Tuesday, 22 September 2026

Tuesday, 22 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.

Speaker's Rulings

Discharge of Bills Under Urgency

SPEAKER: Members, on Saturday, there were points of order taken about a Minister not moving the first reading of a bill that had been introduced under urgency. Had that bill been an order of the day on the Order Paper, it would have been discharged at that point. Bills not on the Order Paper can be dealt with in any order the Government wishes during urgency—see Speaker’s ruling 15/4—that’s what saved the bill from discharge.

The situation is far from satisfactory. It’s crucial that whips mange the House programme effectively, and that Ministers are aware of their responsibilities. I encourage whoever chairs the Business Committee in the 55^th Parliament to discuss whether bills proceeding under urgency that are not on the Order Paper should be subject to discharge if a reading is not moved at the appropriate time. A sessional order to that effect could be agreed.

Debates

Ministry of Education—Official Information Act

Urgent Debate

SPEAKER: Members, I have also received letters from the Hon Ginny Andersen and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan seeking to debate, under Standing Orders 399, reports of a Ministry of Education official appearing to provide advice in an attempt to circumvent the Official Information Act. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. Ministers answer to the House for their agencies, including on operational matters. The official information system is an important pillar of our democracy and largely operates on the basis of good faith. Significant challenges to the operation of the Act warrant the attention of the House and the Government.

When I receive two applications for an urgent debate on the same matter, priority is given to the one received first. After oral questions today, I will call on the Hon Ginny Andersen to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

Presentation

Petitions

SPEAKER: Eight petitions have been presented for presentation to the House.

CLERK (14:02):

Petition of Climate Justice Taranaki Inc requesting that the House urge the Government not to enable an LNG import facility at Port Taranaki

petition of Corina Shields requesting that the House increase access to the sex offender register, and stop allowing reduced sentences or permanent name suppression for people convicted of crimes against children

petition of Jessica Creedmore requesting that the House urge the Government to support consideration of the Buller Plateaux Continuation Project through the fast-track approvals process

petition of Michael Brown requesting that the House urge the Government to establish a 3D fixed-site mammography unit in Whitianga

petition of Rhonda Fitzpatrick requesting that the House repeal clauses in the Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025 that allow water organisations to set water charges; or require that the boards of water organisations be directly elected

petition of Stella Ward requesting that the House review sentencing and deportation sequencing for non-resident offenders

petition of The Vegan Society of Aotearoa requesting that the House urge the Government to incentivise farmers to further diversify their farming to include crop growing or rewilding their land for carbon sequestration, and

petition of the University of Canterbury Students’ Association requesting that the House urge the Government to introduce a grandfathering provision for current tertiary students who reasonably expected to receive their final year of study fees free.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Papers

SPEAKER: Ministers have delivered 14 papers.

CLERK (14:04):

2025-26 annual reports for:

City Rail Link Ltd

Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Ltd

Local Government Commission

Mercury NZ Ltd

New Zealand Post Ltd

Remuneration Authority, and

Transpower New Zealand

2025-29 statement of intent for Ferry Holdings Ltd

2026-27 statement of performance expectations for the Children’s Commissioner

Government response to the reports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of:

Bob Robertson, and

Christopher Ingram

notice of declaration of inconsistency: Prohibition on display of gang insignia in public in the Gangs Act 2024

direction to support a whole-of-Government approach to administrative data improvements

International Labour Organization, report of the New Zealand Government Delegates to the 114^th session of the International Labour Conference, Geneva, June 2026

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER: Fifty-nine select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. I’ll just ask members to keep their conversations very, very low. Some of them are quite audible at the moment.

CLERK (14:05):

Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the

2024-25 annual review of the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology (formerly Te Pūkenga)

petition of Keely Cairns: Recognise and resource Hindi as a language option within NZ Schools

report of the Environment Committee on the petition of Consumer NZ: Require product repairability labels

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Chatham Islands Council: Inquiry into sensitive expenditure and procurement

report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the petition of New Zealand Values Alliance

reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the

inquiry into Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s fleet management and related issues

whole-of-Government direction to centralise digital investment and procurement decision-making

reports of the Health Committee on the

briefing from the Prostate Cancer Foundation

briefing on blood cancers

briefing on genetic discrimination in insurance

petition of Jas Mcintosh

report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Providing equitable access to planned care treatment

report of the Ombudsman, OPCAT Aged Care Monitoring, Chief Ombudsman’s Observations 2021-2024

reports of the Ombudsman, OIA timeliness obligations: Compliance and practice in Health New Zealand and Pharmaceutical Management Agency

reports of the Justice Committee on the

Overseas Adoptions Legislation Bill

Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill

reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the

briefing on Treaty settlement legislation and Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, How public organisations are fulfilling Treaty settlements

report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Improving the public service’s capability to engage with Māori

reports of the Petitions Committee on the

petition of Aida Tavassoli

petition of Arthur Anae

petition of Benjamin Sims

petition of Brian Webb

petition of Byron Donaldson

petition of Consumer NZ

petition of Diane Cross

petition of Donna Dabinett

petition of Ian McLean QSO

petition of Louisa Wall

petition of Matt Youl

petition of Melissa Ewart

petition of Michelle Pyke

petition of Nicola Harris

petition of Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa

petition of Ross Hoole

petition of SAFE on behalf of Commissioner for Animals alliance

petition of Shane Sharma

petition of Tamati Warmington

petition of William Rea

petition of Zhide Zhao

petitions of Erika Whittome

reports of the Primary Production Committee on the

briefing on the New Zealand wool industry

petition of John Hellstrom

petitions of NZ Vegetarian Society and Vegan Society of Aotearoa

reports of the Regulations Review Committee on the

briefing on cost-recovery instruments made under section 130 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003

briefing on occupational licensing

complaint about the Customs and Excise (Goods Management Levies) Order 2025 and the Biosecurity (Import Levies and Commercial Vessel Levy) Order 2026

complaint about the Electricity Industry Participation Code 2010

complaint about the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 and the Vehicle Use and Parking Bylaw 2025

reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the

briefing on the Integrated Data Infrastructure

report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Effectiveness of arrangements for reducing child poverty

report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders 2026

reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the

briefing on the conduct of the Civil Aviation Authority

briefing to hear from the Commerce Commission

petition of Andrei Moore

petition of Rochelle Zajko

petition of Whakatāne District Grey Power Association

review briefing on the 2024-25 annual reviews of Genesis Energy Ltd, Mercury NZ Ltd, and Meridian Energy Ltd.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The briefings and reports of the Controller and Auditor-General and Ombudsman, the complaints, and Review of Standing Orders 2026 are set down for consideration.

Bills

Inspector-General of Police Legislation Amendment Bill

Research, Science, Innovation, and Technology Bill

Broadcasting (Disestablishment of Broadcasting Standards Authority) Amendment Bill

Introduction

SPEAKER: The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of three bills.

CLERK (14:09):

Inspector-General of Police Legislation Amendment Bill, introduction

Research, Science, Innovation, and Technology Bill, introduction

Broadcasting (Disestablishment of Broadcasting Standards Authority) Amendment Bill, introduction.

Points of Order

Speaker's Rulings—Discharge of Bills Under Urgency

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (14:09): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thanks very much for coming back to the House on the matter that occurred during urgency. I think it is, certainly, an issue that warrants further consideration, and given the timing of the parliamentary term, it is appropriate that it is for the next Parliament and the Business Committee within it to consider it. I note your reference to Speaker’s ruling 15/4, which is appropriate, but during our exchanges and points of order during urgency, we also referenced 15/5, and the Government indicating to the Speaker that it doesn’t intend to continue with urgency and specifically that if no member moves the introduction of a bill, then that can be taken as such an indication. It might be useful for a future Business Committee to get your thoughts on whether that Speakers’ ruling should also be considered as part of those deliberations.

SPEAKER: I thank the member for that, it was a difficult situation during the urgency period. I do think that is something the Standing Orders Committee should consider at the earliest convenience, or the Business Committee if it’s sooner. It’s a gap that we have discovered in the Standing Orders that should not be there.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister

Question No. 1

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:10) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:10): Yes, and especially our decision to restore interest deductibility, which has led to the lowest rent increases in 20 years, after rents went up $180 a week under the Labour Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How many of the 33 pay equity claims his Government extinguished unilaterally, under urgency, have been settled under the regime that he told this House was now “workable and affordable”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As you know, we made a much more workable, sustainable pay-equity programme. We have those laws in place, and people are free to put claims forward. I am aware of a couple that are going through at the moment. But if I can come back to the member with an answer, I’m happy to do so. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, who’s asking the question?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: How does cutting a further 8,700 public sector jobs help New Zealand families who are struggling with the cost of living, when there are already tens of thousands of fewer people in employment today than when he became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll tell you what does help families that are struggling with the cost of living: not putting more taxes on them. When you see a capital gains tax that’s going to hit businesses and Kiwis up and down the country; when you think about a bed tax where two thirds of it will be paid for by New Zealanders—that’s not the way forward. No new taxes is the way forward, in which we get people to keep more of their own money, in their own pocket.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If he’s committed to no new taxes, why is he proposing to increase fuel tax by 25c per litre?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well it’s not a new tax; it’s an existing mechanism. We’ve said very clearly, we won’t have it in place. But, as I note, the member is very excited about tax. Which roads are you going to cut to have $4.5 billion? I am looking forward to seeing the $18 billion worth of new taxes that will fund all the unfunded spending that he has on the plan.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will it be cheaper or more expensive for a young New Zealander to begin an apprenticeship or a degree next year than it was when he became Prime Minister, particularly given tuition fees alone are up by almost 20 percent since he became Prime Minister?

Hon Simeon Brown: Are you bringing back fees free? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Excuse me, just one person answering.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He’s practising for Opposition already.

SPEAKER: That doesn’t help order. Or give comfort to the Speaker. The right honourable Prime Minister.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, actually, that’s what—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker. Does he stand by his statement in the House just last week that “most importantly, wages will be growing faster than inflation and prices”; if so, why do the latest treasury forecasts suggest it’s going to be at least two more years of pain for working New Zealanders before that happens?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member, isn’t it exciting that we had a 2.6 percent GDP growth over the last year. Isn’t it fantastic to see manufacturing on full song and actually doing incredibly well. Isn’t it great to see services returning to expansion, a record number of exports, tourism back on track again, wholesale electricity prices going down 35 percent, and building consents up over 20 percent. Look at the progress we’re making on construction and jobs, there, too.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When real wages have fallen; power prices have been going up; insurance prices have been going up; rates have been going up; and other household costs, like food, have been going up—all by more than 20 percent under his leadership in just the last two years—will he now admit that the cost of living crisis is not only not over, it’s been getting worse under his leadership?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I refute the characterisation in that question, but what I’d say to the member is that if he feels so strongly about rates increases, why doesn’t he come out and reverse his position again and vote for the rates cap.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether or not he knows anyone, or if anyone’s been reported to his department, who took 34 months to understand the interest deductibility policy?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I think the member raises a very, very good question, which is that under the previous administration, rents went up $180 a week, and that hurts working New Zealanders. Under this Government, we’ve restored interest deductibility, and, lo and behold, we’ve had the lowest rent increases in 25 years.

Prime Minister

Question No. 2

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

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:15): Yes, and especially our decision never to introduce a capital gains tax.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does he think that New Zealand fell in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index in 2025?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m actually proud of the actual policies that we have in place to make sure we manage conflicts, the way that we engage with stakeholders from all sorts as we develop policy. I’m actually proud of that progress.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree that we need better regulation of lobbying practices, and, if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, it’s not something that I’ve considered deeply at this point, but I’d just say to the member: I notice that, you know, there’s a lot of union influence on Green Party policy, and I don’t know what the definition of a lobbyist would be under their proposal, but that’s something that I’m sure they’d give consideration to.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So does he not agree, then, with his finance Minister, who in 2024 said, “There’s more that should be done” on regulating lobbying, and, if so, why has nothing been done—but, worse than that, his Government came to office and stalled work that was already under way to regulate lobbying?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I just reject the assertion in that question. This is a Government that’s made sure that we’ve got great conflict management, particularly in respect to how our Cabinet and our Ministers operate. We’re very proud of that. Of course, if there are things that we can do to improve going forward, we should all be up for that conversation. But I just put it to the member: how are you going to classify a unionist? Are they a lobbyist?

Hon Members: Yes!

Hon David Seymour: Would the Prime Minister—

Hon Chris Bishop: Oh, OK—Greenpeace?

SPEAKER: Just a moment—

Hon Chris Bishop: No more meeting with Greenpeace—your mates.

SPEAKER: Woah, hold on. You don’t want to make it two weeks in a row, do you? I’ve called David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: Would the Prime Minister characterise free business-class trips to London, paid for by a lobby group, as lobbying?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m not in the best place to do that, but we make all of our diaries transparent and it’s on the record as to who we meet with, and that’s a good thing.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he expect his office’s failure to record lobbying from Fonterra and Z Energy on climate liability to improve or worsen the public’s perception of corruption?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, look, I think the public can be very reassured that this is a Government that’s been highly transparent. We release our diaries, we have very good conflict management processes in place, and I’m pleased at the progress we’ve made.

Hon Nicola Willis: Has the Prime Minister given consideration to proposals by some parties that donations of over $30,000 be banned, and is he aware that those same parties have received multiple donations over that amount in this very term of Parliament—could this be a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, those are obviously decisions left for individual parties, but I’d just say if they believe so strongly, they should reject those donations; particularly, I’ve seen ones of $100,000, $132,000—send them back.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister comfortable with the average hard-working New Zealander paying double the effective tax rate of multi-multimillionaires and billionaires?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’m absolutely comfortable with is that I’ve got a Government that doesn’t labour them up with new taxes. That’s really important, because the single biggest thing we can do is let New Zealanders keep more of their own money in their back pocket to spend it as they see fit and with their own choice.

Hon David Seymour: Did the Prime Minister consider it improper lobbying when members of the Government such as Chris Bishop and Simon Court met with Greenpeace and Forest & Bird and the World Wide Fund for Nature in preparing the resource management laws which will triumphantly pass this afternoon?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, and I just say, you know, the member raised this issue last week and he was dead right. I mean, which Government wouldn’t want to talk to as broad a set of Kiwis as possible when they develop policy?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why should hard-working New Zealanders pay income tax on every dollar that they earn while those who earn millions from returns on investment don’t?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well we just think the best way forward is to grow the economy, make life more affordable for people, and invest in the things that will set the country up for our kids and our grandkids. The way forward is not to spend more, tax more, borrow more, as all the Opposition parties propose to do.

SPEAKER: Can I just say that the people supporting the questioner don’t really need to do the bellowing that they are to get the points made.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why does the Prime Minister declare that it is “communism” when the Greens propose divestment of the supermarket duopoly, but not “communism” when his party proposes exactly the same thing?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I’m very happy to get into that with the member—I mean, there’s a very big difference with bureaucrats running a supermarket that’s costing us $3 billion and then finding the taxes and increasing taxes to fund that $3 billion versus letting the market actually compete more strongly.

Finance

Question No. 3

NANCY LU (National) (14:20) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on rental prices?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:20): Stats New Zealand’s monthly selected price indexes came out on Friday. These showed annual rent increases of—wait for it—zero. This, members, is the lowest annual rent inflation in the history of the data series, which goes back 20 years. In comparison, rent inflation when this Government came into office in 2023 was 4.3 percent a year. At the time of note, there was no interest deductibility for residential rental properties, despite officials warning that that policy setting—which flies in the face of good tax policy—could reduce rental supply and put upward pressure on rents. Well, our Government listened to that advice and restored interest deductibility, and, of course, the lesson, members, is that housing tax settings have real consequences for Kiwi renters.

Nancy Lu: Has there been any criticism of the Government’s policy to restore interest deductibility?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Oh, yes, there was a constant barrage of criticism from some people about so-called “tax cuts for landlords”. This was nonsense, of course, as tax should be paid on profit, not on revenue, and so the Government was simply restoring normal business tax settings. None the less, “tax cuts for landlords” became a mantra that was recited ad nauseam, with one member of Parliament stating that “This Government has consistently made the wrong choices. They’ve prioritised tax cuts for landlords.”, another stating that “We certainly wouldn’t be giving tax breaks to landlords.”, another saying that “It makes no sense to me.”, and another saying that “It’s about what you choose to prioritise.” Those members were all members of the Labour Party.

SPEAKER: Yeah, good—OK.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: They should eat their words.

SPEAKER: Well, you know the rules about using supplementaries to attack the Opposition, and so we’ll go straight to question No. 4, the Hon Barbara Edmonds. [Interruption] Yeah, no one else talk while your member, your Minister, your—

Hon Barbara Edmonds: “Minister”—yeah!

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Not yet—a few more weeks.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well it could be months or it could be years—you never know—but the Hon Barbara Edmonds.

Finance

Question No. 4

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:23) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:23): Yes, particularly this Government’s decision to restore interest deductibility, a decision which has proven the test of time.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is real GDP per capita higher or lower since she became Minister of Finance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I traversed in detail in the House this week, the New Zealand economy had a protracted downturn which, in part—according to an independent review released today—was because of monetary policy mistakes made by the Reserve Bank under the mandate of the previous Government. Subsequently, however, as our policies have come into effect, we have seen real GDP per capita grow more strongly, reaching almost 2 percent in the previous year, which shows that as our policies come into effect, growth is recovering.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is unemployment higher or lower since she became Minister of Finance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as the independent review into monetary policy makes clear today, ill-judged decisions by the Reserve Bank in response to COVID, in part enabled by the loosening of the guard rails by the previous Government, meant that unemployment is now higher than it was during the pandemic, and this independent report notes that that could have been prevented if better guard rails had been in place and better decisions had been made by the Reserve Bank. We all share the intention for more Kiwis to be in work, and it is my view that more Kiwis would be in work today if the Reserve Bank hadn’t made such terrible mistakes under the guidance of the previous Government.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the cost of living higher or lower since she became Minister of Finance?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, that depends on which aspect you’re looking at, and for which household. For households who have received tax reduction, it is the case that their incomes are higher than they would otherwise be. For renters, the fact that rent increases have reduced so dramatically and have been zero in the past year, that is better for their cost of living. What is clear, overall, from our policy programme is also that targeting inflation and not letting it reach 7.3 percent, as it did under the last Government, during which it went out of target for 33 months—that, fundamentally, is what’s required to ensure that the cost of living is controlled; and that’s also combined with very clear stats that show that, under the previous Government’s watch, food price inflation reached over 12 percent, and today it’s at 1.9 percent. This shows that orthodox economics matters and you ignore it at your peril.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, when she promised to get the economy moving, to get people back into work, and to lower the cost of living has she failed to meet her promises and has just made things worse?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I’d utterly reject that conclusion. What is very clear, based on the independent analysis of experts, is that decisions made by the previous Government made the downturn following COVID much, much worse and much longer than needed to be the case. Our Government has heeded the lessons of history. We have restored a single mandate for the Reserve Bank, we have brought spending under control, we have restored inflation targeting, and the worst decision that New Zealanders could make is to go back to the policies that created hardship in the first place. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Good. Whenever we’re all ready.

Prime Minister

Question No. 5

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:27) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:27): Yes, and particularly our decision not to introduce a gift or death tax.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree with his response to my question on 15 September 2026 that “The best way to meet our obligations under the Treaty is to focus on delivering better outcomes for Māori, and that’s what this Government has been doing.”?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, I do. I think actually delivering improved outcomes rather than just performative statements is always a good course of action.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he think that increasing the Māori unemployment rate from 6.8 percent in 2023 to 10.8 percent in 2026 is a better outcome for Māori?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: There is more work to do, as we’ve just talked about. We’ve got spending under control, we’ve got inflation down, we’ve got interest rates down, we’ve got an economy growing, and what follows after that is growth and employment, and that’s a good thing. We look forward to all of that happening, but what I am proud about is Māori youth offending is down 28 percent.

Rawiri Waititi: There it is. Does he think that having tamariki Māori experiencing severe material hardship at double the national rate is a better outcome for Māori, and, if not, what is he doing to address the Children’s Commissioner’s call for a Tiriti-led approach to child poverty reduction?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, that’s why I’m very proud that we’ve taken 1,000 plus Māori families out of emergency housing. That’s been really important for them.

Rawiri Waititi: How can he continue to deflect legitimate questions around his Government’s constant attack on Te Tiriti o Waitangi by saying that he is focused on better outcomes for Māori when outcomes for Māori have only got worse over the past three years?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject outright that proposition. I mean, the number of tamariki Māori immunised at 24 months is up from 60 percent to 71.5 percent. I’m sure the member would think that would be a good thing.

Housing

Question No. 6

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (14:28) to the Minister of Housing: Is the Government considering removing interest deductibility on residential property?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing) (14:29): As I’ve said eight or nine times now in the last month or so, no.

Rima Nakhle: Is the Government considering introducing a capital gains tax and removing interest deductibility on residential property?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: They can’t talk about anything they’ve done because they’ve done nothing.

SPEAKER: Hang on, wait a minute. Interjections should be rare and reasonable, the Hon Sepuloni, not a barrage like that before the Minister even starts.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: That wasn’t a barrage. You haven’t heard it.

SPEAKER: If Dr Megan Woods is threatening a barrage, then I’ll just say this answer is to be heard in silence.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No. The Government is not considering what some would call a double tax quagmire. A capital gains tax plus removal of interest deductibility creates a double tax, because they both apply to the same income. In 2021, when interest deductibility was removed, the previous Government had an explicit carve-out to allow deductions when the property was taxable on sale. That comes directly from the IRD’s 2021 regulatory impact statement (RIS).

Rima Nakhle: What reports has he seen on interest deductibility?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I have seen many reports. Obviously, there is the classic, the IRD’s 2021 regulatory impact statement, but there have been many reports over the last three years of people calling interest deductibility a so-called tax cut for landlords. It seems that position no longer holds.

Rima Nakhle: What other reports has he seen on interest deductibility?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, let me quote from the IRD’s 2021 regulatory impact statement. The first point was the recommendation: don’t do it. IRD said every option to remove or limit interest deductions on residential property was worse than the status quo. They said it would put upward pressure on rents; have negative impacts on housing supply and high compliance costs for 250,000 taxpayers; and erode the coherence of the tax system. They said the people who would pay would be leveraged property investors but also renters, including low-income households, young people, Māori and Pacific peoples, and the 42 percent of children who live in rental homes. The highest performing criteria in the RIS was raising tax.

Education

Question No. 7

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (14:32) to the Minister of Education: Is she confident that her staff and her officials have always met their obligations under the Official Information Act 1982; if so, why?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:32): With respect to my staff, I’ve always made my expectations clear that we are to comply with the Official Information Act (OIA) and have done so to the best of our ability. Regarding officials at the Ministry of Education, I’ve also made my expectations clear that they are to comply with the OIA. My staff and I have never suggested or directed otherwise. I’m aware of recent media about a particular ministry official, and I have reiterated to the Secretary of Education the importance of complying with the Official Information Act. I’m confident that she is taking this matter seriously. She’s contacted the Public Service Commissioner and the Ombudsman, she’s undertaking an internal review, and an internal employment process is under way.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Who instructed her senior official to tell staff working on the curriculum rewrite to refrain from putting information in writing to hide that it went “backwards and forwards” between the ministry and the Minister’s office?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, as I’ve already raised in my primary answer, neither myself or any of my staff have ever either intimated or asked anybody not to comply with the OIA. What I can say, though, is the Secretary of Education is undertaking an internal review to get to the bottom of this.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Was the political adviser in her office aware of the arrangement with the Ministry of Education not to put feedback from her office in writing in order to avoid the Official Information Act?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Absolutely not.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Check your Gmail.

SPEAKER: Just one person asking a question only.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why, then, did her senior official state, “What we do not need is anything in response in writing that shows that this stuff has gone backwards and forwards between them and us.” when talking about her office’s involvement in developing the curriculum?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well, this meeting that is being talked about in the media is in relation to the 74 Phase 5 curriculum documents that have been finalised and are needing ministerial sign-off. It is an entirely normal process for all documents that come from the Ministry of Education to go first to the Ministry of Education private secretary, who is seconded to my office and who is not a political staffer. It is their role to ensure that the documents make sense before they are processed through to the Minister, and they asked questions about the material in anticipation of any questions I might ask. This is a normal process for any papers that come to my office. These papers have not been given to me or my political staff as yet to sign out or to review, but I expect that all of these processes are covered by the OIA, and anybody who is suggesting that they are not is now going to go through a process with the Secretary of Education.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Does she expect New Zealanders to actually believe that her senior official was acting entirely on her own, and, if so, will she commit to proactively releasing all communications between her office and ministry officials regarding the curriculum, including summaries of instructions that weren’t provided in writing?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: We will always comply with the Official Information Act, and if any of those requests come to our office, we will comply with them, as we always have done.

Revenue

Question No. 8

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (14:36) to the Minister of Revenue: Is the Government considering implementing a comprehensive capital gains tax?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue) (14:36): Any form of capital gains tax would, in fact, be the wrong move, and Kiwi households and businesses will pay more. That is why we are not considering a comprehensive capital gains tax.

Catherine Wedd: Has he seen any reports on a comprehensive capital gains tax?

Hon SIMON WATTS: As a matter of fact, I have. I’ve seen recent reports by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions with input from Craig Renney, calling for one with work behind it. The sad reality is that this report is completely detached from the reality Kiwis are facing. Kiwis need a growing economy that creates jobs and lifts wages, so that they have more money in their back pockets, not a comprehensive capital gains tax that will take money away from them.

Catherine Wedd: What is the difference between a comprehensive capital gains tax and a capital gains tax?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, any capital gains tax in any form would hurt Kiwi households and businesses. A comprehensive capital gains tax, however, would apply to potentially all types of assets, including KiwiSaver, shares, land, and the family home. If a comprehensive capital gains tax or any capital gains tax is introduced, it would be to the detriment of every hard-working New Zealander.

Catherine Wedd: Would a capital gains tax be bad for the hard-working Kiwis in the fruit bowl of New Zealand?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, a capital gains tax would be bad for all New Zealanders. If one was to be introduced, anyone with a home, a business, an orchard, or a store would face new costs. That means less money to invest higher and to grow, and less opportunities for economic growth. The responsible thing for any Government to do is to not introduce any new taxes.

Public Service and Digitising Government

Question No. 9

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (14:38) to the Minister for the Public Service and Digitising Government: What public services, if any, on which Kiwis rely is the Government planning to cut?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Acting Minister for the Public Service and Digitising Government) (14:38): None.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How will cutting almost 9,000 jobs, including services that Kiwis rely on, help families with the cost of living?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As the member well knows, the member is assuming that fewer staff automatically means worse or fewer services. We want to ensure we’re investing in high-quality public services that are modern, focused, productive, and financially sustainable over the long term, with a core focus on front-line delivery. We also want to be attracting high-quality talent and ensuring the Public Service is always an attractive place to work. Our goal is better services and better value for money, not fewer services.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When he said to Mike Hosking last week, “We need to keep going further. There is no question about that.”, did he mean he would cut even more jobs?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Now, on behalf of the Minister for the Public Service and Digitising Government, the Minister is focused on making sure that we get efficiency out of Government expenditure, because, ultimately, every single dollar that the Government spends is paid for by taxpayers, and they expect to get good services and they expect money to be spent wisely.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Now that Public Service chief executives have reported back, what programmes will he cut?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: As I said in the primary answer, the Government is not cutting public services.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why should New Zealanders trust a Government who promised public service cuts won’t impact the front-line services, and who now face crowded emergency departments, nursing vacancies, and a crumbling fire service?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This Government is focused on ensuring we get good outcomes and improved outcomes. The previous Government saw the number of public servants in the core public service grow from around 47,000 to more than 65,000—three times faster than the workforce at large. Ultimately, at the same time, people saw their public services and the outcomes go backwards across health, across education, across law and order, and we are turning that around, focused on outcomes, focused on value for money, and making sure that every single dollar of taxpayers’ money is respected.

Resources

Question No. 10

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (14:41) to the Minister for Resources: What reports, if any, has he seen on the resources sector?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (14:41) Multiple reports. Of course, we set an ambitious target to double New Zealand’s exports in a decade and I can report, within three years, sadly, my characteristic modesty called me to underestimate the period of time that would elapse before we achieved $3.1 billion worth of product to the world, 5,520 jobs, and now the sector represents export revenue that has jumped ahead of export sectors such as wine and seafood. It is an extraordinarily positive result reflective of a deregulatory approach and not backing down or cowering in the face of misinformation from ill-informed green creatures.

Jenny Marcroft: Why is the resources sector important to the regional economy?

Hon SHANE JONES: The regional economies are the backbone. They are happy that I record in this House that mining is responsible for 22 percent of economic activity in the Hauraki region, despite the presence of certain discordant, loud, ill-informed voices; 17 percent in Buller; 27 percent of GDP in Waitaki. Now, of course, those who want to stop this legitimate activity of mining, and hobble the growth of those regions, do not take account of the unemployment, social dislocation that takes place in the absence of this industry. Of course, because we have stopped the weaponisation of contrivances related to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and the catastrophising of green things, we’re full steam ahead.

Jenny Marcroft: How many petroleum and mineral permits were approved in the last year and how does that compare to previous years?

Hon SHANE JONES: I’m extraordinarily happy to report that in 2025, there were 434 petroleum and mineral permit approvals, the highest number on record. Of course, that has been a steep climb to recover from the fateful day that this industry was cancelled. The momentum is continuing, and, since the beginning of 2024, more than 1,000 permits have been issued. This Government is bringing about the golden age of extraction, and we mean to continue at pace.

Jenny Marcroft: Why has there been such strong growth in the extractive sector under this Government?

