personnel funding falling and placement costs rising? What in the Budget is there to ensure that our tamariki are getting the social work support that they are entitled to?
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just to note, we’re down to about three minutes for Labour and seven minutes for the Greens, I think.
Camilla Belich: How much time does the Minister have?
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I’m not sure.
KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (16:59): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister for Children, you’ve just confirmed that there has been an increase in the number of reports of concern, and I would like you to also confirm that uplifts of children has increased, actually, almost doubled since 2021-22. If you could confirm that—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Could you just repeat that last bit? It didn’t come through the speaker.
KAHURANGI CARTER: Yeah, sure. Minister, can you confirm that uplifts of children from families have increased under your watch—in fact, almost doubled—since 2021-2022? Of course, uplifts are when agents or police go and take a child from their guardians into State care. Could you please confirm that, Minister?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:00): I don’t have the exact number of uplifts in front of me. If you would put that in writing, I can get that answer to you. What I would say is that if a young person needs to be taken into a safer environment, that is what needs to happen. I would never want to set a target that has a negative effect of leaving young people in homes where they’re not safe. So whilst uplifts should be the last resort, if a young person is not safe, then they should not be left in an unsafe home.
My reasoning behind that is these poor social workers are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. They go into some environments where people could not comprehend what those social workers are seeing. They have to make a judgment call on making sure that a young person is safe. Sometimes that means an uplift. It should be the last resort, which is why I’ve worked so hard with Oranga Tamariki around our Enabling Communities programme, where we allow communities to step in and do what they do best, which means that there is more of a community role to play than just Government. Government alone cannot fix this problem.
We have a lot of pilots that have been established up and down the country at the moment. One of them is around the reports of concern, and making sure that the reports of concern actually get somebody at the doorstep finding out what that family needs. Often it might not meet the level of Oranga Tamariki intervention, but it doesn’t mean that they don’t need help. So by working with community, community can knock on that door and say, “How can we help?” so that we don’t get those repeat reports of concern, that escalation of harm that leads to uplifts.
We’re seeing some pretty positive results. Waikato-Tainui have been working with Government for quite a few years now. We’re seeing a massive decrease in young people coming into care because community’s stepping up before the harm reaches that level. I will say again, I will not set a target of not removing children from homes to meet a target. If they’re unsafe, then I want them in a safe environment.
KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (17:02): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, during Budget scrutiny we got a chance to question you in the Social Services and Community Committee. I questioned you specifically around—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just redirect it through the Chair.
KAHURANGI CARTER: Apologies, Mr Chair. I had a chance to question the Minister for Children in Budget scrutiny. During that, I did give the exact figures which the Minister has just said that she hasn’t heard and hasn’t been available to her. So I would say that has been done and it would be great if the officials could look into those, because an almost doubling of children being taken out of their homes and into State care—something that in Budget scrutiny you also could not guarantee their safety once they are in State care. Minister, do you agree that being in State care does not mean more safety for children?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:03): Look, I can’t stand here and say that I fixed generations of problems in three years. There’s been a massive problem across the State care system for many, many, many years. You can’t fix those problems in three years. My focus is, if Oranga Tamariki is intervening and does have to uplift children, that those children are safer than they were before they were uplifted.
I am once again going to say, these children are not being kidnapped or taken, as you are wording it. We have to have a judge’s agreement to remove those children. There is a high threshold that has to be proven that those children are at risk. It’s not just an Oranga Tamariki decision, it’s also a court decision. I just would hate to not say that Oranga Tamariki social workers are trying to keep these young people safe.
The reason I won’t guarantee that is because I can’t make guarantees like that in life. I can’t guarantee what every single person in this country is going to do behind closed doors. But what I can say is that I expect the agency to hold people accountable to the highest level if someone is hurting and harming our young people and to make sure that we are putting all the preventions in place to minimise that risk for young people.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:05): Thank you, Mr Chair. I understand I have 10 minutes and the Minister has just under 40 minutes, so there’s sufficient time to answer my question. Is the Minister confident that 95 percent target will be met for reports of concerns in 2026-2027?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:05): I’ve already stated that out of the four priorities, there’s been consistent rise, and I expect it to continue rising.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:05): Thank you, Mr Chair. That doesn’t answer my question. Is the Minister confident that the 95 percent target for reports of concern will be met in the 2026-2027 financial year?
KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (17:05): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister has just talked about prevention. We know that when we look back over the Minister’s term that she has been very clear from the start that the focus is on statutory care, not on prevention. In fact, $62.7 million was cut in that 2023 Budget for safety and prevention organisations and support services—support services who wrap around children, whānau, and communities before harm occurs.
The Minister chose to cut that, jumping into the 6.5 percent savings. I’ll just caveat that—saving money for a Budget on the backs of our most vulnerable children is despicable to me. But I’ll get back to my question here. With prevention, one of the key drivers of children going into State care, where the Minister cannot guarantee that they will not be harmed, does the Minister agree that poverty is a factor that creates the conditions for children to be unsafe and living in poverty increases the risk of children being harmed?
Minister, would you come to the conclusion that the Government’s policies, which have increased children living in material hardship—let me just find those figures—169,300 children in Aotearoa living in material hardship; that’s one out of every seven. Do you agree that the conditions that the Government and that this Minister has been a part of have created more risk of children being harmed and therefore more risk of children being put into State care, and that is a direct correlation of the conditions that have been made by this Government and the Minister’s decision to save money by cutting prevention safety children’s organisations?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:08): Just because the member says it, doesn’t make it correct. Oranga Tamariki was exempt from savings. We are still spending the same amount of money that we spent the years before. We prioritised a lot of funding. We’ve changed the way that we are doing our procurement and contracting. We are no longer looking at activity focused contracts or output focused contracts, we’re looking at outcome focused contracts. We looked at duplication. We looked at a whole lot of areas where, actually, that funding got reprioritised. You may like certain organisations and, yes, organisations did get affected by this, but ultimately—
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Did you apologise?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: No, I’m not going to apologise, because, ultimately, we have to provide the best services for our children and make sure that we are putting the money in the right places and making sure that we are spending it on outcomes for our children. So the more you say “cuts”—you can say it as much as you like, but that doesn’t make it correct. It was reprioritised. You may not like the answer, but that’s the answer.
Also, I apologise. I have some numbers here that I didn’t realise I had in front of me around entries into care. So total entry into care under all order types: 1,494 total entries to care for the 1,433 distinct children and young people. So 789 total entries to youth justice and 497 distinct children and young people. So those are the numbers that you wanted before.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before I take the next call, just to inform members that this debate will end at 5.20 p.m. and we’re about to run out of time. There’s 10 more minutes to run in this debate, so you might want to make succinct questions.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:10): Sure. Thank you, Mr Speaker. So it’s interesting that the Minister is choosing not to confirm that she is confident that we will meet the 95 percent target for reports of concern. Secondly, it’s interesting that the Minister talks about there not being a cost savings exercise, it was a reprioritisation, where we had over $120 million of services for prevention and early intervention reprioritised—really, cut—and then given to find something else.
So I want to turn to something else that’s being funded with significant funding, and that’s in the youth justice space. That’s the military-style academy. Can the Minister please tell the House how much has been budgeted per participant for the military-style academy?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:10): Funding for the future military-style academies was confirmed in Budget 2025, with $31.132 million operating costs allocated over 4 years. This funding covers both the residential and community phases of the programme. The future military-style academies (MSAs) are dependent on the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill being passed, which will also enable a MSA programme as the sentencing option for young people declared as young serious offenders (YSOs). As Oranga Tamariki awaits the passing of the legislation, following discussions with myself and Treasury, funding was accessed to run a second MSA programme over the 2026-27 financial year. This second programme is built on the format of the pilot programme, with 10 young people commencing the programme on a voluntary basis. These young people were selected because of their serious persistent offending and because they were likely to meet the criteria of the proposed YSO declaration.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How much per participant?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I cannot say exactly how much per person, because each young person that comes into the MSA will have their own individualised programme. We may need more counselling, they may need more support services, they may need more mentors. Your question was around how much per child. That’s absolutely impossible for me to predict because each child will have their own bespoke programme.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. The Minister could give us an average per participant. What does the modelling show in terms of how many young people this $30 million appropriation will cover?
KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (17:12): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I really appreciate something that you have shared with all of us—
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just through the Chair—you keep referring to the Minister.
KAHURANGI CARTER: I thank you, Mr Chair—apologies again. Mr Chair, I appreciate that the Minister for Children has been focused on kids who are currently in State care, and that has created the conditions, alongside other Government policies, for there to be an increase in the number of kids who are being uplifted without warning from families, something that is harmful—children are being harmed—and that the Minister is not taking responsibility for cutting over $60 million of funding to prevention, safety, and care organisations even after Aroturuki Tamariki, the Independent Children’s Monitor, has gone through with a fine-tooth comb and rebutted so many of the reasons why those cuts were made to those organisations, reasons that the Minister has just spouted again: double-ups of services, reprioritising money somewhere else. What the Minister is actually saying is that prevention was not a priority, even though the Minister for Children is also the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence. So I’d like to know, Minister, when prevention funding is cut and there is an increase in children in care and there is an increase in children living in poverty—one of the key drivers to kids going into care—and there is an increase in uplifts of children, and seven out of 10 of those kids in care are Māori, can she really say that she is working on prevention?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:14): Prevention is a really important part of the programme, and we have been working on prevention, which is why I spoke to—going up and down the country. I think there’s been about 42 hui with the leadership team up and down the country, with community providers, to work out where the money is best invested, making sure that we are filling the gaps in some communities that haven’t had any services, and then looking at communities where there are a lot of services and a lot of duplication, where that money could be invested in a community that has had no investment and no services. Not everybody’s going to be happy. But once again, I am not going to apologise for Oranga Tamariki uplifting young people who are in unsafe environments. It doesn’t mean it’s forever, but if a young person is in immediate danger and Oranga Tamariki doesn’t intervene, you’re the first people to go to the media and scream out loud, “Why didn’t Oranga Tamariki intervene?” We have to make sure we get the balance right. Young people must be safe. Their safety and wellbeing must come first, and I’m not going to apologise if young people are being removed from unsafe homes.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:16): Thank you, Mr Chair. During the Estimates debate, I asked the Minister questions around the management of Korowai Manaaki, and she said, in answer to that question, that she was absolutely confident in the management of Korowai Manaaki. Since then, we have heard about a violent incident where a young person was made to walk the line and was hit and punched by other rangatahi. So my question to the Minister is, is she confident in the management of Korowai Manaaki?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:16): The member will know through the massive amount of questions that she sent through to my office on the subject, the answer to what Oranga Tamariki has done in order to review and to make sure that that incident hasn’t happened previously, going through CCTV footage to make sure that there hasn’t been a repeat event. I’m absolutely—
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Are you confident in its management?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Do you want the answer?
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Yes.
Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I’m absolutely proud of the people who came forward and actually spoke up that this was happening. If they hadn’t spoken up, we wouldn’t have known. We need to make sure that the kids are safe and when we find out something has happened that we deal with it, and we make sure we put things in place to prevent it from happening again. I have all confidence that Oranga Tamariki is investigating this, has dealt with the staff in question, but has also put in some training for staff in regard to boundaries, manipulation, and skills to understand manipulation, to make sure that we don’t get a repeat of what happened.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:17): My question was, after that incident happened and after we had Estimates and she said she was absolutely confident, is she still absolutely confident in the management of Korowai Manaaki?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:18): Compared to what I inherited, absolutely.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:18): Is the Minister also confident in the management of the other youth justice facilities and that there are not other instances of harm occurring for our young people, Te Maioha being an example?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:18): Look, as I’ve said in answer to a previous question, I cannot guarantee the behaviour of absolutely every single person that works for Oranga Tamariki, but what I can guarantee is we do everything that we can to prevent harm. Part of that was, when I first came in as Minister, I couldn’t believe that youth justice, after all these years, didn’t even have any standard operating practices. Even McDonald’s has standard operating practices. But no, there was nothing to tell their staff what was expected of them, and we wondered why it was as bad as it was.
We’ve implemented standard operating practices, we’ve professionalised the workforce. We have an induction programme now, instead of tracking staff on the floor with young people and expecting things to not go wrong. So when you ask me if I’m confident in youth justice, I’m a hell of a lot more confident now than I was when I first walked in.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:19): Is the Minister aware of a recent incident that occurred at Te Maioha where a rangatahi, I understand, was hospitalised due to an assault?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:19): The member will be aware, from being in Government previously and being a Minister previously, that these incidents happen. Some of these young people are some of the most complex young people. That’s why they’re in youth justice in the first place. We can’t guarantee that nothing is going to go wrong, and I will say that over and over again. If somebody sits in this chair and guarantees that, they’re lying.
You cannot guarantee that nothing is going to go wrong. What you can guarantee is that you’re going to do everything you can to make the place better.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time for this debate has now expired.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriation for 2026-27 stand part of the schedules.
Ayes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 be agreed to.
Ayes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.
Ayes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
Local Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill
Legislative Statement
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:23): I present a legislative statement on the Local Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
First Reading
Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Local Government) (17:24): I move, That the Local Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.
I am pleased to bring this bill before the House today. This Government is focused on easing the cost of living pressures and getting councils back to basics. For too long, ratepayers have been hit with steep and unexpected rates increases, adding pressure to household budgets at a time when many New Zealanders are already feeling the squeeze. Over the past two years, ratepayers have faced median increases in their rates of 14.2 percent and 9.2 percent respectively; that is simply not sustainable. This bill will help keep rates affordable for households and businesses by requiring councils to keep annual rate increases within a target range of 2 to 4 percent per annum.
We’ll also put a break on excessive increases, give ratepayers greater certainty, and sharpen councils’ focus on delivery of the services that communities expect they will get right, like fixing the pot holes, collecting the rubbish, and maintaining pools and parks. This rates cap is about driving greater fiscal discipline, keeping rates affordable, and ensuring that councils are focused on delivering the core services that ratepayers rely on. All councils will be required to have regard for the rates cap from 1 July 2027 and will be required to operate within the cap from 1 July 2029. We intend this bill to be enacted as early as possible in 2027 to allow councils to adjust their 2027 long-term plans accordingly.
There are four key elements to this regime: the target range itself, a limited exemptions framework, a transition period, and an independent regulator. The bill establishes a target range for the annual rates increases of 2 to 4 percent, which councils are required to operate within unless an exemption is approved. The lower limit helps ensure that essential services are maintained, while the upper limit keeps rates affordable for ratepayers. The range will be reviewed before the 2030 long-term plans are reset and reviewed every six years thereafter. The cap applies to the rates price rather than total rates revenue, allowing councils to benefit from growth while retaining flexibility over rating policies and individual rates.