Hon SHANE JONES: Undoubtedly related in part to my advocacy—worked tirelessly against considerable challenges of misinformation. But we’ve sought to bring confidence back into New Zealand for investors. Yes, there may be loud voices jumping up and down on Queen Street, but they have no conception that without the extractive sector, all of the tools, the accoutrements, the gadgets that they flash around would not be possible. Investment follows confidence, and confidence is built on not only clear policy but clarity from politicians; not saying one thing on a Tuesday, doing something on a Wednesday, or—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Tell us about the oil and gas ban.

Hon SHANE JONES: —sorry, I won’t respond to more Luddite contributions—

SPEAKER: No, just conclude the answer. It’s been a long one.

Hon SHANE JONES: I beg your pardon?

SPEAKER: I just suggest you conclude it shortly. I mean, we’re all very impressed by the modesty being exhibited, but—

Hon SHANE JONES: The mineral sector is no longer treated like a red-haired stepchild and has returned to its rightful place at the centre of New Zealand’s economic narrative. Not only is this good news but it shows after the last three years, we are at the forefront of nations who are prepared to use our extractive resources, including oil and gas, to overcome these fairytales that the lights will stay on purely through green dreams.

Agriculture

Question No. 11

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) (14:46) to the Minister of Agriculture: Is the Government considering a comprehensive capital gains tax on farms and orchards?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture) (14:46): No. Not only have we ruled out a comprehensive capital gains tax on farms and orchards; we’ve ruled out any new taxes. The Government is keeping taxes low so all New Zealanders, including rural New Zealand, can keep more of what they earn and have more choices about what they and their families can spend their money on.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What reports has he seen about a capital gains tax on farms and orchards?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, I’ve seen a report from Craig Renney of the Council of Trade Unions that talks about a tax system that ensures all sources of income, including capital, are properly taxed. It says the starting point is to introduce, and I quote, “a comprehensive capital gains tax”. It’s clear that this would include farms, forests, orchards, packhouses, farmhouses—everything. This would significantly harm the New Zealand farming sector. That’s why the Government has ruled out any new taxes.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Has he seen any other reports about a capital gains tax?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, yes. An expert at the Auckland University of Technology said economists have identified potential downsides, including the added compliance costs, valuation challenges, and incentives for investors to defer asset sales. A capital gains tax would increase uncertainty and add considerable cost to farmers and growers—complexity that they would either have to absorb or pass on to consumers and households. That’s why we’ve ruled out a capital gains tax, a land tax, a wealth tax, a ute tax, a fertiliser tax, a methane tax—in fact, every one of the taxes that we’ve been hearing about for rural New Zealand and all New Zealanders.

Dana Kirkpatrick: Has he seen any other reports about taxes on farms and orchards?

Hon TODD McCLAY: I’ve seen questions about the effects a capital gains tax would have on rural New Zealand. For instance, would worker accommodation on an orchard be included if a house was exempt? Would the worker accommodation that was near a farm be included or not? Would a dairy farm be included if it didn’t have a house? What about a processing facility on a farm or nearby? The primary sector will be responsible for $64 billion worth of exports this year, and they are already taxed enough. That’s why we will not introduce any new taxes, including no capital gains tax.

Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Question No. 12

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (14:49) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Is the Government’s policy still “sustainable food price increases”, as he has stated, and is that why the Government has been unable to increase competition in New Zealand’s supermarket sector dominated by two giants with 80 percent market share?

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (14:49): I reject the premise of that question. The Government has done many things to increase competition in the grocery sector. As the Commerce Commission and OECD have identified in numerous reports, this is a highly concentrated market with significant barriers to entry. The Government has acted on those barriers by making it easier to build supermarkets, strengthening supplier protections and competition sectors, and commissioning detailed analysis of structural reform. But there is still much more to do. That is why we commissioned the cost-benefit analysis, which identified restructuring Foodstuffs as an option worth testing for consumer benefit.

Arena Williams: Why has the Government made no move to respond to its own official advice to break up the supermarket duopoly that he referred to just then?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: We have commissioned a cost-benefit analysis—an independent cost-benefit analysis—which sits on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website for all to consider. What the Opposition had was a chance of six years to push through reforms, and, as we know, food prices, in one year alone, increased 12.5 percent in the year to June 2023; that compares to just 1.9 percent under this administration, in the year to July 2026.

Arena Williams: Is it a surprise to him that food prices are still higher under this Government, with lamb up 28 percent, mince up 36 percent, and beef steak up 39 percent, when the Government’s only concrete action on supermarkets actually benefits the incumbent supermarket giants by fast tracking and centralising their consents, as he has read out to this House?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: Again, this Government is doing a lot more than the last Government achieved, and the fact that the increases in food prices have slowed is evidence of that. I know the member likes waving around tins of spaghetti, but, under this Government, spaghetti has actually fallen; under that Government, in one single year, a tin of spaghetti increased by nearly 35 percent.

Arena Williams: Where is the third entrant that Nicola Willis said she wanted to get on and work with to get them in the door, who she would do a deal with to give them the VIP treatment?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: What we won’t be doing, as—[Interruption] oh, well, if we want to look at new entrants, you can have a look at the Annual Grocery Report, and, as the member knows, that Annual Grocery Report shows a number of entrants coming in and competition increasing. It shows a lot of middle-sized supermarkets coming in, such as Kai Co, for example; it shows—

Arena Williams: Because of the last Government’s regime.

SPEAKER: Woah, woah!

Hon CAMERON BREWER: —the impacts of Costco; and it shows the impacts of the likes of the Chemist Warehouse on different category ranges.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that, in the past year, the following foods have reduced in price: chicken, pork, bacon, tomatoes, lettuce, butter, and eggs; and does the Minister have any view on why those somewhat significant reductions—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a minute. That was a question being asked. You don’t call out or interject when a question is being asked. Please start the question again.

Hon Nicola Willis: Can the Minister confirm that, in the last 12 months, the following foods have reduced in price, according to Stats NZ data: chicken, pork, bacon, tomatoes, lettuce, butter, and eggs; and has it occurred to the Minister that the member asking him questions today from the Opposition regularly fails to mention those facts?

SPEAKER: You are not responsible for other members’ questions. The first part of the question may get some response.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I can confirm those increases—[Interruption] ah, decreases, at least. The increase I can confirm is the 22 percent that fruit and vegetables went up in the year to June 2023 under Labour—22 percent. That compares to a 1 percent decrease in fruit and vegetables in the year to July under this Government. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment—just a moment. We’ll go back on this side of the House, so we’ll go to Ricardo Menéndez March.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he support the creation of KiwiMart, a publicly owned, fair competitor with a starting market share of 15 percent, to immediately compete with the supermarket duopoly and bring down food prices?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I do not agree with any concept that might be named “Pak ’N Soviet”, nor would we agree to or lead a wholesale-retail split. That is because analysis commissioned by MBIE under the previous Government ranked wholesale-retail split the lowest of every option considered and called it—this is MBIE—“fundamentally flawed.” The Commerce Commission found a wholesale-retail split was not “necessary or desirable”.

Hon David Seymour: Does the Minister stand by the answers to his last three questions that many new competitors are entering the market at the margin; that critical food prices are falling, as he answered in response to the Minister of Finance, and that heavy-handed Government intervention might be described as “Soviet”; and if so, what does he make of proposals for heavy-handed intervention in the market?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I welcome that question and I can confirm that we as a Government, a tripartite Government, agreed in Cabinet to commission an independent cost-benefit analysis, which identified restructuring Foodstuffs as an option worth further testing for consumer benefit. Not only can we thank the National Party Cabinet Ministers and New Zealand First New Cabinet Ministers—

SPEAKER: Yeah, good. Just get on with it.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: —but also the ACT Party Cabinet Ministers.

SPEAKER: Yeah, excellent. Arena Williams—we’ll go side to side.

Arena Williams: Is the price of a basket of goods from the supermarket lower today than on the day that Nicola Willis promised to lower grocery prices?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: Food prices have increased at a much slower rate under the last three years compared to the last three years of a Labour Government. In the last three years, under a National - ACT - New Zealand First Government, food prices increased 6.8 percent—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just, sorry—just stop.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: In the last three years of Labour—

SPEAKER: Stop—stop.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: —they increased nearly 22 percent.

SPEAKER: OK, well, if you’re not going to follow instructions to stop, then you’re going to get the barrage all through the question.

Hon Nicola Willis: Is the Minister aware of reports received from orthodox economists at the IMF and the OECD highlighting that New Zealand’s grocery sector is a global anomaly in its degree of consolidation and recommending that pro-competition measures are needed to address these challenges, including, in the OECD’s case, a specific recommendation that structural solutions may be required?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: Yes.

Arena Williams: Are the small grocers gaining market share from the incumbent supermarket giants that the Minister has pointed to accessing wholesale because of the Labour Government’s rules for grocery supply?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: We can see—and I know you like props—in the 2025 grocery report that the middle-sized players are making a small difference. Yes, we’ve got a lot of work to do, but we also know any proposal, whether hypothetical or not, to split wholesale and retail is not going to work, nor was it what they commissioned in the previous Labour administration, where MBIE and the Commerce Commission spoke out against it.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister aware of the country of Finland, which has a similar population, topography, and size to New Zealand and has two supermarket chains with 82.5 percent market share, and yet their Ministers have all read widely and resisted getting their knickers in a knot about supermarket concentration?

SPEAKER: This should be a very brief answer.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: Again, as the Minister of Finance has said, we have commissioned independent analysis that has made several suggestions and shows exactly what can be achieved, and a future Government will have the ability to unleash the Commerce Commission to look at this and make recommendations.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does he agree with Daniel Shields, owner of chilled distribution company Cool & Fresh, who said, “We’re probably one of the only countries in the world where individual supermarket owners can be on the rich list.”; if so, why won’t he back a publicly owned supermarket that prioritises affordability instead of letting their owners go into the rich list while Kiwis struggle to put food on the table?

SPEAKER: A brief answer.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: We will not support “Pak ’N Soviet”.

Arena Williams: If the Minister is so convinced of the efficacy of a supermarket break-up, as his own officials have advised, why won’t he move to do that now?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: As has been articulated, the independent analysis is on the MBIE website. This Government will seek a mandate and then we will unleash the Commerce Commission to do the necessary work. If there are benefits for the New Zealand consumer, then we will proceed. We make no apology for putting more competition into the supermarket sector in New Zealand and backing New Zealand consumers.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Have any of the actions he has taken enabled a third competitor with enough of a market share to genuinely compete with the duopoly and bring food prices down, or will he just use terms like “Pak ’N Soviet” to hide the fact that his actions haven’t resulted in meaningfully lowering food prices?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: Again, I’m happy to articulate what we’ve done as far as opening the fast-track process to supermarkets, creating a nationwide consent pathway, increasing penalties for fair-trading breaches, and, of course, making it easier for new entrants to use proven supermarket designs. We will continue to turn every stone over to get a better deal for New Zealand consumers.

Hon Nicola Willis: Does the Minister agree that a fundamental underpinning principle of effective market capitalism is workable competition that ensures that suppliers and owners in an economy are competing to offer the best deal to consumers, and that it should be enforced by a Commerce Commission and competition regulator, or does he prefer the Soviet preference for monopolies and duopolies?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: Yes, creating more competition is the best way to lower prices, not asking a regulator to decide the correct pricing. If, for example—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a moment. Minister, sorry. What’s wrong over there? [Interruption] Well, then, just keep the noise to reasonable interjection, not screaming and yelling. And wind it up quickly.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: Yep. Thank you, Mr Speaker. If, say, just hypothetically, banning price gouging actually worked, it would have been done a long time ago. In fact, Australia’s experiences—

Arena Williams: It was in every other country!

SPEAKER: Woah. Listen, just stop again. Hang on. That’s just completely unnecessary. That’s just straight out yelling and screaming. Are you finished?

Hon David Seymour: Was he aware the Soviet Union allowed duopolies before just now?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: Again, I want to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for helping us to commission that work that’s now on MBIE’s website. I hope he reads it closely, and, after the election, I hope he can help us push play on getting a better deal for consumers.

SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. Before I call on the Hon Ginny Andersen to move a matter of urgent public business, we’ll just take a slight break while all those who need to leave the House for other activities and other parliamentary business can do so quietly and very quickly, please.

Debates

Ministry of Education—Official Information Act

Urgent Debate

SPEAKER: I call on the Hon Ginny Andersen to move to ask the House to take note of a matter of urgent public business.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (15:06): I move, That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to raise this issue of importance. I think it’s important to note, for those people who aren’t aware of what has been conveyed in the media this morning, that a senior education official working on the Government’s curriculum update has told staff within the Ministry of Education not to put their work in writing that they were discussing on the curriculum changes with the Minister of Education’s office so that it couldn’t be uncovered by the Official Information Act. This is an issue of serious importance for New Zealand’s democracy, for the neutrality of our Public Service, and for accountability within Government. It also goes to the heart of people having trust and confidence in our Government institutions and encouraging people to be engaged with democracy.

The person in question, the senior official, said, “This is them helping us.” Those are the words that were used. “This is them helping us. What we do not need is anything in response in writing that shows that this stuff has gone backwards and forwards between them and us.” The senior official in question said that she would present feedback as, “just some feedback from me.”, implying that it was actually from the Minister or her office, and the official was saying that it would be from her instead.

Now, this is a clear attempt to avoid transparency, and it is a clear attempt to hide the Minister’s involvement in determining the exact content of what our children learn in the school curriculum. It is absolutely inconceivable that this Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, had no knowledge of this, as she tried to point out today. What this tells us is something very important, and while the Minister may want to say this is just about officials and this is something that an official did and it’s not to do with her—it’s not. It is about the culture that she has led from the top. It is about a culture of cover-ups not only within the Ministry of Education but wider in Government as well. This should be deeply concerning for New Zealanders because it goes to the heart of our democracy, it goes to the heart of having a Public Service that is neutral, and it goes to the heart of transparency and accountability, all of those strong facets of what we should be upholding as democracy in New Zealand.

What this has told us today is that it is clear that, for those officials who were working on the curriculum, there was a culture of cover-ups, and that there was a clear culture that they were operating to avoid accountability. That was the culture in which they were operating in, and that video that has been available via New Zealand Herald today demonstrates clearly what that culture was. Officials working on the curriculum considered that this was to be a “political exercise”. Those are the words that were used in that video—a “political exercise” with the Minister; not our children, not our education system, not the things that will actually strengthen teaching and learning in New Zealand, but instead a political exercise that the Minister was intricately involved with and was using officials as a cover to be able to do that, and that is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable. Rather than setting high standards herself—this Minister often talks about setting high standards—for accountability, for democracy, for transparency, instead, that Ministry has bred a culture of cover-ups, that she has led herself, and she is accountable for that ministry.

There is a clear pattern of behaviour with this Minister—there is a clear pattern of behaviour. And today in the House, in question time, we heard that the Minister stated that she always complies with the Official Information Act. Well, I went back—since she said that—and I checked. From 1 July 2025 to 31 December 2025, which is a period of six months, and in that period of six months, there are four separate occasions where the Ombudsman has ruled that decisions made by that Minister, in relation to the Official Information Act, required remedial correction. So in a six month period, there were four times that the Official Information Act had not been applied appropriately according to the Ombudsman.

Let us remember, also, the recent history of Erica Stanford and her emails. The Minister of Education herself, in the past, has been caught using private email to conduct ministerial business. This, in the past, included budget details, policy changes, and communications with schools and with members of their ministerial advisory group. It was used hundreds and hundreds of times, and it only stopped when it was called out publicly. It was only stopped when that was captured publicly.

But it’s not just this Minister; the rot starts at the top. There was also clear information that a former staffer in the Prime Minister’s office, that Christopher Luxon received a lobbying document from Fonterra. The document was sent to, again, his private email inbox, also suggesting an attempt to circumvent the same Act—the Official Information Act—especially, given those documents were not released in response to an Official Information Act request, when they should have been. The staffer was a former chief policy adviser to the Prime Minister.

There is a clear pattern of behaviour, not only with this Minister but with this Government, to circumvent democracy, to circumvent transparency, and to do that in a way that actually makes New Zealand a less strong country, in terms of transparency. And that is absolutely unacceptable. It is important that New Zealanders know that this is the integrity, which is zero, and the calibre of this Government, going into a general election. We have a Public Service that should be based on integrity, that should be neutral, and should be accountable—and those are fundamental parts of why we have those in place.

That is exactly why Labour is proposing to remediate this mess by establishing an independent council for curriculum and assessment. We believe that that is what is required to stop the sort of political interference in the day-to-day operations of what should be happening in the Ministry of Education. I think it is important that we speak up for those public servants who don’t have a voice; those public servants that aren’t allowed to speak back; those public servants that time and time again, like an abusive relationship, get thrown under the bus when this Government makes mistakes. It is absolutely unacceptable that they take advantage of those who can’t fight back. And we say that is not acceptable; that those who are voted in with ministerial warrants, they hold the accountability, and they should stand up and take responsibility for the actions that have caused so much trouble within our Public Service.

This erodes democracy, this puts public servants in absolutely impossible situations—when they lose their jobs, when they lose their reputations, when they lose their ability to hold their heads up in Wellington because of the politicisation that this Government has put them under. It is absolutely unacceptable in New Zealand. We should be world leading at being transparent and enabling people to interact with their democracy without fear, without favour.

Ultimately, it is the Minister of Education who should be responsible for this. And while we are about to hear, no doubt, while there is an internal review, while someone else will be blamed about what has happened here, at the end of the day, the buck stops with her. She has got a person clearly now broadcast on platforms showing that there was a process and a culture in place designed to undermine democracy, designed to hide information from public eyes, and designed to circumvent the Official Information Act. That is wrong. That Act is in place for a good reason, and New Zealanders deserve to have the truth. They deserve to have clear answers, and they deserve a Government that does not hide facts from them, and that is exactly what this Government is. It is deceitful and it is corrupt in the way it is operating, and we should vote them out.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (15:15): Mr Speaker, as I have already raised in this House today in answer to questions that were raised by the Opposition, my political office and myself always comply with the Official Information Act (OIA) to the very best of our ability.

Now, people should have trust and confidence, and it was very disappointing to see that Ministry of Education officials were making comments that were reported in the New Zealand Herald today. I want to be very clear and put on the record in Hansard that not myself or anybody else in my office has ever directed or even suggested that anyone should not comply with the OIA, or do anything other than fully comply with it, or should not be subverting it in anyway. This is a very serious matter, which is why, yesterday, I called in the Secretary of Education to reiterate my expectations that the OIA is always fully complied with.

I am confident that the Secretary of Education has got the issue in hand. Yesterday, she alerted immediately the Public Service Commissioner, the Ombudsman, and she’s now undertaking an internal review and an employment process because this did not meet either my expectations or hers. I want to also be very clear about the meeting that was recorded in relation to this issue. This meeting was in relation to the 74 senior secondary curriculum documents that have not been given to me or my political office to review or to sign out. I’ve not seen them as of yet.

The process that was talked about in this meeting was between the Ministry of Education and their secondee, the private secretary in my office, who reviews these documents, and who checks them before they come to me. She asks a number of questions back and forward with the Ministry before they come to me to make sure that they are in order. This is an entirely normal process that happens with every single document that comes to my office, and it is my expectation that this process that they were talking about in this meeting, like every single process, is subject to the OIA. I’ve made this very clear to the Secretary of Education; and yes, I am responsible for the Ministry of Education, which is why I called them in, which is why I’ve reiterated my expectations and made sure that the correct processes are underway.

I’m also responsible for the results of the Ministry of Education, and I am extraordinarily proud in the last three years of the results that we have gained. We have put out an English and maths curriculum that has been in place for two years. The results are phenomenal. For the first time in decades, finally, we are seeing an improvement in results. Phonics last year between term 1 and term 3 from 36 to 58 percent of young 5-year-olds at expectations for their early reading or phonics ability. The maths curriculum has seen an improvement in year 6, a statistically significant improvement of 6 percent, and it was up every year—year 3, year 6, year 8—the curriculum insights saw. The same thing in writing: a 5 percent increase, the first time we’ve seen an increase of this statistical significance in years in writing at year 6 after years of decline and stagnation. The same thing we’ve seen with the Programme for International Student Assessment as well, where the bottom quartile of the most disadvantaged kids are improving significantly, closing for the first time that equity gap that I talked so much about.

Now, it was really interesting that the member before me spoke about her idea that the unions gave her for an independent curriculum committee. This is exactly why we need an hour of reading every day and a focus on comprehension and oral language, because while Ginny Andersen has taken this union policy on for herself, she confirmed on TVNZ when asked how this independent committee would be selected, she said, without any expression on her face at all, “Oh, by the Minister.” Now, the definition of “independent” is not that the Minister of Education will be the person who selects the people that go on the independent committee.

Let’s not forget that this is just a reheated policy by Labour, because, in 2020, they also thought about having a curriculum group. They spent tens of millions—in fact, more than $100 million creating this idea of some kind of committee. It was called the “Curriculum Centre” inside the Ministry of Education. Then they spent six years putting together a whole lot of other groups, going around the country, thinking about it, having a think, and then did not deliver a single curriculum document to the sector—not a single one.

But the one that they did, where they did start to talk about with the curriculum—let’s have a look at this. The 2023 leaked draft—this is after six years of having a think about it and spending tens of millions of dollars; the leaked science curriculum that had no mention of physics, chemistry, or biology, which worried the sector so much that they leaked it in advance. Some of the comments that they made—just remembering this is what we’re going to get with these guys—were that they had grave concerns; it was embarrassing; it will lead to appalling declines in student achievement; it was likely to leave pupils bored with science. They were shocked at the lack of physics, chemistry, and earth and space sciences—they were very surprised about that. They warned that the draft was heavy on philosophy and light on actual science, and they asked where the actual science was. That is what you are going to get with an independent, delivered by the Minister of Education Curriculum Centre, which actually delivers philosophy but not actual science. Let’s not forget that that’s what happened for six long years: hundreds of millions spent, and not a single curriculum that was delivered.

I want to say one final thing in relation to the previous speaker Ginny Andersen’s comments. The reason that my Gmails were all were all out in public was because I complied fully with the OIA. Every single one of those emails was captured and put out in the OIA—the Official Information Act—because by myself and everyone in my office, the expectation is clear that we always comply with the Official Information Act to the very best of our abilities. My expectation is that the Ministry of Education do exactly the same, which is why I’ve reiterated those expectations with the Secretary for Education and made sure that all of the appropriate steps are being undertaken. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:23): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is an egregious breach of our democratic process. It is an egregious breach of our transparency that is expected of any Government, but, to be honest, we don’t expect anything less. I’m interested to hear the fact that you have a Minister who says that “I have called the Secretary for Education to relay my expectations.” The thing is, what is on the New Zealand public’s mind is: what is the content of that conversation? Could the content of that conversation be, “I expect you to hide it better next time.”? I think that is going to be the question that people are going to be thinking about.

I think this is something that we actually need to tie to the Wai 3553 report that was just released last week. It is important for us to know that in the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding, they have found that this Government has been lobbied by external providers—Australian providers such as Learning First, with a complete conflict of interest—over experts here from Aotearoa New Zealand, over our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We have seen under this Government an unprecedented and significant increase in the usage of non-disclosure agreements. It should be a concern for every parent, for every teacher, for every student, for every school in Aotearoa New Zealand that you have a Government that is not being transparent with you, as the public, on how they conduct their affairs and how they are drafting their curriculum.

In Wai 3553, and in the speech by that Minister, we’re seeing a Government that continues to try and gaslight the New Zealand public and gaslight our experts into thinking that they are the ones in the wrong, that they are the minority. Whereas we have seen in today’s breach that clearly the Government has a political agenda and an ideology that has been imported from overseas, in how our students should be learning. We have seen by this Government a complete centralisation of power and allowing the Ministers to make decisions around the appointment of the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, among other things.

Now, when it comes to the proposal—this is the thing about this Government: when we’re looking the proposal of the independent curriculum and the assessment council, that is proposed and endorsed by quite a few political parties, including New Zealand First, but that is proposed by an independently elected New Zealand Principals’ Federation. It might be that this Government and the Minister is foreign to the idea of what good governance looks like and what it means to actually listen to the sector. Maybe it’s a Government that is foreign to the idea that maybe, just maybe, we should listen to the many and not the few—that we should listen to the teachers and the education experts, but not do it in a way that is like The Emperor’s New Clothes, where the Government is surrounding themselves only with people that they like.

This is something that requires the serious attention of this House, but beyond what the ministry themselves will conduct, beyond what the Public Service Commissioner will conduct, we also think that the Ombudsman needs to be involved as an independent analysis of what has happened and what has transpired here. For the Greens, we absolutely do think that transparency is important. We think that we need a quality public education system where everyone should be involved and that is founded on Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We can do that by having that independent curriculum assessment council and restoring independence to the Teaching Council.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (15:28): Thank you, Mr Speaker. For the second time today, the Minister of Education has outlined her expectations in relation to the Official Information Act (OIA) and what transpired in relation to a Ministry of Education official. Members of the Opposition, I’m afraid, are the ones who are going off on a tangent here, talking about things well outside the scope of this debate.

The Minister has outlined that she expects that the OIA is completely complied with and has asked the Ministry of Education to look into these issues, and we in ACT also expect the OIA to be taken seriously. What I do not take seriously is being lectured to by members of the Opposition when we know a former Labour Cabinet Minister told her caucus colleagues to avoid OIA of all communications. Here we have a Minister who twice today has now outlined what she is doing and the action she is taking—a very responsible Minister. What I’m looking forward to is actually getting back to the business of this House and getting on with the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (15:29): Yeah, thanks, Mr Speaker. Look, New Zealand is regarded as one of the most open, transparent, and uncorrupt countries in the world, and we take that very, very seriously. We treasure it, and when something goes wrong, we do something about it. I was just having a quick look before this debate, and I looked at a number of examples. Look up corruption in New Zealand; you’ll see what happens. There are a number of examples of that, where it’s been alleged and it has been responded to, and that is exactly the right thing to do there.

This seems to all come from an article in the New Zealand Herald—at least that’s what it’s highlighted; that’s what the Hon Ginny Andersen was talking about—and what you see shot through that also is the response. So something was done, and there is a response to that. If I can just look at a couple of the things which I said in there, the ministry said it’s inconsistent with the behaviour it’s expected. They emphasised adherence to Official Information Act (OIA) obligations. They’ve launched an internal review, and the Minister of Education has met with the secretary and the secretary has already met with or talked with the Ombudsman and the Public Service Commission. So, shot through that same article, there is an issue here and there is a response to that issue, and that is what we should expect. That, I think, is the most important thing here, that this is being taken seriously by the Minister and by the ministry, and it is not what they anticipate to happen.

Look, can I just finish off by saying, because this assertion has come from the Hon Ginny Andersen, she talked about the Minister’s track record, but if you look at her own track record of the things that she has alleged, the things that she has said are facts and then has had to backtrack on them—so, not that long ago, it was around how road maintenance was funded. Oh, it wasn’t done through the national road transport fund; she was berating the Hon Mark Mitchell in a radio programme, and she was 100 percent wrong. This is the pattern that we get from that member over there, that she has time and time again been 100 percent wrong. There is something that I usually refer to, and I think others do as well: they’re called “Ginny facts”, and those are facts which are undoubtedly wrong.

I think we should conclude this debate as quickly as possible. There is action being taken in response to this OIA issue, and that is the right thing to do to protect the transparency and honesty and integrity of this country.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (15:31): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The programme lead for the curriculum development, Catherine Law, essentially, directed her staff to keep secret information. Her words were “What we do not need is anything … in writing that shows that this stuff has gone backwards and forwards between them and us.” They’re talking about the Minister’s office and the department, so they’re covering their tracks. I was astounded to hear Erica Stanford say, “Yes, my private secretary gets information and, essentially, curates it and sends it back.”—“The Minister won’t like that.”; “Reword that.” That is exactly the kind of behaviour that should not be going on, and I could not believe that she said that in the House with a straight face.

What we have is a Minister who is developing a culture of secrecy, who is treating the Official Information Act (OIA) with disdain and contempt. For her to say out of one side of her mouth, “Oh, I’ve told my staff what my expectations are.” and at the very same time running an operation where her private secretary is curating information to make sure it doesn’t quite get to her is, frankly, despicable. The whole principle of the Official Information Act is the free availability of information, and if Erica Stanford is managing her department in a way to circumvent those rules, it is despicable. It’s contemptible. The idea of a transparent Government is what this country rests upon. The Official Information Act has two basic principles: transparency and freedom of information for citizens, and accountability of Ministers, and that is what she is seeking to do away with.

You know what? One of the things we need is for the Official Information Act to be given more teeth, because behaviour like that should be punished. There is a dusty old section in the Crimes Act, section 107, which is wilfully contravening a statute. I must say it looks to me very much like this senior official has looked at the Official Information Act and simply said, “I don’t want to do that. It might be my legal obligation to keep good records”—in the Public Records Act as well, of course, to make sure that Government business is on the record and is archived correctly. This senior official seems to have looked at her obligations and said, “I don’t want to do that.” or “The Minister wouldn’t like me to do that, so I won’t do it.”—a wilful contravention of law. There is in fact a provision which could deal with that. Section 107 of the Crimes Act, wilful contravention of the statute. You cannot blatantly disregard your obligations, particularly in the Public Service.

So what we have here is a Minister who is guiding and politicising the Public Service. The Public Service has never been under attack as much as it is now, not only through job cuts but through being instructed to pursue their tasks in a political way. Now, we all know that the Government of the day can progress their agendas, but to engage in a political dialogue—and Catherine Law also said that this is political; she was taking the politics of the situation into account when she was making decisions about the OIA. “We’ve got to be really mindful”, she said, “that this process comes before we start the formal process, which is the one through bags”—that is, ministerial information bags—“and that is all formal, public, and transparent.” They were running parallel processes: the real process and the formal process. That is duplicitous, and it’s under this Minister’s watch. Erica Stanford is presiding under a duplicitous process which is not transparent, it’s not honest, and she’s saying out of one side of her mouth, “I expect transparency.” and on the other side of her mouth she’s doing the opposite. It’s despicable. It should stop.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (15:36): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Minister of Education has already said, she’s made her expectations very clear to the Secretary for Education about ministry servants following the Official Information Act (OIA). She’s also noted that no instructions regarding avoiding the OIA have been passed on to the Ministry of Education. With two days left of Parliament, this is just a cynical attempt by the Government to try and upset what has been a tremendous three years of education reform. They’ve done more in three years than that previous Government did in the last six.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:37): I concur with the previous speaker, Ryan Hamilton: this is a cynical move by the Government to attempt to limit participation rights of ordinary New Zealanders, because the Official Information Act has been part of New Zealanders’ public and constitutional law arrangements since 1982, and the rights of public participation are something that we are proud to protect. New Zealand was one of the first countries to adopt these sorts of official information powers in the way that they’re formulated here, and like countries like South Africa and the UK and others who have adopted these process rights formally, they make up not only the ability of ordinary New Zealanders to meet with their parliamentarians, to petition them, to put their point of view forward like everyone else, but they also ensure that public servants are also accountable to the ordinary working New Zealanders who are trying to just get ahead in life and to make sure that, in this case, their education system responds to the needs of their children and their communities.

Section 4 of that Act was pretty world leading for countries that we compare ourselves to. It says that access to information enables people to participate more effectively in making and administering laws and policies and promotes the accountability of Ministers and officials. It’s that accountability that is at issue today. This is something that New Zealand should be able to pride itself on, and we have heard from members of Government parties that New Zealand is a country well known for its accountability and transparency around the world. That’s what’s at stake here. When New Zealand is falling in the accountability and transparency indexes, we should all be concerned in this House about not only what it says internationally but what it says to the people in New Zealand who we represent.

Section 5 sets the basic rule out that “information should be made available unless there is [a] good reason for withholding it.” It used to be in New Zealand that information like this was secret. It is good that New Zealanders can expect that information won’t be secret in the future, and that should be something which Ministers uphold. That participation right matters particularly in education, because parents entrust their children to the education system, and teachers have to implement the curriculum. They need the confidence that consultation is genuine, that professional advice is professional advice, and when Ministers make political choices, those transparent choices are on the public record.

But this is not the first public law concern raised about how this Government has handled the curriculum.

National curriculum statements are secondary legislation. They are law. Anyone who is a professional working in the education system has to do what the Minister says, because the curriculum is the law which this Parliament announces to them that they must follow. Parliament has a specialist committee—the Regulations Review Committee—which scrutinises whether instruments like these have been made fairly and consistently, and on 2 June this year, the committee formally took up a complaint about the curriculum statements. I chaired that committee, and that complaint demonstrates something important: the curriculum is not simply a political document belonging to the Minister.

She accounted to this House, in question time today, that she had managed this process like any other Minister in her Government would, but she is accountable for a law which is the secondary legislation, which is the curriculum statements. Those are an exercise of public power, which she has a ministerial warrant to carry out, subject to the public law requirements and parliamentary scrutiny afforded to her as Minister when exercising that public power. Avoiding emails does not avoid the Official Information Act. Official information can include information known to officials but never written down and to the Minister. What’s the problem here? The problem is that the Minister has created a culture and intimated, at all steps along the way, that this would be perfectly acceptable practice under her watch. It’s not. The Public Records Act separately requires public offices to create and maintain full and accurate records, which has not happened here.

The former Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier specifically addressed officials avoiding records because they might be subject to a request under the Official Information Act, and what has happened here is in direct contravention to his findings. He called it “deeply troubling”, and said, “Deliberately keeping information off the written record to avoid discovery can be fundamentally unlawful.”, and it is. This Government has already been warned about exactly what provenance and record-keeping matters, and associate health Minister Casey Costello supplied officials with tobacco policy notes, but neither she nor her office could establish who had written them. The notes were used for ministerial purposes and contributed to the policy adopted by the Government. Casey Costello inevitably released the document, but only after denying that it even existed at all.

This Government cannot be trusted with the official information under which it is operating, but in education, it is special. It is not only the exercise of public confidence but the exercise of public law which the curriculum fits into. It brings this debate back to the Minister’s conduct. These were communications going backwards and forwards with her office. What did she know about them, has she knowledge, or was she reckless about its effect?

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (15:42): I think I’ll be the fifth person to reinforce what the Minister has said—most importantly that she’s made her expectations very clear to the Secretary for Education and that there have been no instructions from her office to avoid the Official Information Act. The most important point here is actually the very significant work that has been done in the education portfolio in the last three years—the parts that the parents very much care about when I’m out on the door. Just to name a few: an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths; expanded maths and pāngarau support; and actually delivered a major increase to the teaching workforce, 1,800 teachers in 2024; and, of course, structured literacy and structured numeracy; adding to that expanded classroom infrastructure. Just the other week, I was at Taradale Primary School, which had gone back to single-cell classrooms.

These things are significant in education, and to make a mountain out of a mole hill in such occasion where the Minister has made very, very clear her expectations and reinforced her position, I’d sooner get back to debating the issues that very much matter to Kiwis, like the resource management reform. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Sittings of the House

Extended Sitting

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity) (15:43): on behalf of the Leader of the House: Point of order. I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning to consider the following Government orders of the day: the remaining stages of the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4), the first reading and referral to select committee of the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill, and the third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill and the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Planning Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (15:44): I present a legislative statement on the Planning Bill.

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

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (15:44): I move, That the Planning Bill be now read a third time.

I would like to begin by thanking those who’ve worked very hard on both the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill: the expert advisory group led by Janette Campbell; the Environment Committee, led very ably by Catherine Wedd; my Parliamentary Under-Secretary Simon Court, who’s done an excellent job on a very important piece of legislation; and the officials across the Public Service, but particularly those at the former Ministry for the Environment, the now Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport led by Nadeine Dommisse.

Today is a good day, and it’s the culmination of years of hard work to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA) once and for all. For 30 years, the RMA has held New Zealand back from its full potential. Today, we are scrapping it, breaking free from a system that has stifled opportunity and economic growth for too long. We are restoring the freedom for New Zealanders to shape their own futures by using property as they choose—a once-in-a-generation shift towards growth, choice, and prosperity.

At the heart of these reforms is the enjoyment of the use of your own land. No Western democracy has ever succeeded without adhering to the ideal that liberty cannot occur without the protection of property. Members opposite have raised concerns repeatedly about these reforms enhancing private property rights. They’ve scaremongered and painted property rights as some evil right-wing plan. It’s a weird and pernicious view. Secure property is the shield that protects citizens from arbitrary power. It’s what stops politicians eroding the values and freedoms we count on every day. If property rights fall; soon follows speech, movement, religion, and on it goes. Property rights affirm that individuals are not subjects of the State but, instead, are stewards of their own future. On this side of the House, we’re proud to be restoring the ability for New Zealanders to have more freedom to do what they want with their own property.

The truth is some people have got used to telling people what to do with their own land. They like being able to limit the use of land because they think they know better how to use it. On this side of the House, we know that the right to enjoy and use land and the confidence this certainty creates fuels innovation, investment, and progress. It creates the foundation for what we have come to call the Kiwi Dream—the ability to use our own little slice of paradise, and the freedom to earn our wares and raise our family on it. For too long, the RMA lost sight of this basic preset, and this simple ideal is what underpins these reforms. The new planning system enshrines the enjoyment of property rights in the purpose and goals of the Act itself by providing for the enjoyment of land.

For New Zealanders, here is what our new system looks like for them: fewer consents and fewer permits; fewer plans developed faster; long-term certainty to developers, council, and the Government; more consistency through standardisation; and a more proportionate system; and relief for impositions on property. In short, we are fundamentally changing most of what has failed in the RMA and what the previous Government’s reforms failed to deliver.

Now, sir, the planning system does generate litigation, and it will inevitably continue to do so. I want to take this opportunity to be absolutely clear on what Parliament’s intent is when passing these bills into law. For future courts reading the Hansard, take note. First and most importantly, the goals: they highlight a critical and fundamental change from the RMA. The goals tightly define the scope of what the system is trying to achieve. All tools in the system serve goals through what we’ve called the funnel. They are the foundation for the planning system. The goals are given effect through the funnel with national policy direction, and national standards and plans all working together to seek to achieve them. They are not a choose-your-own-adventure path for councils like the RMA was.

Unlike the RMA, effects management is not part of the purpose or the goals; they are not an end unto themselves. Effects management is a means of understanding how an activity can be managed to achieve a goal via the funnel. The old ways of effects management is out; the new goals-focused world is in. For example, when consenting a wind farm, the focus should be on the outcomes that development delivers rather than minimising effects so they are invisible to the naked eye. The Planning Bill deliberately excludes a range of effects from the system that, frankly, should never have been in the system in the first place. Getting these out is critical to driving the culture change we need, but by no means does excluding things change the focus of the bills from the goals. This is the same for both the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill.

In relation to national instruments, I want to make it clear that they are a tool for providing detailed direction on how Parliament’s framework is implemented in practice. On national policy direction, its primary purpose is to particularise all goals under the Acts by providing greater specificity of the goals themselves and how these goals are to be achieved, and providing direction on resolving conflicts between goals where they’re identified within the Act and across the Acts. National standards implement the national policy direction (NPD) by providing detailed implementation tools such as rules, methodologies, and standardised provisions.

Resolving conflicts is also a core NPD function and a critical improvement upon the RMA. As part of the NPD development, the Minister needs to look at the goals as particularised, or proposed to be particularised, and identify any apparent conflicts and how to resolve them. Not all goals need to be achieved everywhere or at all times, and not all conflicts need to be resolved nationally. As part of the development of the NPD, Ministers are required to first try to achieve compatibility between goals, where possible, before preferring one outcome over another. The bills also require that Ministers should seek compatibility within an Act before moving to conflicts across Acts. This is the same for the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill.

I was particularly proud to see the new independent statutory officer added into the bill to support competitive urban land markets. This officer’s role is to develop a framework for assessing urban land market competitiveness and make determinations about competitive urban land markets. Councils will be required to take action to address non-competitiveness. Clear parameters for assessing competitiveness will be established so that the expectations on councils are clear, including on how they will need to respond to the officer. These will be set out in national standards and regulations.

On regulatory relief, I do want to highlight a few things. Councils have a duty to assess the impact of specified rules—for example, historical heritage—when making a plan and providing relief according to the council’s finalised relief framework, only where the impact is significant. Separate to the regulatory relief process, councils may provide and landowners may accept voluntary incentives, noting that a landowner cannot be eligible for relief under a framework in respect of the same land for which they have received a voluntary incentive. Otherwise, eligible landowners may decline to receive relief or if a landowner requests and endorses a specified rule being applied to their land through the submissions process, then they are not eligible for relief.

Regulatory relief is not compensation. Instead, the regulatory relief provisions in the bill ensure there is consideration and recognition of the impact of specified rules on landowners, while still providing some flexibility to councils about how relief is provided. Relief also does not need to fully address the impact of a specified rule.

Finally, on the transition, we have introduced further measures to support a smooth transition for farmers and growers. The bill defers some farm environment plan and consent requirements under the Waikato Regional Plan Change 1 and it has quantified nitrogen reductions under Horizons Regional Council’s Plan Change 2 until 31 December 2032. Further amendments to sections 70 and 107 of the RMA will also enable rules and consents to authorise discharges where specified effects occur, provided those effects are reduced over time.

A transitional consenting system means that some matters are out of scope under the RMA to ensure some benefits of the reforms are felt sooner and last until the transition period ends. The bills apply this directly to consenting decisions, make it easier to remove out-of-scope matters from district plans or to get deemed permitted activities, and make clearer exactly what matters are out of scope for district land uses during the transition. These are a subset of the effects out of scope in the Planning Bill. This is intentional to ensure that they are easier to implement within existing RMA plans.

Can I finish by saying that these are good reforms. They are a once-in-a-generation reform effort to set New Zealand up for success in the 2030s. They will ensure that it is easier to build things and grow things in this country and to make a good living for ourselves and our kids. For too long, it has been too hard to consent a wind farm, too hard to be a farmer, too hard to be a grower, too hard to build houses, too hard to build infrastructure, too hard to develop an aquaculture development, too hard to be a farmer, and too hard to be a grower. So many New Zealanders, probably a generation—a lot of them have just given up because it’s too hard.

We want to be a First World country. If we want the prosperity that New Zealanders deserve, then we need to change our planning system. That’s what this bill does, and I’m proud to commend it to the House.

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

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (15:54): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to talk on another version of a Resource Management Act repeal bill, and this is this Government’s go. We are here, in the penultimate sitting day—the last full day when a bill can be before the House—and we’re at the third reading of this bill. That is a great shame because, of course, this Government had the option of looking at the thorough and well-researched work that Labour did when we were in Government and they could have amended it to take it further away from Labour and closer to National. But, instead, they have gone in very much the opposite direction. They have gone to ACT, and that is a real shame when the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has said time and time again that he is interested in having bipartisan support. But going to ACT is not the way to get bipartisan support with Labour. That’s quite basic politics, and I thought he would have known that.

However, unlike that egotistical and vain party, Labour in Government will be much more grown up and will make amendments to this legislation, and so let me talk about some of those amendments, because we will not be doing the flip-flopping that that Government has done. I’ve heard a lot of political commentators talk about “Oh, there’s so much flip-flopping. It’s so much flip-flopping.”—no, it is that lot that does the flip-flopping. It has not happened like this before.

We have this insertion of regulatory relief, and we know that that is going to cause either chaos, great expense, and a lot of time being taken to make up plans to work out how to deal with regulatory relief—and that will cost ratepayers more. We’ve just heard the Minister talk about back-pocket issues, and this is a back-pocket issue. It will cost ratepayers more. The alternative is that the councils will not do that and, instead, they will give up on environmental protections.

The Minister talked about growing and building things, and that means more pollution. That means a reduction in our protections for biodiversity, and so our threatened native plants and animals, the ones that we hear coalition Ministers say “Goodbye Freddie.” about—well, this is another way to get rid of that habitat. That is what this bill is doing, and that is shameful. Labour will repeal those regulatory relief provisions, easy-peasy: Amendment Paper 667 on this bill and Amendment Paper 666 on the other bill.

Now, I mean, it’s interesting, isn’t it? This is the bill we’re speaking about at the moment. For anybody reading this in the Hansard, it has to be combined with a rubber band because it is so big, and then it is repeated again in another bill, plus there is the Fast-track Approvals Act as well. They are all part of the same scheme, and so nothing is simplified in this.

Then we have a meaningless yet still horrific purpose statement and goals that could be in conflict with each other, and we’ve heard the Minister there, saying, “Oh, future courts, listen to me. Let me tell you how to interpret this. Let’s have it on the Hansard. Let me tell you about my funnel.” Well, it’s very interesting that you’ve got a funnel, Minister, but what the funnel does is say that where there is a dispute in those goals and where there needs to be a hierarchy, who gets to choose, and it’s that one person. It’s the Minister, and that is no way to have a major, important regulatory system for this country. It’s one person—the Minister—who gets to decide. It won’t work.

We heard time and time again from a range of professionals and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, when giving the Environment Committee advice, that this just simply won’t work. Even if you agree with their politics—which I don’t—it still won’t work, and so this will lead to a big, muddy mess. It will not improve efficiencies and it will not improve the cost burden on the public. It might be a bit better for the odd individual who wants to build something, but not for the public, who will have to pay for the council fees when things are taken to court and when there are judicial reviews about all of these decisions that the Minister is making, and that is a problem.

We also have this shift to everything—if you own the land, you can do whatever you like on it. That is not something that has historically been around in New Zealand’s laws. What the Minister was saying about the importance of private property rights being somehow the most important thing that Government can ever do—that is not consistent with New Zealand’s approach at all. We have always had constraints on what you can do with a piece of land that you might own, so this is new. This is a paradigm shift in that respect, and it should not be taken lightly.

What it also means is that if you can do whatever you like on your land and your neighbour is not allowed to complain about it, and your neighbour is not allowed to be involved in any planning about what can happen on your land, we are going to resort to the common law and torts—torts of nuisance. That is very inefficient and expensive, so, again, this is just going to end up costing people more. It could be fixed, and I put up a number of amendments—many of them are published, some of them are tabled—to try and do that fixing. Some of that fixing is based on submissions that were given and advice that was given to the select committee as well.

The Minister says that this is a once in a generation attempt to fix the Resource Management Act (RMA)—well, of course, anybody who was in the House in the 53^rd Parliament would have known that there was a once in a generation attempt to repeal the RMA, which has happened.

Hon Chris Bishop: Didn’t fix it. It was worse.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Well, it was absolutely fixed, and if the Minister thinks that this is a fix, then he is sadly mistaken and he should have listened to the Labour Party throughout the process, rather than just looking to ACT—looking to Simon Court time and time again.

Hon Chris Bishop: No, we don’t listen to failed environmental lawyers.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: This is going to be great for lawyers. I couldn’t quite hear what the Minister said, but this is all going to be great for lawyers, and the whole point of Labour’s reforms was to be bad for lawyers—apologies to my ex-colleagues.

But we absolutely need to have a simplified process. We had a Spatial Planning Act; spatial plans are very important and there needs to be very good community engagement in those plans. We can also have more standardisation and we absolutely need to decrease the number of plans. We had done that in our legislation. This Government, had they chosen to, could have passed a law—probably two years ago—that did some amendments to make it more right-wing, but they did not do that. Instead, they decided to go backwards from the Resource Management Act in terms of involvement of Māori, so that was bad.

Then we had, after the select committee reported back at, I don’t know 2 o’clock—was it 2 o’clock on the Monday the select committee reported back? At 4 o’clock on the Monday, or thereabouts, there was a post-Cabinet meeting where they said, “Oh, you know how the select committee’s just been looking at this bill for quite some time and has made a few changes, but not many, around Mana Whakahono ā Rohe? Oh, we’re just going to get rid of those completely.” So all those iwi and hapū groups who had been, in good faith, negotiating with councils to lead to agreements—Mana Whakahono ā Rohe—that would have led to more efficient decision-making, that was just all gutted.

The Minister will say, “Oh, well you had noticed that we were going to make this change. We announced it on a Monday after a Cabinet meeting.” That is not good lawmaking; it is terrible lawmaking.

Hon Chris Bishop: How else do you think law gets made?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Oh, how else does law get done?

Hon Chris Bishop: Cabinet makes decisions.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Yes, Cabinet makes decisions, and then they send it to this House and then to a select committee and then back here. The Mana Whakahono ā Rohe came out after it had been to select committee, and this is something that this Minister does time and time again, and he should go and read Fitzgerald v Muldoon on his wall.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (16:05): Tēnā koe—[Interruption] If I may, tēnā koe e te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It was really interesting at the top—and, actually, throughout the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s third reading speech just now—he was talking a lot about the Resource Management Act (RMA) and how much of a handbrake that is on his perceived issues with regard to development and growth in this country and in many of our cities and towns. I think it is, therefore, just really important to underscore the fact that we actually had replaced the RMA under quite a considered and thorough process with the last Government. This Government came to office and—I believe, actually, under urgency in their first few weeks—reinstated the Resource Management Act that they have now spent the last three years railing against. Now, in their final dying breaths of this one-term Government, on this final sitting day before we get to the adjournment debate speeches tomorrow, they are passing it through its third and final reading.

I do have to say, I agree with the Minister that this was a once in a generation, once in a moment in politics opportunity to get this stuff right. It’s really interesting, because I’ve heard the Minister speak at plenty of different planning forums where he has spoken about the need for cross-party consensus to get these things right, to ensure that they stick through changes of Government. I acknowledge the work that he has done in other areas of his portfolios—the likes of the Infrastructure Commission’s pipeline—but unfortunately with the bill that we are debating today, we do not have that cross-party consensus and we therefore do not have a piece of legislation which is going to stand the test of time.

Unfortunately, what we as a House will, by virtue of their Government majority, will be passing today represents a sidelining of conservation, of the fundamental necessities necessary for life on Earth as we know it: our soil health, our water health, a climate necessary for stability of food growing capacity and so on and so forth—things that this Government proclaims that they care about—let alone our communities and the founding document of this country, Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The Green Party has long campaigned on making it easier to build where people want to live, work, and play. I’m an Aucklander, so I can absolutely recognise that over the last 40 years, at the very least, we have seen a planning system where both central and local government politicians have kicked the can down the road on really critical decisions around where housing and growth should go. What that has meant is that instead of grappling with the opportunities that other cities have shown us are entirely possible and feasible in terms of our development—building up, protecting green spaces, ensuring that we do density well—Tāmaki-makau-rau, our largest city, is an example of where we have seen sprawl further and further out, decimating our productive food-growing capacity but also generating far higher costs for the transport infrastructure that is necessary to connect those people and, in turn, generating far more congestion by virtue of car dependency.

I just, again, lament this missed opportunity that we had to work on a cross-partisan basis, because I know that the Minister, in his heart of hearts, probably could have found a lot more common ground with us in the Greens than I believe his colleagues, who have been trying to prevent any form of development happening in Epsom. The Minister said that he want this, our country, to be a first-world country. If we were seeking genuinely to fulfil those very aspirations as laid down by the Minister, we should be a country that is actively working to protect, restore, and regenerate our biodiversity, our soil, our water, and to uphold our climate commitments. Instead, what we have represented in this legislation that we are debating this evening is a bunch of amendments that tick off the wish list of some of the biggest polluters in our country and in our economy. In fact, what we see is a reflection of the World Wildlife Fund’s recent report, which states—and I quote—“The Government’s communications on fossil fuels amount to climate misinformation and closely mirror obstruction narratives used by the fossil fuel industry to delay climate action”.

I don’t think there is any clause that reflects that as accurately and as explicitly as clause 15A in this legislation, which explicitly—explicitly—prevents considering the negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. Not only is that absolutely shocking and such an abdication of responsibility not only to future generations but to present generations, in terms of the bill that is mounting with regard to actually fulfilling our commitments under the Paris Agreement—which this Government apparently is still committed to—it also echoes exactly what was asked for by Federated Farmers in their submission, as we know, in workshops that were facilitated by the Minister and his officials.

I just make the point that, following that very workshop that occurred with the agriculture and horticulture sector, there was official advice on the potential narrowing of climate emissions consideration in this legislation. Officials said this move—and I quote—“has a high risk of unintended consequences and is generally not advisable”. Isn’t that interesting? That the same Minister who is introducing this legislation today, in question time just a few hours ago, was talking about the importance of following official advice in certain circumstances, but clearly not where it accords with the ideology—or, rather, the dogma—of the political parties that currently make up this one-term Government.

Now, the final point that I really want to drive home, and why it is that we oppose this legislation, is not only the sidelining of concerns around biodiversity—I don’t know, water, soil, those things that are kind of necessary for life as we know it—but the regulatory relief. It’s important to spend a moment really unpacking this, because what we have represented in this legislation is an implied property right to, effectively, destroy biodiversity.

Grant McCallum: Rubbish!

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: We’ve heard from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, we’ve heard from the Environmental Defence Society, we’ve heard from plenty of independent experts who submitted on your legislation, Grant, that this would look like a bureaucratic and litigious hot mess.

In Auckland alone, there are around 24,000 property-level protections. Right now, if this bill is to be implemented, as is intended, to be passed through the House today by this Government, in order for Auckland Council to reinstate just the basic same protections that already exist, they will have to go through an incredibly, incredibly time-consuming and uncertain process to do so. MartinJenkins estimates that implementing just the baseline protections that already exist—not increasing them, just those protections that already exist at a property level; the likes of properties that border on the Waitakere Ranges—we are talking about a cost to local governments of anywhere between $7 million to $2 billion. Riddle me that.

Andy Foster: That’s pretty broad.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The same Government who, right now—it is pretty broad, Andy Foster. Do you know why it’s pretty broad? Because of the fact—

Hon Member: They don’t know. They’ve got no idea.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Exactly! I’m so glad there is consensus breaking out in the House right now that local government has no idea how to apply your legislation that you are passing through third reading today, by virtue of the implied property right to destroy biodiversity. You could drive a bus through this because nobody knows how it’s going to be applied.

As my colleagues have already outlined, this is going to make a lot of work for lawyers and, therefore, not actually make things any more efficient. In fact, this implied property right to destroy biodiversity is going to do the opposite. It is going to slow down the processes that the Ministers say they want to speed up. This is the same Government that is decrying rates increases and saying that we just have to put a rates cap in place, as they actively pass legislation that their own members are now declaring they don’t know the impacts of and will inevitably cost local authorities across this country more.

This past weekend, I was in Auckland Central with around 35,000 New Zealanders who were marching down Queen Street, who were incredibly frustrated to watch this Government sideline our country’s values of care for each other and the planet that we all share. This legislation that is passing through as a result of their majority does not represent the values of New Zealanders. We have real issues in terms of the infrastructure deficit and the climate crisis and the housing crisis, but this legislation goes nowhere towards actually, meaningfully addressing those problems, and we cannot support it.

SIMON COURT (ACT) (16:15): ACT supports this bill because it restores a basic presumption: people should be free to use, develop, and enjoy their land unless there is a justified reason to limit them. For too long, the planning system has put process and planner discretion ahead of property rights, homes, infrastructure, and growth. This bill reverses that.

The intention is to resolve the big questions once, at the right level, rather than relitigating them, plan by plan, consent by consent. That is the logic of the planning funnel in the new system. Scope is clearly established, statutory goals define what planning is there to achieve, the range of effects it can manage is narrowed, and the bar for intervention is much higher and more proportionate. National policy direction turns the goals into concrete national priorities and direction, and resolves conflicts between the goals. National standards then turn that direction into repeatable rules, methodologies, and standardised provisions. Regional spatial plans set strategic direction, land use plans apply locally, and consenting sits at the bottom.

Participation also follows the funnel logic. There should be meaningful opportunities to influence national instruments, regional spatial plans, and land use plans for Māori and non-Māori alike. At consent level, a higher notification test and tighter bounds of who has standing focus participation on those genuinely affected. Officials estimate about 45 percent of consents and permit applications currently required under the Resource Management Act (RMA) could be removed under the new system. Where consents do remain necessary, the narrower scope, higher thresholds, and tighter participation settings will make them much easier and faster to process.

National instruments in the new system are powerful, but targeted engagement, allowing for submissions and reporting requirements, provides clear and transparent guardrails around powers already available under the RMA. Where activities, effects, and provisions are common and well understood, the system should codify proven approaches instead of reinventing the wheel, consent by consent. For instance, New Zealand has around 1,175 planning zones—Japan has 13. A builder should not have to face subtly different rules every time they cross a council boundary. There will always be cases when national standards are not quite fit for local circumstances. That’s why bespoke plan provisions remain possible, but the pathway is incredibly sticky. Local departures must be justified rather than becoming the default. Regional spatial plans will identify long-term growth and infrastructure corridors, strategic assets, and significant constraints, including natural hazards. For designated infrastructure, strategic need can and must be settled at a broad level rather than relitigated when it comes time to deliver the infrastructure.

For property development, this bill goes even further. It puts competitive urban land markets into statute and creates an independent statutory officer to assess whether markets are actually competitive. That means examining real signals of scarcity and, where the councils rezone land in response, because their action or inaction has contributed, they will be required to respond. In plain English: the aim is abundant, responsive development capacity, not theoretical capacity that still leaves developable land artificially scarce. We’ve also removed barriers to private plan change requests. Proposals should be considered on their merits rather than rejected out of hand by councils at the first gate. Together, these provisions tackle planning-driven land shortages that push up the cost of housing and business.

Regulatory relief—which the Opposition still can’t quite seem to get their heads around, so I’ll explain it for you—is a broad principle that public impositions on private property for a public good should be recognised. That’s not new; it’s familiar from the Public Works Act: where specified planning rules significantly affect the reasonable use of private land, councils must confront their impact. Relief may include payments, rates relief, additional development rights, offering land in exchange, and access to grants to the landowner. Now, making councils face these costs changes their incentives. The need to justify to ratepayers who stands to benefit helps reveal genuine public value, and if ratepayers cannot be convinced that the proposed benefits are worth paying for, it can hardly be justified to impose those costs on the affected landowner. Where that public value is real, it’s only fair that those who do benefit contribute to the cost.

The Akatarawa example—it’s just up the road here in Wellington—makes the point starkly. A private property backing on to a regional park was proposed for inclusion in an Outstanding Natural Landscape, layering a public value restriction on their private property. Just announcing the Government’s regulatory relief intentions helped put that proposal on ice. Reflecting the same property rights principle in the Regulatory Standards Act, courts will also remain available to landowners who believe plan rules severely impair the reasonable use of their land and place an unreasonable and unfair burden on them. The Planning Tribunal provides another accountability mechanism: an accessible referee for disputes, including over information demands, consent processing decisions, consent conditions, and aspects of regulatory relief that should not require full Environment Court proceedings.

There’s far more on this bill than 10 minutes can cover, but this bill replaces 100 planning documents with 17 regional combined plans, and for that, I expect, the Opposition members will be grateful. It protects Treaty settlement redress and provides stronger national data and digital foundations for better decision-making. Targeted transitional changes will avoid duplicating work while the new system is being built. Among other things, the parliamentary process has clarified the role of registered permitted activities and replaced expansive Mana Whakahono ā Rohe with narrower iwi participation agreements that respect the need for councils to retain a democratic mandate for entering into long-term agreements which have implications for property owners and resource users. There are targeted changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA), as well, and existing plans to smooth the transition.