The bill includes two limited exemption pathways to provide flexibility where justified. Type 1 exemptions will be available in exceptional circumstances, such as significant natural disasters, where a council needs additional flexibility to respond to or recover from events beyond what could reasonably have been anticipated. These exemptions will be determined by the Minister for Local Government. Type 2 exemptions will allow councils to apply to move above or below the target range as part of a long-term financial planning process. Councils will need to demonstrate prudent financial management and consult their communities. My expectation is that councils seeking greater flexibility will first show that they have prioritised core services, managed costs responsibly, and fully considered other funding options before placing additional pressure on ratepayers. Applications will be considered by the regulator ahead of the adoption of the long-term plans.
I recognise that this is a significant change for councils, and it is important that they have time to adjust. Councils will be required to have regard to the cap from 1 July 2027, with full compliance beginning on 1 July 2029. This time period gives councils time to adapt their financial planning and work towards operating within the target range. The bill also includes transitional exemptions for 2029-30 to support significant infrastructure projects already planned or under way and to provide a safety net where genuine financial sustainability concerns exist. My expectation is that councils use this transition period to strengthen their financial discipline, focus on core services, and make full use of the funding tools available to them before the cap takes effect.
Finally, the bill establishes a regulator to oversee the rates cap and ensure that councils comply. The regulator will be a statutory officer within the Ministry for Cities, Environments, Regions, and Transport, providing an appropriate balance of independence and cost efficiency. Its responsibility will include advising on the target rate, assessing exemption applications, monitoring compliance, issuing guidance, and reporting on sector-wide trends and risks. A strong regulator will be critical to ensuring the long-term success of the rates-cap regime. This Government is serious about bringing greater stability and predictability to rates, refocusing councils on core services, and helping to keep costs down for ratepayers.
Before I finish, I want to acknowledge my good friend and colleague Paulo Garcia. Paulo, you are an outstanding New Zealander. I thank you for your contribution and all the work that you’ve done for our country. As a good friend, I wish you all the best for the future. I commend this bill to the House.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (17:30): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Labour Party to speak to this Local Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill. What is very clear from this Government is that they have a very precarious view of local government as a sector. What is proposed here in front of the Parliament this afternoon is yet another example of a bill within the suite of changes that the Government are seeking to progress without real understanding of the sector.
Last year, we heard about the prospect of a rates cap being introduced by this Government. We have waited for quite some time to see the specific details of this legislation, which finally landed just last week. So we had been waiting for, I think, quite a significant amount of time to understand what the detail of the bill will contain. Having it just last week puts into context that delay in terms of wait over an extended period of time.
What we did see last week is a little bit of clarity that was provided, but none the less there are still a number of questions that remain. At a time where cost of living is a significant issue on doorsteps and in kitchens all around this country, we just need to step back. The price of food is increasing. Rent is increasing. If there are folks who have insurance, that is increasing. Petrol is increasing. Under this National Government, they will continue to whack additional petrol taxes on in the future—that’s their plan. Of course, rates are increasing.
Currently, councils really only have two avenues by which they can generate revenue. The first, which we understand, is rates, and the second is through a traditional user fees and charges sort of approach. There are no other sustainable revenue streams that this Government seek to be promoting or indeed understanding as part of this bill that’s in front of us today.
We’ve been very clear that we intend to support this bill going through to select committee, but there is no guarantee that that support will exist beyond that. It is important that councils are able to share with the Parliament what is the impact of this proposed bill in its current form. That is extremely important because the Government’s own advice received from officials is that there has been an insignificant amount of time available to them to actually indicate what that would look like.
So the select committee process will provide the Parliament with an opportunity to consider exactly what that looks like. Councils need to be able to share what the impact is. We hear from the Minister that this is about maintaining a range of things, including pools and parks. Well, if this bill is implemented, what will pools and parks in terms of access mean for communities all around the country? Will it mean that there will suddenly be a price that will need to be introduced to access parks that are currently enjoyed freely by communities? Will it mean that libraries, pools, and other recreational spaces will suddenly have a charge associated with it? So I do invite councils to share directly with members of Parliament through the select committee process what this change will mean for them, given that the Government have not done their homework around this.
Now, just recently, we’ve heard that the average savings float around $34 a year—$34 a year in some quarters. So there needs to be a real consideration around are communities and households prepared to forgo $34 a year but the increase in charges and other fees is going to be far outstripped in terms of that number. This is yet again from a Government that promised to make the cost of living better and it has only made things worse. It’s very clear at the moment that New Zealand cannot afford another three years of National.
There are a range of issues here outlined in this bill that sending it to select committee will provide a little bit more sunlight to be the disinfectant on this bill, to ensure that things like the exemption process, things like the role of the Minister, things like whether the regulator is truly independent when, effectively, they are coming from the Minister’s own department—these are the sorts of things that need to be considered in the fullness of not just time but of a clear and transparent select committee process. So it’s on that basis that we support it going to select committee.
MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (17:35): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge the Filipino community up in the gallery. I’m sure they’re not here to listen to us at this point in time, but enjoy. I rise on behalf of the Green Party in opposition to this bill—an anti-democratic and completely at odds with the localism cry that this Government campaigned on last election. Elected councils are accountable to their communities for the decisions they make. If the residents don’t feel their views are being heard, they certainly make that clear.
What is also clear are that the figures that the Minister gave last week during oral questions on rate capping in the House were misleading. The Waitaki District Council annual plan increase of 16.9 percent included water services—the very costs that are excluded from this bill. Waitaki water services were 31.4 percent of the rates bill increase by 43 percent this year to meet their obligations under the Government’s approved water services plan. Without the water services, the savings would have been significantly less than the figure the Minister gave in oral questions.
What we will see with rates cap is that communities will have lower levels of services and higher user charges. The price to enter pools will become more expensive. The maintenance in parks will decrease. We could see library hours shortened and roading maintenance deferred. All this will lead to sweated assets. Roads and community facilities will deteriorate. It will cost communities more to fix and replace in the future.
What we’ve seen from this bill is there will be a new regulator. I ask the Government: will this be another cost to local government, just like they have to currently pay for the water regulator? Another unfunded mandate. What we’ve seen over the years is a significant proportion of the cost to councils are completely out of control of the council themselves: insurance, inflation, and let’s remember it is construction inflation—local government inflation—it is not Consumers Price Index. They are not buying cereal, they’re buying roading materials.
What about the Government mandates that they continue to push down on to councils, costing councils millions, whether that be changing road speed signs, reorganisations, and the Resource Management Act changes, just to name a few. We have seen numerous Government agencies and ministries outline the risks with a rates cap, and yet we have no idea of the evidence the Minister has shown that the benefits of a rate cap outweigh the many risks that have been identified. I’m guessing that’s because there is no evidence. Rates caps, coupled with the systems improvement bills, will hurt communities across the motu. What we need to be talking about is actually the funding sources that local government has: bed levies, GST sharing. Mayors and councillors across the country have had concerns and they are not being listened to. Councils do not push up rates just for fun, they do it because they have to.
As we have seen time and time again from this Government, those who will save the most are the wealthiest. Those who will save the least and will be most impacted by the higher charges are those who are the poorest. I’m sure that those who are wealthy and sorted with their multi-million-dollar homes and their multi-million-dollar holiday homes will be the biggest benefactors of this bill. The people—[Interruption] You heckle because you know it’s true. The people that this Government is here to serve: the wealthy and the sorted.
This bill is a ministerial power grab that enables the Minister of Local Government to change the rate targets and micro-manage council reporting at will through Orders in Council. So I ask: what happened to localism? It turns out that the Greens are its only champion. Kia ora.
CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (17:40): Well, that last contribution was a little bit loose, wasn’t it? But let’s come back through the Local Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill. What this bill does is make sure that the population of New Zealand can be confident in their rates increases in the future years—no more blowout of budgets, no more “Next year is going to be higher and higher and higher.” It’s putting a cap to that. We as a Government are saying that local governments should do fewer things but do those things properly and deliver value for money.
A rates cap is part of what the Government is putting through right now and it’s a great thing to see this bill going to select committee with support across the House. But this Government has also done other things to enable affordability, better infrastructure, and local government to be able to make its way in the world. We’ve done infrastructure funding and financing reform, enabling infrastructure to be built and financed. We’ve got an infrastructure fund—$400 million—that incentivises local government to enable housing, one of the most important things for having a generational contract that makes New Zealand succeed in the future. In the ACT Party, we have got an announcement of a tourism dividend, a local fund that pays when councils around the country have higher and higher accommodation use in the short term. It makes sense. It’s a way to get it cheaply, affordably, and quickly for local government and is not another tax such as a bed tax.
This Government’s done other things this term. We have refocused the purpose of local government and we’ve done that through the Minister’s innovation of the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill. Local government has also had a champion in this House coming to you from a member’s bill in the name of Saint Stuart Smith. What that has done is said that local government needs to be accountable but also needs be able to manage and govern and for people to know their roles in that space. If you are a councillor, it is not good enough for you not to have access to the information that means you can make the right decisions for your community. Tauranga is a prime example, as Sam Uffindell can attest. We need to have councillors that have access to the information. We need to have clarity of roles. We need to have this bill now. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Thank you. We come now to a point where we’re not quite at the moment that we expected, I think.
Cameron Luxton: Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: No, you can’t call twice. Have you got some point you want to make?
Andy Foster: Do you want to go straight to the speech behind me? I want to take five minutes, so—
SPEAKER: If this debacle could just go on for another minute and a half. [Interruption] Just a minute, please. Just calm down. Sit down.
Valedictory Statements
Paulo Garcia
SPEAKER: Where’s Paulo? Is he here? Oh, my apologies. Look, in accordance with a decision of the Business Committee, I will now call on Paulo Garcia to make his valedictory statement to the House.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) (17:43): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is such a privilege to be able to stand again, this time to do a valedictory. I went through a range of emotions preparing this speech. I hope to convey only the best of those emotions: my wonderment, my gratitude, and my joy.
My wonderment at actually being a member of Parliament in New Zealand—my mother and father, visiting in winter 2006, soon after my family had just arrived, saw how we needed to ration heat in our rented home. Fourteen years ago, our family did a road trip to Wellington. We parked at Molesworth Street and we jumped out with our little kids and we took photos in front of Parliament. I wanted to begin by saying mom and dad, mom and pop, thank you for advocating for us in heaven. Gratitude for the opportunity to take the Filipino migrant story in New Zealand all the way to Parliament, by God’s grace and the trust and hard work of many, as the first ever member of the New Zealand Parliament of Filipino descent.
Melissa Lee, Peter Goodfellow, Simon Bridges, Alastair Bell, Andrew Hunt, Peter Kiely—thank you. I understand that I’m only the third Filipino adult migrant to have been elected into a legislature outside the Philippines in history.
Gratitude for the privileged experience working as an MP with my colleagues; the Parliament team; the clerks and staff; my outstanding executive assistant Winin Wilson; Sally, Diane and Thomas, among others; my electorate office team with former MP Marie Hasler, Andre Bonilla, and James Rutherford; Lisa, Paul, and Ben at the library; the security team, in particular, Carl, Sam and Geno; and the cleaning staff for your genuine smiles and nods of acknowledgement and encouragement which helped so much, especially when I have been invisible to many.
Joy in being able to return to the country of my birth, the Philippines, as a New Zealand member of Parliament twice—during the 52nd Parliament in January 2020 for an official parliamentary bilateral visit to the Philippines with the National Party leadership team of Simon Bridges, Gerry Brownlee, and Mark Mitchell, to meet with our Philippine counterparts and the presidential candidates for the 2022 elections there, and a special visit with the Philippines Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, and again during this parliamentary term in April 2024 for an investment mission to Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines with the Prime Minister, Minister Simon Watts, and 25 CEOs of New Zealand. At the behest of the Prime Minister, I walked down the red carpet from the plane alongside him, which was not protocol. Thank you, Mr Prime Minister. Then to Rome in October 2025 as I was invited to speak as the Filipino New Zealander MP at the Filipino diaspora conference during Pope Leo and Cardinal Tagle’s week of prayer for migrants.
Gratitude for the amazing friendships and network built over these years, many of whom are in the gallery tonight: our New Lynn hoardings and support team; my campaign managers Romil Fernandez and Kevin Ryan; my psychiatrist friend, or, should I say, my friend the psychiatrist, Dr Tony Fernando, who I know has been watching over my mental health all this time; the many amazing constituents in New Lynn; the Kasamas, the National core group; Knights of Rizal; my Welly whānau; the very many hard-working Filipinos from Kaitāia to Invercargill, mga kababayan; the diplomatic corps in Wellington, especially the fantastic Philippine Ambassador to New Zealand Kira Azucena and their embassy team; and my former colleagues at the Auckland Consular Corps, Peter, Greg, and Boguslaw. It is all about strong relationships. I am humbled in knowing each of you. This is community.
Getting into politics has been like getting on a train that doesn’t fully stop. You have to grab hold, battle others to get in, and take a seat as the train quickly enters into a very tight tunnel. If you pop your head out—unless you’re Tom Cruise—it could well be knocked off. One of life’s greatest challenges is not to think that we are bigger and better than who we really are—all the more as members of Parliament. There’s a huge temptation to think that we are like the great big tractor wheels of a tractor and that the tractor won’t work without us, when the reality is that we are actually just the clumps of soil that are stuck on them. Conversely, the toxicity of politics can actually make us feel even less. The human need to be seen, heard, and acknowledged can become overwhelming. In wanting to be the big wheels, we miss the fact that the clumps of soil, formed together, make up the field that’s infinitely more valuable than the great, big tractor wheels that may often need to be replaced.
Politics is also like a marathon. Some have trained for it all their lives, some get into it to see what they can contribute, and some for the perks and praise of winning at all costs. Because intense focus and long work hours are the rule, many would have run the full distance without real connection and engagement—many times to the detriment of our own teams, our friends, and our families. Despite the huge platform for engagement and community it presents, politics can be hugely isolating. We can end up siloed and thinking that everything is about us. There is so much to do to keep New Zealand afloat and going in the right direction—amid the onslaught of threats and the barrage of hate and calumny, and risks to personal safety, on top of the unrelentingly fast pace and volume of work. Even the greatest of intentions to see, hear, and acknowledge others are lost in some. But what I’ve realised is—apart from a few exceptions, possibly—this is no one’s fault. It’s simply the nature of the beast that politics is.