Implementation is now critical. The time frame for making instruments and the transition was extended from 30 to 39 months in response to select committee feedback. The illustrative national policy direction recently released for feedback will inform the statutory process that will follow. National standards will then follow, prioritised to support implementation milestones, but Kiwis will not need to wait for full implementation to feel the change. One month after Royal assent, new procedural principles and scope reductions begin operating through the transitional RMA framework. Existing RMA plans and consents continue while the new system is built, and the planning tribunal can be switched on in 2027.

Planning rules are not abstract. Every unnecessary restriction shows in the price of a home, a road, a power project, or a business investment. This bill shifts the balance back towards people who own the land, take the risks, employ people, and build their country. It restores the presumption of freedom, sweeps away needless inconsistency—

Hon Rachel Brooking: What do you mean, “restores”? Restores from what?

SIMON COURT: —and, Rachel Brooking, makes regulators confront the costs they impose. It gives landowners certainty, investors confidence, and New Zealand the freedom to build, produce, and grow. ACT has fought for this reform for years. It will help unlock New Zealand’s potential. ACT supports it, and I commend it to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First) (16:24): Thanks, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. Now, we weren’t represented on the Environment Committee; we don’t have quite enough MPs yet, so we’re looking forward to an increased representation. I just wanted to, in saying that, recognise all the hard work that has been done to get this bill to this point, particularly to recognise the Hon Chris Bishop and Simon Court for the hard work they have done, and also the select committee, chaired by Catherine Wedd—a huge amount of work to get us to this point.

The key thing for us here is that we must raise productivity. That is something that’s front and centre for New Zealand First. We must raise productivity and we must raise incomes, which is exactly what the Hon Chris Bishop was talking about as he concluded his speech. This is the only long-term and sustainable way that we can actually address the cost of living crisis, as well. It’s not just by driving every little bit—a nickel here and a dime there. It’s by raising incomes, because once, we were up there with the likes of the Swiss. If you doubled everyone’s income, a lot of those other cost of living challenges would go away.

How is this relevant to this bill? It’s absolutely relevant, because this bill is about—and its partner there, which we’ll come to very shortly, the Natural Environment Bill—reducing the cost burden that there is on our economy. We know, from the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, that just the cost of consenting infrastructure alone—and that’s the direct cost; I don’t think that includes the costs of delay, of uncertainty, and so on—is estimated at $1.3 billion every year, year after year after year. There is a really material cost, and that’s just infrastructure, let alone housing, let alone other activities, on farmers and so on. It is really, really important we do get some of those costs removed, because, as the Hon Chris Bishop said, if we don’t do that, if we aspire to be a First World country, we have to reduce some of these costs. That’s what this bill is all about doing.

I do hear messages about the bill not being perfect. I heard some of the things that the Opposition have said. You know, there’s areas which undoubtedly need to be panel-beaten. The Resource Management Act (RMA) itself, I think, has been amended—I don’t know how many times it is, but it’s a lot of times, and it was formally amended, I think, six or seven times in its first 10 years or so. You’d expect, as a new regime comes in, that there will be some panel-beating to do, and fine, that’s good. The other message that I hear from people is “Get it passed. Get it passed so we can start that work.”—start all that extra work that needs to be done on the national policy directions, the national standards, the spatial plans that need to be done, and give people some certainty, because that is key. I was one of a number of people here—the Hon Rachel Brooking was there, the Hon Chris Bishop was there, Simon Court was there, as well—at a planning conference not that long ago. That was their key message: “Please give us stability, please give us certainty, because that is how it is going to work best for ‘New Zealand Inc.’ ”

In that light, can I just finish off with one other message, and it’s a message that I got from speaking to a senior planning consultant the other day. It’s a message for councils and for people who do, essentially, regulation administration everywhere: please make sure that you treat with respect the people who are applying to you for consent to do something. Treat them as though their time is valuable. Give them certainty, because not understanding that their time is valuable, you delaying them, has real cost to them and to the economy. It’s really, really important that we do that. This is a milestone day for legislation in the House. The RMA is something which is in our lexicon. We all know what it means. Now we will move to the Planning Act and, soon, to the Natural Environment Act. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke—five minutes.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (16:28): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mō Te Pāti Māori i tēnei o ngā rangi ki tēnei o ngā pire, arā ko te Planning Bill, on the third reading.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker; indeed, greetings to all of us in the House. I stand to give voice to the Māori Party’s statements today on this bill, that is, the Planning Bill, on the third reading.]

There’s a specific amendment and change in implementation within this bill that directly affects my pepeha and Hauraki-Waikato specifically, and that is PC1—plan change 1. To explain to the House what that means, 31 years ago, in 1995, we had the Waikato-Tainui Treaty settlement, signed by Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu and, also, Queen Elizabeth, which was one of the first Treaty settlements. Then, years after that, we had the 2008 Waikato River settlement. Through that came Te Ture Whaimana o te Awa o Waikato. Te Ture Whaimana is actually a law that is implemented through this House, which is one of the laws that most needs to be recognised, and through Te Ture Whaimana comes PC1. PC1—plan change 1—is all of the tikanga and kawa to the visions, protection, and restoration of our awa.

What has happened is that this Government has paused PC1 for more than six years, for up to six years. That is going to have detrimental effects on the kids who swim in Waikato Awa. That is the life force of Hauraki-Waikato. What has happened is that is 14 years’ worth of mahi into plan change 1 that has gone from our iwi and of all the people who have worked on PC1 itself and Te Ture Whaimana, with partnerships across the board. What’s interesting here is that two landowners that took PC1 to the Environment Court have actually given $780,000 worth of political donations to the governing parties on the right, and then it was taken into this Planning Bill to pause PC1. It is pretty outstanding that you can actually influence a law.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Not the Speaker.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Not you, Madam Speaker. How we see it, as Hauraki-Waikato—Rawiri has a saying—“You may not know your awa, you may not know your pepeha, but your pepeha knows you.” For me, it’s:

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

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

but I can’t swim in my awa, I can’t access my awa, and legislation like this, with PC1 being paused, is going to cause detrimental effects for our constituents, for our people in Hauraki-Waikato who reside there. Plan change 1, Te Ture Whaimana, the Waikato River settlement, and also the Waikato River Authority, have been longstanding ture and laws within this country to uphold the vision of not polluting our awa even more than it already is.

There was a test and some data collection done recently where I’ve seen that the Waikato River is nearly just as polluted as the Mississippi River in the United States, and to pause PC1 after 14 years’ worth of mahi in this space for our people is a huge detriment to our life force and to polluting our awa even further. Our awa cannot wait six years. Our awa doesn’t have that time, after plenty of work that’s been done to restore the visions of making sure that our awa is no longer polluted. Te Pāti Māori is in complete opposition to this bill, the Planning Bill, but as the member of Parliament for Hauraki-Waikato and as a descendant of my pepeha,

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

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

it is a huge, huge devastation, how dangerous this actually is, for the people who live in Waikato. Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) (16:33): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. A good planning and environmental protection system in Aotearoa New Zealand would deliver us so much. It would mean towns and cities where people can walk and cycle and take public transport. It would mean that they could walk to the local shops and a local medical centre and the school because the housing is provided close to where the town centres are. It would ensure we had clean air. It would ensure we could hear native birdsong, that there is sufficient native tree cover, that there’s shade in the summer, and that there’s not as much run-off when we have heavy rainfall events, as we’ve had so many of in the last few years, because there’s plenty of green space.

All of these things are actually more affordable and better for people and the environment. If we have a good planning system, it will be easy to deliver these outcomes. If we have a good planning system, we will have oceans teeming with fish. Who doesn’t want that? Who doesn’t want oceans teeming with fish? Who doesn’t want Aotearoa full of indigenous biodiversity that is recovering from the brink of extinction? We all want that. We all want that, and we all celebrate that. Yet the bill that is before us today, this bill, is not going to deliver that.

That’s because the current Government is still caught in this old paradigm where they believe what’s good for big business and vested interests is somehow good for all of us, when it’s very, very clear that that is what has led us to this situation of being in the sixth mass extinction, a biodiversity crisis, and an affordability crisis. All of these things are interrelated. While the Minister, Chris Bishop, may have said and we may agree on some aspects of cities—he’s very happy about the City Rail Link, which the Greens campaigned on for years before that side of the House got on board. We campaigned for allowing more density in our cities so that there could be affordable housing close to where people work and where there’s nightlife and where there’s places where you can actually buy the essentials, like shops.

All of that was necessary, and so the Greens have for the longest time been campaigning on the type of planning reform that would simplify urban planning zones, and I acknowledge that that is one thing that is enabled by this, but so much more is enabled by this which will actually hurt our biodiversity and hurt our natural environment and create more red tape and higher costs for those who want to protect life on Earth and ensure that humans are living in harmony with the rest of life, not destroying it to the point where we are going to struggle to feed ourselves. That is the trajectory we are on. It’s because the parties in this Government, whether it’s their dogma or whether they are just too close to vested interests and big lobbyists, cannot help themselves. They consistently protect the interests of those who are already making money by exploiting and destroying our natural world or exploiting people rather than enabling a system where we can all have enough and do our city and town development in a way that enables us to live in harmony with nature.

Obviously, if we think longer term, as the Greens always have, we realise that it saves us all money to regulate the vehicles that are driving around our cities, because we don’t pay the price in terms of the extremely high rates of asthma and respiratory problems and cardiovascular disease, which is caused by diesel emissions, for example. Or if we regulate housing to make sure that it’s healthy, we don’t pay the price with the hospitalisation of our children because they’re in cold bedrooms. We’re paying the price of this. The costs that Andy Foster referred to are all externalised. The issue is trying to get them more internalised. That was what was promised at the beginning of this process but which has not eventuated as a result of the select committee process, because, in the end, this Government is all about big, vested interests continuing to profit at the expense of our planet and our people. That is what is happening.

The Green Party will not be supporting this bill. It is not a good piece of legislation, and it is a shame that this opportunity was wasted. Luckily, there is an opportunity to change to a Government that will actually represent the interests of our people in the long term and of all other life on these beautiful, beautiful two islands that we call Aotearoa New Zealand.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (16:38): Look, this Resource Management Act (RMA) reform marks the most significant reform of our planning system in more than 30 years. This is a major milestone for our country and for future generations. The Planning Bill will create more efficiency, make it easier and faster to get things built, and drive our economy forward, creating jobs and opportunity. It’s time to say yes to renewable energy and critical infrastructure. It’s time to slash the red tape for farmers and growers and our industries across New Zealand. It’s time for a better planning system, which will see less plans, less duplication, and a more streamlined planning system that respects property rights.

I want to acknowledge the extraordinary amount of work that has gone into this legislation, and the Minister for his leadership and vision to replace a broken RMA with a planning system that is simpler, more efficient, and better suited to modern New Zealand. I also want to acknowledge the members of the Environment Committee, officials, advisers, and the thousands of submitters who took the time to provide us with valuable feedback. We listened, we heard, and we made hundreds and hundreds of improvements to ensure these reforms are practical, durable, and workable into the future.

Some of the most powerful feedback came from the sectors that are trying to build, grow, power, and drive New Zealand forward. Submitters from across the electricity sector were clear that if this country is serious about electrification, energy security, and lower emissions, then we need a planning system that enables renewable energy generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure to get consented faster. The energy sector is calling out for more efficiency and more certainty, and we are delivering it.

We heard from the building, property, and development sectors about the real-world consequences of a planning system that has failed to deliver enough land, enough houses, and enough certainty. This bill supports more competitive urban land markets, reducing unnecessary barriers, and making it easier to deliver the homes and infrastructure that our communities need.

We also heard strongly from the food and fibre sector. They spoke about the frustration that rural communities have felt under a system that is too often layered with cost, delay, and uncertainty onto their day-to-day farming and growing. They called for more practical, proportionate, and risk-based approaches—one that recognises farmers as producers, innovators, land stewards, and environmental partners. That feedback mattered and it has helped shape a system that gives farmers more certainty while maintaining strong environmental expectations.

Horticulture New Zealand also made an important contribution on behalf of growers. Growers need confidence to invest in productive land, water storage, frost protection, pack houses, transport links, and the infrastructure that supports our high-value food production. The horticulture submissions support planning rules that protect the resources growers rely on, while also allowing sectors to keep producing healthy food, creating jobs, exporting dollars, and supporting regional communities. Whether it’s the electricity companies trying to build a wind farm, a farmer investing in their land, a grower expanding production, or a builder trying to deliver more homes, the message was clear: New Zealand needs a planning system that is faster, clearer, fairer, and more focused on outcomes.

A key part of the Planning Bill is the move to a clearer system of spatial planning. For too long, New Zealand has planned growth in a fragmented way, with too many overlapping plans, too much duplication, and too little certainty about where housing, infrastructure, business growth, and productive land should be enabled. The new spatial planning approach is about looking ahead and making better long-term decisions at a regional level. It will help identify where growth should go, where infrastructure needs to be delivered, where natural hazards need to be managed, and where important environmental, cultural, productive, and community values need to be recognised. That matters because good spatial planning gives communities, councils, iwi, developers, farmers, growers, infrastructure providers, and investors more certainty. It means fewer surprises, fewer delays, and better alignment between planning rules, infrastructure investment, and the future needs of each region.

The goals of the reform are also deliberately clear. They are about enabling economic growth and change, creating well-functioning urban and rural areas, making land available for housing and business development, planning and providing for infrastructure, reducing natural hazard risks, protecting important places and values, and providing greater certainty about how Māori interests are recognised. In simple terms, the goals focus the system on what matters most. They narrow the scope for endless relitigation, give clearer direction to decision makers, and help ensure that early decisions can stick. That is how we create a planning system that is more predictable, more practical, and more outcomes-focused. We need a planning system that stops getting in the way and starts getting things done.

The Resource Management Act (RMA) reform makes it easier to consent renewable energy, EV charging, and other lower-emission developments. Today is a landmark day, a day when New Zealand turns the page on a failed system and embraces a planning framework fit for the future. On this side of the House, we are fixing the basics and building the future. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (16:45): Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, that’s a shocking speech from a member who obviously has no awareness in terms of what her Government has done in terms of Māori interests.

As Rachel Brooking has pointed out very well over the 30 hours that she covered this kaupapa, Māori interests have been insulted and ignored. That was epitomised very much by Tainui leader Tukoroirangi Morgan. It’s a shame the member wasn’t at Ngāruawāhia, but Paul Goldsmith and Tama Potaka were there, and Tuku Morgan was very, very clear that we have to kick this lot out. It’s not because Māori don’t want to work with this Government—Māori would work with this Government tomorrow. Māori, particularly iwi, don’t have a choice in terms of when they’re trying to set a future up for their mokopuna, for the generations to come. It doesn’t matter who’s the lead in Government—whether it’s National, Labour or whatever—Māori don’t have a choice on this. But when Māori set up a deal with Nick Smith and the previous National Government in terms of mana whakahono ā rohe [iwi participation arrangements], they expect Governments to respect those deals. They expect Governments to honour those deals.

Simon Court: We’re changing the law.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: They don’t expect Governments to change the law—change the law—break the law, ignore the courts like the ACT Party wants to do. That’s what they want to do. They want—

Tom Rutherford: That’s rubbish.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, it’s not rubbish. It’s a fact. They’ve said that. You say “rubbish”—that’s just not true. David Seymour’s said, “What do these judges know?” What are you saying rubbish for? He’s documented and he’s clear that judges don’t know what they’re doing, courts don’t know what they’re doing, and anyone who acknowledges partnership in terms of Māori don’t know what they’re doing. That’s not rubbish; that’s an absolute, undisputed fact—that the ACT Party does not agree with the professor over here. Duncan knows. That’s true, isn’t it? The professor’s acknowledged it; he’s given me the green light.

That’s a fact, and I just need to tell some on the other side: mana whakahono ā rohe [iwi participation arrangements] agreements were great agreements. It was a great strategy from National: bringing in iwi input, bringing in iwi leaders, bringing in support, working with the Māori, not telling Māori what to do. What I want to say today is I acknowledge the work that National did in that area. But this Government is shaming all the work and embarrassing all the work that had been done in the past. How do I know this? Because I ran into Chris Finlayson the other day and he told me this.

Tom Rutherford: Talk to the bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: He did. Now, Chris Finlayson knows more about mana whakahono ā rohe [iwi participation arrangements] and iwi agreements; more than everyone on that other side, and most people—well, I won’t say most people on this side, because myself and Rachel and Duncan probably know a little bit more than him. But the reality is when you have learned leaders of that stature embarrassed by this Government, embarrassed the way that they’re treating Māori, you have to make that statement here in Parliament. Not only Chris Finlayson—he told me he rang Sir Doug Graham, who is the sort of godfather of Treaty settlements and everything, and Sir Doug Graham is embarrassed by this lot over there. That’s right, and none of them can look at me at the moment, because they’re hanging their heads in shame because the senior kaumātua of this useless Government has said they don’t know what they’re doing—they don’t know what they’re doing.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Is your speech going to circle back to the bill, Mr Jackson?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Tukoroirangi Morgan said that. He actually said, “We know this is election year, but this [kaupapa] is bad news for people and organisations who follow the rule of law and [then] in the next breath have the government step in to override judicial directions at”—at; here’s the key—“the behest of their political donors.” That’s what Tukoroirangi Morgan said. He said, “Our catchments will now be subject to another six years of degradation which is completely and utterly unacceptable. PC1 levels the playing field for everyone who has a vested interest in the health and wellbeing of our environment and that must surely be a positive thing”—but not so for this Government.

This is such an embarrassment, because as people have said, the Government has swung the pendulum too far towards private property rights. I think those points have been made. The new purpose centres on the enjoyment of land, which we argue risks putting the interests of individual landowners ahead of good planning for entire communities. Putting property rights before human rights creates a situation where councils could be financially punished for protecting communities. This isn’t a planning bill for our communities or the common good of society; it’s a blueprint for big polluters to hold our democratic institutions to ransom if they dare enforce environmental concerns against them. The reality is the big polluters in this country seem to have a direct line to Minister Bishop and the Prime Minister. The reality is ratepayers, ultimately, carry the costs here. Instead of the polluter developer bearing the cost of environmental damage, councils, and therefore ratepayers, could face the cost of compensating property owners for restrictions imposed in the public interest.

The system doesn’t adequately plan for climate resilience—these points have been made, but I’m just reiterating these points. We have specifically highlighted the need for drainage, trees, green infrastructure, and public green space as extreme weather becomes more frequent. The reality is this bill doesn’t give any of that sufficient weight. We worry that the property rights emphasis encourages maximum development of private land without corresponding mechanisms ensuring adequate public green space. The bill produces more bureaucracy rather than less. Land use planning cannot sensibly be separated from the environment in which that development occurs.

In terms of the Māori section, again, I have read out some of the things from Tuku Morgan, but it is appropriate to talk about the principles of the Treaty because we have a few dingbats on the other side who don’t understand how important the principles of the Treaty are, and we know who those people are. Our view in terms of giving effect to the principles of the Treaty—we stand by it, so we wanted that introduction, as what we’ve got now is a worsening in terms of the Resource Management Act (RMA). Section 8 of the RMA states that “all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty”. The general Treaty clauses in these bills have been removed.

Simon Court: That’s right.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s right—I knew you knew that, yeah. There are specific actions—clause 8, the section 6(e) relation of Māori to lands, water, and taonga equivalent, is downgraded. It is expected this approach would limit how the Treaty is interpreted. That is the problem—that is the problem.

I want to acknowledge in particular, obviously, our representatives who’ve worked on this, Rachel in particular, but I also want to acknowledge David Parker and Kiritapu Allan, who had to traverse this in our time in Government, and it was not an easy area in terms of giving effect to the Treaty. Well, all Governments have struggled with that, giving effect to the Treaty, but you don’t give effect to the Treaty by walking away from the obligation and the responsibility, which is what this Government has done. What they’ve done with this is watered down the obligations, watered down the rights in terms of Māori, and have barely acknowledged Māori as partners through this process. It’s a sad, sad indictment on a Government that only has six more weeks in office, and then Tuku Morgan and all the other iwi leaders will be happy because we’ll see the end of the most anti-Māori Government from the past generations. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (16:55): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to rise and take a call in support of the Planning Bill. For more than three decades, New Zealanders have had to deal with a resource management system that is too complicated, too costly, and too slow. The Resource Management Act (RMA) has too often become a barrier to the very things our communities need: new homes, reliable infrastructure, renewable energy, and productive businesses that can grow and create jobs.

That matters greatly in an area like Northland. Our region has enormous potential, but too often progress has been held back by complexity and delay. Whether it is building a home, upgrading a road, strengthening electricity networks, establishing a new business or investing in the primary sector, Northlanders know how unnecessary processes can add cost and be an uncertainty.

I particularly want to focus on the area of homes. We’ve always supported a property-owning democracy as a foundation of our society. Homeownership is fundamental to a well-functioning society. I’ve got two children, both in their 20s, who will soon be wanting to buy their first home. It would be great if they didn’t have to rely on the bank of mum and dad to come and do that, as, unfortunately, as one of the legacies of the previous RMA, that has definitely been one of the things, unfortunately, that has to happen. It’s important that every person growing up in New Zealand has the opportunity to buy their own home in their own right. For that to happen, the price of land and the cost of housing developments need to be reduced. This will be one of the great outcomes of this legislation.

New Zealand cannot afford to keep planning for delay, complexity, and constraint. We need a system that gets the balance right, one that protects what matters, respects property rights and affected people, and gives communities the confidence to build for the future. For Northland, this reform means a better chance to turn opportunity into jobs, homes, infrastructure, and stronger communities. This is a practical and long overdue replacement to the RMA, and I commend the Planning Bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (16:58): I, from time to time, joined the Environment Committee as they’ve considered aspects of these two bills. I’ve listened to our experts within our own caucus who’ve worked on these bills, the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, but, in essence, I’m coming to it fresh today. This is the first time I’ve had a speech on this bill, and I have to say it’s quite daunting picking it up and understanding what the Government over there has chosen to do.

Now, I guess I’m finding a couple of things distressing about what I’ve heard in the House this afternoon. I think I found it distressing that members on the other side, despite being now well-established members of this House, read their speeches, that they couldn’t do as we’re supposed to do in this House and genuinely speak to the bill that’s in front of us. So I come here comparatively fresh to this and ready to grapple with it and speak from the heart about some of the problems I see in this bill, and the thing is, it’s a glaring problem that starts right from the start.

I want to go, in clause 4—it’s the purpose clause. What is the purpose of the Planning Bill? It’s such a limited purpose. It says, “The purpose of this Act is to provide for the enjoyment of land by establishing a framework for planning and regulating the use and development of [that] land.” Here’s the thing: purpose clauses often give a direction as to how the courts are to interpret the law. Where, in the purpose of this bill, is the need to plan for our natural environment? Where is there, in the purpose of this bill, to plan for huge issues like climate change? Where is it, in the purpose of this bill, mentioned that one of the things that New Zealanders value, that we love, is our access to the outdoors, to open spaces, to green, to the freshness of nature? We have just seen the annual Bird of the Year competition this year, where so many New Zealanders enter in this vote to choose the bird of the year, because we love where we live. This Planning Bill does not acknowledge that love.

But then I think the other gap that just comes right out of this bill is going to the sections which talk about what is to be considered or not considered when undertaking decision making under this bill. There’s a whole lot of issues that should be considered. But where was the climate? Then it turns out there is a clause specifically for considering climate change effects, and it says that when anyone is exercising a power, function, or duty under this bill, they may consider any positive effects of the activity that are associated with avoiding, reducing, removing, or displacing greenhouse gas emissions. That’s a good section to see in there. But then they say that they “must not …”—“must not”—“consider any adverse effect on climate change of any greenhouse gas emissions that will or may result from or be increased by the activity, whether directly or indirectly;”—“must not … consider any adverse effect on climate”.

We have seen an absolute litany of shameful actions from that Government, who on the one hand say that they intend to honour our climate commitments and on the other hand have taken action after action after action that have totally negated what they’ve said up front. Here it is again in this bill: “must not … consider any adverse effects on climate”. They’ve written it into law. This is a shameful bill.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (17:03): This was a wonderful bill, and I’m so pleased to be able to speak to it. Can I just take a moment to acknowledge the courage that our Minister, the Hon Chris Bishop, ably assisted by Simon Court, has taken to create this part one of two planning bills. We had the members opposite saying that they’d created a bill, and why didn’t we just support it?

Hon Rachel Brooking: An Act—it was an Act that you repealed.

RYAN HAMILTON: Well, the reality—an Act, an Act. Thank you for that correction. The reality why we didn’t support it is because it was dumb, because it was the Resource Management Act 2.0, and we had to repeal it and make something that was workable and that would fundamentally shift the productivity disease in this country. This bill, the Planning Bill, in conjunction with the environment bill, is going to be fundamental to the production and the prosperity of this country. It will be one of the hallmarks of this Government, and I’m pleased that we can celebrate this today in the third reading and what will be a significant shift in the ability to get stuff done in this country. Very quickly, changing things from 100 regional plans to 17, changing things like over 1,300 zones to what I imagine—

Hon Rachel Brooking: That sounds like our legislation.

RYAN HAMILTON: You had your call, Ms Brooking. Why don’t you just be quiet now, please? From over 1,300 planning zones to less than 100 potentially. It’s with pride that I commend this bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (17:05): Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a disappointing day in the New Zealand Parliament when we are looking to progress through the final stages the two remaining bills. As you’ve heard already, the Labour Party continues to be opposed to this bill, but it needs to be noted that when it comes to Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, this has been a change in direction and in tack because, originally, when bills were sent off to the select committee, there was actually quite a bit of hope that what would come back to the House would be legislation that would address some of the issues that we had raised in the first reading contributions.

I’ve been fortunate to be able to provide a contribution at first, second, and now third reading for this bill, and what is really disappointing is that not only have those issues that were identified at first reading made their way through to select committee—and we supported the bill going to a select committee—what we actually have in front of us now, having emerged out of the committee of the whole House stage, is a completely different bill.

I heard, earlier, my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking talk about that particular Monday when the select committee report had come back, and then a matter of hours—or less than hours, actually—afterwards, a completely new approach was identified by this Government. What that signals to the numerous individuals, organisations, and community groups that took their time to engage with Parliament’s process is an absolute kick in the guts. They, effectively, engage with this process that this Parliament establishes for our community to provide their feedback on a bill, the select committee works through that, reports it back, and then a matter of hours later, on the same day, they simply land something that has a completely different tack, not only from the select committee but in terms of the issues that had been identified. What is the point of a select committee process? I can accept that there might be a few tweaks to address certain things, but when you have a Government that basically lands on the Table a complete alternative approach to things that had been worked through as part of the select committee process, that is deeply disturbing.

We continue to oppose this particular bill, which is very different from when it was at the first reading. Now, I’ve also heard about the concerns that have been expressed by one of the few statutory officers of this Parliament, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who himself has identified that, actually, there is a lack of synergy between this bill and the one that is about to follow over the course of today.

The issue around dispute resolution, effectively, and the process around that being problematic is something that we still stand by. Why? Because these are decisions that will be taken by Ministers of this Government—for the next few weeks, at least—and there is far too much discretion that sits at ministerial level, and there is far too much power that sits with one Minister in particular. That is the particular issue that I think needs to be highlighted. I know that it has been highlighted before, but it is an issue none the less.

I’ve heard in this House, from members opposite, around how we don’t need to worry about the regulatory relief implications for local councils. Well, I do want to just identify what this will mean for local councils and, by default, members of the community who will feel it hard, potentially, in terms of the compensation in the regulatory relief provisions. This is one of the most serious concerns that I have with this legislation. It will force councils and communities to make decisions that are actually not about what is in the best interests of the community and the environment but are actually in the best interests of the back pocket. Fundamentally, that’s what these regulatory relief provisions seek to kind of indicate—some concern. Local government itself as a sector has identified concerns in the same space. Across Aotearoa New Zealand, over decades, councils have spent time pulling together plans and opportunities throughout communities that reflect really strong value in terms of what communities value in their own backyard.

When we look at the list, some of those are around biodiversity protections, some of them are around what natural areas would be considered as being significant, others around heritage buildings and precincts, and actually we talked about this just in the last few days around earthquake-prone buildings and what that might mean. Others are around the outstanding nature of landscapes, coastal protections. New Zealand, as we know, is an island nation that has coastal opportunity that is second to none than other parts of the world. Also around hazard management provisions.

Now, these protections should not be seen as something radical, they should be seen as actually being something that is astutely part of New Zealand and Kiwi life and our own sense of identity. Yet, we have a Government that seeks to focus on private interest, private implication at the expense of public and community value. And I don’t think that’s right. Where councils will be forced into considering actually, “Will compensation be required? Will regulatory relief be sought or required? What will this financial exposure be to us?”

When I talk about “us” and “we”, I’m talking about the community that are outside of these four walls, because at the end of the day, when this regulatory relief is being sought and this compensation is going to have to be paid, it is going to come out of the back pockets of communities all around Aotearoa New Zealand. It’ll come out of back pockets by way of an increase in rating capacity. It will come out of their back pockets in terms of a reduced level of service when councils reflect on what it is they will continue to provide at what level, or indeed what it is they will no longer provide because they don’t have adequate revenue to be able to do that. It will result, perhaps, in delayed infrastructure projects in communities. Why? Because councils will be forced to prioritise what they may wish to do as a result of turning their mind to regulatory relief and possible compensation. It may lead to the disposal of council assets, something that is the mantra of this particular Government, in terms of assets owned by the community—you’d actually want to make it easier to hock them off. That is the focus of this particular Government.

Fundamentally, it will result in the reduced investment in areas like recreational facilities—

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Libraries.

TANGI UTIKERE: Libraries—thank you—pools, museums.