I’m grateful to have met so many amazing people and learnt so much. Parliament is a study in human behaviour and motivations. It’s also a reflection of the public. Instead of thriving in our shared humanity, some choose to condemn and divide. Language is weaponised to foster hate and division and doubt and suspicion. Many of the public, often the most vulnerable, hear words spoken in this House, take them, and action that hate. I have had more than a lifetime’s worth of profane gestures and nastiness through my time as a member of Parliament. I’ve always believed in a final judgment, not expecting that judgment happens here. For the first time in my life, I was screamed at over the phone over a sustained period where a friend walking beside me exclaimed, “Wow, who was that?” I’ve almost been run over, threatened, had cans thrown at me, and attacked while in my car. My wife and I have had to move house. It isn’t real until it happens to you. This takes an emotional toll for some more than others. It threatens our peace.
I take from the words of a person I follow closely: “Peace is not merely a political or institutional reality. It is the fruit of conscience, where resentment, indifference, and hatred can either be escalated or reconciled. Words can open paths or close them. They can illuminate reality or distort it to the point of making encounter impossible.” I mentioned this in my maiden speech: “Let hateful words be the undoing of those who wield them.” We who hold public office have a special obligation to be mindful of our words in order to disarm language instead of weaponising it. Firmness does not mean contempt. Disagreement does not affirm hate. Alleging the contrary is simply false and misleading. Respect cannot be demanded when it’s not lived. It is in this respect for others that arises the duty to safeguard the space where their convictions, their conscience, and their relationships—some involving a faith in God—lie.
It is this inner realm that allows for a better understanding of increasingly divisive issues for every democratic society: freedom of thought, conscience, and religion—fundamental rights that protect the most intimate sphere of persons. The freedom upon which the contemporary State is built, if it is authentic, recognises the religion, the religious dimension, of the human person, respects it, and protects it, and it ensures that having faith is not a reason for which a person has to forfeit his or her contribution to society.
I finish with a tribute to my family: my brother Dr Vicente Garcia and his wife, Pearlie who have taken time off their extremely busy lives in Connecticut to be here with me tonight. My family in faith and very close friends, thank you for being here. For my daughters Maryana, Rocio, Lucia, and Ana Carmela, I learn from your example. Thank you for your wise counsel and your prayers. My father’s heart wishes for you all to be here with me this evening. To the love of my life, Malu, the one vote I was determined to retain and maintain, my heart sings with joy at the prospect of spending more time with you—unhurried coffees. Thank you for being my greatest ally and sounding board, even if you do tend to get sleepy whenever I talk about my reckons. You have made me feel whole and affirmed me when I felt in pieces. I am excited for our next adventure.
Thank you everyone. Thank you everyone, really. I leave you with a hope that through the challenges we all have in our respective lives, we can pause more often, smile more, and be thankful. I have asked the Auckland Choral Ensemble to help us remember how truly blessed we are living in New Zealand through a song entitled “Paraiso”—in English, “Paradise”.
Waiata—“Paraiso”
[Applause]
SPEAKER: The House is suspended for the dinner break.
Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Bills
Local Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Debate resumed.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Evening members. When we broke for the dinner break and before the valedictory we were on the Local Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill, first reading, and the next call goes to—will we, won’t we, will we, won’t we—Andy Foster; you were desperately trying to do something before the valedictory, so let’s start now.
ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (19:30): I think I was desperately trying to avoid being called because I knew that it wasn’t enough time, and I think the Speaker was trying to avoid that as well. So I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this long-signalled legislation. It’s great that we finally got to this point. I would say that it could have been part of the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill—put the two of them together because they do actually talk to each other, and it’s rather odd that this one is being sent to a different select committee than considered the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill. So I just make that point there.
Rates are compulsory. They’re unavoidable for people who own property. With that compulsion should come some responsibility for councils to spend that money wisely. And most councils, or many councils, are very, very good. They’re very careful. They’re very conscious that the money that they acquire, they take compulsorily. But some are not—in fact, too many are not. The overall average rates increase in the last three years, the 2022 to 2025 triennium, it was 34 percent. That is unsustainable. It is unaffordable for ratepayers.
Now, I noted that the Opposition, in speaking to this, already have talked about the potential for user charges to go up. That’s possible. That may well happen, but those things are avoidable. People can choose not to go to the pool. They can choose not to use some of those kind of services. Rates are not. And it is notable that when you think about some of the comments made by the media and some of the political parties, particularly on the Opposition side, they seem to have no idea of the costs of owning property. It’s not just rates and insurance and maintenance, but also the financing costs as well. Those are very, very substantial costs. And some of the Opposition parties’ policies of course, will make that even more eye-wateringly expensive.
Now, councils often say that we need to do these things—we have to invest in these things. But what some of them fail to acknowledge is that also many of their ratepayers need that money. It might be to pay for food, for power, for clothing, for managing and looking after their own properties as well. So they’ve got to be responsible here.
When we discuss rates capping—I discuss rates capping quite often with councils—they often start with saying “Actually, we need more income” from various different sources. I’ve got some sympathy with some of the sources that they suggest. But first and foremost, I will always say to them, councils need to get their own houses in order. They need to demonstrate that they have got optimal value for money, and there is plenty of opportunity to do that. There is quite a lot of fat in the system. They need to expose the overheads of organisations; that’s something I always tried to do that was very frustrating. They need to give councillors more power over the executive. We’ve already had the mention of Saint Stuart of the legislation who’s going to tackle that imbalance between chief executives and councillors. And of course, removing the regional councils will save an increasingly large amount of money, although the timing is that much of that will happen before 2029.
Tangi Utikere, speaking for the Labour Party, said that the savings are going to be a mere $34 a year. There is one slight problem with that. It’s cumulative, $34 each time. And as the regulatory impact statement says, that means that over seven years the savings will be estimated at $938, or an average saving of 134—not $34 but $134. But because it’s cumulative, the power of cumulative, if you go to 10 years, then you would add another $918—almost double in the next three years—the saving then is $186. And it’s going to keep on growing faster and faster and faster. As the ever-helpful New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union have said that calculation is done on the basis of a rates increase of 4.88 percent—4.88 percent being brought back to 4 percent.
Now of course, that is nowhere near the kind of increases that we’ve seen over the last few years. We’ve already heard, as the Minister said in introducing this, 14 percent and 9 percent in the last two years. So the savings will be much, much higher. Certainly, that $34, you can get rid of that. That will not be the kind of savings that will be delivered.
The final thing, though, that I did want to say is that the biggest issue here that councils raised, and I think this is a fair one, is the issue of the way that core services are treated. They need to know that they can get enough money to pay for and to look after those assets, and they’ve been given beans for the way in which assets have been managed. This is a major issue and I question whether in fact we need to separate the core services, the maintenance of those from the other kind of activities that councils pursue. After all, we all stood up here and said glowingly that the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission has done a wonderful infrastructure plan, and a quarter of that was looking after assets—a quarter of that was looking after assets. This legislation potentially undermines that.
I would say also, if I look across at the Opposition benches, incomprehensible position that the Opposition has taken on the funding of our transport system, which again undermines—by giving them no money at all—the ability to maintain our roading system as well.
So this is a good bill, but there are some real issues with it and we will be looking at the submissions very, very carefully. We’re supporting it at the stage, but we do think there might need to be some changes as we go forward. I commend the bill to the House.
ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (19:35): E te Māngai o te Whare. The Government wants people to believe that this bill is a solution to the cost of living crisis, but it is not. The Minister himself told RNZ just days ago that the average amount households would save is only about $34 a year—$34 per year. Yeah, that’s really going to solve the cost of living crisis—not.
I urge the Minister and his Government to be straight up with Aotearoa. This bill isn’t what they say it is. In fact, the debate isn’t even about affordability; it’s about authority. Who decides the future of the community? The people who live there or this place or Wellington? Many whānau would agree that rates are rising too fast; housing, kai, petrol, medical, and power already cost too much, but a rates cap doesn’t cap the cost of ageing pipes, road repairs, flood protection, insurance, construction, or even climate adaptation. Apparently, Wellington or this Government has discovered how to cap arithmetic and councils have not.
Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland Mayor Wayne Brown has warned vehemently that Auckland ratepayers could ultimately be worse off as our city carries the cost of storm recovery, damaged home buyouts, the City Rail Link, and ageing infrastructure. Greater Wellington warns that the cap could mean higher public transport fares, fewer services, and delayed flood protection and resilience work. Christchurch City Council made a formal submission warning of potential service cuts, higher debts, and more infrastructure underinvestment. Waikato Regional Council’s formal submission notes that a rates cap requires substantial refinement. It could lead to public transport reductions which would deepen inequity in access to mahi, to school, and to healthcare. That is what Waikato Regional Council has put in its submission. These councils aren’t arguing for a licence to waste money; they are asking the Government to acknowledge reality.
Local government gets around 10 percent of the national tax take, but is responsible for roughly one-third of public infrastructure investments. Yet the Government’s own estimated saving from this policy is just a measly $34 per household per year, but if it accumulates over 10 years, you might get $1,000 bucks. Not good enough in a cost of living crisis—$34 while councils are left choosing which road, which library, which pool, which bus or flood bank can wait.
The Auditor-General found that in 2022-2023 councils renewed only 76 cents of infrastructure for every $1 of assets wearing out. The answer to an infrastructure deficit isn’t another mechanism that encourages delay. Deferred costs don’t disappear, they grow. That matters, especially for Māori communities already carrying the consequences of historical underinvestment, inadequate roads and water systems, climate exposure, and smaller rating basis. Yet, where is the dedicated Māori impact framework? It’s not here. Where is the prediction for Treaty relationships and iwi and hapū partnerships? Where is the guarantee that Māori services will not be treated as discretionary and cut first? A rural district is not Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland. A flood damaged community isn’t a fast-growing city. A single national cap doesn’t create fairness; it ignores reality and overrides mana motuhake.
The Government says exemptions will be available, so councils must first prove to a Crown-appointed regulator that their community’s needs are legitimate—makes no sense. That, though, is local democracy with a permission slip from Wellington.
There is a better answer: withdraw this blunt cap and negotiate a durable local government funding accord. Central government must fund every new responsibility that it imposes, return a fair share of GST on rates to communities, pay rates on Crown land, provide long-term infrastructure and climate resilience—there are a lot of other solutions; a rates cap of 4 percent is not it—and build a specific Te Tiriti framework with iwi and hapū so that Māori priorities and partnerships are protected, not first in line to be cut. Give the ratepayers transparency and give councils discipline, but give communities—our communities—the power and the funding to solve the problems that are in front of them right now.
Te Pāti Māori will support genuine affordability, but we will not support manufactured savings today that become broken infrastructure and bigger bills tomorrow. This bill caps local choice; not local costs. We oppose it.
Hon MELISSA LEE (National) (19:40): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m really pleased that Oriini Kaipara has said that, if it’s a good plan, she will actually support it. Well, this is, in fact, a good plan.
Local communities around the country have been paying far too much in rates. In the last two years, increases have been 14.2 percent and 9.2 percent. That is an astronomical increase. People are paying thousands and thousands of dollars in rates, and do you know what? When homeowners pay rates, even renters have to pay higher rents.
This bill will cap our rates to between 2 percent and 4 percent. I think it’s a great thing, and I commend the bill to the House.
LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour—Māngere) (19:41): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to be able to rise and speak on the Local Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill. We’ve heard from speakers beforehand, where we heard the Minister of Local Government and other speakers across the House speak on this bill and on why it’s important in this day and age, particularly with the cost of living being the number one issue across Aotearoa.
Labour will be supporting this bill to the select committee because we recognise the importance of the select committee being able to hear the public submissions of communities across Aotearoa and councils being able to speak and consult their communities to enable what the solutions are and what the legislation is trying to achieve. We’ve heard other speakers say that the most you will pay is probably 4 percent annually. What I want to emphasise is the importance of consultation, because communities across Aotearoa are grappling with the cost of living, and so the rates capping provides a set of tools and the legislation, but it needs to be emphasised that, whatever the changes are that are being proposed in the regulatory impact statement in the legislation in draft, it’s really important that households understand what this means in terms of local services for local government.
The local government councils across Aotearoa have to make really fundamental decisions that are going to affect their communities, and I want to emphasise that they are about local things like libraries, local parks, and local services in communities across Aotearoa. What is the impact that this legislation will have on councils in terms of their trying to achieve the financials of keeping those specific assets and services for local communities? The local communities rely on councils providing those services, and so there will definitely be decisions that are affected where services may be cut or reduced because they’re trying to stay within that financial envelope.
Labour is aware of additional funding streams that are available to local government, and we’re specifically open to rates caps in principle, but we do not accept that central government keeps handing local councils responsibilities but not providing the budget to pay for those extra services, and any workable cap must be matched by sustainable funding for those specific jobs or roles being passed down. The cap that will apply to councils is a wide average on people’s rates bills, but it doesn’t actually guarantee the service until the legislation has been through this House and approved by normal parliamentary processes. That’s really important.
I come back to consultation because any rates cap will have an effect on the local communities, and councils must use the financial instruments and explain clearly to the community what those effects will be, because, currently, there is quite a different approach for councils right across Aotearoa. Communities will be expected to read documentation, and they will be expected to understand what the policies and processes are. In the local South Auckland community, when there are public consultation documents, sometimes the language is not clear and sometimes the effects or the methods that are explained by elected members are not understood clearly, and so it is the hope that, whatever the consultation is that goes through the councils, the councils will then have the ability to put forward their submissions to the select committee.
Just as I finish up my time, I just wanted to pick up on the target range in terms of general rates, a uniform annual charge, and penalties on unpaid rates. Unpaid rates is a big thing in communities like South Auckland—particularly when you haven’t got the ability to pay your rates—and then you’ve got penalties on top of that. The enablement of being a compliant ratepayer will have an effect on the local community, and so it’s important that the examples of instruments in the legislation are explained clearly so that, when councils, through elected members and their officials, make those decisions in their submissions, it is clearly understood by the communities they represent. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangārei) (19:46): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is relatively simple. The problems we’re trying to solve are to promote local authority fiscal responsibility and, two, the predictability of costs to ratepayers. The main mechanism of action and the core solution is to establish a target range for annual rates increases between a maximum and a minimum. In saying that, I commend this bill to the House.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (19:47): Kia ora, Madam Speaker, and thanks for the opportunity to contribute on this piece of legislation. As I listen to the debate and I think about our councils and where they sit, it is about localism and it is about them often being—I want to say “the eyes and ears”, but them being the voices of our communities and in speaking up and speaking out and needing good mechanisms to fund themselves to do the work they do of localism and of supporting local voices when it comes to communities.