Lemauga Lydia Sosene: Parks.

TANGI UTIKERE: This will be a—parks. You keep going, that’s great. These are the sorts of things that really will have an impact on local communities. And while Mr Court might say, well, you know, it’s only about increased revenue, or it might be about a land swap here and there, at the end of the day, this is going to hit communities at its heart.

Grant McCallum: What about the property owners?

TANGI UTIKERE: And what about the property owners? There we go. We have it exactly there, that is what this is all about; it is about private interest as opposed to community and public good. That is what it is. I’m not surprised to hear that from a Government member, because over the last week alone we have, yet again, heard that this is a Government that has a completely different view of localism. They campaigned at the last election on localism and what this means, but actually it’s about removing local choice and forcing councils into a particular corner. I’m not surprised by the interjection from the member opposite around that.

This is an approach that is going to also undermine the long-term planning opportunity for councils around the country. I’ve talked about the fact, and you yourself notice, Madam Speaker, that councils have, over decades, built up what things look like in their local community. Councils are very good at long-term planning. They are very good at long-term planning. And what’s really important is that councils can adapt to change. We all know that; they can absolutely adapt to change. Under this Government, they’ve certainly had to think a wee bit about that. But what they do actually also need is a Government that’s going to work alongside them in partnership. And what this Planning Bill does is it actually says to all of those community organisations, all of those councils, all of those individuals who submitted to a process acknowledging that reform is needed within this sector, actually what it is that you’ve had to say to this Parliament is worthless, is meaningless. At the end of the day, this bill reflects that. We don’t commend it to the House.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (17:15): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to start this contribution in saying resource management is an incredibly complex area. I think it’s shown in the fact that the speaker on the other side of the House lifted the one document of this particular bill and the size of it. And if you didn’t know, the Resource Management Act (RMA) is actually the second largest Act that we have on the statute book, only behind the Income Tax Act. It is significant in size, nearly 1,000 pages long. This stage here is step one of two steps that we’re taking this evening to be able to change the RMA, with this being the Planning Bill.

My experience is that back in 1991 when the RMA first came out, I think it was seen as a world-class piece of legislation. I actually do believe that, and I think that over the succeeding 30 years we saw multiple amendments, multiple uses of national instruments, whether they’re national policy statements or national environmental standards. The fact is that it became an incredibly litigious Act to use. It became very frustrating for anybody to get anything done. It took far too long to get consents and permits. It cost way too much. We used the commonly-used example of the wind farm here in Wellington, on the coast. The example there that it actually took two years to build. It was a big project to construct, itself. It took eight years to consent. No wonder we are the most expensive country in the OECD to get things built: infrastructure, everything like that. The red tape in the RMA has just been out of control. We need to fix that and this is what we’re endeavouring to do here.

I want to acknowledge the Ministers that have been involved here, both the Hon Chris Bishop and also Simon Court with the huge amount of work you’ve done at your level. But I also know the army of officials, we saw that at the select committee, that actually have been involved with the huge amount of work behind this bill here, as well as the Natural Environment Bill that’s still to come this evening.

I also want to thank the submitters. We did have a significant amount of interest, not unusually. Of course, everybody’s very keen to be part of this conversation, and it was so important to have that. And also the multiple lenses of the people that are around the table of the select committee, a number of them are here today. I was pleased to see the various conversations, the various angles that people looked at, because it was the select committee’s job to bring this bill back to the House in a better shape. We did see late amendments made as well by the Government, but we—sorry, I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Planning Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Natural Environment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (17:19): I present a legislative statement on the Natural Environment Bill.

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

Third Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (17:19): I move, That the Natural Environment Bill be now read a third time.

There have been moments in which I thought this day would never come. It has been a long process to get to this point. There have been some who say, “Oh well, isn’t it bad that the Government is moving to repeal the Resource Management Act (RMA) on the final”—or second to last—“sitting day of the Parliament.” And it has taken a long time.

It is perhaps worth reflecting on the amount of progress that has happened in this term. In these three years, the Government has passed fast track in its first year, with 34 projects approved under fast track. We have passed the biggest series of changes to national direction under the RMA, ever—in three years; a new national policy statement for infrastructure, which we never had before; a much more strengthened and reliable national policy statement for renewable electricity generation; new national standards for granny flats; for the first time ever, a national environmental standard for papa kāinga housing to allow iwi to use their whenua to build papa kāinga for whānau; national environmental standards for telecommunications, that have just been promulgated, that will make it easier to build telecommunication towers; national environmental standards for electricity vehicle charging infrastructure, to stop ChargeNet and Meridian and all the EV charging companies having to go out and get individualised resource consents for projects that are, basically, functionally the same around the country; national environmental standards changes to freshwater; and a variety of other environmental changes through the national direction. All of that, and fast track and some changes to the RMA to allow for more housing in Auckland, and now today: the second of two bills—a duo of bills—to finally repeal and replace the RMA, once and for all. The RMA will be “gone-burger”—once it receives Royal assent.

I want to reflect on the environment, because the RMA—and I think this is now widely understood—has been a disaster for infrastructure and housing, and we’ve canvassed that in the Planning Bill, but it’s also been a failure when it comes to protecting the environment. Most metrics have degraded since 1991. Study after study shows two-thirds of our rivers have impaired ecological health. To the contrary to what members opposite, I think, sometimes say—or perhaps even believe—the Government’s view is that we can have a growing, thriving economy and we can do that whilst protecting the environment. In fact, the two go hand in hand. We should not pretend that it’s some binary choice between the environment and the economy. Actually, both work together. New Zealanders share pride in our pristine environment. We have a joint national collective belief in protecting this very special part of the world for our children and our children’s children.

I want to spend a little time in this speech talking about how this new system will better protect the environment. One of the failures of the RMA has been the inability to introduce proper environmental limits. We are introducing environmental limits through the new Natural Environment Bill to improve resource efficiency and improve the environment. Enforcement will be more effective and consistent. We’re considering a national regulator with a regional presence to monitor and enforce environmental rules.

There will be a huge focus on data-driven decisions through a digitised planning system. This hasn’t received a lot of attention—and that annoys me a little bit—but the Government has invested considerably, and will continue to invest, in a digitised back end for councils and for central government to drive better decisions, better monitoring, and better measurement. It’s extremely important, and I’ve been flabbergasted, frankly, over the last three years at some of the gaps in our information, the gaps in our knowledge. But with better data, you can make better decisions.

I want to be clear on what Parliament’s intent is when passing these bills into law. On environmental limits, central and local government decision-makers will be required to set binding environmental limits informed by data and community aspirations. National limits will protect human health. Regions will set ecosystem health limits for fresh water, coastal water, land and soil, and indigenous biodiversity, using methods set out in national standards. Ecosystem health limits will make sure that communities who know their rivers and waterways the best are able to make decisions over how they’re managed. It’s their aspirations for the environment that matter most, and they should be the loudest voices.

Requirements to manage limits through a cap on resource use have been removed—that is true. That does not prevent caps from being used, but means councils and Ministers have flexibility to decide best how to manage resource use to a limit. Limits will have effect the moment the relevant provisions in a natural environment plan become operative—not in 10 or 15 years’ time, as some in the Chamber continue to claim. Councils must take all reasonable steps to avoid breaching a limit. Where a limit is breached, the decision maker must set a target date for remedying the breach. If the target is more than 10 years away, temporary interim limits must be set to apply over 10-year intervals. These must be accompanied by actions to be achieved. Both the target date and interim limits must be credible, achievable, and avoid unnecessary delay.

Limits cannot be token. Decision makers must set limits and, in doing so, must prioritise the most urgent and important matters by considering the scale and pace of environmental degradation and the difficulty reversing that if action is delayed. The limit-setting process requires a deliberate, informed, and transparent decision about what level of environmental protection is acceptable. Decision makers must have regard to the impact of the proposed limit or method, including on communities, economic, social, environmental aspirations; the existing capacity of the natural environment to withstand or recover from pressure; and a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed decision. This way, any economic, social, and environmental trade-offs are surfaced and considered up front rather than being relitigated every time someone wants to develop. Limit-setting is a policy choice which includes a range of considerations. It is not intended to be a wholly scientific decision. The current state of the environment will be a relevant factor in this decision, but the limit may be set at above or below this level.

Let me be really clear: limits are critical to the Natural Environment Bill. They are the most important tool in protecting the environment in the bills, but they are not the only tool. The starting premise of the environment bill is protective in that the use of natural resources is not permitted unless allowed by a national standard, a rule, or a permit. Not all things are best managed through limits, and for these other things the intention is that plan rules and national standards can be used to manage impacts on the environment.

In relation to freshwater farm plans, we’ve made changes to create a simpler, cheaper system focused on real risk. A farm will be required to have a farm plan if it has more than 50 hectares in pastoral, arable, or viticultural orcharding land use, or more than 5 hectares in horticultural production that is not viticulture or orchards.

Farm plans are required to be certified and audited in three scenarios: first, if they’re undertaking activities prescribed in regulations as high risk, and in this situation, only the activities that are prescribed are subject to certification and auditing; second, where the catchment is prescribed in regulations; third, where the farm operator is using the freshwater farm plan to meet other regulatory requirements.

In relation to upholding Treaty settlements and other arrangements, Treaty settlement legislation gives effect to redress and arrangements that interact with planning processes and is independent of the provisions in both the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. There are provisions in the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill to ensure this redress can be upheld in the new system, including by requiring the Crown to work with post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs) and other entities, if they wish to do so, to seek agreement on how settlement redress can operate in the new system.

The bills also set out specific requirements that relate to more complex arrangements—for example, aspects of Te Ture Whaimana. Until agreement is reached, decision makers in the new system are required to give the same or equivalent effect to Treaty settlement redress as it had under the RMA to the greatest extent possible in the new system. Some Treaty settlements include redress relating to wildlife. For wildlife approvals, I want to be clear that permit authorities must notify only those iwi authorities or PSGEs where necessary to give effect to Treaty settlement redress. A relevant iwi authority in this context is limited to one with relevant Treaty settlement redress. There is no requirement to notify iwi authorities or other Māori groups more generally.

The explicit intent of these bills is to deliberately reshape how we interact with the planning system. We are purposely and deliberately creating a system where we incentivise earlier participation at the planning stage, including in regional spatial plans, with more focused and targeted participation at later stages, consistent with the funnel concept. That includes iwi engagement. Iwi should not be consulted as a right on each and every consent. They don’t want that, the public don’t want that, and it erodes social licence for the planning system. Iwi should have a role in contributing and shaping plans for a region, not a role in consenting unless that consent directly affects them—in other words, the same as everyone else. This applies across both the natural environment and the planning bills.

If I could just take one more second to say that these reforms signify a large shift in how we plan and manage our land, environment, and development—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Minister’s time has expired. The Hon Rachel Brooking.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (17:29): Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Before you start, can I just say that the question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m interested in some comments that we’ve just had from Ryan Hamilton about the Planning Bill that is related to this bill. He called Labour’s reforms, our Natural and Built Environment Act and Spatial Planning Act, the Resource Management Act (RMA) 2.0, but then he didn’t explain why, and then he listed a whole lot of things about this legislative scheme, which is the same as what was in Labour’s legislative scheme. Those good things—the spatial plans, the standardisation, the moving the focus of the system away from consent by consent, very expensive processes into the plans and into the national direction—those are all things that we agree with, and that is all the stuff that was in what that member called RMA 2.0. What does that make this legislation then? Is this RMA 3.0, given that logic?

Now, I’m interested in the Minister’s comments, just then, about limits. The Minister has said that the RMA has not worked for the environment and the environment has got worse. I totally agree with that premise, and that is why Labour undertook its reforms. Now, Labour had a limits-setting process in our legislation, and the Minister has made a lot of the fact that this legislation also has a limits-setting framework. But what we heard in the committee of the whole House stage of this bill, and what we saw by amendments that were made by the majority in select committee and then by subsequent amendments as well, is that any limit is going to be able to be avoided, which rather defeats the purpose of saying there is a limit.

A limit is a limit. If you’re driving your car at 120 and the limit is 110—you’re on one of those fancy new roads—then you are breaching the limit, and you can’t do it. But that is not what the limits mean in this legislation. The limits mean in this legislation that the Minister can just decide that something can ignore it. That’s not a limit. We also heard in the committee of the whole House stage that when deciding what these limits will be, at some point in the future—we could have already had the limits in play, but, no, we’re going to put out those limits further and further—that they’ve got to go through a cost-benefit analysis. How much is this going to cost some users of the system? Presumably users of the commons—that is users of a water resource—how much is it going to cost them? And if it’s a bit too much, we won’t worry about the limit. That is what Simon Court was talking about in the committee of the whole House stage. It is laughable that Government members come to this House and say that this new regime has limits and that it’s somehow going to help the environment, because it just simply is not.

We are very suspicious of this Government’s approach because what we have seen happen throughout this term of Government—and the Minister was speaking about it—is that there have been little strikes on the Resource Management Act and anything that goes to any environmental protections. We have seen that in one amendment bill and then in a second amendment bill, and with the fast-track legislation and then with an amendment to the fast-track legislation. Where has that led the country? Well, what we have seen, just last week, in urgency, is the Government having to do some sort of fix-up for development contributions for those fast-track projects that the Minister was just in this House skiting about. Those projects include huge housing developments on flood plains without any provision for development contributions. What that means is that ratepayers are going to be paying a whole lot more for infrastructure. It is just typical of this Government’s arrogant approach to lawmaking, that they speed things through, they say, “Oh, we’re listening in select committee.”, they plop out all these changes by majority, and then it doesn’t work. If only they’d listened to all those submitters who said, “It just won’t work.” But, no, they don’t do that.

We’ve also seen in the media, today, the Minister objecting to an article that’s been in The Post, where I have called this Government’s approach “reckless”—because it is reckless. We saw in the committee of the whole House stage giant Amendment Papers from this Government doing a whole lot of policy changes. Now, sometimes you can have giant Amendment Papers that reorder the bill to make it more logical, that do some little typo fix-its or fine referencing fix-its. But that wasn’t what this was. Instead, we had major policy changes coming in after the select committee process. The Minister says, “Oh well, we told people about it. We put out a press release about it.” That is not good lawmaking. Putting out a press release is not the same as scrutiny at a select committee. Again, it goes to this Government’s arrogance.

Plus the Minister said, “Well, there were 30 hours of the committee stage, and so these things would have been scrutinised.” But those members, on that side of the House, closed down the debate. They closed it down on the part of this bill when we would have discussed the schedules, and what was in those schedules? Just these farm plans that the Minister was talking about. Were we able to discuss that? No, not in any real way. Did we discuss the wildlife approvals? No. Did we discuss in any detail the huge changes to fisheries that came in after the select committee process and by Amendment Paper of the Government? No, we did not. We had articles this week by Andrea Vance about the huge loss that people are feeling about theMotiti decision and how that’s all been upended by changes that this Government made under stealth, not in good faith. That is so typical. Nothing is ever in good faith by this Government.

Then we also have this removed resource cap. That comes in after the select committee process. Plus, we had a decision made by the Environment Court about the Waikato Regional Council’s plan, and this plan would have been implementing some policy statements, the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. It would have been doing better for our rivers and for that environment. The Environment Court decision came back. A couple of people with some phone numbers in their phones didn’t like it. So what did they do? They lobbied this Government to change the law. And what did this Government do? What a surprise. What a surprise. Just like they’ve done time and time again, they changed the law. They did it by Amendment Paper in this House where they said, “Oh, the court wants to do something. You know what? We think we’ll just overturn it. Oh, we won’t say we’re going to overturn it. We’ll just say, ‘we’re just pausing it for a few years.’” There was something that was going to decrease pollution, there was a plan that was going to do better for our environment, and what did this Government do? Well, just like they had done with the two previous amendments to the RMA and their fast-track legislation that they had to amend and then they’ve just had to amend it again, what did they do? They said, “Yes, we want more pollution.” It’s so typical. They don’t want to do anything about improving the environment. They don’t want to do anything about reducing climate change pollution. We’ve seen in these bills, “You can think of it as a positive effect, but at no other time can you consider it.”

Now, what is the future that we want on this side of the House? I think everybody here agrees that we want rivers that are swimmable. We want to reduce the pollution and we want to think of those things that are our commons, about how the public can benefit from them, rather than the private few that have the phone numbers of those members over there. We want to increase biodiversity; that is, we like Freddy the frog, we like the bats, and we need to do better for them. But on that side of the House, no, that’s not what they want. They’re happy for species to say goodbye to different species and that is a disgrace. That is what these bills are doing, and in no way should they be passed in this form. We need to make strong amendments, as I tabled, before the committee of the whole House stage.

Debate interrupted.

Valedictory Statements

Hon Brooke van Velden

SPEAKER: Members, in accordance with the Business Committee, I’ll now call on a member to make a maiden speech. Can I indicate that at the conclusion of that speech, the House will suspend—

Grant McCallum: A valedictory—valedictory.

SPEAKER: I haven’t got there yet. Are you in the Chair or not? I tell you what, you’ll be watching it on the TV outside if you keep that up. In accordance with the Business Committee, we now come to a valedictory statement. Can I tell the House that at the conclusion of that statement, the House will suspend for the dinner break. I now call on the Hon Brooke van Velden to make her valedictory statement to the House.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) (17:40): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand in this House for a final time to give my valedictory speech. If I start to get too emotional during this contribution, I swear it’s pregnancy hormones and not me letting my guard down in the last week of Parliament.

As I retire from Parliament, I’ve reflected on what an honour and a privilege it has been to serve my community, my party, and my country. I leave Parliament decades younger than most MPs when they enter, yet I feel I’ve experienced more of New Zealand than most would in a lifetime. I have always been clear that I never wished to be a career politician. I came here to do a job, not to hold a position. I am proud of my contribution to public service, and it is time now to take on a new challenge outside of it.

One of the true privileges of being a member of Parliament is the people we meet. We in this House shape the laws of this country, but it is those interactions out across the country that have shaped me. Whether it’s a shoulder to cry on for the woman who lost her home in the Auckland floods, sitting with a woman who lost her son to suicide, or helping an elderly man with no family understand his medication, those interactions stay with me.

I’ve been shown through Kiwi companies, from fibreglass factories, forestry plantations, steel fabricators, rocket and precision electromagnet assemblies, and ports, and listened as small business owners and farmers described the daily battle to keep the lights on for their employees and provide for their own families. I’ve visited drug rehabilitation centres, rest homes and dementia care facilities, and animal welfare refuges. Every day as a member of Parliament has been different.

I am grateful for the thousands of connections I’ve had with New Zealanders, each sharing their own personal stories, and I’m humbled I had the opportunity to listen, advocate, and bring their voices to Wellington. Those conversations confirmed something that I came to this place believing. Government decisions touch each of our lives a thousand times a day, through rules, regulations, limits on freedoms and choices. We should never treat the decisions before us lightly. People deserve honesty and justification.

My first thanks tonight must go to ACT Leader David Seymour. Thank you for nine years of working together over three Parliamentary terms—nine years of leadership, mentorship, and friendship. Thank you for showing me what can be achieved by one MP with conviction and the willingness to act on it.

I believe advocating for and passing the End of Life Choice Act was the morally and ethically right thing to do. Before I entered this House as an MP, I worked here with David Seymour to write and pass a law that has now provided compassion and choice for hundreds of people suffering at the end of their lives. That law rests on a simple principle: your life is your own. Who are we to tell a terminally ill person how much suffering they must endure before the end?

I wish to acknowledge those who assisted in passing that law: parliamentarians, legal drafters, advocates, but most importantly, the many New Zealanders who shared their stories and who passed away during the passage of the bill and after. Working on that law will remain one of the greatest privileges of my life. I told you I was going to cry! It convinced me to dedicate the past few years to public service, to advance more laws that benefit New Zealanders.

My second thanks go to the ACT Party board and ACT members who selected me as the party’s deputy leader in 2020, backing a young, liberal woman to help lead the party in Opposition and in Government. Thank you for your trust and for your support over my six years in the role. I have aimed to repay that trust in my words and actions in this House, and by supporting the wider ACT caucus and team.

As deputy leader, I sought to be a support, a trusted sounding board, and a voice of honesty to the leader. Thank you, David, for providing that for me also. As I step back to join ACT’s old guard, I’m comforted that my colleague Nicole McKee will be a steady pair of hands helping to lead ACT forward.

David, I will miss our Monday evening dinners and debriefs at the Thistle Inn. I won’t miss the early-morning phone calls or running to keep up with your walking pace in these corridors.

When I entered Parliament in 2020, I also took on the role of party whip. It was a role I took seriously. I was stringent. To my ACT colleagues from 2020, thank you for putting up with my monthly key performance indicator meetings. Every month, I sat down for half an hour with each MP one-on-one to go over what had been achieved, goals for the next month, and to hear any concerns. These were warmly welcomed by some, tolerated by others, and refused by only one caucus member—the leader. I didn’t tell anyone at the time, in case the others got a whiff that they could be optional.

I was and remain impressed by how good our caucus was to work with. Thank you Nicole, Chris, Simon, Karen, James, Mark, Toni, and Damien for being good natured, hard-working MPs who got on with the job and left personal politics at the door. That caucus is only rivalled by our current caucus. Thank you, also, to Andrew, Todd, Laura, Parmjeet, and Cam. You have all made my decision to step away much easier, knowing that I leave the party in such good hands.

During my time in Opposition, I advocated for a number of causes. I brought a motion, unanimously supported across this House, expressing grave concern at the human rights abuses against Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in Xinjiang. I hosted fundraisers for the Ukrainian effort. And I advocated for pregnant New Zealand women unable to re-enter their own country under COVID restrictions. Those causes might look unrelated, but what they have in common is a belief in freedom, choice, and democratic rights. I believe in democracy. I believe it is the best system we have to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals, and to allow individuals with very different beliefs to live alongside one another with choice and dignity.

At the start of 2023, I asked two ACT Tāmaki-based volunteers out for a coffee, and I asked what they thought about me campaigning to win the seat. They didn’t know it at the time, but I wouldn’t have gone ahead if they’d told me they didn’t back the idea. The answer came back. I had my first two volunteers. Thanks to Don and Mike, I put the wheels in motion—writing a plan, getting sign-off from the board, hosting a campaign launch in Kohimarama, and setting about painting Tāmaki pink. I had pink bunting, a pink blazer, and a pink car. What followed were some of the most rewarding, tiring, and fun moments of my life.

I still recall the very first door I knocked on with Don, the day after the announcement. My pamphlets hadn’t arrived, so I printed 200 flyers at the Warehouse and met Don in the rain at the corner of Vale Road and Maskell Street. I knocked, and before I could finish my pitch, the lady who answered said, “Oh, I saw you on the news last night—you already have my vote!” That single interaction spurred me on for days.

What followed was true grassroots activism. I held 130 street corner meetings across the electorate with my pink coat and affordable microphone. I remember the first one, driving to Stonefields, bracing for no one to show up. I was greeted by 40 people at the corner of the park, all curious to meet the new candidate. By the end of the campaign, over 120 locals were volunteering in some capacity, most of whom had never been involved in a political party. Thank you to my campaign manager, Jaden; to electorate committee chairs, Carolyn and Tony; and electorate committee members and volunteers.

The warmth and support I felt in Tāmaki from the start has never left. It has been a true pleasure to be your local MP. To the people of Tāmaki, thank you. Thank you for voting for me to represent you. Thank you for your warmth, your kindness, and your genuine care for my welfare.

I’ve lost count of how many times a conversation in a local shop has led to someone thanking me for my service, or even comments like “You’re too nice for that job. It must be horrible. How do you do it?” I joke back that I grew up the youngest of four kids and the only girl, and I can handle anything. But the truth is it can be tough at times: the abuse, the personal attacks, and the concern for safety. While I can’t control other people’s actions, I can control how I respond.

We have a duty, as leaders in this House, to be role models for those who watch us and for those who come after us. Those attacks have been met by turning the other cheek and getting on with the job. The clear exception was the fateful day of the “c” word, when a clearly misogynistic article was brought into a debate in this House to belittle me and other senior members of this Government—don’t worry, Mr Speaker, I won’t repeat those quotes today. I’m proud to have stood up to that misogyny, for my colleagues and for every woman who stays silent out of fear of being labelled the wrong kind of woman.

As I leave, I ask my colleagues to reflect on their words and actions. We are all sent to this place to represent the people of New Zealand and to make the hard decisions that need to be made. The standard should be to hold the Government to account for the decisions it makes, without resorting to personal attacks.

When we came out the other side of coalition negotiations, I had no idea what position I would be offered. I was happy to be placed wherever the party thought best. As it turned out, that was in Cabinet, working on some of the most extensive employment reforms in decades and overseeing the serious operations of government at the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA). On both fronts, I knuckled down, learnt a lot, and made the hard decisions leaders are expected to make.

A quote from economist Thomas Sowell I constantly come back to is that “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” Nowhere is that clearer than in Government. With limited finances, limited time, and limited people, where is the effort best spent? If I’d listened to my officials, I fear I would have achieved half of what I’d set out to do. There is a constant call for more people, more time, and more money. With a few pushes here and there, I ticked off every Government work programme handed to me, and a few more.

One of the most meaningful actions I could take in my workplace relations portfolio was reform of the Holidays Act, which had caused decades of confusion about how to pay staff. This shouldn’t be complicated, but our laws had made it so. A law that an ordinary employer cannot follow without hiring a consultant is a bad law, however good the intentions behind it. Complexity is never neutral. It is a tax on the small operator who cannot afford the advice, and it quietly favours those who can.

Two former Ministers who’d tried and failed wished me good luck as I took on this immensely technical law. It required real work, balancing different interests, and a lot of attention to detail. I leave proud of the effort it took to repeal the Holidays Act and replace it with a simpler one. Thank you to every person who helped me champion that reform.

To my adviser Jenesa, I’m proud to have worked alongside such a strong and precise rational thinker. My successes are also your successes. To know you can trust someone fully and rely on their honest opinion is rare in politics. You have a huge future ahead of you, and I’d be lucky to work with you again.

Within the Department of Internal Affairs, I focused on the efficiency of Government and better governance. It’s been pleasing to see processing times for citizenship applications drop from 180 days at the start of the term to a low of 32 days, to oversee reform of the lottery grants system, and—a personal favourite—to see the National Library and Archives New Zealand work together to produce Anzac Stories, an accessible online tool all Kiwi kids can use to learn about a pivotal time in New Zealand’s history, providing future generations access to our war records in an interactive way. Lest we forget.

To my adviser Nick, you’re a shining light in Wellington’s dark bureaucracy I think of DIA as an engine constantly at risk of spontaneous combustion—you never know when the next fire will light—but, Nick, you’ve extinguished flames on the daily.

On the Public Service, I have met several very skilled public servants who are badly let down by the structure they work within, and I believe radical reform is needed. The Public Service Commission should be abolished. It does not work for the public and it does not work for elected Governments. It works for the Public Service to preserve the status quo, and enable public servants to shuffle between agencies while leaving the failures of their roles behind, with no accountability or meaningful consequences.

Ministers should hire chief executives directly and be responsible for their agency. One agency; one Minister. If that were the structure, I believe we’d see better accountability and transparency over decision making and over where the money goes. It is what the people paying our taxes deserve, and it shouldn’t be hard in a country as small as ours. The Public Service should serve the public, not itself.

There are a few more people I wish to thank this evening. Thank you to all the staff who keep our democracy running: those in the Speaker’s Office, the Office of the Clerk, the messengers, and especially the security team, who have been a delight to greet every day. This House does not work without you, and you are rarely thanked for it.

Miranda, I remember interviewing you to be responsible for my office and asking how you’d look after it. You said you’d do one better and look after me. You’ve kept your word. You’ve provided warmth to my days and taken many weights off my mind. Thank you.

Cami and Florence, my press secretaries, thank you for making me look good in the news. You’re both stars.

Jaden, you’ve made the difficult balance of ministerial and electorate work much easier. Thank you for caring for Tāmaki on the days I’m down here, and for managing the office so well with Cynthia, Jan, Felix, and Charlotte.

Thank you to the VIP drivers. It felt like I’ve had a team of aunts and uncles on standby. There are too many to name, but I’ll give one example of going above and beyond. When one of the drivers heard that my partner was buying me apricot Danishes—because that’s what the baby wanted, and I couldn’t find anything like it in Wellington—one morning I arrived at work and found a delicious apricot Danish on my desk with a note, and they kept coming. Thank you.

Thank you to my parents for your support over these years. I said in my maiden speech that no status, wealth, or career I chose to pursue would ever earn my parents’ respect; only my character could do that. Respect is hard to gain and easily lost. I sincerely hope I have earned yours, and that I’ve kept it.

To my love, I know it’s not easy to have a partner in the public eye. Thank you for putting up with it quietly, for supporting me emotionally, and for challenging me intellectually. I’m excited to spend more than one or two days together in a row, in the same city. I’m excited for the future, for this baby, and for the new challenges ahead.

I’ll leave with the sign-off I’ve sent in my newsletter every month: “As always, it’s a pleasure being your MP. See you around the community.”

[Applause]

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Good evening, members. In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, I call on Government order of the day No. 8.

Bills

Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Acting Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) (19:30): I present a legislative statement on the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill.

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

First Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Acting Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) (19:30): I move, That the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee consider the bill.

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

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

I wish to thank and acknowledge Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri for making the journey here today to join us in Te Upoko o Te Ika Wellington for this significant milestone. I speak on behalf of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Paul Goldsmith, who has followed Andrew Little in chaperoning this mahi through on behalf of the Crown and alongside with, and ultimately for, Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. I acknowledge and extend a warm welcome to iwi members in the public gallery and to whānau watching from throughout the motu on television this evening.