I also think of local councils in terms of resiliency and emergency management. When a disaster strikes in a community, it is always the councils who have their teams and work alongside civil defence to stand up support, to stand up rescues, and to stand up resilience in terms of local communities. That’s why it is so important that we actually support local councils, and this legislation is a struggle, but it is something where we are going to look at what comes from the select committee process and from hearing submissions and gathering a better understanding of where things are at.
Just recently—just before the break—I was at a tourism summit, and I was on a panel discussing all things tourism, leading into the election. Jamie Arbuckle was also there—my colleague across the House here—and very much in that room was a bunch of RTOs, or regional tourism organisations. There are 31 in the country. Now, the majority of those RTOs are funded by local councils, and it’s a challenge because those RTOs often rise and fall at the whim of a local council when the councils are trying to balance their books or trying to figure out a way to pay for all the things that are required of them or that they want to do.
The problem is that, often, RTOs are seen as nice-to-haves. They’re seen as something that we can kind of cut the funding from if we don’t have quite enough to fulfil the next long-term plan, but, actually, they are part of the engine room of a local economy and a local community, because our tourism industry—particularly in some of our smaller regions—is about the income that tourism brings and it is also around the jobs that tourism brings, and so we need to find ways to better ensure that our councils are equipped and resourced and are able to gather the revenue they need.
So, even though this is a challenge in terms of this legislation, I think it is good for us to go and listen to councils and to go and listen to stakeholders, and to understand in the select committee process what it’s about. These things don’t just happen in isolation, which I often refer to when it comes to legislation.
In our discussion with the tourism sector, the four wellbeings came up, which have been doing a bit of a yo-yo in the last 25 years. They’ve been in, they’ve been out, they’ve been in, and are they out or about to come out again in terms of local government? That is around the economic, that is around the social, that is around the environmental, and that is around the cultural expectations of councils. Often it’s just this economic story, and I understand, because the cost of living is challenging and we don’t want rates to massively go up. More often than not, it’s the stories you hear of elderly pensioners or people who are actually at a stage in their life where they have a fixed income, but, of course, the rates bill comes in—it’s risen—and it’s a real challenge for them. We need to consider the fact of the wellbeings of our council and what their job is in relation to serving their communities.
I come back to resiliency and emergency management and support and that environmental piece around how they manage those situations. I think of the social space, in terms of creating vibrant communities, as my colleague just said, around libraries and museums, art galleries—places that seem like nice-to-haves, but actually they’re part of the fabric and wellbeing of a good community.
I spent a lot of time talking to councils in my previous life. I spent a short amount of time working for a council. I know that the funding isn’t flowing and the cash isn’t just sort of there and they’re being ridiculous with their rates. I understand that they have to find mechanisms and ways of paying for the wellbeing, to pay for resiliency, and to pay for all of the things that central government expects of them. This is a challenging piece of legislation. I support it so it can go to select committee so we can hear the full story when it comes to local council funding.
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (19:52): The ultimate wellbeing for a household is being able to afford to pay their rates, and when rates go up 23 percent for households, what do they have to show for it? I think a rates cap of 4 percent is a very welcome change. With that, I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
[The Green Party of Aotearoa subsequently indicated that, had a party vote on the first reading been held, it would have cast 15 votes opposed, Te Pāti Māori would have cast 4 votes opposed, Tākuta Ferris would have cast one vote opposed, and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi would have cast one vote opposed.]
Referral to Select Committee
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Local Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Disability Support Services Bill
Legislative Statement
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (19:53): I present a legislative statement on the Disability Support Services Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Third Reading
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Disability Issues) (19:53): I move, That the Disability Support Services Bill be now read a third time.
Today marks an important milestone in strengthening disability support services, or DSS, in New Zealand. This bill is about making the current system clearer. It creates a solid legal foundation for future improvements to services that support some of the most vulnerable disabled people in our communities. For too long, DSS has operated without a dedicated statutory framework. The absence of a clear legislative basis has created uncertainty and risk. It has meant the system is not transparent. People should be able to understand what the DSS system does and what they can access.
The Supreme Court decision made the Crown an employer in circumstances that were never intended. That case highlighted the need for Parliament to provide greater clarity about the roles, responsibilities, and relationships within the DSS system. This bill, therefore, also affirms that it is the Government and Parliament that set policy and funding, not individual court decisions.
I want to acknowledge and thank every one of the 3,000 people who took time to make a submission during the recent process. Your contributions have helped shape this important legislation. The bill makes it much clearer that choice, individual needs and circumstances, safety, and outcomes for disabled people are important elements that the responsible Minister must take into account when developing a support programme. The bill has been clarified and strengthened through the House process. Changes have been made to provide greater assurance and certainty for families who play such a critical role in supporting disabled people.
In my first reading speech, I made a commitment to consult on support programmes while I am Minister for Disability Issues. I am pleased that changes made during the House process have formalised my commitment. The bill now includes a consultation provision that reflects the language of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. I would like to thank the members of the Social Services and Community Committee for their careful consideration of the legislation. Their scrutiny has improved the bill and helped ensure that it better reflects the needs and expectations of those who rely on DSS.
I also want to put on record my thanks to the officials who have worked incredibly hard on these improvements. DSS funds essential supports for some of our most vulnerable disabled New Zealanders. The bill continues to reflect current practice and settings. It clarifies that the key purpose of DSS is to contribute towards disabled people being able to live their everyday life. A key premise of DSS is that disabled people have different needs and circumstances. I know that disabled people want choice, control, and independence. It isn’t a one-size-fits-all system but one that needs to be flexible. Under this bill, the principles of choice, safety, and dignity are at the centre of all decisions about disabled people’s disability support services.
A 2024 independent review confirmed longstanding issues with DSS, and the Government took action to stabilise it. All recommendations from that review have been implemented. In the last two Budgets, we have invested $2.1 billion over five years to address DSS demand and cost pressures. Through this bill, we now need to lay the foundations for a better future. There is more work to do. I intend a further phase of legislation that will consider matters such as review and appeal processes and other aspects of the DSS system. Those issues are important, and they deserve careful consideration and consultation with the disability community. They will form part of a longer-term, wider programme of DSS improvements.
But, today, we should recognise the significance of what this bill achieves. This legislation represents a step change for DSS. It moves the system from a series of ad hoc arrangements to a clear and transparent framework. It provides greater certainty for disabled people, their families, providers, and Government. Most importantly, over time, it will make it easier for those who use DSS to understand, and engage with, the system.
I want to respond to remarks made during the committee of the whole House that suggested this bill merely reflects the status quo and is not transformative. I respectfully disagree. While this bill reflects the way the system currently operates, it also represents a significant step forward. It provides a legislative framework with clear statutory principles, a higher level of oversight, and the formal requirement to consult with disabled people through their respective organisations.
Waiting for a perfect bill would mean leaving the current system exactly as it is, which I’ve not been prepared to do. My intention with the bill is to provide greater clarity. Creating greater clarity and certainty does not mean we reduce opportunities for flexible delivery of disability services. Through secondary legislation, we will lock in significant improvements made to DSS, such as the removal of purchasing rules from flexible funding to enable disabled people to choose the supports that work best for them.
Over the next five years, I look forward to developing more support programmes that can maximise flexibility in the supports and services that DSS provides. It was said that the bill is not aspirational or person centred, and, again, I disagree. It puts disabled people front and centre. It clearly reflects the Enabling Good Lives principles. For example, the purpose of the bill is to provide support to disabled people to live their everyday lives. It also makes it explicit that decisions must take into account a person’s choice, safety, and dignity.
I agree that more work is required. This bill gives Disability Support Services (DSS) the legislative foundation necessary to support eligible people and a platform to improve that support. It is intended to be the first step in a broader legislative and policy programme to strengthen the system. The bill provides clarity where there has been uncertainty, transparency where there has been ambiguity, and a stronger basis for the delivery of essential supports. It has been strengthened by the voices heard during the select committee process. I commend this bill to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) (20:01): We’re here for the third reading of a bill that has been rushed through Parliament with a truncated select committee process. Despite that, over 19,000 people made their voices heard, over 3,000 in submissions to the bill and over 16,000 to a petition to scrap the bill.
I want to acknowledge everyone who submitted to this bill: written submissions, oral submissions, those who signed petitions, organised the Disability Support Services Bill day of action events across the country. I also want to take a moment to acknowledge that many of the oral submissions that the select committee heard contained very deeply personal and painful accounts of peoples’ lives. It wouldn’t have been easy for them to share that, let alone within a short period of time or with short notice. So I want to acknowledge them for that. The depth and the breadth of submissions reiterated just how diverse disability communities are, but how united they are when it comes to calling for a better disability support system—one that promotes their rights and enables them to live with dignity, like their non-disabled counterparts, and when it comes to calling for a society that stops disabling them.
The Minister has consistently said—and she has reiterated in the House today—that her intention with this bill is to provide clarity, to provide certainty, and transparency to disabled people. I would argue and have throughout the passage of this bill through this Parliament that it does none of that. In fact, it provides disabled people and carers with less certainty. I will lay out how.
She has also said that this bill reflects current practise through her contributions in this House. That is the problem. So back in the 2020 to 2023 term when Labour was in Government, we had progressed work to transform the disability support system. To align it much more closely with the Enabling Good Lives (EGL) principle that gives disabled people greater choice and certainty over the services that they access. Through Budget 2022, there was $100 million budgeted for that work programme. This Government had a choice when they took office: to continue that work, which was a step change towards transforming a system that gives disabled people more choice and control, but they chose not to. They chose, instead, to stop the transformation work that would have shifted us towards Enabling Good Lives principles and to use that money for other things instead. That would have been a significant step towards a national rollout of EGL that disability communities have been calling for. Instead, the direction of travel has been derailed.
At the committee of the whole House stage, the Minister said it was just a different approach adopted by this Government. I would argue it is a substandard approach that is adopted by this Government. It is unambitious, because what she has chosen to do is instead to codify into law a system that is fragmented and wasn’t working for disabled people and carers. It provides less certainty because there is too little detail in primary legislation and too much of a reliance of detail in secondary legislation. She has argued that that is because it will then afford future Ministers greater flexibility because one size doesn’t fit all, and I accept that; however, it also allows future Ministers to tighten eligibility criteria, for example.
I asked the Minister during the committee of the whole House stage why basic details like who’s able to access this funding, who is eligible to access this funding—this is criteria that has been in place since 1996—why wasn’t that then written into this legislation if it is meant to reflect the current state of play? She didn’t respond. I put to her that that allows a future Minister to tighten eligibility criteria for certain types of disability funding. She neither confirmed that nor denied that. I believe that that speaks volumes. Even if it allows a future Minister to widen eligibility criteria for certain types of disability support funding, if that is not matched with funding uplifts, then that does a disserve to disabled people as well. We have seen that happen in the past when autism was included into eligibility criteria back in 2013, from memory.
This is in the context of a constant state of flux due to changes, pauses, and freezes that this Government has put into place, to the point that disabled people and carers came to select committee and talked to us about the state of exhaustion that they are in and the fact that they are living in a state of anxiety because they don’t know what changes are coming next. This bill does nothing to give them certainty that there will not be further changes that will take away funding from them.
It also has the potential to expand income and means testing beyond current settings. That was a worry for many who came to select committee. It legislates that families have a duty of care, without including any safeguards or complaints mechanisms or appeals mechanisms. That is leading to a heightened state of anxiety as well.
Submitters were clear that they are exhausted and worried about the bill’s emphasis on family supports without safeguards. While the select committee did suggest some changes that the Minister and that the Government have adopted, because of the significant outrage to these particular clauses, there is no clarity in the bill that states explicitly that family support is complementary to funded support and that it will not be relied upon before funded support is provided.
The bill does not reference Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Enabling Good Lives principles, or the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Changes made by the select committee just lift and shift some words from the UNCRPD and EGL, but it does not change the fundamental bill to make it a rights-based foundation for disability support services. As CCS Disability Action notes, “The Bill rewrites the relationship between disabled people and the Government, and it does it without asking Māori.” In fact, it didn’t ask anyone. Nothing about us without us was out the window, because there was no consultation on the changes to legislation at all.
Going back to means testing is problematic anyway, but doing so in a context where so much has been taken away from disabled people that then increases their cost of living is incredibly problematic. We have an abundance of evidence that shows that both household and individual incomes are lower for disabled people when compared to their non-disabled counterparts. We know that they are disproportionately represented when it comes to both unemployment and underemployment.
We know that the Government has reduced their contribution to the Total Mobility transport scheme that so many disabled people rely on to get around their communities. That means that they have to pay so much more from their pocket to be able to get around. That means that the blind woman who told me that she now has to make a decision between picking up her kids from school or going to work, or another person who said to me he relies on Total Mobility and has asked his family members to bring forward his birthday money so that he can use that to get around and meet his obligations. Bringing back prescription fees adds about $60 or more to a disabled person’s cost of living worries.
Food insecurity: food prices have gone up for everyone, but we know that a household with a disabled person is 82 percent more likely to be food insecure and struggle with that. Housing: having removed Kāinga Ora’s target for accessible housing, stopping My Home My Choice that would have provided alternatives to young people in their 20s and 30s from living in aged care residential homes.
So much that this Government has done has taken away from disabled people and has meant that the amount they have to fork out just to live with some level of dignity is obscene. For a Minister to then say at the committee stage—and I quote—“At no time did I ever make any comment about disabled people being a financial burden to the State and I find that offensive.”, actions speak louder than words. So many changes that this Government has made—conscious political decisions made by this Government—have meant that disabled communities are going backwards and are struggling even more than they ever have.
None of us can afford another three years of a National Government. Disabled people cannot afford three more years of a National Government that has just taken away from them, that has made their lives harder, and that has not done anything to make the society that we live in one that is more accessible. We will change that.
Debate interrupted.
Local Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill
Recording of Party Position
SCOTT WILLIS (Green) (20:10): Point of order. Madam Speaker, I seek leave for votes of the Green Party, Te Pāti Māori, Tākuta Ferris, and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi to be recorded in the Journals of the House as “No” on the Local Government (Rates Capping) Amendment Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The records will be corrected.
Disability Support Services Bill
Third Reading
Debate resumed.
KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) (20:11): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise at the third reading of the Disability Support Services Bill to speak once again in opposition of it. I want to begin by acknowledging the disabled people, tāngata whaikaha, Māori, family carers, whānau, advocates, and community organisations who have fought so hard throughout this process. Thousands of people took the time to submit on this bill. Many came before the Social Services and Community Committee and shared deeply personal parts of their lives with us. They spoke about exhaustion, love, frustration, fear, and the daily reality of trying to navigate a system that is already too difficult.
Some of the most moving moments I have experienced as an MP have happened in select committee rooms. People come into Parliament carrying years of lived experience and hand us a small piece of their lives because they believe that, if lawmakers truly understand what life is like, we will make better decisions. That is how democracy is supposed to work, and that is why this process, the process around this bill, matters so much. This legislation was introduced without any warning and debated a few days later without disabled people and carers being involved in the design changes that would directly affect their lives. It was sent through a shortened select committee process. Disabled people told us clearly that adequate time is an accessibility issue. Participation takes planning, support, accessible information, and often, more time than Parliament gave them. Yet, despite those barriers, disabled people mobilised in extraordinary numbers—almost 3,500 submissions.
The Government did make changes after the select committee process. It clarified the wording around the roles of families, it added more person-centred principles, and it added a requirement for consultation before support programmes are created or changed. Those changes were won by disabled people who spoke up, organised, submitted, and refused to be ignored. But they did not fix the fundamental problem with this bill. The disability community has said for decades “nothing about us without us”. That phrase is repeated so often in this House that there is a danger that politicians start treating it as a slogan. It means disabled people must be involved from the beginning—not asked to react after a bill has already been written; not given compressed windows to make submissions; not thanked for their lived experience after the major policy choices have already been made. Good laws should be written with people, not done to them.
This bill also responds directly to the Supreme Court decision in Fleming v Attorney-General. That case opened a legal pathways for questions about the employment status and rights of people providing disability support, including family carers, to be tested under ordinary employment law. It just makes sense. Two people doing the same job: one is compensated, one is not. When we don’t compensate people for doing a job, that is modern day slavery. This bill shuts much of that pathway down. Under clause 13, whether a person providing Disability Support Services - funded support is an employee of the Crown or a contracted provider is determined by whether there is a written agreement saying so. If there is no such agreement, this legislation makes that conclusive proof that they are not an employee for this purpose.
We are talking about parents who know every medication, every appointment, every tiny change that tells them something is wrong; partners who have learned clinical skills they never expected to need; whānau who rearranged their lives because the alternate is the person they love simply does not receive the care they need. Love is what keeps many families going, but love should never be used as a reason to expect less for people. A person does not stop doing work simply because the person they are caring for is their child, partner, or parent, and carers should not be praised in speeches while Parliament narrows the legal routes available to them to establish and enforce their rights.
The Government says this bill is about certainty, but certainty for who? One of the stated positions of this bill is to explicitly mitigate litigation risk and related fiscal risk to the Crown—disgusting. When the courts recognise a potential right, the response should not simply be to legislate away the risk that people might exercise it; we should ask what injustice caused people to go to courts in the first place. We should ask why family carers have had to fight for years to have their work recognised and valued.
There is another part of this bill that continues to concern me deeply. The legislation allows future support programmes to use income-based or asset-based criteria. The Minister has repeatedly told the House that she does not intend to introduce new means-testing. I have heard that reassurance, but Ministers change, Governments change, intentions change, laws remain. If the Government genuinely intends that supports which are not means tested today will remain protected, put that protection into the primary legislation. Disabled people should not have to rely on the goodwill of whoever happens to hold the disability portfolio in five or ten years’ time. Rights should not depend on ministerial reassurance.
That brings me to the international human rights questions raised throughout this process. I wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs seeking clarity about New Zealand’s international obligation back in July, I think—I still haven’t heard back. I also asked the select committee to seek further advice on these international human rights commitments from Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney-General—that was denied. The committee recommended this bill proceed. I find that deeply troubling. When serious questions are raised about legislation affecting people whose rights New Zealand has committed internationally to uphold, Parliament should be hungry for more scrutiny, not less. We should want the advice. We should want to be absolutely confident that what we are passing respects the dignity, equality, and rights of disabled people, because disabled people are not a fiscal risk to be managed. They are not a problem for families to absorb. They are citizens with the same rights as everyone else to participate fully in their communities, to make choices about their lives, to live with dignity, and to receive support that makes that possible. And families are not an inexhaustible free resource.
Families love, families support, families show up every single day, but families also work jobs, raise children—they get sick, they get tired, they age, and sometimes, they reach breaking point. A sustainable disability support system cannot be built on an expectation that whānau will keep filling every gap left by the Government. Even with the changes made in select committee, I remain concerned about embedding family contributions into a statutory framework in a way that risks continuing that expectation. The State has obligations too. Our job should be to build a system that honours interdependence without turning dependence on family into a prerequisite for dignity.
A system grounded in Enabling Good Lives; a system where the starting point is: what does a good life look like for this person, and what support will allow them to participate in it?
A system that trusts disabled people; a system that respects the expertise that comes from living this every day; a system designed with disabled people from the very first conversation. As my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March did in his second reading speech, I also want to acknowledge that there is no single disability community with one political view. Disabled people are members of every political party. They hold different views about policy, services, and the role of Government. That diversity should be respected, but one message from this process has been overwhelming. Disabled people expect to be participants in decisions on their own lives, like who is going to shower them. They should not have to organise, in their thousands, simply to make Parliament listen. So to every disabled person, carer, and whānau member who submitted, protested, wrote, called, organised, and kept pushing through this process, your advocacy changed this bill. The Government moved because you made it move, but the Green Party does not believe those changes go far enough. We will vote against this bill, and we have been clear that we want to start again, with disabled people at the table from the beginning, and build a legislation based on rights, dignity, choice, control, and genuine codesign. We completely and utterly oppose this bill.
LAURA McCLURE (ACT) (20:21): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to the Disability Support Services Bill at third reading. Firstly, I just want to say thanks to the submitters who, again, came before the select committee. I was a member of the Social Services and Community Committee and it was really, really helpful to hear the lived experiences from the families, the whānau, and the individuals who, for them, this is their reality.
I have to be honest, I had serious reservations about how the bill was written and the way it was presented to Parliament. I want to thank the Minister herself for actually engaging with ACT on this issue, and also accepting the changes that the select committee made, because I think that the changes that we have made do address the key concerns of those submitters. But as the previous speaker spoke before me, if those individuals didn’t come forward, and the way in which they had to raise all these issues, this bill wouldn’t be in the position that it’s in today. I think is really important that we do thank the disability community for their work that they’ve done, for coming through to select committee, for raising the issues and those concerns with all of us. That’s also outside of the select committee. I’ve met with quite a few different advocacy groups, individuals, and families that were really concerned about this bill.
There was one little area in the legislation that I still have a concern with and that is around the means testing. I do think that secondary legislation for some of the means testing is out of step with other benefits. If we make any changes to benefits in this House, for example, a lot of that is done in primary legislation if we are changing income and asset testing. So, I think that should still remain in primary legislation. It’s something that I have raised with the Minister, and look, there could be future legislation in the next Government that could actually address this because I think it is concerning.
But I do want to say thank you to the Minister for working with us. Again, thank you so much to the community, for coming forward, for bringing your voices to Parliament. We did hear you. We have made a lot of changes. I know that the speech before me was highly passionate, and I want to thank the member for bringing some of those thoughts and voices through, because they were things that we did hear, but I do want to make it really clear that the system we would be working in, if we didn’t put this bill in place right now, is essentially a 1991 Cabinet paper. And that is not safe or secure for the disability community. This framework is better than what we currently have, and it’s something that we do need so that we do have consistency in the system. I actually think it’s really rich of the Opposition and some of the comments they made about starting again. I actually challenge them because the next time that they are in Government, they will not revisit this because this is the right thing to do. It’s the right direction to head in. There should have been better consultation, but I commend this bill to the House.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (20:24): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in the third reading of the Disability Support Services Bill. I did canvas a lot of stuff in the second reading and I’ll just kind of go over some of the main points that we want to put in this third reading, but it is a really important bill. For once, we’re getting legislation into one place for our disability community. I fully support the last speaker, where we’ve working off a really ad hoc system with Cabinet minutes and decisions that date back a long, long time and really doesn’t give anyone certainty. I find it very difficult, some of the arguments that we’re hearing from the other side: the Opposition saying that they would actually get rid of what we’re putting in place here, because, for once, we are creating some certainty. Our disability community can go to a place where they can actually look at exactly what the legislation is, but then to roll that back, I find that quite unusual important.
An important part in this bill was the change in language in the bill. I do think the Minister and the Social Services and Community Committee did work really hard on some of the different language that was used from that first reading that was introduced into the House. One important part was the responsibility to contribute to wellbeing. The select committee made that change—that responsibility to contribute to wellbeing—to make sure that the language was the right approach, going forward, for our disability community, and it set the right tone in the piece of legislation.
We also heard that there’s a concern about the lack of possible consultation going forward. We heard also that, now, with the new programmes, if any new programmes come into place, that consultation will take place. That’s really important. Then we’ve got the issue around secondary legislation being used, but you’ve got to ask yourself, what was being used before? We were using Cabinet minutes and old decisions; we have the secondary legislation where there will be consultation. It gives any Minister flexibility in the future, and this is an area where you do want flexibility and you do want the ability to make changes as the world changes.
Also, another big concern was about the disability community or families having to exhaust all their resources. We made clear that this isn’t the case. If you’re entitled to something, you’re entitled to it. You do not have to extinguish all your resources to actually get that entitlement.
Importantly, there’s the mandatory review that’s after five years, but the part I want to emphasise from the New Zealand First point of view is what you are entitled to today, you’ll be entitled to tomorrow. There have been no changes. No one is worse off under this legislation. We’re just putting it in plain common sense in front of people, so you can understand it, you can access it. On that, I commend it to the House.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call—Orini Kaipara.
ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (20:28):E te Pika, I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to oppose this bill. I want to start with the people this Government seems determined not to see: the māmā and pāpā caring for their disabled tamaiti throughout the night; the nana and the koro who have become full-time carers for their mokopuna; the aunties and uncles, husbands and wives, daughters and sons, and other members of whānau who rearrange their entire lives around the needs of someone that they love. People who administer medication, people who attend appointments, people who assist with feeding, bathing, transport, and daily living. People whose lives are built around manaaki: care.
Tonight, the House is being asked to pass legislation that tells those kaimanaaki or carers that their contribution deserves less recognition, fewer rights, and less protection than other forms of work. One of the primary purposes of this bill is to make clear that caregivers are not Government employees and to deal with the risk of lawsuits related to paid family care. Thousands saw exactly what this bill was doing. Around 3,500 submissions were received, and the overwhelming majority opposed the bill.
Māori know what this means because Māori are disproportionately affected by disability. The advice before us notes that Māori experience disability at higher rates than non-Māori and face compounded barriers in health, housing, employment, education and income. It acknowledges that disability policy has too often ignored whakapapa, whanaungatanga, and collective responsibility. So when this Government undermines carers, it’s whānau Māori who will carry a disproportionate share of that burden.
In our communities, care isn’t a transaction. We know it to be manaakitanga. Care is aroha, care is whanaungatanga, care is what happens when whānau step up for one another when nobody else will, but just because that care is motivated by aroha or by love doesn’t mean it has no value. That’s the fundamental injustice at the heart of this bill. The Government talks about cost; carers talk about people. The Government talks about liability; carers talk about dignity. The Government talks about fiscal risk; carers talk about aroha.
One of the strongest voices opposing this legislation has been Dr Huhana Hickey. She reminds us that disability support is not a luxury. Support allows people to study, raise children, attend appointments, participate in community life, and live safely and independently. Without adequate support, she says, human rights become meaningless words on paper. That is the reality that this bill ignores. Disability support is not some abstract Budget line; it’s the difference between independence and isolation, between participation and exclusion, between dignity and struggle. Dr Huhana Hickey also warned that the Disability Support Services Bill “will affect real people in real homes in communities across Aotearoa. Parliament needs to hear that reality direct from us.”
Well, we should listen. We should listen to carers like Victoria Coleman, the full-time carer of her disabled son, who described the Government’s amendments as “tokenistic” and said they failed to address the parts of the bill causing the most harm. We should listen to disability advocate Jane Carrigan, who said family carers are taking responsibilities that belong to the Government, and who described this legislation as “the worst piece of legislation I’ve ever seen.”
As the member for Tāmaki Makaurau, I can’t ignore what is happening in my own city right now. Just days ago, RNZ reported that more than 1,200 Auckland home support workers could lose their jobs following a Health New Zealand contracting decision. Those providers currently support approximately 4,500 older and disabled Aucklanders. One provider spoke of workers who had supported the same people for decades. Another revealed that 30 percent of its workforce had been caring for people for more than 10 years. Think about that: a decade, two decades. Relationships built on trust; people who know their clients so well they can tell something is wrong even without a word. That is what real care looks like. That is the real care that needs investment, not this bill.
Te Pāti Māori believes all work has value. If someone is carrying out responsibilities that would otherwise fall to the State, they deserve dignity, recognition, and protection. That principle is reflected throughout our analysis of this legislation, and we will proudly oppose this bill.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (20:33): Disabled people deserve a life of dignity and full participation in their communities. Legislation should reflect that. One of the greatest failures of this bill is not only that, in my view, it does not genuinely take a rights-based approach but that it was assigned without the full participation of disabled people across the country. It wasn’t just because there wasn’t adequate consultation prior to the bill being introduced, or even just because of a truncated select committee process that excluded countless disabled people in oral submissions; it is because, even in the bill itself, the co-design of these programmes is not really entrenched. It’s not even a real requirement.
I find it galling to hear people on the other side claim otherwise. Even if you look at Part 2 of the Bill—clause 11(4A) and (4B)—it’s made so clear in front of us that apparently, “Before approving and establishing a programme under subsection (1), the Minister must also consult such representatives of disabled persons as the Minister considers appropriate. … However … the Minister may amend a programme approved and established under subsection (1) without complying with subsection (4A), if the Minister is satisfied that … the amendment is minor in effect or corrects a minor or technical error; or … no eligible person will be adversely affected by the amendment; [or] (b) a failure to comply”—and here’s the key bit —“with subsection (4A) does not affect the validity of any programme approved and established under subsection (1).”
Apparently, consultation must happen, but nothing happens if it doesn’t go ahead. Again, how are disabled people supposed to have confidence in the Minister and a Government that says they care about hearing about the lived experiences of disabled people while, at the same time, writing in a bill and voting for a bill that can completely disregard co-design and participation of disabled people? Again, you don’t have to believe me, because this is the bill as written. When we have disabled people coming to the Social Services and Community Committee pleading for the Government to start over and genuinely take this right to full participation on board, they mean it. They mean it, because people are seeing a bill that completely disregards the participation of disabled people.
The Green Party also wants to acknowledge that care work is work and should be recognised as such. The economy is made up of all of us, and care work is some of the most undervalued, under remunerated work out there. It sustains life—not just of disabled people but of all of us—so when we have bills that prevent caregivers being able to further expand their rights or seek conditions that reflect the modern times that they may be living in, through the courts, I also see a disregard for the wellbeing of caregivers in this legislation.