It is a significant milestone for the relationships between Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri and the Crown. This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement negotiated between Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri and the Crown and marks an important step towards resolving historical, and “herstorical”, Treaty grievances and building a renewed set of relationships for the future. The deed-signing ceremony was wet, wild, windy, with the warmth of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri manaakitanga and promise of kōura and rāwaru distinctly Wharekauri. I was humbled by the manaakitanga of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri and the abundance of outstanding aroha, generosity, and also kaimoana. The way that everyone adapted and persevered despite the elements reflected the resilience, strength, and wairua o Wharekauri, particularly the hearty rangatahi who sat for over an hour and a half on cold, probably damp grass, stoically awaiting the conclusion of the pōhiri and the signing ceremony. E mihi ana ki ngā rangatahi.

Before speaking to the settlement itself, I wish to acknowledge those whose commitment, determination, and leadership have brought us to this point. Firstly, the people—

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

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

—this settlement is your settlement alongside and shared with the Crown. It belongs to the whakatupuranga, or the generations, that have maintained identity, tikanga, and their connection to Wharekauri and kept the embers glowing on those islands through periods of profound challenge and change. It belongs to those that carried the historical, and “herstorical”, burden of these grievances, yet never gave up hope that, one day, these would be resolved in a manner that could lead to legislation—and, importantly, that those experiences and those stories are heard and accounted for in the appropriate record.

The current trustees of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Iwi Trust—Melodie, Monique, Deena, Di, Megan Lanauze-King, John Preece, and Paula Page, and others, including the mandated negotiators Tom McClurg and Hariroa Daymond, and all those who represented the iwi through the settlement processes. Of course, prior to the current Government, the mahi that you did alongside the Hon Andrew Little, “Ānaru Paku”, and now with Paul Goldsmith, “Pāora Metekōura”.

Treaty negotiations require a lot of patience, resilience, and an unwavering commitment to future generations. The work undertaken on behalf of the iwi has culminated in the legislation before the House today, honouring the efforts of those who have tirelessly advocated and pursued this kaupapa to realise the aspirations of the iwi, to resolve the claims settlement process, and, of course, to further create balance for the health, wealth, and wellbeing of the people, of the land, and of the sea.

I also acknowledge the kaumātua, tauheke, and kuia whose knowledge, leadership, and stewardship ensured stories of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri were never lost. They persevered and passed through the generations, many of whom are depicted in the pictures out in the Grand Hall this evening, some whose memories remain etched in the hearts and the minds of those that have gathered here today, but the legacy that they bring, and that now you uphold, we reflect through this settlement legislation.

To the whānau who attended the hui and cast votes during the mandating and ratification processes, provided guidance, challenged decisions, and did the mahi—did the mahi—who remained engaged in negotiations: this sort of process can be quite challenging and quite fraught at times, but you’ve stayed the course, and the strength of any settlement lies in the support and the tautoko or the participation of the people it represents.

I also wanted to acknowledge the Te Tari Whakatau Crown negotiators, officials, advisers, and all those who worked in good faith throughout the negotiations that led to the deed of settlement, and on behalf of the Crown, Justine, and others, e mihi ana ki a koutou katoa.

The Treaty of Waitangi settlements/Te Tiriti o Waitangi settlements require us to confront difficult chapters in our nation’s experiences and stories. The settlement deed records a range of Crown actions and omissions that breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and caused significant prejudice to the people from Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri here today and their predecessors. The Crown has acknowledged that these failures have had enduring economic, social, cultural, political, and, indeed, spiritual consequences for the iwi.

In March 2015, Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri entrusted the trustees of the Iwi Trust with the mandate to recognise a settlement with the Crown and to carry it through to negotiation. What followed was years of dedicated work, as both parties navigated complex engagement, cultural, and commercial matters. A significant milestone was reached in November 2022 with the signing of an AIP, an agreement in principle, and culminated in the initialling of the deed of settlement; and I understand some of those people who initialled that settlement are here with us this evening. Then there was a successful ratification process, demonstrating the iwi support for the proposed settlement and a pathway forward. With that endorsement, the Crown was able to sign the deed of settlement, on a fantastic day out at Wharekauri attended by members of all parties, I recall—all or most of the parties of this House—and a range of officials, bringing a long and significant journey to the point where it can now be considered formally in this the first reading of the settlement legislation.

While no settlement can ever fully compensate for the losses, settlements do provide the opportunity for the Crown to acknowledge wrongdoing, to accept responsibility for the breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and to seek to restore and enable relationships that are damaged by those actions. The settlement package reflected in this bill seeks to support the aspirations of the iwi for a thriving, healthy, and economically sustainable community on Wharekauri, grounded in its people, its culture, and its enduring connection to place.

The cultural redress recognises the unique cultural, historical, spiritual, and traditional associations of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri with place and the surrounding areas. An important component of that, of course, are the relationship arrangements and the redress alongside Te Papa Atawhai, the Department of Conservation; and while the two parties already work closely together, the relationship with Te Papa Atawhai strengthens the mahitahi and provides an ongoing pivot for ongoing collaboration in matters of shared interest and responsibility. The financial and commercial redress, of course, is providing a platform or springboard upon which the members of the iwi of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri can grow longer-term wellbeing, growth, and, ultimately, self-determination for the iwi.

This settlement marks neither the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning, nor the end of the relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, but it actually just signifies further markers in the Te Takarangi, or the double helix spiral, of relationships that already exist and will exist into the future, particularly with the younger rangatahi and mokopuna here today.

Kia koutou katoa Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. Today marks the first of three readings that this House will consider for this particular bill, but tomorrow morning, we will be back for the first reading of the shared redress bill, which we look forward to welcoming you back, particularly if we have oysters for breakfast! Kia ora.

I consider that the bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee, of course led by my colleague the honourable and very, very legendary David MacLeod, your whanaunga. I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (19:40): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare.

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

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

I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to stand in support for the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill. It was a real honour to be there today for the mihi whakatau, and to sit with you and hear those speeches and to thank you for the oysters; they were delicious. It was really nice to sit and hear those stories and share time with you this afternoon and to meet some of you, as well. I appreciate that it’s been a long journey for many of you to come here today. I acknowledge those who are here and have made the journey, and I also acknowledge those tūpuna that you have brought with you today and who are with us here in the gallery. I acknowledge that as well.

Today is a really important day for Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, for Wharekauri, and Rēkohu, and for New Zealand, as well. This bill gives effect to the deed of settlement signed between Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri on 17 August 2026, bringing us another step closer to being able to address those historical grievances and to be able to strengthen the relationship between Māori and the Crown.

As members of this House, I always believe that we have a responsibility to acknowledge our history honestly. Treaty settlements are not ever about rewriting history. They are about confronting it, about recognising where the Crown got it wrong and failed to uphold its obligations, and taking meaningful steps towards redress and reconciliation; also, for Wharekauri, for the infrastructure and the important things that you need for your motu, and having those things in place for the future. Labour has long believed that settlements are an essential part of honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We believe that acknowledging historical injustice is not in any way a sign of division; it is in fact a sign of maturity as a nation, as we grow together. It allows us to move forward with a shared understanding of our past and also, hopefully, a shared commitment to our future together.

This settlement reflects many years of work. The Crown has recognised the mandate of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri iwi trust back in 2016. Negotiators continued over several years, leading to an agreement in principle in 2022, and that led, ultimately, to the signing of the deed this year. That journey required perseverance and leadership. It required difficult conversations, patient negotiations, and determination to see that progress through. Today, I acknowledge the claimants, the negotiators, the trustees, kaumātua, and whānau whose commitment has brought us to this point in time. I also acknowledge those who began this work and were not able to be with us today. This achievement belongs to them, as much as it belongs to those who are gathered here now.

I was thinking back to the first time I ever got to visit Wharekauri. It was back in 2004, when I was a lot younger than I am now. I was lucky enough to attend the opening of the first Moriori marae, alongside Helen Clark, who was the Prime Minister then, and Margaret Wilson, who was the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi negotiations. I have never ever seen crayfish so big in my whole life, and I’ve never seen them that big again. I was told—[Bell rung]—they were called “packhorse”. Oh, I might have to get going with it! The settlement contains an agreed historical account, and it’s important that we acknowledge those things. I thought I had 10 minutes, Mr Speaker. That’s not fair—I had heaps more material. I hadn’t even got on to the weka.

On behalf of the Labour Party, I acknowledge those who have contributed to the settlement. I also want to congratulate Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri on this significant milestone. It’s important to note that we can’t change the past, unfortunately, but we can change how we move forward together. I genuinely hope that this is a good first step in reconciliation between iwi and the Crown, that this settlement provides you with redress and some hope for your rangatahi for the future. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Kia ora.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (19:45): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Kia ora koutou, Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. It’s wonderful to have you in the Chamber today for this historic first reading of your settlement claim. I want to acknowledge my colleague in absence, Hūhana Lyndon, who would have liked to have been here but is out of the city, unfortunately, on other business. She hugely valued her trip out to the motu. I also knowledge my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter, who is the member for Rongotai, much more appropriately named than Wellington Bays. I don’t see how Wellington Bays captures the Chatham Islands, but it’s wonderful to have you in the gallery here today.

When I read this account, the historical account, of the injustices committed to your people by the Crown and the failures of the Crown to uphold its obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, there are so many things over so many years and so many generations, and so we stand today in the House and acknowledge the injustices that the Crown has committed against you. It is the day in which the Parliament of Aotearoa New Zealand recognises it is the Crown that committed these wrongs; that is what the settlement is about. It is in your generosity that you accept this settlement, which is, as we well understood, but a fraction of what has been lost—but a fraction of the cost of the impacts of those failures of the Crown. Thank you for coming here today to accept this settlement.

In recounting your history with Taranaki and your journey from there in 1835, and then back, the relationship with Parihaka, and the peaceful resistance against colonisation, I couldn’t help but remember the words of Ruakere Hond from Parihaka, who said the winds of war still blow through our minds after all these generations. I think of all those decades of conflicts and harms and how it is such a profound and deep journey for a people to travel on, to make amends and to heal from those harms—those winds of war that still blow through the minds of people impacted by the injustices of the Crown. I salute you in your resilience and your determination, and in surviving and being here today as the descendants of your tūpuna who have been on this long journey.

The Crown recognises that it applied mentalities around land acquisition that divided up traditional collective ownership, and that is, sadly, an all too familiar story that we see across the country. It also acknowledges, in this historical account, the denial of the right of your people to speak te reo Māori; that your tūpuna were punished for speaking your language. That is such a deeply sad and profoundly wrong act. It recognises the repeated failure of the Crown to properly invest and support the infrastructure of Wharekauri, and to actually fulfil its obligations under Te Tiriti, to recognise your full rights as citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand, but here—by this settlement, by these acknowledgments, by this apology—the Crown acknowledges today that Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri are fully fledged citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand. Through this settlement, it pledges to build a relationship with Ngāti Mutunga that is based on respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi, for its principles, and for you as a people. We as Te Pāti Kākāriki commend this bill to the House today. Thank you for being here. Kia ora.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (19:50): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

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

Thank you very much for making the journey here, those of you who had to cross great distances of ocean that connect our sometimes far-flung brethren from the mainland of this country that we are proud to be citizens of. As this bill puts into place ngā uri o Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, you will also be recognised properly and accounted for as citizens in this country. But citizenship comes with a story, and your story has been laid out in this historical account, for all to see. I always say, when I have the privilege of doing a speech in a reading of a Treaty settlement bill, that all New Zealanders should read the historical accounts of our Treaty settlement bills to understand the history of this country.

I won’t take long on this. There’s been a long journey here from 2016, 2020—the hurdles go a long way back, to the 1840s and before. The Islands that you are proud to be mana whenua of are an intrinsic part of New Zealand’s story in these South Pacific Islands, and are incredibly important and historic ones.

I will say that I hope very much to see the economic potential of your Islands realised through this settlement, the one we’re going to read tomorrow, and ones that have gone before. There is so much there. The connections through the mainland to Australia and beyond for kai moana are going to offer so much, and I hope the economic redress starts a proper journey of development and finances and connections that you, your people, and the Island that is so important, can really benefit from. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities) (19:52):

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

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

It is very rare for me to speak on Treaty bills, and I do so on behalf of New Zealand First. There are usually far more appropriate speakers within our caucus. But this bill is different. As Minister for Rural Communities and Associate Minister for Regional Development, I had the privilege of travelling to Wharekauri four times—the Chatham and Pitt Islands—and it’s an enormous honour to have the opportunity to play a role in these acknowledgments today. I’ve been hosted by the warmest of hospitality. I’ve witnessed a deep sense of pride in your whenua—your place, your home—I’ve got to know many of you personally, and I’ve been invited into your homes. There are too many people to mention, but could I mention here Monique Croon, the former mayor, of course, and kuia of Ngāti Mutunga.

They are cherished memories from this term of Parliament. I think back, actually, to one of them: in true Shane Jones style, we turned up with the delegation in an Air Force Hercules, complete with the Rātana Brass Band. Shane brought a chilly bin full of kumara on the way in, and it left full of crayfish, oysters, pāua, and blue cod.

Steve Abel: That was a good trade.

Hon MARK PATTERSON: It was a great trade, but the isolation over there is a constant challenge. It is a beautiful place, it is a special place, and it is steeped in history. Today, we acknowledge some of that history, a confronting part of your history—specifically, the wrongs perpetrated on Ngāti Mutunga by the Crown.

You have been dispossessed of your lands not only in Wharekauri, actually, but also in Taranaki. Your tūpuna have been treated, at times, with contempt, and the justice system was weaponised against you. We cannot change those historical wrongs, but today we rightfully seek to acknowledge redress and apologise for those wrongdoings.

You’ve also provided, in my experience, lessons for us all. You do have a challenging history, particularly with the Hokotehi Moriori. But the way that you have worked together, the way you have put your collective shoulder to the wheel for the Chatham and Pitt Islands—and your young leaders have returned the collective sense of purpose to rejuvenate the Islands. You are an inspiration.

As you will well know, I do have a frustration with you as well: your propensity to call the mainland “New Zealand”—as in, “We’re off to New Zealand.” You are New Zealanders, and I will keep reminding you of that. You are very special New Zealanders. Today, we salute your resilience, your patience, and your dignity. I commend this bill to the House.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (19:57):

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

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

I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori to support the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill at its first reading. This bill brings before the House a history defined by the endurance of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, and by a Crown that treated Wharekauri as distant and marginal for far too long. But Wharekauri was never distant to the people whose whakapapa, identity, and future are bound to those islands. The Crown annexed Wharekauri in 1842, without consulting Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. The deed acknowledges that this was a profound failure to recognise and respect their mana and tino rangatiratanga. That failure set the pattern for what followed: limited engagement, inadequate services, and decisions imposed upon Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri without their meaningful participation.

In 1870, the Native Land Court awarded most of the land on Wharekauri under the “10-owner rule”. Many customary rights holders were dispossessed, while the individualisation and fragmentation of title made the remaining whenua increasingly difficult to manage and develop. Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri were also taxed for decades while being denied representation in Parliament. They were excluded from voting in parliamentary elections until 1922.

In 1890, two iwi members were imprisoned after refusing to pay a dog tax strongly opposed by their people. The Crown was painfully slow to provide essential infrastructure and services; land was taken for roads in the early 1880s, but construction did not begin until 1945. There has never been a secondary school on Wharekauri, and Ngāti Mutunga children were punished for speaking te reo Māori at school. The consequences have been intergenerational: loss of language mātauranga; poor housing and health; restricted economic and educational opportunities; and the displacement of many uri from their island home. Despite all of this, Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri endured. They maintained their whakapapa, their connection to whenua and moana, and their visions for many generations to come.

After the recent second coronation of our Queen, Te Arikinui, [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

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

We are a 31-year settled Treaty settlement iwi for us in Waikato-Tainui, and we know of the many olds who sacrificed blood, sweat, and tears to get a Treaty settlement over the line; to see, 31 years later, you, and also different iwi throughout the motu, come to your first Treaty settlement reading here today,

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

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

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (20:02): Tēnā koe e te Pīka.

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

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

I proudly stand here as an uri of Ngāti Mutunga, myself. It was a blessing for me to be able to have the journey over there just recently for your signing—my first time to Wharekauri. Although the Hon Tama Potaka talks perhaps of the weather that day, of being rather cold, and I see some of the people up in the audience that experience that coldness, it was indeed a privilege to finally get to Wharekauri and enjoy the hospitality and have a very short look around. I managed to get myself to Waitangi and have a look there, as well. It’s pleasing to see that we’ve got the first reading this evening, and, of course, in the next stage, the Māori Affairs Committee—which I have the privilege of chairing, along with many of the members here on the Māori Affairs Committee—will be, indeed, opening this up for submissions as the first step of our process as a select committee and we’ll be doing that tomorrow, after we’ve had this meeting. We want to get this on the road and get it going.

Talking about on the road and hīkoi, some and my colleagues here, where we speak of Ngāti Mutunga and many understand Ngāti Mutunga of North Taranaki, and they’re trying to get the connection. I’ll probably do a poor job with this, and I know that possibly Jamie and Dion might pick up my history, here, but I wanted to talk a little bit about the hīkoi of getting across to the Chathams of Wharekauri. Of course, it started in North Taranaki and it was actually Hana’s ancestors that started the journey off; Waikato-Tainui, Maniapoto. It was actually—many people don’t realise, but Ngāti Toa had a famous rangatira who had the famous haka Ka Mate, Ka Mate—Te Rauparaha. He was of Ngāti Toa, and they were basically moved out of their home at that time of Kawhia, down to North Taranaki. They actually lived with Ngāti Mutunga for about a year, there, and obviously grew some strong ties but the conquest which was Waikato-Tainui and others didn’t stop there. It started to get a little bit risky, and they decided to journey on their way down, this way here; settled a little bit of time on the Kāpiti Coast. Ngāti Mutunga obviously settled down here on the shores of Pōneke Wellington, and the conquest didn’t stop. It was back in the days where there was lots of conquest, the Musket Wars. Once the Māori got the muskets, it was all on at that particular point in time.

Ngāti Mutunga jumped on a ship called the Rodney, I believe it was, and that was back in 1838—[interjection from the gallery]—35, thank you; before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, and they went out there. Another fact is a lot of people don’t realise that the Chatham Islands wasn’t actually officially part of New Zealand at the time of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. It wasn’t until 1842 that it got annexed, along with the Auckland Islands, as well, which is all part of the history with Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. It’s got quite some history, there, with regards to how Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri got all the way out to the islands out there.

Of course, there is interesting history on Wharekauri itself, and tomorrow, as you will know, we’ve also got another bill that we’ll be talking to, which is the redress bill with Moriori and yourselves, also, so we look forward to having the first reading of that and bringing it to our select committee to open it up. So just a little bit of a history, all the way from North Taranaki and all the way out to the islands there. Just reading some of the history: one other little matter I’ll try and get in my time that I’ve got here: it was talking about the medical centre that wasn’t actually achieved after a request for it; it took 50 years for it to arrive. The first doctor was a person by the name of Dr George Redpath. The second doctor was Dr Edward Pōhau Ellison, and that was my grandfather, so I have a connection there as well. With that, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (20:07): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

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

Well, it’s a fascinating history, isn’t it? Fascinating history; I’m Ngāti Mutunga, too, Mr MacLeod, as you well know, and you all know the history, you heard it all. Everybody’s been reading it out, but I don’t think people can quite get their heads around it, eh? Really, if you ever think about it—you take a step back and you think, how does this work? Jamie Tuuta’s got it all down, you know, because he works it all out, but I mean—because people look at who’s the coloniser and how long were the Morioris there? Are we all related? Did you go down and knock off the Morioris? Yes, you did, and they were there 400 years, but then we’ve got take raupatu and all that, which I told you I totally support. We support all of that, but it’s a complex sort of thing, because we know that the Crown ripped us off but then we’ve got the whole coming together of the two groups on the island. And now you’re related anyway, aren’t you, Jamie? So everybody’s tied into everyone anyway.

I just think when you sit back and you look at this, this is a fascinating story and we’ve seen the challenges from the Moriori in the courts, quite rightly so. We’ve seen the defence from the relations and I think that’s quite right, too. I think we’re not far off coming together, I think; I really do. I’ve followed this for many, many years, so that redress kaupapa tomorrow is going to be good in terms of whakakotahi motukaupapa. From our side, and I should say Mutunga’s side, we have absolute rights because the Crown has breached the rights of our people without a doubt, in terms of the way they annexed stuff, the way they never provided support, and the way they just left our people down there.

Then the other side, if we’re being fair, is saying, well, the whole argument about who really has tino rangatiratanga—it’s a heck of a bloody question, isn’t it? It’s a heck of a blood good question. Who has the tino rangatiratanga in terms of the Chathams? It’s almost like a Palestine question, isn’t it, if you really want to analyse it. I like it in terms of as I’ve watched through the years, and I’ve only been over there once. I went over with Ronnie Mark, who took me over there, and we went to the last Māori Battalion’s hāngī down there. It was a beautiful time.

I’ve known the whānau, all the different whānau there, grew up with the Solomons in South Auckland, been a mate of Maui Solomon. I don’t know if he’s any of your—is he your mate, Maui, Jonah? Probably not. I’m sure he is—I’m sure he is.

This history is incredibly important, because it’s about our life, it’s about our history in terms of this country, it’s about take raupatu, it’s about tino rangatiratanga, it’s about the rights of Moriori, it’s about the rights of Māori, and then the Crown comes in and mucks things up. Then the Crown, on the other side, is trying, in its own way, to fix things up—mucking up along the way, but slowly, slowly getting there in terms of the type of redress that’s put in place for Moriori and for Ngāti Mutunga. I’m pleased that we’ve been able to go down that track and address and give compensation to both sides, but the biggest challenge, I think, with this kaupapa will be how the two groups come together, how we traverse that, how we manage that for all the mokopuna, and how the Crown operates in the years to come. Good luck to all of us. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (20:12): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill in its first reading. It’s so interesting how we all know Māori until we’re in front of a lot of Māori, and then we just freeze up, but anyway.

It’s been an interesting read, and I say this often: I was born and raised in Australia, a Lebanese wahine from Australia, so I’m continuously learning about the nuggets of history of New Zealand. Reading about the history for the Chatham Islands—before I knew about the history, I just knew many years ago, before I met my husband, for some reason I was drawn to the Chatham Islands. I just always used to think I just wanted to go to the Chatham Islands, maybe when I’m 47 or 50—that’s a few years away. Now that I’m here in New Zealand, I feel it coming soon, that I’m going to go visit your beautiful rohe.

I must be honest, as I always am, that I was a little bit confronted when I was reading the history. I started thinking, as one does, and basically I came to the bottom line where two wrongs don’t make a right. There’s been wrongs in the history, and the beauty of settlement treaties is that, as my colleague said earlier to me today, settlement treaty bills just really put a spotlight on this for everyone to learn more and actually to go out into our communities and share what we’ve learnt and why settlement bills are very important. I’m looking forward, as well, to tomorrow’s reading of the redress bill.

When I come back to two wrongs don’t make a right, we all have our dark spots in our histories, but with you there’s some pretty deep dark spots. When we talk about, as we’ve been hearing, the annexation, and we talk about the fact that the Crown used your land to detain prisoners of war without trial, when we talk about decades of taking taxes from your hard-working ancestors but they didn’t even have the right to vote—it’s pretty sick thinking about it, actually. There’s not even a secondary school there—there wasn’t for so long, and there still isn’t, but that’s OK, we can work on that.

Also, as our colleague Steve Abel said, something that I really struggle with since moving to New Zealand and learning about this type of history from my beautiful friend whaea Anne Kendall is the Māori language being forced out of you at school, getting in trouble for speaking that beautiful native tongue. These are points of the history that cut deep, and so I’m glad that these wrongs are being addressed with this bill.

For those of you that are not parliamentary nerds like some of the people in front of me, we’re finishing Parliament tomorrow. We’re going into an election. Us on the Māori Affairs Committee, we don’t know (1) if we’ll be back to Parliament, but (2) if we are back, if we’ll have the honour and the privilege of being on the Māori Affairs Committee again. I’ve loved it so far, and even if I’m not, I will be following the public submissions, because I think it’s important to put those pieces of the puzzle together in my mind, so I look forward to that.

Thank you for coming all the way. I’ve heard about your hospitality; it seems like we’re in competition—the Chatham Island people and the Lebanese—but we’ll see about that when I go there. But I’m sure you’ll win, you’ll beat me. Thank you very much. I’m looking forward to smoothing of some waters as we progress on these bills. God bless you all and I commend this bill to the House.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (20:16):

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

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

I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to speak in support of the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill. At its heart, this bill is about acknowledging history, acknowledging wrongs, and creating a pathway for a better relationship between Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri and the Crown. I want to, firstly, acknowledge the iwi, hapū, and whānau who have come today and the relevance of this day and this reading to all of your whānau, to the rangatira and the rangatahi and the tamariki, and how much influence this has probably already had and will come, and will have in, hopefully, decades to come.

I sit on the Māori Affairs Committee, so it’s been a great privilege to be able to work through and learn more about a few iwi who we have had the privilege of working through their claims settlement bills. One of the things that always strikes me is the discussions and the kōrero that comes from the iwi about those that have passed and the reflection on the hard mahi that has already been done before this point, and many people who have contributed to get to this point who not be here with us today, so I want to acknowledge those who are no longer with us from your iwi, your whānau, who have made a contribution to this. I know there will be many, many people who have worked very, very hard over many generations to get to the point we are now.

We know that the journey to a settlement is a long journey. The Crown recognised the mandate of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Iwi Trust in 2016, and the terms of negotiation were signed in 2016. An agreement in principle was reached in November 2022. The deed of settlement was initialled in December 2025 and ratified on 17 August this year. So, already, it has been a long process getting this bill through, and I am very pleased that we are able to hear the first reading on this side of the parliamentary term. As colleagues have mentioned, Parliament rises tomorrow. Does Parliament rise tomorrow or do we just finish the parliamentary term tomorrow? I can’t remember the exact term, but we finish in Parliament tomorrow, so this will be heard for the second reading when the new Parliament comes together, but I’m very, very pleased that we’re able to get to this point, and I know that you’ve travelled a long way here today.

I was regretful to not be able to come to the Chatham Islands on the recent visit, but I saw all of the amazing photos, I saw everyone rugged up in their warm clothes, and I hope that I can make it in the future.

I think one of the important parts of any settlement bill—and I’m going to give credit to my colleague from the Greens, Steve Abel, because he gave me this little bundle of information that has formed quite an important part of my understanding of the Treaty settlements—is that these Treaty settlements give that opportunity to write the wrongs of the past and the wrongs of the Crown into law, into our legislation, and it becomes part of New Zealand legislation. I think that’s a really important part of this. Although we know that the wrongs of the past can never be rectified, can never be resolved, that the impacts that they have had for generations are long-lasting and no settlement bill can address that, I think that having it written into legislation is a really important step for us to acknowledge what has gone on and to look towards the future for your iwi. All the very best as you carry on this journey for your people and your whenua. I commend this bill to the House.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (20:21):

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

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor) (20:23): The question is, That the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I now turn to the guests in the gallery. I understand you have a waiata.

Waiata

Natural Environment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Members, before we paused for the Hon Brooke van Velden’s valedictory statement, the House was debating the third reading of the Natural Environment Bill. That debate is resumed.

LAN PHAM (Green) (20:26): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Just hold on one second. I’d just hold the camera; we’ll just wait until the—

LAN PHAM: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start by acknowledging Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri as they leave. I also want to acknowledge the great words that were shared across the House tonight, but I really struggle to marry those words, particularly from Government members across the aisle, with the bills that they are pushing through today, because we saw the same thing happen with the last-minute amendments that came in at the last minute under these bills where, on one hand, they are claiming to uphold the rights and Treaty obligations of Te Ture Whaimana, and then, on the other hand, they’re putting through other last-minute amendments that completely kibosh years and years of community planning, of iwi and hapū desires, to actually set rules and limits that may protect our environment and, particularly when it comes to water quality in the Waikato, offer solutions for Te Ture Whaimana to actually be upheld.

When you put this together with the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, which we’re speaking to today, it does not add up. It doesn’t add up because iwi Māori made it so clear across these submissions that they opposed these bills, that they would, and I quote, “eviscerate Crown Māori relations”. And yet, the bills are going through even worse than they were when they were first tabled by the Government; even worse after the select committee process where we know that all the solutions were put on the table.

This is a historic moment in time. It’s historic because we’ve had this Resource Management Act in place for 35 years, and these bills are not the learnings and the understanding and the mātauranga and the experience that we’ve taken from those 35 years. They’re an absolute assault on the environment, and that is hugely concerning, because all the decline that we’ve seen across biodiversity, across our oceans, our forests, our rivers, our lakes, has primarily happened over that time, and it’s happened with environmental limits and protections that have actually been in place. Now, under these bills, we’re moving into this new era where environmental protections are, essentially, meaningless.

This Government has been absolutely relentless this entire term with their attacks on nature, and we’ve heard the Minister describe those bills and the Government’s work in the environmental space just tonight as “progress”. We’ve seen the disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment, a dedicated voice that has been at the heart of government for 40 years—not only disestablished but merged into this mega-ministry where the primary purpose is growth and development. We’ve had crippling cuts across the environmental sector with agencies like the Department of Conservation, we’ve had the Climate Change Commission, we’ve had the Environmental Protection Authority, and job losses and cuts across the science sector.

In the build-up to these new bills, we’ve had resource management changes and amendment after amendment that have done things like make it easier to mine around significant natural areas and wetlands; to kill wildlife where they stand in the way of development; and fast-tracking coal, gold, and sea-bed mining through the resurrection of zombie projects under fast track that communities had already consigned to the waste bin because they were so significantly harmful for both the health of people and the health of environment. Just taking one of those examples of the projects that are contemplated under fast track, we have the most potentially damaging one on the Denniston Plateau, with a new open coal mine contemplated there. The emissions from that one mine would be equal to the net emissions of New Zealand’s annual fossil fuel emissions. This is the scale we’re talking about.