I think that this is particularly concerning due to the fact that caregivers have told us, both in select committee and across media and different spaces in our society, that they’re struggling. Many caregivers are burned out, unable to do the work they want to do to live interdependent lives with the disabled people that are part of their family structures and livelihoods. That risks the safety and the wellbeing of the disabled people that they are interdependent with. This bill, in my view, both fails the right that disabled people have to full participation, as well as the recognition that care work is critical to upholding our lives and the economy that we are all a part of.
The Green Party has made it clear that, if in Government, we would redesign and restart the process of this bill, making sure that disabled people have a fulsome say on what the future of disability support services should look like. We should all care about this—able-bodied or otherwise—because all of us could become disabled at any point in our lives. Dismantling ableism across our legislative frameworks ultimately benefits us all. It improves the living conditions of us all, and we would do better to heed the calls of disabled people, for us to genuinely hear them, support them with participation, and redesign this bill.
JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland) (20:38): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak in the third reading of the Disability Support Services Bill. I just want to acknowledge and just shout out, really, to all of the disability support folk all across New Zealand, and all of the communities and people who are living with different disabilities, which this Government strongly supports.
This bill establishes for the very first time in New Zealand a legislative framework for disability support services that’s aimed to improve the consistency, the fairness, the transparency, and the sustainability of the system. This is the first phase of establishing a foundational legislative framework, and this will be the first time it can be really clear for people what that framework is and is accessible for them to see for themselves.
It also introduces a mandatory review of this law within five years to ensure it is doing that. That adds, obviously, to this Government’s agenda to support people with disability support services. Actions speak louder than words; this Government has committed $2.1 billion in additional funding, in its term in Government, to the disability support sector. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (20:39): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. What’s really clear from the speeches that we have heard from this side of the House tonight, with a few more remaining, is that tāngata whaikaha and their whānau cannot afford three more years of this National Government.
I will be repeating some of the main points that others have made in their contributions not just for the sake of repeating them but because they actually came through so strongly in the submission process. I was one of the members on that select committee and had the privilege of listening to the many submitters that submitted on this bill. With a shortened time frame, there were still more than 3,000 submissions on this bill, showing just how important this bill is to tāngata whaikaha and their whānau. Our committee heard from over 120 oral submissions. I have been in Parliament for nine years. I have sat on many select committees. Many serious issues have come before our select committees, but this bill is one that had me often emotional, listening to the harrowing stories of tāngata whaikaha and their whānau and just what it takes for them to be able to live, to survive, and the genuine fear amongst them about what the changes in this bill could mean for them as tāngata whaikaha and for their whānau. I highly recommend that others go back and watch those submissions to understand, straight from those who are most impacted by this bill, what it means to them.
We met many of them outside who came to Parliament to be able to express what these changes mean, and I do think, by them coming here and their advocacy and unwavering belief and challenge in this, that some changes were made through the select committee process. But I want to highlight a couple of points and submissions. I referred to the submission by TAMA, Te Ao Mārama Aotearoa, in the committee stage and also in my second reading speech, because they represent a pan-iwi, pan-impairment, umbrella disabled people’s organisation for
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
disabled Māori and their families, and they make excellent submissions and points on the various parts of the legislation and a number of recommendations. But I want to read out 1.4, where TAMA says they impose this bill in its entirety. They said, “We have long called for a clear legislative foundation for disability support. A legislative foundation built without disabled people, encoding open-ended whānau obligation, overriding employment law and a unanimous Supreme Court decision, barring access to human rights accountability, and erecting the architecture of means testing by ministerial notice is not a foundation. It is a regression, and tāngata whaikaha Māori will bear its heaviest weight.” That summarises many of the concerns, in a very succinct way, that other submitters had—not only tāngata whaikaha Māori but all tāngata whaikaha.
First I want to turn to the point about the lack of consultation in the development of this really important legislation. Like TAMA said in the submission, this legislative framework—a legislative framework—is supposed to provide the foundation. Everybody knows the saying about making sure that nothing without us—do nothing for them without them. But we know through the regulatory impact statement and through the submissions that we heard through the committee of the whole House stage that there was not proper consultation undertaken in the development of this really important legislation.
It was rushed. It was a truncated process. For something as important and significant as this, that truncated process means that it was not developed with the sector, that it was not co-designed as many of them had called for it to be, and that people were having to rush to be able to make their submissions and have their voices heard. Nothing for us without us was completely disregarded and thrown out the window.
We know what happens when legislation is rushed. We’ve had examples of it today: the winter energy payment—15,000 superannuitants and veterans did not receive their winter energy payment in the coldest months of this year because legislation was rushed through urgency. Here is another piece of rushed legislation.
We also heard from submitters that this undermines Te Tiriti o Waitangi and whānau Māori are concerned about that. That was highlighted by many submitters and by the Human Rights Commission and other organisations.
The means testing: we heard presentations in the House tonight that that is not the intention of this, but that is the very real fear that families shared with us. It is all too loose. In fact, the most common fear raised across the submissions was the concern regarding who means testing could extend to. Aotearoa Disability Law’s submission asked the questions that the Minister can’t seem to answer: whose income and assets count given how broadly family member is defined? We tried to tease that out in the committee of the whole House stage. I raised the point that for Māori and Pacific families, where family structures tend to be wider and more collective, they face legislation that does not adequately define means testing, layered on top of an undefined whānau responsibility principle. This leaves families with significant amounts of uncertainty and fear about what is expected of them and how they will cope.
Carers: the Government likes to talk about fairness for carers, yet its own figures don’t compare well with the schemes of others where family members are paid for care. This bill narrows the protection of the Minimum Wage Act for these workers. Submitters were right to be uneasy that already vulnerable workers are being placed in an even more precarious position. The Minister has not explained why family carers, under this system, should have fewer protections than others doing the same work.
There was no good reason to rush this bill through. As I said, we have seen what happens when you rush legislation through. On this bill, disabled people, carers, advocates, and experts asked for more time, for genuine partnership, to co-design this framework, but they did not get it. The Government did not listen to that request. They did not heed that advice. And so I stand here tonight and I cannot commend this bill to the House, and I reiterate the message that tāngata whaikaha and their whānau cannot afford three more years of this National Government.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (20:49): It is very sad witnessing members of the Opposition once again using our disabled community as a political football.
Yes, there were aspects of the bill that, as first introduced, raised concern, but the Minister for Disability Issues has endorsed the changes made in the Social Services and Community Committee, changes made because of the feedback received from public submissions, changes which address many of the concerns raised by Opposition members as well, and yet they continue to spread fear and misinformation for their political point scoring, and that’s a shame. This bill will essentially establish a legislative framework for disability support services that’s fair, consistent, and transparent, and I commend this bill to the House.
GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (20:50):Tēnā koe te Māngai o te Whare . I stand to speak in opposition to the Disability Support Services Bill. Labour does not support this bill. What we have had from this Government since they came into office is more uncertainty, more exhaustion, and more anxiety from our disabled communities. I am not a member of the disabled community, and I won’t speak as if I know what they are going through, but what I can tell you is that I have had multiple conversations with many people in part of the disabled communities who have expressed their concerns to me with this bill. What we reflect here today is not our view of how legislation should be created for disabled communities, but the view of our communities, having had countless conversations with them over many years about what it would mean for them to live with dignity from a legislation point of view.
This process has been truncated and disabled communities have not had adequate time to consider the legislation that is being proposed. Despite that, we have had thousands of submissions, and I commend our disabled communities for standing up and putting their views forward in the face of adversity. The cost of living is affecting everybody. Luxon promised to fix it, but he has made it worse. New Zealanders cannot afford three more years of National, and our disabled communities cannot afford three more years of National.
From coming into Government, this Government has taken an axe to the dignity of disabled people, their self-determination, and the control that they have over their own lives. In March 2024, the changes to flexible funding meant no consultation with disabled people or their carers were implemented with immediate effect. There was no consultation and it left disabled people and their whānau uncertain, exhausted, and anxious about the future and what that meant. This was followed by the reduction in the Total Mobility Scheme fare subsidy. So many disabled whānau rely on this subsidy and it was reduced in a cost of living crisis by this Government. Then they decided to abandon the Enabling Good Lives roll-out, which gives disabled people more choice and control over their lives.
Now, with a truncated select committee process, and an undemocratic process, this bill has been introduced. It’s important that we look at the context of this bill and what our disabled communities have faced over the last three years in order to consider what this bill and what this legislation really means. This bill was not drafted with input from disabled communities. It doesn’t count to draft the bill and then go and ask them what they think. I understand and accept and agree that many changes have been made through the select committee process, and I commend the disabled community for standing up and making their views heard. However, that doesn’t go far enough to fully address the issues within the bills.
This bill creates reduced flexibility for disabled people who want to live with dignity, it provides less certainty for disabled people and their carers, and it codifies into law a fragmented and uncertain process. The bill does not consider Te Tiriti o Waitangi, nor does it consider the concepts of Enabling Good Lives—self-determination and person-centred decision making. The Government has decided that they know what is best for disabled people and carers and have ignored the community’s rallying cry. Today, I stand to be clear that Labour will not support this bill in its current form. We support disabled communities living with dignity.
GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (20:55): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real privilege is rise to take a call on the third reading of the of the Disability Support Services Bill. I did not have the privilege of serving on the Social Services and Community Committee, but in listening tonight, it is obvious that it was a very emotive and well thought through process, and the submitters were listened to and changes were made, and I commend the committee and the Minister for Disability Issues for that.
I think, just to make it very clear, the bill doesn’t change existing services, funding allocations, or who can receive disability support services. Eligible disabled people and their whānau and carers will continue to receive the support they rely on, but the bill makes it clearer what disability support services provides and how it fits with other supports. It confirms family and whānau remain an important source of support alongside publicly funded services. With that, I commend this build the House.
INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) (20:56): Well, the disabled community cannot afford another three years under this Government, and New Zealanders cannot afford another three years of being gaslit in the way that these members are doing tonight. I sat on a panel just before coming down to the House with members from the Government who spoke on another health matter and talked so earnestly about putting people at the centre. They talked about caring for the carers; they talked about the profound need for respite for people who work for others and for family members; they talked about the incredible work of the informal workforce; and they repeated the fundamentals around co-design, nothing about us without us, and all of this lip service, and those people tonight are sitting in this House passing this abominable, shameful, useless, terrible piece of legislation.
It is such a bad law, and I agree with the previous speaker who said that this is one of the worst laws they have ever seen this House pass. That comes for all sorts of reasons. The first, which is that when we have a group who are the most marginalised in society, who need the greatest protection in their human rights, we do not see any of that in this bill. That is out the window. Secondly, that group who you think would then get the respect of being able to be consulted, and to have the time to be able to be consulted because of the special needs they might have, that was utterly thrown out the window. Thirdly, just the terrible lawmaking with secondary legislation and with all sorts of things left to the future, and yet members come in here tonight, read from their phones, read from their notes, and read their platitudes, because they’re whipped into voting for something that they haven’t bothered to engage with.
I want to actually commend Laura McClure, because she did engage with it and she actually said what her reservations were. She has decided to come out in support, but she’s at least thought about it, and she’s at least thought about what changes were made at the Social Services and Community Committee. Now, that’s her judgement to say that she can live with those changes, and that is her judgement to say that those changes go far enough to appease the disabled community, and I do want to tautoko the community for getting that far. But on this side of the House, we know they don’t go far enough, because they open the door so wide to future changes that are keeping the disabled community up at night and worrying about what is going to happen, worrying about their children when they pass away, and worrying about what another Government might do through that secondary legislation to make their family burden and responsibility bigger, to asset test and to change and diminish the dignity in the lives of their loved ones.
That is what we are doing in this House tonight. Make no mistake, this is not some flimsy little thing that deserves just a little bit of time—we’ll shorten the select committee process, and we’ll whack it through before the election—we are making a very, very big mistake tonight passing this legislation. I am so pleased that, when we change this Government and when Labour comes in, we will repeal this. We will repeal this because we cannot have our disabled community living for another three years under this law.
We’ve heard that this bill is about certainty, but how much certainty is there when the fundamentals of it are put into secondary legislation? That’s no certainty. We have heard about the rights and the voices of disabled people and the wonderful submissions they made, but there is nothing in this bill that gives them safeguarding. We’ve heard platitudes that have come from some of the international instruments, but they don’t translate to legislative safeguards. They’re just words put in to window dress a fundamentally bad bill so that it will be a little bit more acceptable to the community that is going to be impacted by it—the same community that wasn’t consulted, the same community that came and gave petitions outside this Parliament, even though it took a huge amount of effort for many of them to get here because they do have additional challenges than the rest of us, and yet they did that.
There are no safeguards there. There is no rights-based approach. There is no reference to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It does not enable good lives in any way, shape, or form, and there is no reference to Te Tiriti. What it does do is it leaves open a yawning gap that can change family responsibilities. Can you imagine what that is like for family members who love people they care for? Or maybe they don’t, but in most cases they do. Then they have the complexity of going, “How do I now navigate the new dynamic in this relationship? Because if I get closer to them and if I’m available or if I take on a different job, or if I come and live in the family home, or if I leave the family home, what does that mean for the State-imposed relationship and responsibility on my loved one?” Can you imagine the indignity that that creates for the person who we want to enable their good lives, and yet they are made to feel like a burden. They are made to feel like the problem. That is what we are doing in this House tonight, make no mistake about it, and it is shameful that we are doing it.
There were some changes around consultation. Well, I’m sorry, it’s wonderful that the disabled community got that, but consultation without accountability is like the scraps. Consultation is a hygiene factor when it comes to lawmaking. Consultation is the bare minimum. And yet there wasn’t consultation on this bill. And yet, when they said, “Please can we have some more time for the truncated select committee process?”, nobody bothered to think about the additional challenges that they had. If anything, the disabled community should have had a lengthened consultation period, just to have an equity lens on the ability to be able to submit. But they put in a marathon effort, and they did submit, more than 3,000 of them. That shows the level of feeling across that diverse community.
They are worried about means testing. They are worried about asset testing. They are worried about their weakened human rights, about their weakened sense of control over their own lives. They are worried about choice, to make their own decisions about equipment that they use. They are worried about their participation, and they are very, very worried about what this will mean for the relationships within their whānau and their extended whānau. To think of the wording that has been used to describe disabled people and the fiscal risk that they create, it is just so undignified. To think that the Minister sat in this House and accused that community of scaremongering, or that one of the members tonight has said that all of the real fears of this community is scaremongering—that is such an undignified approach. It is so out of touch, and it is disdainful of people who live with these realities every single day. It has been an arrogant process, and it has been a process that has turned people into a burden rather than into people who we see as our fellow citizens, who deserve the same good lives that all of us enjoy through an enabling environment.
This Government should stand on its track record, and the disabled community know it is lip service. We have seen them reduce—and cut, actually—flexible funding. They did it abruptly. They did it, and it came into effect the day that they did it—no consultation again. And then guess what! They’ve reversed a lot of that in April 2026. Well, funny that; it’s an election year. Do they really think that disabled people aren’t going to remember the way they were treated, the way that Whaikaha was subsumed into the Ministry of Social Development, that institute they fought so long to create so that they could actually have some equity in the system? We have seen the pausing of the nationwide roll-out of Enabling Good Lives. We’ve seen the freeze on residential disability care funding rates, even when some of the homes were sitting idle and empty and yet people could not access them. We have seen restrictions kept on equipment and housing modifications, so that other people get to tell our disabled whānau what equipment is best for them and how they should do their homes, because it’s not as if they know how to do it themselves! They’ve lived with themselves their whole life, but no, no, no, this Government knows better!
This is a shameful, shameful night. I feel apologetic to the people at home that are watching. I want to say to them: sorry that we’re doing this, sorry for your fight, sorry for the gaslighting, thank you for your care, thank you for your kaha and your aroha and your patience. Please keep believing in us, because we cannot afford another three years of this Government, but when Labour comes in, we will repeal this terrible bill.
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (21:06): There’s probably only two points that the previous speaker, Ingrid Leary, mentioned that actually I agree with, and that is that this population is the most vulnerable and does need protection, and they also need certainty. And, apart from that, I think the rest was unbelievable.
This bill, at its very heart, seeks to do something very important and overdue. It produces, for the first time, a clear statutory framework for our disability support services. Prior to this, it was based on a patchwork of policies and guidelines. How can we protect our most vulnerable that need the most protection, and give them certainty, when we have a framework based on a patchwork of guidelines and Cabinet papers. We need a statutory framework; therefore, I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Disability Support Services Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 67
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Debate resumed from 28 August.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I believe that New Zealand First have the next call, No. 5.
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs) (21:08): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the third reading of the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill. This is about modernising legislation to give the right powers where they need to be. I think broadly across the House we have recognised the importance of moving with the technology and moving with the criminal activity and ensuring that the right powers, the right capabilities, are sitting where they need to be.
This is largely process-driven legislation, which is ensuring that the Serious Fraud Office has fit for purpose legislation moving forward, and New Zealand First commends the bill to the House.
CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (21:09): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. The Green Party supports the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill at this third reading. This bill updates a 36-year-old Act. It aligns Serious Fraud Office search warrants with the Search and Surveillance Act and brings evidence admissibility into line with the Evidence Act—sensible overdue changes. We support this modernisation.
Fraud costs this country billions every year. Charities are hollowed out, businesses become insolvent, and people lose trust in banks. New Zealand used to sit equal first in the world on Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index. We’ve slipped to fourth, but I believe we may be improving again.
However, corruption perception is as much about political donations as fraud, and the two are not unrelated. The Serious Fraud Office made allegations of improper donation management against both the National and New Zealand First Parties. The Court of Appeal dismissed all the charges; however, it explicitly noted in its judgment that these cases expose major structural weaknesses and legal loopholes in New Zealand’s Electoral Act regarding how political money is tracked. Today, we are fixing some of the Serious Fraud Office issues, but we are not fixing political donations. Real democracy means limiting political donations to restore public faith that we can make decisions without bias and without thinking about corporate donors. The Greens have consistently advocated for honest politics free of the stench of corruption.
When this Government talks tough on crime, it’s almost never about serious fraud. It’s about someone sleeping in a doorway who won’t move on; it’s about a beneficiary, a young person, someone who shoplifted or breached a curfew; someone acting in the grip of addiction, or a split-second decision, or someone whose upbringing that never gave them time to plan five minutes ahead, let alone five hours. For those New Zealanders, this Government reaches for trespass notices, boot camps, crackdowns, and tougher bail.
Let’s be honest where the real damage lies. A person sleeping rough in a doorway is not the person driving up your insurance premium, your grocery bill, or your rates; serious fraud is driving those things up. Every dollar diverted through a fake investment scheme or a cooked set of books comes straight out of the ordinary Kiwi, the worker whose KiwiSaver was defrauded, the tradesperson left unpaid because a contractor faked insolvency. One fraudster with a laptop and a good accountant can do more harm to more households in an afternoon than anybody asking for change on a footpath would do in a lifetime.
Unlike the person shivering in the doorway—or worse—the fraudster made a plan. Serious fraud is not impulsive; it’s planned over months or years, requiring patience, professional advice, and the confidence that comes from financial privilege. It’s almost entirely premeditated, targeting the trust that everyday Kiwis should be able to place in banks, investment schemes, and in the people they do business with. Yet the same Government that wants trespass powers and boot camps waits till the last month of a three-year term to treat serious fraud properly. I think this is the last month of the three-year term.
Francisco Hernandez: Yep—it’s September now.
CELIA WADE-BROWN: Yeah—so we could have done it a little earlier. Real crime prevention looks like warm, affordable homes, not premeditated crime and getting away with fraud.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (21:14): It’s about time we come back to the actual legislation we’re debating here this evening, which is about the Serious Fraud Office and bringing them into the 21st century. We scrutinised this bill as part of our Justice Committee process, hence why it has taken the time to get it to the House here. Last week, credit to Minister Mark Mitchell, who sat in the chair and did a superb job through the committee of the whole House stage, working with members across the House to answer questions to understand where we’ve got to. This is a really important piece of legislation, so I commend it to the House.
CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (21:15): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to be able to take this call on the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill. I wasn’t sure if I’d get the chance, because I wasn’t in the House at the end of urgency, but there the Government pulled urgency and didn’t get through all of its bills. Well done to the Opposition for not letting the Government get through all of its agenda; that’s something we always try to do and, in this case, it’s allowed me to speak to you for 10 minutes on the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill. It’s a very important bill, and one that I was on the Justice Committee for, and it has a really interesting history, so I will take my time to go through—
Carl Bates: Over here, we believe in efficiency. You don’t need to use all the 10 minutes.
CAMILLA BELICH: Oh, that’s a very interesting opinion to put forward, Mr Bates. I thank you for your contribution to my 10-minute call through your interjection.
I wanted to go back to the beginning of this bill, which is the Pikia case. This went to the Court of Appeal. In this case, there was a number of—if you read the case, and I actually have it here, it’s quite a shocking case. It, essentially, looked at the powers that the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) had been using, and it actually, at the back of the judgment, lists a lot of the unlawful exercises. There’s actually a list at the back of this bill of all the unlawful exercises that the SFO had undertaken in this case. I think it runs to several pages, and there’s just list after list of things that were illegal. This is a case, really, where the practices of the Serious Fraud Office were not consistent with the legislative framework that they’re working in.
To be fair to the Serious Fraud Office, their primary piece of legislation was written in 1990. I remember 1990—the sesquicentenary—it was an amazing year, and I enjoyed it very much, but I have to say it was quite a different environment in terms of the technology that was available. This is a key issue in this bill: the SFO’s powers and the powers that they had to investigate fraud. It really goes without saying, but maybe we should say it: fraud is a terrible, terrible crime. It is damaging, it can ruin lives—it can destroy lives in much the same way as a physical crime that can be committed against someone.
The objective that the Serious Fraud Office is attempting to prevent fraud is one that everyone in this House would agree is a noble objective and something that we should support, but the Act was not fit for purpose. That was clearly set out in the Court of Appeal, and something needed to change, so we do have this bill in front of us that we did take to select committee, and this bill does seek to update some of those practices. I do think there is a question for the House to consider. We are living in an age where technology is advancing so quickly that I do think there is a serious question for the way that we draft legislation: can we legislate in a way that is fast enough to keep pace with modern technology?
This Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill, one of the changes that it puts in, is changing the word—instead of searching a physical, named item, it uses the word “thing”. It’s such an open term for searching—you can just search a thing. In a way, that is futureproof, because who knows the type of technology we’ll be using in a few years’ time—whether we’ll all be in the House, and we won’t be looking at our phones, but we’ll be wearing our special glasses that allow us—
Arena Williams: I don’t want them.
CAMILLA BELICH: —to search the internet or have our speech notes. I don’t know, it’s—
Tom Rutherford: Carl will be wearing a tinfoil hat.
CAMILLA BELICH: I accept that that’s your submission, Mr Rutherford. But the point, really, is that the technology is moving so fast, and this is a clear example. I mean, this was in 1990; this was a long time ago. I predict that changes will be needed, not just to this Act, but other similar Acts in the search and surveillance area, sooner than in another 30 years’ time.
I think that this is a challenge that we are facing due to the incredible technological advances that we are facing at the moment. This certainly will help. I think all of the changes at select committee were agreed unanimously—that doesn’t always happen. Many of them, I have to say, because there is a lesson here for the Serious Fraud Office, which is, firstly, of course, we want them to have the ability to do search and surveillance in a way which is commiserate with modern technology; but the second point is, and I think an important lesson, is the Serious Fraud Office, or any agency of the law, should never be using powers that are above those which are prescribed at law. And in this case, that has clearly been the case. Whether that’s a failure of the Serious Fraud Office, or that’s a failure of Parliament to keep the legislation up to date, it’s certainly a failure. No one should be able to act outside of the law, and certainly no one is above the law—that also applies to our law enforcement agencies.
The additional changes that we’ve made here as well, also highlight a really important point, which is the principle of innocent until proven guilty. There are a couple of changes that the select committee made which I just wanted to highlight, which are in line with that principle: innocent until proven guilty. Some of the changes that we implemented as part of the select committee process was—I mean, this is something that I don’t think people would have imagined in 1990—under this new piece of legislation, you were able to undertake a remote search—a remote search—and one of the things that the select committee did to protect people’s rights, was to say, “if you undertake a remote search, you must tell the person that you are undertaking the remote search”, which I think is a really sensible check and balance on that power. Because otherwise you could just be tapping away on your computer and the Serious Fraud Office could be just looking through all of your documents and, unless the select committee hadn’t put this change in, you wouldn’t know.
It is incredible to think what they can do these days. Certainly, remote searching is an inevitability of the modern way that technology exists. Because we know we are not just looking at physical objects now, we are looking at clouds, we are looking at storage facilities, cloud storage, things that may not actually be physically able to be taken by the Serious Fraud Office but need to be searched. So that was one of the changes that we put in place.
The other thing that I think was an important change, which and respected the rights of the people who are involved in the search, and, of course, very famously, a number of these cases have not been successful by the Serious Fraud Office over recent years. So one of them is that return and disposal requirements. When the Serious Fraud Office does have a situation where they’re taking phones, they’re taking laptops, I don’t know, anything else that they need to search from someone, they must provide that back to the person. That was a change that we made to clauses 13 and 13A.
The other thing that we also addressed—and I think this was something that the Law Society put in their submission, we didn’t hear an oral submission from them, but they did put forward a very detailed written submission. And the fact that we have considered it as evidence that it’s still worthwhile to put in a written submission that can be very, very helpful to select committees as well. They talked about the amount of time that documents were being kept by the Serious Fraud Office. In this particular case that we were looking at, that led to this bill, we had a situation where there was a retention of documents by the Serious Fraud Office, as I understand, for an indefinite period of time. And actually, I think, in this bill, we’ve changed that to two years, which is actually shorter than the usual period of time that you would keep something, which would be seven years. That was a something I was going to look into a wee bit at the committee of the whole House stage if I’d been here. But anyway, it certainly is a protection on those documents, which may be quite personal. There may be situations where highly personal documents are relevant to a fraud case, and there is a legitimate reason for the Serious Fraud Office to retain those, but we did put in, at select committee, a time limit on that.
I don’t think anyone disputes the need for this bill. There are lessons in here for the Serious Fraud Office; there are lessons for Parliament in the way that we approach law making, and the way that we deal with new technologies; and there is, certainly, a serious lesson here that anyone who attempts fraud or serious fraud in New Zealand, there will be consequences.
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (21:25): I had a conversation with my constituents office earlier today, my electorate office, and over the course of this term, as a hard-working local MP, we’ve dealt with 1,478 constituency cases. Now, included in those, were a number of constituent cases where they had occurred or been involved in scams. These are heart breaking when they happen because they can cost an individual a huge amount of money. This bill helps the Serious Fraud Office fight financial crime. It’s all part of the work that we’re doing to fix the basics of law and order.
It made me imagine what those constituents could have done with that money had it not been taken from them through a scam; what they would have used that for. Even a couple of those cases were people in the process of thinking about starting a business the Investment Boost process there, would have been very helpful to them. So I commend this bill to the future as we build the future here in New Zealand.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): A five minute split call.
REUBEN DAVIDSON (Labour—Christchurch East) (21:26): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand and take a call on the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill, something I haven’t done since last Friday night, just before midnight, as we worked in urgency through almost all the stages. It’s not quite as many as, I think, the Government wanted, but we did manage to progress things.
Now, the really important thing with this bill, is that legislation does need to move with the times. Not all political parties can—the one across the way definitely a good example of that—but legislation needs to move with the times and it needs to be futureproof. The things that stuck out for me, when I was looking through the bill and the summary of the bill, was the need to modernise, which included extending the warrant regime so that the Serious Fraud Office can search “things”. And there was much discussion in previous stages, and in the committee of the whole House stage, where the Minister in the chair did generously share his time and his answers with us. Just around that shift from the traditional search warrant—you imagine a bookshelf all astray after people have rifled through it—but now, what we’re talking about in the modern context of investigating serious fraud, is actually executing search warrants on intangible things. So the need to modernise the legislation certainly essential there.
One of the other really good examples was around the need for speed. The need for the Serious Fraud Office, sometimes, to be able to get a warrant simply through the oral applications for search warrants, so that those warrants can be received in enough time for them to still be valid and relevant.
Now, a number of speakers have talked about the process that select committee, about the constructive way in which the select committee worked together to ensure that they, actually, were able to improve this, and, ultimately, end up with a bill that, I believe, we’re all supporting through its third reading in the House this evening. One of those was around the remote access searches, and one of my colleagues, Camilla Belich, has referenced that in her contribution to this bill earlier. Increasingly, the kinds of information and the places in which we can find that information, when we would be executing searches or investigations through the Serious Fraud Office, can be done without the person even knowing that that’s happening and without someone, you know, knocking on the door or bashing down the door and coming into their home. So making sure that those remote searches are actually notified, that the person can then be given a notification that that search has taken place, is increasingly important.