Of all of those things that the Government has done, these bills are actually the worst. They’re the worst because this isn’t just talking about places like our conservation land. This is about our everyday environment where people live and work and need and rely on the environment for clean drinking water; for rivers, lakes, or beaches that they can actually swim in without fear of getting sick; for oceans that actually support healthy ocean life and allow communities and future generations to actually head down to their local spot and grab a feed for their whānau. These are the things that are going to be increasingly far away for everyday New Zealanders and, certainly, for younger and future generations. These bills are embedding a dysfunctional system where climate denialism and environmental destruction is at the core of what they allow.

Now, that’s all hugely depressing, but the reason why I’m not hugely depressed about that is because we had this immense weight of submissions, of experience, of understanding, of mātauranga, from people across sectors. It was iwi and hapū, it was developers, it was farmers, it was public health experts. They have the solutions for what a functional system could actually be. That is all entirely possible if we have a Government who actually prioritises these things—if we had a Government that actually decided to stand with the tens of thousands of New Zealanders that showed up in Tāmaki-makau-rau just over the weekend to march to say they want to see conservation land protected, and the hundreds of thousands of people who used their voices to actually submit and help others understand how damaging this Government has been across all of these bills that I’ve been mentioning tonight.

They understand that this Government is failing in their duty of care. They want to see a Government of any political stripe protect the environment and set us on a course of certainty and direction, where environmental destruction and exploitation is not the way we’re going. This is simply common-sense stuff. This Government is going to understand that come 7 November, it may be the case that nature itself does not have a voice, but who certainly does is voters, and voters are seeing what is happening to this country and the vested-interest lobbying from industry that are getting their polluting and exploitation wish-lists put directly into legislation and then it’s claimed that this is some kind of balance—that this is some kind of balance of the environment and the economy. That is absolute bollocks. The environment is being taken for granted in every twist and turn of this dysfunctional legislation.

We absolutely oppose both the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill, and we absolutely stand with New Zealanders to say not only is there a better way but in the next few weeks, it’s coming. It’s one where we prioritise the health of our people and the health of our environment. It’s what every New Zealander wants to see, and to vote for the Greens with a green heart at the centre of this next Government is a clear pathway towards that. That’s what we want to see. We absolutely oppose these bills.

SIMON COURT (ACT) (20:36): ACT supports the Natural Environment Bill through its third reading. This bill represents a fundamental change in how New Zealand manages the natural environment. For 35 years, the Resource Management Act (RMA) forced land use, infrastructure, environmental protection, climate policy, and fisheries questions through one sprawling statute. The result was duplication, delay, and the same arguments being relitigated through plans and consents.

This bill, alongside the Planning Bill, separates different jobs into dedicated statutes, which both follow a clear funnel architecture. It also stops environmental law duplicating the Climate Change Response Act, which already regulates the adverse climate effects of greenhouse gas emissions, and the Fisheries Act, which already controls the effects of fishing within the coastal marine area. The old approach of effects management for its own sake is out.

The new system is outcomes based. The focus is on achieving its goals—subject to the funnel, of course—not driving effects to zero or near zero, as per RMA practice. These goals enable resource use while requiring environmental imperatives, including safeguarding life, supporting capacity, enhancing the natural environment, and protecting significant indigenous biodiversity. This bill provides the tools to deliver those imperatives. It puts clear limits around the use of shared natural resources, while requiring decisions to be practical and proportionate.

Environmental limits are at the heart of this bill. They will establish clear expectations for ecosystem and human health so that people know what they are working to. But a sensible limit cannot be an abstract aspiration divorced from the place, the science, or the people that have to live with it. The National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 demonstrates why. To reach those targets, modelling predicts the need for complete removal of pastoral dry-stock farming from Tukituki and its conversion to exotic forestry—around 170,000 hectares of land-use change. That is not a credible or durable pathway for a farming community. Science must inform choices, but science does not itself decide the limit or the level at which a limit should be set. That inevitably involves judgments and trade-offs.

The bill therefore requires consideration of natural processes and levels, the current state of the environment, and costs and benefits of establishing a limit, including environmental, economic, and social impacts. That is reinforced by the removal of the term “within limits” from the use and development goal, which avoids an unintended hierarchy, and by the removal of the precautionary principle in favour of proportionality. Once the new system comes in, limits will bite immediately. Councils must act to avoid breaches and otherwise prepare action plans to manage resource use back within limits. But the bill does not pretend every catchment is pristine or can be restored overnight. Where time is needed, credible pathways can include target dates and interim limits.

The bill also doesn’t pretend nationally imported resources can simply be moved. We do not choose where the aggregate is; we do not choose where the wind blows or where our best soils lie. Limits may not always accommodate access to such resources where they are, but the likes of roads, electricity, and food production depend on them. That is why the bill provides a tightly bounded national standard pathway through a limit where there is a net public benefit.

Sensible environmental management also means having the right tools for the right jobs. Intervention should be graduated. We shouldn’t try to crack nuts with sledgehammers, like the Resource Management Act (RMA) does. That is why resource caps remain available to councils but are no longer treated as the default tool. Natural systems are often complex, but resource caps are useful only where there is a clear relationship between the measurable resource use and the environmental limit. That is why this bill also rejects a rigid effects hierarchy. The response should fit the actual risk. National standards will codify common practices such as drain maintenance and gravel extraction, instead of reinventing them permit by permit.

Simplified freshwater farm plans will be another central tool. Minister Hoggard has made vast improvements to the farm planning system, including a recent change through this bill focusing certification on the higher-risk parts of the farm. More restrictive tools including land-use controls should be reserved for where more proportionate approaches cannot deliver.

Permits will remain where genuinely needed. A water take might be a good case, but compared with the RMA, the bill narrows the effects that will be considered, raises the notification thresholds, and concentrates participation of people who are materially affected, making remaining permits easier and faster to obtain. That does not mean shutting people out; it means making the major choices once, upfront, and not reopening the same arguments permit by permit—that is the system’s funnel architecture at play.

Rules alone will not change the culture affecting the current system. Regulators must also be held accountable. The Planning Tribunal gives people a practical way to challenge regulatory overreach. Regulatory relief requires councils to recognise when rules, including indigenous biodiversity controls, impose significant restrictions on the use of private land for a public benefit. It disciplines councils by making the cost of regulation real to the decision maker, and restores fairness by ensuring that genuinely valuable public benefits are not secured at an individual’s expense. This is supported by another practical change: replacing the goal of “no net loss of” with protecting significant indigenous biodiversity. This addresses submitter concerns around workability between no net loss, biodiversity limits, and regulatory relief.

There is far more in this bill than 10 minutes can cover. The parliamentary process has delivered great improvements. As one example, there is now a new goal of supporting and enabling environmental enhancement. Implementation is now critical: Budget 2026 invests $294 million over four years to support implementation, including critical data and digital modernisation. The period to make new instruments as part of the transition has been extended from 30 to 39 months, giving councils more time to do the job properly. But New Zealanders will see the benefits much sooner. One month after Royal assent, several transitional changes will apply, including a narrowing of effects that councils may consider, and a requirement for more proportionate and pragmatic decisions. Illustrative national policy direction is already out for feedback, initial national standards will follow, and the Planning Tribunal will begin operating in 2027, giving people a faster route to challenge poor regulatory decisions.

I’d like to thank some of the people involved in delivering this legislation and the Planning Bill, which I spoke on earlier: Minister Bishop and the staff in his office, and in my office, who have been relentless in interrogating the provisions of the legislation to make sure it delivers on the coalition commitment; officials from the Ministry for the Environment, now the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport, and the private secretaries who have worked in my office and supported my work; the Parliamentary Counsel Office, who worked tirelessly to produce legislation from the introduction, and helped improve it along the way; the expert advisory group, who contributed their specialist knowledge to a problem that required more than one or two people on our ideas about improving what the resource management system could possibly deliver. I thank the urban economists from the urban land management group, and everyone who contributed to improving the bills through submissions, and, yes, advocacy.

New Zealand needs environmental protection that is clear and proportionate, a system that respect landowners, recognises who carries the cost, and a system that gives investors confidence. This bill provides for limits that matter, proportionate rules and conditions, and holds regulators to account. It protects what is significant while allowing New Zealanders to farm, build, generate energy, and produce the exports that pay our way. It will help unlock New Zealand’s potential like nothing else that this Government has done this term. ACT supports it, and I commend it to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): For my final time calling a member from the floor, the Hon Mark Patterson.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Minister for Rural Communities) (20:46): Thank you. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Natural Environment Bill. This is a great day for our primary sector and rural communities. [Applause for Greg O’Connor as he exits the Chamber] Thank you; appreciate it! It is a great day for our primary sector and rural communities, and it’s great to see the Green Party acknowledging that.

Today is a day when the noose of red and green tape has been removed from the throats of our farmers and growers. It is a day to celebrate for our miners, our quarriers, those seeking to establish aquaculture projects, our forestry people—the doers that drive this economy. It is a day when pragmatic, proportionate, and, most importantly, effective and risk-based environmental planning rules are passed into law.

This is part of New Zealand First’s coalition agreement with National, and also part of an agreement between the ACT Party and New Zealand First to reform our resource management planning system. This has been our collective mission. We haven’t always agreed on everything, but we absolutely agreed on this, and I commend Minister Bishop and Under-Secretary Court for their Herculean effort in shepherding this bill through this place. I’d like to commend Catherine Wedd and the Environment Committee. This has been a substantive deliberation, and I say well done to the team.

But make no mistake: New Zealand First has provided backbone to ensure that these changes delivered on our collective mandate. We are unapologetically a pro-industry party. Our planning laws are constipated. Well-meaning reforms, 35 years ago, have metastasised into a bureaucratic behemoth. Frustrations have boiled over. There were tractors in the streets up and down this country. That is the system we inherited. I recall being summonsed to a meeting of farmers in Ashburton. There were about 20 farmers that turned up. Each of them read out a written account of their experience. There was mind-numbing detail of information required, going back, sometimes, well over a decade. There was an opaque process, with the timeline stretching into years, and eye-watering expenses into the tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. With the need for consultants, they could see no way through. I had grown men and women in tears of exasperation, just to roll over a status quo water consent. They aren’t environmental vandals. They were well aware of their environmental stewardship responsibilities. They belong to catchment groups; they employed precision agriculture; but they were asked to comply with impossible standards of water quality at a lower rate than the natural state of the water coming out of the hills.

These are stories that were replicated up and down this country. What we are bringing in today is a clearer set of rules. This will mean nearly 50 percent less need for resource consenting. There will be more reliance on environmental farm plans, pragmatic tools to manage farming practices, and nutrient management. We are explicitly enabling the primary production and economic benefit within the purpose of this bill, adding much-needed balance, and we will be restoring property rights. No more can council officials come on to your farm and, essentially, confiscate the right for use.

New Zealand First, through this process, has been pleased that we have removed the market allocation mechanism for nutrients and water. I did signal in our first reading speech that we had real concerns over that. Where that’s been used overseas, that is sometimes with disastrous results, so it’s good, through that process, that we have removed those mechanisms. Water management should be less about allocating a scarce resource and more about storing water and harvesting at times of plenty. That is how we deal with water management, and this bill will assist with that too.

There is, of course, a lot more to do—the national directions, the limit-setting, the detail that sits below this huge bill. This is merely the framework, actually, for what the on-the-ground effects will be. We were sent here to fix the Resource Management Act. Today, we have delivered on that promise. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This call is a split call—Oriini Kaipara.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (20:52): Tonight, I carry with me into this House the story of my tipuna Wairaka, daughter of Toroa, chieftainess of Ngāti Awa, and the woman who saved the Mataatua waka. When the waka began drifting out to sea, custom—tikanga—forbade her from reaching out to the hoe, but Wairaka saw the danger. She understood what was at stake and what would be lost, and she acted.

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

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

From that act of courage came the name for Whakatāne. Now, I don’t claim her feat as my own, but I carry the same responsibility she carried as her uri. When the waka is drifting towards danger, we cannot sit back in silence and just watch.

Today, the waka is our taiao, and this Government is taking a toki to it. A toki has immense power.

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

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

In the hands of a kaiwhakairo, it can reveal whakapapa. A toki can shape a waka and can build something that will carry generations; but in careless hands, that same toki can destroy in minutes what took centuries to grow. This Government has chosen destruction. It’s taken the toki to Te Tiriti. It’s taken the toki to local decision-making and the authority of mana whenua. It’s taken the toki to mātauranga, to te reo rangatira, and to tikanga, and, now, it’s taking the toki to the laws that protect our ngahere, our wai, our moana, our wāhi tapu, and indigenous biodiversity.

The bill says it doesn’t extinguish customary rights in freshwater or geothermal resources, but it doesn’t also recognise ownership, settle allocation, or answer the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal. The greatest travesty of this once-in-a-generation reform is the Government’s taking of the toki to axe Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements. They cherry-picked select partnerships from yesterday while denying partnership to all Māori tomorrow. That’s a toki straight to the neck of every kaitiaki ever born yesterday in our past, present, and future.

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

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

Who are we becoming? Kaitiakitanga isn’t a decorative Māori word to place in a strategy; it’s an inherited responsibility, a duty carried first and foremost by hapū. Hapū shouldn’t need permission from another structure to exercise their mana over their whenua, over their awa, and their wāhi tapu. Kaitiakitanga doesn’t disappear just because this Government refuses to write it into the law. It lives in every hapū restoring an awa, every whānau planting a rākau to grow a ngahere, every community fighting pollution, and every rangatahi demanding a future that they can breathe, swim, and thrive in.

Te Pāti Māori warns that there is a new form of raupatu in the 21^st century, not only the taking of whenua but the transfer of authority over whenua from hapū and communities to Ministers and private interests. As the election approaches, let this message bring us all back to the waka that was constructed for every person who belongs to Aotearoa. Candidates and political parties come and go, and if you cannot bring yourself, Māori mā o Aotearoa, to vote for either a candidate or a political party, then vote for what you love. Vote for your awa. Vote for your maunga. You vote for your moana. You vote for the stream where your tamariki play. You vote for the ngahere that holds our history, that shelters our living world, and that carries the promise of our future. Vote as if their survival depends on it, because it does. Wairaka did not wait for permission to save our waka. Neither should we. Let your votes become

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

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

the instruments of restoration. Change the hands that hold power. Change this Government.

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

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

STEVE ABEL (Green) (20:57): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. There are so many things wrong with this bill. It is the overarching law to manage the environment that you would expect from a Government that is the most anti-environmental Government in a generation. This is the Government that declared war on nature. On the penultimate day of this parliamentary term, it passes its Natural Environment Bill. The philosophy of this bill does not countenance protection of nature for its intrinsic values. It does not build on the generations of those who have fought to protect our biodiversity and who have tirelessly struggled to bring back numerous taonga species from the brink of extinction and, to this day, continuing that struggle. For that is our duty.

My colleague Oriini Kaipara talks about the responsibility of Māori as kaitiaki. We all are responsible in our duty as guardians of the species with which we share this planet in our generation. It is our generation of every human in this country and on this planet that is responsible for ensuring that we pass on the species with which we share this planet to future generations. Just as in the ancient myths of the Bible, when Noah included every species—not just the humans but every species that crawled and slithered—all of them belonged to be kept and protected. That was the duty imparted by God in that tradition.

I want to touch on but one momentous exclusion, which is consideration of the negative climate impacts. It seems amazing that in one of these clauses—clause 15A—it says that, in considering climate change effects, “A person exercising or performing a function, power, or duty under this Act … (a) must not … consider any adverse effect on climate change of any greenhouse gas emission that will or may result from or be increased by the activity, whether directly or indirectly;”. So climate change can’t be considered. Sit with that for a minute. Climate change is not just the existential challenge of our generation. It is not merely the biggest threat to the global economy this century, threatening to demolish GDP in the coming 50 years. It is not merely the greatest threat to human health this century, bar none. It is not merely the greatest threat to food production, and the ability of us to feed ourselves globally. It is not only the greatest threat to infrastructure from extreme weather events. It is the greatest threat to the natural environment and biodiversity.

This clause alone damns this bill, for it is by this clause alone that this Government is complicit in allowing, facilitating, and intensifying the biggest threat to the natural environment that the bill purports to protect—the very cradle of our existence. This is the most radically anti-environmental legislation that has been passed in this country, because of its extreme right-wing ideology, where the environment can only be saved if private property owners are paid to not destroy it. The commons is lost. Biodiversity and nature—the basis of our existence on this earth—are now in the realm of private property, owned by those who have the wealth and the means to own it, only saveable if the rest of society is prepared to pay the landowner to not destroy the biodiversity. It is such an inversion of the principle that we are in a collective project of life on this earth, and a collective project of humanity and society, for the good of all.

It is a victory for the far-right ideology, an inversion of that principle of life as a collective project. That is why I urge my fellow New Zealanders to damn this bill to the rubbish bin, along with this Government, on 7 November, when we will vote in a Government that will care for te taio, that will care for the climate, and will care for the people of this country. Kia ora koutou.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (21:02): We will talk some common sense, and some facts, on this side of the House. I do rise with great excitement to support the Natural Environment Bill in this third reading. This Resource Management Act (RMA) reform protects the environment, while enabling economic development, and the two can actually go hand in hand together—the environment and our economy; we can achieve both. For over 30 years, our farmers, our food producers, our builders, and many of our industries have wrestled with a broken RMA system. At our Environment Committee, we heard submission after submission which acknowledged it was a broken RMA system that needed reform. This is good reform. We heard during that process about the compliance costs, consenting delays, and so much red tape for our primary sector.

The Natural Environment Bill will draw a clear common-sense line between managing land use and infrastructure and protecting and enhancing our natural environments. As the MP for Tukituki, I see, every day, the broken RMA system every day holding our growers and our farmers back. Hawke’s Bay is the fruit bowl of New Zealand, and we need a sensible resource management system that achieves a thriving agricultural economy and a healthy natural environment. Our orchards, our vineyards, our sheep and beef farms are the lifeblood of our regional economy. For decades, the RMA has treated food production like an activity to be restricted, rather than an essential national industry to be enabled and celebrated.

This bill finds that balance. It explicitly recognises that economic prosperity and environmental integrity must go hand in hand. The Natural Environment Bill establishes environmental limits. Environmental limits are at the heart of this bill. Under the old RMA regime, environmental management was bogged down by uncertainty and litigation. Applicants spent millions of dollars on lawyers and planning consultants, arguing over discretionary consent conditions, while actual environmental outcomes remained uncertain. The Natural Environment Bill changes this by establishing a robust framework for environmental limits and human health safeguards across air, fresh water, coastal waters, and soil. Environmental limits will be tailored to regional realities through clear management. Where environmental thresholds are met, compliance activities can proceed without requiring complex, expensive consent applications. Where limits are at risk, councils and catchments will have the tools to address it.

During our select committee hearings, we heard extensive feedback from farmers, growers, regional councils, and catchment groups regarding freshwater farm plans. Through the select committee, we have improved the farm-planning system to be more practical. Farm plans under this framework recognise that a hill-country sheep farm in the Ruahine Range operates under vastly different environmental conditions than an intensive dairy farm down in Canterbury, or an orchard on the Heretaunga Plains in Hastings. This empowers local farming communities to work together with catchment groups. Under the Natural Environment Bill, there is also a powerful shift towards expanding and allowing more permitted activities. This new resource management system is expected to save ratepayers and taxpayers over $13 billion, through reduced administrative and compliance costs. It will remove the need for up to 22,000 consents a year.

Food and fibre exports are the backbone of our economy. Farmers and growers need certainty. They need common sense. They need a planning system that allows investment, allows them to innovate and grow, while continuing to be excellent stewards of the environment. This legislation strikes that balance. We are fixing the planning system that everyone knew was broken. We’re cutting the red tape; we’re reducing the delays; we’re creating the conditions for more homes, more infrastructure, more renewable energy, and stronger economic growth. We also added a food and fibre goal, in clause 11(1)(a), to the goals in the new bill, which I think shows a real respect for our food production in New Zealand. We’re a trading nation at the bottom of the world; we rely on our food production. The new RMA system will respect that.

We heard from a lot of sectors during the RMA process—from the electricity sector, agriculture, building, and construction—and there was a clear message that we need certainty and we need to have more efficiency in our system, where we can see faster consenting. We can give some certainty to our agricultural sector and also respect our farmers and our growers to do what they do best, and that is grow the best produce in the world. I want to thank our wonderful Environment Committee for all their hard work. It’s been a landmark piece of legislation that we’ve navigated through, and we’re really proud of this. I commend it to the House.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (21:09): We obviously oppose everything that’s been said on the other side.

Hon Tama Potaka: Sad. Just sad.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Do you agree with me, Tama Potaka? I’m sure Tama Potaka does agree with me, because the way—

Hon David Seymour: This guy knows nothing about this topic, or any other!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, it’s good to see Mr Seymour here, because he’s been one of the main problems with this, because—

Hon David Seymour: Tell us how.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, because of your refusal, Mr Seymour, to acknowledge Māori rights, to acknowledge Treaty rights.

Hon David Seymour: I acknowledge everybody’s rights.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Because of your refusal, Mr Seymour, to acknowledge that there’s a partnership in this country. You believe in you, thinking you know more than Lord Cooke.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: My apologies, Madam Speaker

Hon David Seymour: He should have learnt the rules by now.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Mr Seymour thinks he knows more than Judge Cooke, more than Sian Elias, more than Jim Bolger—who else is there?—more than John Key, more than Jacinda Ardern, more than Andrew Little—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that’s the member’s opinion; now we’ll come back to the bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh no, but he’s been asking me some questions. He’s been behind this Resource Management Act reform, basically looking to reduce Māori rights and Treaty rights.

Hon David Seymour: Māori have the same rights as everybody.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, no, you want to get rid of Māori and Treaty rights, and you don’t want to acknowledge things. You’re like—Mr Seymour, Madam Speaker, is like those people who deny anyone landed on the moon; you know, those guys that go to the moon? David Seymour would deny that anyone landed on the moon. It doesn’t matter what anyone says. It doesn’t matter what judge, it doesn’t matter what politician, whatever they say, only David Seymour and the ACT Party know! They are a disgrace to this Parliament, and I want to get that out on the last night.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And now, with eight minutes to go, we’ll talk about the bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: But I am!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you’ve just spent two minutes talking about Mr Seymour; now you can talk about the bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: He asked me a few questions. And I know that the ACT—

Hon Member: Serjeant-at-Arms!

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Ha, ha! The reality is that this is David Seymour and the National Party bowing to their big polluter mates. We already know that. That’s been said a number of times—

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ve got a point of order, Mr Jackson. [Interruption] Quiet during points of order, everybody—except for the Hon David Seymour.

Hon David Seymour: Every member of this House, no matter how experienced, no matter how adept, knows that you cannot reflect on a member’s motivations as that member just has. He should withdraw and apologise, to uphold the standards of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will ask Mr Jackson to withdraw and apologise, because I did ask the member to focus on the bill; he continued to focus on the Hon David Seymour, and this is not what the topic of the bill is. If the member wishes to continue, he can withdraw and apologise to the Hon David Seymour, and then he can carry on with the bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Jeez, that’s a big ask, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, it’s up to the member. I can stop the speech now if he doesn’t wish to do any more.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s big ask, but, for the sake of the kaupapa, and it’s the second to last night here, I have no problems withdrawing and—what am I withdrawing and apologising for? Could you just clarify that again?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The comments that you made about the Hon David Seymour’s beliefs and intentions—some words like that. OK, back to the bill, Mr Jackson, otherwise I’ll have to terminate your call, and I don’t want to, because I know you’ve got a good six minutes and 48 seconds about the bill left.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’d like to talk about Mr Seymour. I’d be very happy to—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I’m not going to let you talk about Mr Seymour.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I respect that, Madam Speaker—I respect that. The original goal allowing the development of natural resources within environmental limits is all gone.

Hon David Seymour: The bill introduces the concept of environmental limits. The member can’t read.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: You don’t know. We object to interim environmental limits being stretched from around five to 10 years. That point has been made a number of times from this side, hasn’t it?

New Zealand, this summer, faces the worst El Niño in a thousand years, and we don’t have the luxury of pushing environmental limits to 10 years. The biodiversity test is too weak; that has been said a number of times. The proposed “no net loss” goal lacks a clear baseline and workable definition and, therefore, may provide little practical protection.

Grant McCallum: Got the talking points?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’d rather have a crack at David Seymour.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: But you don’t have that choice.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Madam Speaker, I do have a choice in terms of talking about how this weakens Māori rights and interests in terms of natural resources.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, you do.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I do have a right there, and David Seymour—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s a Government bill; it’s not a David Seymour bill.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, but he’s behind it all!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honestly, I’ve asked. I know you love talking about the Hon David Seymour, but I’ll ask you to carry on talking about the bill. You were doing well for a minute.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This bill weakens the rights and interests of Māori. That was conveyed to the Government by Tukoroirangi Morgan. Minister Potaka was there, at the koroneihana. They were attacked for their attack on Māori rights. Minister Potaka was there, and Minister Goldsmith was there, so it’s important that I say that. It’s important that I also say the future of iwi relationships with regional councils now is very uncertain, with their decision to get rid of the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe relationship.

The bill doesn’t sufficiently reflect the Waitangi Tribunal’s freshwater findings, specifically Wai 2358, when discussing Māori freshwater rights and interests, which is something that we as a Government tried to address.

Hon David Seymour: You’re not in Government.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We will be shortly, and you’ll be out. At least, as a Government, this particular area, in terms of te mana o te wai, was something we navigated. We worked very much on that with Kiritapu Allan and David Parker, and we were brave in terms of addressing the property rights of water, unlike this Government, who just ditched it and put it to the side.

These are rights that must be addressed by Governments, no matter whether it’s a National Government or a Labour Government, whatever. Former National Governments would look at those types of rights. John Key—John Key, Madam Speaker, who you’ve got a bit of time for—addressed the whole question of these freshwater rights back in 2013-14, but this Government has walked away from that obligation. That’s why it’s incredibly important to mention that tonight. Environmental limits are too weak to protect taonga. If environmental limits can be delayed, qualified, or balanced against economic considerations, waterways and ecosystems of cultural significance remain vulnerable.

This bill—and this is where the Tuku Morgans and the iwi leaders are getting very upset—threatens Treaty settlement arrangements. That is the point we’ve been making on this side. Existing settlements frequently contain bespoke arrangements involving rivers, lakes, conservation land, and resource management. These shouldn’t be destabilised by a new, generic system. This legislation prioritises extraction over kaitiakitanga—Mr Seymour wouldn’t understand that word. He needs to go and get some training from his iwi. The truth is that climate and environmental planning aren’t integrated, not just for Māori; they’re not integrated for Pākehā either. Nobody knows what’s happening. A resource management system intended to last decades needs to deal coherently with emissions, adaption, and environmental resilience.

You can’t put in a system like this—this is the point. You can’t put in a system like this by ignoring Māori interests. This is what our people are saying. We are part and parcel of the environment: “Ko au te awa, ko te awa ahau.” That is the type of kōrero that comes from people like Tariana Turia, who say we are a part of the environment; we are part and parcel. We must be worked with, we must be consulted with, we can’t just be the karakia and mihi people for the ACT Party or for the National Party. We must play a meaningful role in this country.

That’s what we attempted to do when we were in Government. That’s what we tried to address. That’s what we owe Jacinda Ardern for. When we came through this process, it was one of the most difficult processes we had to deal with, but we made progress. This lot, driven by some of the right-wingers and money interests and donors, have decided to get rid of and water down and shut down Māori interests. We’re going to change that—

Hon David Seymour: Hey, how did it go when Brooke called you out in Copperfields?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’re going to change that, especially for that bloke over there, on 7 November, when we will come back to our communities, when we will come back to our people. This has been the most anti-worker, anti-women, anti-Māori Government of my lifetime. They are a total disgrace, and people like David Seymour should hang their heads in shame. I am glad he’s here tonight, so I can make it clear to him that he is an embarrassment to te ao Māori. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (21:20): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call in support of the Natural Environment Bill. New Zealand needs an environment management system that protects and enhances nature without holding communities and businesses back. For too long, the Resource Management Act has created uncertainty, delay, and cost while failing to deliver the environmental outcomes New Zealanders expect. The—

Hon David Seymour: Did a Grammar boy write this for you?

GRANT McCALLUM: The Natural Environment Bill is an important part—

Hon Willie Jackson: You can’t trust him!

GRANT McCALLUM: He’s just jealous he didn’t go to a good school, but that’s his problem. Working alongside the Planning Bill—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: He’s picking on you now.

GRANT McCALLUM: It establishes a framework for the use, protection, and the enhancement of our natural environment. The Planning Bill deals with land use and development; this bill deals with natural resources, environmental limits, and the standards needed to protect what matters.

The backbone of the New Zealand economy is our primary sector. Our future prosperity will always rely on our farming families and all the workers who help produce the products for export. Because of this, the Environment Committee added—and I’m very proud of this—clearer recognition of food and fibre production, including aquaculture, within the goals for the use and development of natural resources. This is a welcome and practical improvement for Northland and the rest of the country. It recognises that primary production is not an afterthought; it is essential to our regional and national prosperity.