One of the other pieces of it was around when you capture data or devices such as hard drives that store data, or access those in cloud storage. There’s a risk that you’re not just picking up a stack of bank statements; you might be picking up all sorts of other personal items or personal information, much of which may not, on investigation, be relevant to being able to take a prosecution.
There are really some important features of the bill that allow for the disposal or the return of that information and that data that might not be relevant to the investigation, so that information that people may not want in the hands of the Serious Fraud Office—or, in fact, with anybody other than themselves—could now be more clearly accounted for in the legislation as it appears.
Ultimately, I guess the purpose of the Serious Fraud Office and of the revised Act is to protect New Zealand and New Zealanders from fraud. When we think about that, it’s probably worth thinking about the idea of an election campaign, and I know there’s been a little bit of integration of election campaign slogans into the contributions this evening. There’s been talk about getting the country back on track. Then, if you think of a fraudulent claim such as that, when you then go on to see grocery prices go up, petrol prices go up, power prices go up, rent prices go up, and rates go up—[Interruption]
They’ve even been adding extra things on from the benches on the Government side. They’re adding things on. Insurance is going up, trust is going down—definitely going down—but what we are seeing absolutely consistently is that New Zealand cannot afford there more years of a National Government. But we can, in this House, afford to support the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill, and I commend this bill to the House.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (21:31): I’m glad to hear that this bill is receiving cross-party support to give the Serious Fraud Office the tools to obtain digital evidence and to investigate serious fraud efficiently.
I want to use this opportunity to acknowledge my colleague Paulo Garcia, who was on the Justice Committee, for his contribution to this legislation. I also thank the select committee, the community, and the Filipino community as well. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (21:32): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This is an important bill that makes important changes. In terms of the changes that it makes to the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and how it operates, it’s good to see that my colleagues have continued the good work on the Justice Committee and have scrutinised this bill pretty thoroughly. The Justice Committee had made recommendations in relation to that. The key part that’s important about this is that there was unanimous support for it to proceed and support for the notification requirements for those remote access searches, record keeping for oral warrant applications, and requirements to return seized devices and destroy forensic copies that contain no evidential material.
It’s been interesting as to how this process has come about. I quite often read the submissions from the Law Society. They really do a good job of analysing some of the finer points, and that often makes our job as MPs easier. The submission that we did get from the Law Society supported the bill’s intention to modernise the Act in response to Pikia, which said that it showed that the SFO regime was outdated and that the approach that they took to notices and search warrants involved significant overreach.
It’s heartening to see that we’re able to support this bill, because we want to make sure that expanded powers are no substitute for resourcing. We know that the Serious Fraud Office is a really small agency with an enormous task. When I was the Minister of Police and had responsibility for it also, I was amazed at how much the Serious Fraud Office was actually able to do on such a small budget. And, of course, since this Government has come in, all those departments lost funding and the Serious Fraud Office was one of those that had to find, I think, 6 percent in their baseline. I don’t know if there’s anything left for the Serious Fraud Office after losing that much. They’ll be kind of trying to keep the lights on.
The cuts that we’ve seen under National have affected the Serious Fraud Office too. So, yes, while it’s important to make sure they’ve got the right powers, it’s just as important to make sure that our Public Service is adequately funded to make sure they can actually do the work that they need to do. I do have some concerns as to whether there is sufficient funding for the Serious Fraud Office to actually fully do the work that they need to do to keep fraud in check in New Zealand. We do know that, with all the cuts we’ve seen, it potentially makes our country less safe if the SFO is unable to do their job, so the question does have to be asked: can New Zealand afford another three years of National when we’re seeing things like this happen? My answer would have to be: no, we can’t. We have to make sure that we have public services that operate and deliver the things we need.
It is good that we are now enabling the SFO to apply for search warrants directly to an issuing officer rather than only to a judge. We think that’s an improvement. We also think it’s good that we’re extending the warrant regime so that the SFO can search “things”, as it’s described, as well as places. That’s really a modernising approach, including intangible things such as email addresses and access to information that, say, might be on the cloud and accessible those ways, in terms of data storage. It also recognises that evidence of fraud is increasingly digital, and that’s really where we need those great skills of digital experts, forensic accountants—those people that have those skills and are able to follow the money. We know that organised criminal networks and those who are conducting online fraud are able to hide the trail of money in different ways, so it’s incredibly important that we have those people within the Serious Fraud Office who are able to do that work.
We know that those skills are in hot demand internationally. It is a huge task sometimes for the Serious Fraud Office to always be able to attract the type of people that can keep on top of the latest ability for hacking, for getting in behind data sets, for impersonation, for identity fraud—all of those things that are continually morphing and changing. We also know that, with the increase in the ability to use artificial intelligence, that is also an area that’s increasing the reach of online fraud and impersonating identities with the use of AI. Providing modern scene management powers, securing the site, excluding people who would obstruct or hinder a search, and bringing in the use of equipment and electricity onsite are all changes that this bill puts in place.
It is also made clear that police assisting the SFO to execute a warrant can use their usual powers under Part 4 of the Search and Surveillance Act, and that’s important. It replaces the admissibility test in section 22 of the Act with the balancing test in section 30 of the Evidence Act so that courts weigh a wider range of factors, such as the seriousness of offending, the quality of the evidence, and whether urgency or safety was a factor in how it was obtained. A transitional provision means that the new admissibility test will not apply to criminal proceedings that were already commenced before the bill comes into force, and it was good to see that that was in place.
The select committee did an incredibly good job in terms of making some changes and strengthening this bill, and it’s always good to see those changes being made in agreement. A key change that was made at the select committee was the notification of remote access searches, and that is because remote searches can be executed without the user’s knowledge—for example, digital searches, where that might be happening in terms of someone’s online access and being able to access things that are stored in the cloud, or even what they’ve sent over emails. The Serious Fraud Office must, on completing a search, email a copy of the warrant and the details of the search to the account that has been searched, or take all reasonable steps to identify and notify the user by other means, and that’s in a new section. Essentially, it’s just modernising due to the fact that we have new means in terms of how the Serious Fraud Office will be operating.
Another change that the select committee saw in this bill was the additional requirement for remote access warrants. They can now only be issued if the issuing officer is in fact satisfied that the thing is not located at a physical address a person can enter and search. It’s good to see that change. There were also changes to the safeguards for oral search warrant applications. In this instance, the issuing officer must record the grounds for an oral application as soon as practicable. All the information required for a written application is still required, so that must happen. Applications must be retained by the District Court Registrar until proceedings are complete, for two years. The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has always been renowned for having those really far and wide - reaching powers, so some of these safeguards are important improvements to modernise the legislation.
The Justice Committee also made the change to section 14 of the Act, which was repealed, and that just simply removed duplication. It removed the new requirement to disclose any applications made within the previous three months in respect of the same place or the same thing—so that “require to disclose” is being put into legislation. There is also provision there for the return and the disposal requirements. Seized documents and things, as described in the legislation—which would be devices, laptops, phones, smartphones, tablets—must be returned as soon as practicable. Forensic copies must be destroyed where the data contains no evidential material. It is really important to specify how long data can be stored. It also tidies up the wording of force powers, as aligned with the modern language of the Search and Surveillance Act, and the bill confirms these powers do not authorise the application of force to any person. It’s an important improvement in this area.
We know that the way that organised criminal networks operate is very much shifting into an online space. It’s important that our key entity in New Zealand for serious fraud has all of the abilities to be able to do that. We, in Labour, still think it’s really important to be able to resource these Government departments, not to just to give them more power but to make sure that they have the people, the abilities to actually do that work. Because if we don’t, then they fail, and that is really the overarching narrative we’ve seen under this Government: that the Public Service is failing to deliver many of our public services, and that’s why we just can’t afford three more years of National.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (21:42): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House because it addresses the fastest-growing crime in New Zealand: fraud. It’s a shame that Labour had six years to address fraud, but did nothing, as usual.
Hon Members: Mr Speaker?
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Suze Redmayne—she got off to a quick start there.
SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (21:42): I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill.
Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill
Committee of the whole House
Debate resumed from 18 August.
Part 1 Substantive amendments to principal Act (continued)
CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the ordering of Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill. When we last considered the bill, we were debating Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 4 to 40, “Substantive amendments to principal Act”. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (21:44): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just starting off where we left off previously, I’m just going to speak to Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment that he was speaking to in our last session. I think it is tabled amendment 7.05.30, and it was around clarity around the time and place a young person must be when receiving a statement explaining their youth serious offender declaration. I didn’t answer the Hon Duncan Webb that night because I could hear the rationale behind what he was speaking to in that tabled amendment, so I went away and asked for further advice on whether there was some work to do and whether to accept that amendment. On further advice, I just want to agree with the need for clarity on where and when a young person may be directed to remain at the court. This is important both for the court process and for a young person’s experience in being in court. Regarding the use of the term “court”, I’m satisfied that the term, as currently used, already captures the intended scope and allows for any place in the court. This is consistent with all other legislation which refers to the court as a place. In practice, a judge will direct that the young person should wait to receive the written statement. This will depend on the individual circumstances of the young person, where they are to wait, whether they are subject to an order authorising detention, and other operational factors relating to the administration of court facilities or other proceedings.
On the issue of timing, I consider that this is sufficiently clear from existing drafting in section 320L. As noted in section 320L(1), the timing is clearly identified as one hour after the time at which the court makes the young serious offender declaration, and for these reasons, while I agree with the intent and purpose of the amendment, I do not consider it necessary to achieve the stated aim.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (21:46): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to acknowledge that the Minister for Children took the opportunity to go away and take further advice on that particular tabled amendment from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I just wonder if the Minister bothered to do that for any of the other tabled amendments. I can’t make eye contact with the Minister to confirm that—
Hon Karen Chhour: You’re still talking.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: OK. Yep, that’s a question, so—well, I’ll give the Minister a moment or two to consider whether she’s going to answer that one, after just signalling for me to sit down so she could answer it and then not answering it. So while we do that, I would like to take the Minister to my tabled amendment, time-stamped 5 August, 7.05.33. This is an amendment to clause 320M and a proposal that we reduce it from two years to one year, with the provision of up to another year. In terms of clause 320M, it’s talking about the duration of the youth serious offender (YSO) declaration. It says that it “continues in force for a term of 2 years from the date it is made unless 1 of the following occurs first:”, and there’s a list there, but I’m proposing that we replace that. In particular, the point in (f) that the declaration is renewed by the court for a further period not exceeding one year or such lesser period as the court thinks fit. As it’s currently drafted, it provides for a two-year duration as the standard period for a YSO declaration.
Now, these are serious declarations that are being introduced through law, powers given to the court with a lot of direction to the court in terms of what to do for these young people, and it says that it should be a duration of two years. So, given the significant impact of such a declaration on a young person, we believe that a shorter default period better reflects the principle that interventions should be proportionate and no more restrictive than necessary.
This amendment ensures that the declaration remains in force for only as long as it is justified by requiring any continuation beyond a year to be actively renewed by the court. It introduces an additional safeguard and promotes regular judicial reconsideration of the young person’s circumstances and progress. I want to ask the Minister questions about this because, as I understand it, from military-style academy 2.0, we have two young people who have voluntarily left the in-residence component of the military-style academy. Now, under this law, there is no ability for a young person to voluntarily leave a military-style academy. Did those young people have to go back to the court in order to be able to voluntarily withdraw from the second military-style academy? Can the Minister answer that question?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (21:50): In regards to the Amendment Paper date-stamped 5 August 7.05.33, I’ve already responded to this amendment, and I’m not going to go through the reasons why again—just to say I do not support this amendment.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (21:50): OK, I understand that the Minister won’t support this amendment. My question to the Minister is: in the example that I have given the Minister, which is a real-life example of the second military-style academy, where two young people voluntarily left the in-residence component, did those young people have to go back to the court in order to be able to withdraw voluntarily from that programme? And can the Minister confirm whether young people, in the future, once this law passes, will be able to do that as well; if not, what advice has the Minister received about that, given they have had a real-life example of this in their pilot programmes?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (21:51): They were able to leave voluntarily because they volunteered to be on the programme. Under the new law, they’re not volunteering to be on the programme, so, no, they won’t be able to voluntarily leave.
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (21:52): Thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to ask the Minister for her consideration of my amendment, which was tabled on 18 August 2026 at 16.40.01.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Could you just repeat that amendment please, Ms Paul.
TAMATHA PAUL: So that’s 18 August 2026, and that’s at 16.40.01—so the first tabled amendment in that set, which is in regards to clause 4.
Just continuing on that line of questioning from the Hon Willow-Jean Prime, around the length of time that the young serious offender (YSO) declaration is enforced and what this amendment is asking. I wanted to ask the Minister whether she would consider parents, guardians, or caregivers being able to make an application to the Youth Court to suspend or reduce the amount of time that a young person spends with that YSO declaration assigned to their name. The reason for that is basically because—I won’t repeat what the previous speaker said—but two years is a really, really long period of time, particularly when we know that in that time between birth and 18 years old, the brain is developing rapidly. A person, especially a young person, as I’m sure the Minister can appreciate, can really transform in just two years’ time, so I wondered whether she might consider the ability for that young person’s parents or guardian—seeing that change in that young person—to make that application to the court so that that young person can continue turning their life around, unimpeded by carrying that declaration to their name.
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (21:54): Just speaking to the Amendment Paper, 18 August, 16.40.01—I won’t be supporting this amendment. I just want to make it clear—that it’s important to make it very clear—that there are knowable points where declarations can be reviewed. Allowing reviews at any time has the potential to be abused, and risks using significant court resource. For this reason, the bill does provide that applications can be made to reduce the term of declaration, including by parents and guardians, after 12 months and 18 months.
Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (21:54): I thank the Minister for making the point that the first pilot, and then military-style academy 2.0, were voluntary programmes, and the difference between those and what we have here is that they will be in legislation. They are no longer voluntary, so they cannot volunteer themselves in, and they cannot voluntarily withdraw. My question to the Minister is, in a situation where a young person may have been assaulted by other young people in the programme, or by staff members in the programme, or possibly have assaulted a staff member in the programme—are those young people able to withdraw from the programme, or are they going to be forced to stay in these military-style academies from anywhere between three months to 12 months, when a situation like that has taken place?
Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (21:55): That would be an operational decision, not my decision to make, and it will be on a case-by-case basis.
Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Mr Chair?
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): No, the time has come for me to report progress.
Progress to be reported.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has further considered the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. Madam Speaker, I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for further consideration on the next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.