The committee also listened to the farmers and growers and raised concerns about the lack of certainty, compliance costs, and day-to-day workability. Controlled activity classes have been restored, giving primary production greater certainty. The importance of having a simpler and fairer process was emphasised to me last October, when I was privileged to be meeting mid-Canterbury farmers, organised by Federated Farmers in the Lagmhor Westerfield War Memorial Hall. This expressed their concerns, and they expressed their concerns in deep frustration about their lack and uncertainty of their futures, and I really worry about that. That was the message we took back, and we addressed those issues in the bill. I have a son who’s looking to start that farming career, who will be a fifth-generation farmer in our family.

For those reasons, I am very proud of this bill and I’m looking forward to the outcomes to be better for the environment and for the farming families of New Zealand. I commend it to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) (21:23): I wish to take some words that have been spoken by various members of the Government this evening, and I want to start with something that was said by the Hon Mark Patterson. He said, “We were sent here to fix the RMA.” The only problem with that was the Resource Management Act (RMA) wasn’t enforced when he arrived back in the House; the RMA had been repealed and replaced with some substantial bills aimed at reforming the planning system in this country. This Government decided to just toss that out and do the work all over again. Instead of perhaps picking up and amending what was there, they decided to do it all over again. If the RMA has remained in force for even longer, it is because of that Government, which decided to faff around because of its own ego.

There was another phrase that another member of the Government used over there, and that was the phrase: “It’s just common sense”. You know, frankly, if you have to resort to saying that something is “common sense”, it means you don’t have an argument to stand on. It appeals to some vague, out-there sentence instead of actually what is written in the bill. Find some new words; find some actual arguments that support this bill in particular. Find some words to deal with the very serious objections that were raised on this side of the House. Find some words to deal with the fact that on this side of the House, members of our party and others worked hard through the select committee process to try to make this work, including one of our members who is an absolute expert in resource management law, and yet that was overlooked.

One of the difficulties with this bill is just that, straightforwardly, the purpose of this bill—let me read the purpose of this bill. It’s sitting in clause 4: “The purpose of this Act is to establish a framework for the use,”. That’s the first thing that we have for the environment—the “use” of the environment. Then it goes on to add the protection and the enhancement of the natural environment. But there’s an attitude right there, right from the start, that the environment is there to be used and exploited. Let’s be clear: we do need to find ways to live with this in this environment, but I beg the other side of the House to remember that the environment is not there to serve the economy; it is the other way around. The economy is a subset of the environment. If we do not protect and look after our environment, there will be no economy.

That is why, on this side of the House, we wanted to amend that purpose statement to say that we wanted to maintain and improve the natural environment to safeguard that human health, to provide for adaptation to climate change, to manage the risk of natural hazards, because if we do none of those things, then there is no economy.

Then, there’s a whole set of goals in this bill—goals which are to guide what is to be done when it comes to the natural environment. The first goal—the very first one listed—says, in clause 11: “(a) to enable the use and development of natural resources, including for the production of food and fibre (including aquaculture):”. It says there’s a whole list of goals for what we should be doing in terms of working through this legislation, and it does say that the order in which the goals appear does not assign the order of importance. We can guarantee that when the courts have to come to interpret these goals and the way that they conflict with each other, then they have no guidance to resort to other than the order in which they are listed in this document. No matter what they say, that is what will happen.

When we look at what has been done in this bill, when we look at the way that the environment has been subsumed and put under the economy, we say that is a mistake. It is a mistake. Of course we need to find ways for the environment and the economy to work together, but let’s remember that New Zealanders value their environment, that New Zealanders value the clean water, they value the clean air, they value our bush, and this bill makes those things secondary.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (21:28): Thank you, Madam Speaker. New Zealand is a country with huge opportunities. We’ve got a huge amount of entrepreneurialism, we’ve got people that want to utilise it, but we’re so frustrated. We are disappointed by the fact that we don’t have a regime that allows us to be able to do what Kiwis can do, and that is contribute to the world, contribute to our country. It doesn’t make sense that we have consents, renewal of consents taking years when there’s not even changes in conditions in that. It doesn’t make sense that it takes eight, 10 years to get a consent, when it takes less than two years to build the project itself. We need to unleash our country, realise the potential we have, and increase the opportunities with the economy. We have a great economy. It will help us out with our Public Service. It is all good news. I commend the bill to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) (21:29): Kia orana, Madam Speaker.

Hon David Seymour: Oh no, not Tangi!

TANGI UTIKERE: What’s that?

Hon David Seymour: Oh no!

TANGI UTIKERE: I haven’t even said anything yet. The Deputy Prime Minister seems to be in fine form tonight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will comment that the previous speaker on the Labour side was a class act at ignoring the interjections and carrying on, so let’s see how this member goes.

TANGI UTIKERE: I’m very happy to entertain them, Madam Speaker. I’m very happy to entertain them, because this is the penultimate sitting day. It’s the dying days of this Government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know, it feels like the last day of school, sitting up here.

TANGI UTIKERE: It is, indeed, the penultimate sitting day of the 54th Parliament, and what we are doing is, effectively, passing legislation that is not a great bill and that is going to lead to much more uncertainty for many, and create a lot of confusion along the way. We remain opposed to this bill this evening, and it’s not because we oppose reform, actually; we have consistently said that, in terms of resource management reform, there was some work that needed to be done, and that is why the work was done under the last Government. I recall, actually, sitting with colleagues on the Environment Committee of the last Parliament working through many of the issues that were identified at the time. This is a Government that has got its priorities in all of the wrong places.

When we had this bill come to the House for its first reading, members on this side of the House supported an opportunity, in good faith, to explore what some of those issues were and to iron out many of those concerns as part of the select committee process. Why did we do that? Because we thought it was a constructive approach to dealing with a piece of legislation currently before the Parliament. Now, it is an absolute disgrace that this Government believed, so soon after that select committee had reported back, a matter of hours, that they would land a set of proposals, heading through the committee stage, that would simply overturn many of the approaches that had been identified as part of the select committee process.

I know there are members in this House who spent countless hours in select committee working through the range of options, to come up with a piece of legislation that would have enjoyed some cross-party support, but, only a matter of hours after that committee had reported back, this Government decided that, actually, they were not going to respond in the more traditional approach of all of those submitters who were participating in the select committee process; instead, they were going to land their own policy proposals, and they are at complete odds with what all members of that select committee worked through and what came back to the House. This bill has to be one of the few bills in the Parliament’s history that has gone off to select committee and has come back in a way worse position than when the select committee actually received it.

Now, how is that possible; that you would expect people to submit through this process, spend countless hours preparing, for members opposite to simply say, “We know better. We don’t care about all of the people who submitted through this process. We’ve got our own views, and we’re just going to pile ahead”—through urgency previously, I might add—“to deal to this issue.”? The whole point of select committees is to improve legislation and for the public to actually have their say, and what this Government has demonstrated, in bringing this through to the third reading tonight, is that they have shut out the public from having an opportunity to share with decision makers what their views are on the policy proposals that they have changed in the face of the concerns that had already been identified and addressed. I think that is absolutely disgraceful.

The Government simply squandered that opportunity to work alongside other parties, and indeed the community, to get the decisions and the policy settings right, but they have determined that they actually know way better than that. When you have more than 3,000 submitters who want to share with the Parliament what their views are on this matter and you have a Government on the other side that simply wants to shut the door to hearing those concerns and opportunities—many of them were very, very good suggestions—that, I think, speaks volumes to the direction of travel that this Government wants to take, in terms of supporting community views on a whole pile of things. Members who submitted to this bill would have rightly expected that their views were considered, and they were entitled to have the legislation return to the Parliament broadly reflective of many of the issues that were identified throughout that process. What we have in front of us this evening is something that is far from that.

It is interesting to note, and I’m not going to go through the whole list of people who submitted, but it is a cross-section of our community—people who think resource management reform is needed in one direction, others in a different—and to shut them out is, I think, something that was very, very disappointing. One of those specific changes, of course, is when it comes to Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements, which I think are a key example around this. What we heard, of course, through the process—from the Minister himself, through the select committee process—was, “Do you know what? We’re not going to shut the door on those agreements and arrangements; we’re going to allow them to continue.” The complete opposite, in terms of a flip, is the policy position of the Government, and what is in this bill is, “No, we’re going to scrap them altogether.” That is a significant policy shift, a significant positional shift, on behalf of the Government.

It is no surprise; it comes hot on the heels of this Government saying one thing face to face and doing something completely the opposite when its alternative opportunity presents itself. I think of the recent—just last week—Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill, where, at the last minute, effectively, they decided to slam the opportunity for Houkura and the Independent Māori Statutory Board to have voting opportunities. This is a consistent approach from this Government, where they are wanting to slam Māori opportunity and other community opportunities with legislation that they want to progress and put forward—yet another opportunity, of course, for them to say, “Oh no, no, we talked about this.”, when, even in the last 24 hours or so, we have Mayor Wayne Brown, we have Deputy Mayor Desley Simpson, and we have chair Richard Hills all saying that this Government and its Ministers were saying one thing to their face but actually the legislation, when it comes to this House, is completely different to the face-to-face conversations they had. For a Government that wants to talk about partnership with local government, that is something that is heading in completely wrong direction.

This issue of hierarchy, which we’ve heard about with this bill, also turns it completely on its head, where it will be over to the whim of the Minister of the day to be making decisions around who gets what, when, how, and why—and where. This is about resources, it’s about our natural environment, but it’s also about ministerial influence and not having a key set of principles to align around how those decision-making processes would be constructed and how they would be actually followed through. That means that, naturally, outcomes will differ, because decisions will change, the Minister will change, Governments will change, political cycles will change—these are all of the things that are sitting behind the hierarchy that this bill introduces and the amount of power sitting with the Minister themselves. What we will see, potentially, is a whole pile of judicial review. That’s the only way these sorts of opportunities can be challenged. It’s great for lawyers, because it gives them plenty more opportunity, and this is the only way in which those issues could be addressed.

My colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking, through the committee stage, identified a number of Amendment Papers that, I think, quite acutely signal the direction of travel on this side of the House. Many of them are, for example, in the space of making some direct changes—ensuring that an incoming Labour Government will signal very clearly what those changes will mean, not just for local government but for lawyers as well, who undertake work in this particular sector. The other, which has been touched on previously, is this issue of regulatory relief, and the implication that local councils and local government and ratepayers would be expected to foot the bill because of this issue of private property interests and how that works. This is a Government that is not interested in public good; it is a Government that is afraid—I mean, the word “wellbeing” sends shivers up the spines of this Government. None of this is where its priorities want to lie.

What we do say to members opposite and to Aotearoa New Zealand is that change is coming on 7 November, and that change will be for the better, because, as we know, in terms of on this side of the House and for the election, “Better starts now”.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (21:39): It’s a privilege to speak in the final speech of the third reading of the duo of the planning and environment bills that will reform this country and enable productivity and prosperity to truly be unleashed. It gives me great pleasure.

You might recall a Japanese expert called Marie Condo, who, years ago, started a thing called decluttering—a decluttering process where someone would declutter their wardrobe or their kitchen. They’d release it, and they’d thank it. Tonight, we are decluttering from the Resource Management Act (RMA). We thank the RMA for its 35 years of service. We release it and we thank it for its service. It is no longer fit for purpose.

With these two new planning bills, the future is looking bright and prosperity is about to be unleashed. To all the staff, the officials, the Ministers, and the Environment Committee, we salute you. We thank you for the work that will be the legacy and hallmark of this Government. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Natural Environment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 54

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4)

Second Reading

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (21:42): I move that the Secondary Legislation Confirmation—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Quiet! Apologies, Minister. Can I have a bit of quiet over in this corner, please.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I move, That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4) be now read a second time.

This bill is done routinely every year to confirm secondary legislation that would otherwise be revoked if not confirmed by Parliament. I want to thank the Regulations Review Committee for the work it’s done evaluating this bill, including finding two extra instruments to confirm which weren’t able to be included when the bill was introduced, and especially for doing it so that it could be reported back to the House much earlier than it normally would be.

Usually, this bill is passed in December as one of the final bills of the year. However, with the election scheduled when it is, we’ve decided to ensure this bill passes now, before the end of the term, so that the next Parliament doesn’t have to rush it through once sworn in.

This legislation confirms 17 instruments over seven Acts, including the Biosecurity Act, the Commodity Levies Act, the Customs and Excise Act, the Road User Charges Act, the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act, the Social Security Act, the Tariff Act, and the Wine Act. The bulk of the instruments relate to levies, including on strawberries, passionfruit, blackcurrants, citrus fruit, and wheat grain. With those brief remarks, I commend the bill to the House.

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

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (21:43): My remarks will not be so brief, but I do thank the Leader of the House for her acknowledgment of the Regulations Review Committee, which considered this piece of secondary legislation and the orders it confirms. There are 17 of them, and the way that the committee did that was very quickly, with its usual sense of working together, and all of the orders were considered in a cross-partisan way with unanimous agreement at all stages.

It’s relevant for us to consider tonight what Parliament is being asked to do. Every time benefits or rates or fees or tariffs in these instruments are set, the primary legislation which enables these Acts requires Parliament to confirm them in this way. Delegation to those secondary decision-makers like Ministers or the Public Service requires this sort of oversight when, effectively, ordinary people and businesses are being asked to, in many instances, pay fees that are material to the way that they conduct themselves, and so it’s right for us to consider them, not only at the committee level, but to debate them at this stage.

If Parliament did not confirm these orders in the statutory deadline, then they would need to be revoked and they would not have effect. So it’s also right for us to have done that in a very fast way to enable the House to consider this second reading before Parliament rises.

The confirmation bills have traditionally been required for particularly significant exercises of delegated power. Usually, those include things like emergency regulations, regulations imposing something similar to a tax, and regulations capable of amending primary legislation. The big piece of delegated authority in this bill is the confirmation of the order that impacts on beneficiaries and superannuitants, so I will draw the House’s attention to that.

This bill confirms the order that was made that, effectively, sets the rates for main benefits, for superannuation rates, and for other benefits like the unsupported child’s benefit and the orphans benefit. It is relevant to note that here because this order takes effect after a number of changes to that.

It dates back to 2009, when Labour changed benefit indexation so that each main benefit was increased in line with average wage growth. National reversed that change in 2024, but not for superannuation, and so now we have two ways of indexing two different types of benefits. Previously, they would have used the wage growth. This makes a material impact, not just as the formula as set out in legislation—and of course there are changes for what superannuation and beneficiaries can expect in line with those different rates in this order—but it also makes a big difference in terms of what people can expect in the future. In this order, for instance, it doesn’t make a huge difference because wage growth and the Consumers Price Index are similar numbers, but, say, under the previous Government, when wage growth was increasing much faster, it was 4.3 percent per annum under Labour, and that would have made a material difference to what beneficiaries could have expected and what superannuants could have expected.

When we considered this order, it was relevant to consider what each benefit would have gone up by. We’re talking between sort of $10 a week to $15 a week for some sorts of main benefits. That makes a material impact for the people who are affected by this to the tune of about $500 a year for, say, a parent who is on a sole parent benefit with care of children, and so it was relevant for the committee to consider just how big that would be for those people who were affected.

The other examples in this bill are things like the Customs Import Prohibition (Nitrous Oxide) Order 2026, which prohibits nitrous oxide from being imported without a permit from the Director-General of Health. That is a good change. It is one that I have campaigned on as a local MP because having NOS cans or nangs cans in our communities and being dumped in our parks is completely unacceptable.

These are the sorts of changes which can be provided for in regulations that have a material impact on the communities that are affected by them, and it’s important that we also appreciate that this kind of lawmaking can be done at the secondary legislative level, but it’s appropriate to confirm them here because this also impacts on a number of businesses who have been, effectively, in my view, getting away with something that they shouldn’t have been, which is importing these products cheaply. They are very clearly marketed to children. They are brightly coloured, they have flavours, they are designed in a way which is appealing to young people, and yet they are a prohibited drug that is only intended for use by dentists. This is an important order which makes that much harder for these businesses to do, and it makes it much clearer that that is not an effective thing that will be profitable in New Zealand, going forward.

The bill also confirms the commodity levy orders. The Leader of the House very quickly read these out, but, as the Regulations Review Committee chair, I have had to pay attention to the rules for blackcurrants, citrus, harvest wood, herbage seeds, passionfruit, strawberries, summerfruit, and wheat, and so I’m going to talk about them. It was really useful for the committee—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s the only thing that’s kept the other side of the House quiet during your whole speech, and so keep going!

ARENA WILLIAMS: They are desperately interested in the consideration of the passionfruit rules by the committee.

Stone fruit was an excitable topic of conversation around the committee table, about the levy orders that would apply, and the committee had the expert advice of Miles Anderson around the charges that were associated with blackcurrants and citrus. It was very useful.

Hon Member: Is passionfruit a stone fruit?

ARENA WILLIAMS: The question my colleague is positing, is passionfruit one of those fruits considered alongside stone fruit: no; the committee was able to seek the advice, as my colleague has raised, about these tiny stones, which do not in fact bring the passionfruit in line with the other stone fruits that are in these orders—very useful to have that expert advice available to the committee and the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) team, who presented to committee not twice, not three times, but four whole times, which I went back and forth on with the secretariat of the committee because I thought that was too many times for anyone to have to talk to PCO.

In conclusion, the secondary legislation in this bill deals with detailed rules, but those rules have real legal and financial consequences for the people who are impacted by them. It is right that Parliament considers them at this stage carefully. That is a feature of the Regulations Review Committee, and it is a feature that this Parliament has considered as to whether that would be a useful design for a legislative scrutiny committee that would function in a sort of similar way but with primary legislation. I think that is a good idea. The working model for the Regulations Review Committee in being able to examine the detail of these regulations is one that works. It is one that works because the two major parties, and other participating minor parties who come along to the Regulations Review Committee, take that work very seriously in scrutinising the effect of the rules, not only as legal instruments in and of themselves, in the drafting of those, but also on people’s lives. It is right that we have elected representatives who think about how much NOS should be charged to the people who are importing it who are selling it to children. It is right that we should have elected representatives who consider the imports, fees, and charges that affect stone fruit growers in those regions that rely on those, because these are things which deeply impact our economy. They’re not exciting in this House; they’re not the things that get the big debates, but they are the things that keep our economy running.

So it has been a privilege to serve as the Regulations Review Committee chair and to be able to take a call on this bill, which will be my last as a chair because when we return to this Parliament, we hope to be in Government.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (21:52): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just following on from the previous speaker, the excellent chair of the Regulations Review Committee, Arena Williams, I am one of those people who is attending the Regulations Review Committee for fun, under Standing Order 213.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For fun?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: For fun, because it’s genuinely—I want to acknowledge, actually, all of the clerks and the legislative counsel and everyone who supported us in the Regulations Review Committee as well. I mean, I want to acknowledge all of the select committees and the Office of the Clerk, but in particular Regulations Review Committee members have the kind of intellect that really wows every single member of that committee because of their ability to really look at the details of every piece of secondary legislation.

Now, with the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4), the number should be pretty obvious, noting that this is the fourth one we’ve done this particular term. But, you know, obviously, this particular one the Green Party supports. The Green Party hasn’t always supported—the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3) being a really good example because of some of the changes to the customs excise levy, which we consider is unexpected or unusual but yet somehow a legal use of the power. But we did not find any of that in this particular one.

Just for members of this House in particular, the Regulations Review Committee, under Standing Order 326(1), actually examines all secondary legislation, and these sorts of confirmation bills are one of the few bills that go to the Regulations Review Committee for examination, because usually the Regulations Review Committee doesn’t examine any particular bills.

With this Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill, there are 15 instruments for confirmation, and the committee has also—

Arena Williams: Two more.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: —recommended two more on top of that—excellent. Do you remember which two?

Arena Williams: Stone fruit?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Yes—no, no; summerfruit and passionfruit. They are the two additional ones that the committee recommended. As the previous speaker, Arena Williams, mentioned, there is a number of commodity levies that are introduced as a part of this, and most of them we have examined as a part of the committee process anyway, as a part of how the Regs Review Committee examines secondary legislation. As we mentioned, blackcurrant, citrus fruit, harvested wood, strawberries, wheat grains, the two we added—passionfruit and summerfruit—and also, very excitingly, non-proprietary herbage seeds, which is very important. But the increase that we’re seeing and giving effect to those particular commodity levy orders is incredibly important for the way that the Ministry for Primary Industries is also able to continue its own particular function, because the levies that are collected through those, particularly through the growers of either blackcurrant or summerfruit or passionfruit, will help undertake industry good activities to support industry performance and growth. I think we can all agree that that is a good thing for us to do. So there are things such as tax and levies and duties that are actually good for us to be able to do and need to be adjusted accordingly based on the needs of our communities.

Now, I do want to touch on the one that the previous speaker spoke on, which is, I believe, the Social Security (Rates of Benefits and Allowances) Order 2026. Now, this is something that is important because, again, this is something that has been a longstanding practice. Again, it’s important for us to point to the fact that there could be non-partisanship in a lot of things like social development, etc., if we all agree on what we want to see and the vision we want to see. This particular one in terms of adjusting things to inflation, particularly Consumers Price Index, is a longstanding practice since the 1990s, and, again, we would like to see that being continued by future Governments as well, in terms of how those rates of benefits and allowances are increased.

Now, finally, I do want to check—the previous speakers mentioned that there are also additional other things like tariffs, inherited goods, and gift concession, to create a new concession allowing certain inherited goods into New Zealand, noting that a lot of the inherited goods coming into New Zealand already have a duty attached to them. So this idea of an inheritance tax is not actually entirely new, and we already have seen some of those duties, particularly when it comes to inherited goods coming over from overseas. But, in this particular case, it does allow for certain, I guess, concessions that are being made in terms of some of those inherited goods, and this is part of the working tariff document.

Overall, this is something where, usually, we tend to see secondary legislation that is simply passed as an Order in Council and then the Regulations Review Committee would then go and examine that. But what we do see is, for some of these particular instruments, it is important for there to be the ability to conduct and debate some of that in this House. For the many things that were mentioned regarding some of the duties, levies, taxes, and those additional benefits, it is important for us to maintain that parliamentary oversight on some of these. I do believe that one of the things we’re seeing is the importance of having, I guess, specialised committees such as the Regulations Review Committee, where it is able to, in most cases, operate in a non-partisan and consensus way to get some of these over the line. I think that’s a really important function of the Regulations Review Committee and it’s an important function of our Parliament.

Now, although, again, this pains me to do so, I am going to leave that there despite having three minutes left on the clock, because I think this is the second to last day of this term of Parliament, and, you know, maybe we can all afford to go home a little bit early. So, with that, the Green Party supports this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

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

Extended Sitting

Wednesday, 23 September 2026

Bills

Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4)

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The House is resumed for the extended sitting. Is someone taking a call?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu) (09:00): Kia ora e te Pīka, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4). Now, this is not usually a bill that is exciting for people. However, that said, I would like to say that behind every line of this bill is an actual person, because there is a grower, a truck driver, a family, a pensioner—to name a few—that this bill affects. I would like to talk not so much about the clauses of this bill but about the people that the clauses of this bill will serve. I’d also like to explain why Labour’s support for this bill comes with a clear message that we can do better.

Let me begin with why this bill is important. When we pass laws here in Parliament, it often lets Ministers and Government departments fill in the details through Orders in Council or via regulations. For most things, that is sensible, but when the Government sets a tax, imposes a levy, or bans something at the border, Parliament has decided that we must be involved as parliamentarians. Those instruments must come back to te Whare Pāremata to be confirmed, and, if they’re not, they fall away and they can be treated as though they were never valid at all.

I want to clarify that this is not red tape. This is our democracy in action. It’s the principle that taxes and charges on New Zealanders are decided by their elected representatives, not by an order signed in an office. Labour will always defend that principle. That’s exactly why Labour is taking this bill seriously.

Let’s begin by taking us, theoretically, to Canterbury. If you can picture a wheat grower on the plains, out before dawn watching the sky, he knows that one bad hailstorm in the wrong week can wipe out a whole year’s work. However, one of the things that gives him some peace of mind is that the wheat industry, through United Wheatgrowers NZ, funds its own disaster relief insurance scheme. It is paid for by the levy that this bill confirms. If we fail to confirm this bill, that safety net goes away—so of course Labour supports this bill.

But here’s something that the House should be aware of. The referendum that backed the wheat levy had a turnout of 17 percent. Those who voted were strongly in favour—86 percent by number—but more than four out of five of those eligible growers didn’t vote at all. The Ministry for Primary Industries gives reasonable explanations: some growers only plant wheat now and then, and for many it’s a small part of their farm. I accept that, but the law sets no minimum turnout whatsoever, so we should look at whether the Commodity Levies Act should require extra justification when turnout is that low. That’s not an attack on our wheat growers. It’s about making sure that when the levy comes, every grower feels that it was genuinely theirs.

Now let’s compare that to our passionfruit growers. This is a small industry of mostly small, family-run operations growing fruit that some of us grew up with on the back fence. Their referendum turnout was 79 percent, and that’s what rural industry ownership looks like. If we look at the summer fruit growers, the orchardists of Central Otago and Hawke’s Bay who give us the cherries and the apricots on our Christmas tables across the country, they had 94 percent support.

These growers do the right thing: they organise, they vote, they invest together in research and biosecurity and pest control—the kind of work that no single orchard could afford alone. Yet both of their orders were made on 29 June, just one day before the deadline. They missed the bill entirely when it was introduced, and the Regulations Review Committee had to add them in. Levy orders run on a six-yearly cycle. Everyone knows when they expire. Growers who did everything right shouldn’t have the funding hanging on a last-minute scramble. We would like the ministry to plan these renewals well ahead so that the industries that turn out in force aren’t left waiting.

Now let’s see how this bill affects our truck drivers. The Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4) confirms changes to road-user charges for 50 MAX trucks, high-productivity vehicles that now make up a big part of our freight fleet. Permit requirements for those trucks have been removed, and this change makes sure that charges they pay stay exactly the same. That is sensible—less paperwork for operators and no change for the road fund. But the instrument is called the fuel response regulations, and the committee describes it as “fuel crisis relief for the heavy vehicle industry”. The ministry’s own letter doesn’t even mention “fuel” once. It says this is about the land transport rules reform regulation programme. For a trucking operator, though, doing the sums during a fuel crisis, the difference matters. Was this relief, or wasn’t it? If the law carries the name, the Government should be able to explain it.

Now to our families and to a harm that many parents fear. This bill confirms the ban on importing nitrous oxide without a permit from the Director-General of Health. Anyone who has picked up those little silver canisters from a park or school car park knows why that matters. Customs has told the committee plainly that if this isn’t confirmed, the controls go and so does its inability to enforce them. Labour supports this without any hesitation.

The bill also confirms a new tariff concession allowing certain inherited goods to enter New Zealand duty-free. Think of a family who came from Tonga, India, the Philippines, or China. When a grandmother passes away back home, what comes across the ocean isn’t merchandise. It is her ngatu, her fala—fala fihu—her jewellery, her sewing machine, the pot she cooked in for 60 years. Up until now, grieving families could face a duty bill on their memories. This change says that grief shouldn’t come with an invoice, and Labour is proud to support that change.

Finally, the people who need this bill most. This bill confirms increases to benefits, allowances, and New Zealand’s superannuation. For a pensioner in Ōtāhuhu and Auckland in general, a sole parent in Hamilton, a disabled New Zealander in Christchurch, those increases are not abstract; they’re the difference between being able to pay a power bill or not. Labour will never put that at risk. But let me be clear: confirming this Order in Council doesn’t mean we endorse the Government’s choices about how benefits are indexed. When benefits are tied only to prices rather than wages, people doing it the hardest fall further behind the rest of the country. We’ll keep making that argument loudly.

How can we make this process better? The Regulations Review Committee did its work well and unanimously, and I’d like to thank all of the members of our select committee. However, every instrument in this bill should carry its proper legislation number, but as far as I know, four do not. The House should see in one table each instrument, its deadline, and why it deserves confirmation—and when Parliament writes to the chief executives of Government departments about taxes and bans, it is actually reasonable to expect those chief executives to respond to the select committee.

Labour supports this bill because behind it are growers, families, truck drivers, and pensioners who are counting on us, and because they are counting on us, we will keep asking the questions that makes the system worthy of their trust. I commend this bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (09:09): Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. It’s obviously not common to see a bill that has such unanimous support throughout the House. I wanted to question, I guess, the timing of choosing to do it right now when last week, for example, we just had urgency to do things like move-on orders, which would have hurt our most vulnerable. I think bills like this one, which are so essential to pass before the end of the term, could have been debated at other times of the week to ensure that it actually passes, because the previous speaker is right: what this bill effectively does is it just simply confirms secondary legislation that continues providing a lifeline for people who may need it.

For example, I want to focus on the adjustments to benefits based on the Consumers Price Index—so this is the CPI. This bill confirms this, and this means that right now, beneficiaries are falling further and further behind in their living expenses. This is not just my reckon. The Ministry of Social Development’s income report shows that people on the lowest incomes are actually worse off now than they were a while ago and are less able to make ends meet.

What this bill does is it confirms the automatic adjustment of main benefits to the CPI, and there is a bit of history as to why we have chosen this measure. I think that if people are looking at this bill and they’re looking at the range of things that it confirms, they may be left wondering, well, why it is that we have chosen to index main benefits to the CPI and why it is that we’re just having to debate it in order to confirm this. Not that long ago, this Government chose to change how we index benefits. Previously, under the previous Government, the benefits were adjusted to wages. We said that it should be a formula that guarantees the largest increase, and so it should be the CPI or wages, whichever is highest. But, instead, this Government chose to take that back and put it to the CPI—which they were advised on. Even though we are confirming the secondary legislation today, what we are confirming today had advice from the Government that it would leave our poorest New Zealanders worse off over the medium to long term.

I think this is a really important distinction because while we support the bill and we support the idea of confirming something that will lead to some increase in main benefits, we know that the way that this has been, basically, formulated will still leave people worse off. So, again, this kind of legislation can sometimes feel a little bit innocuous—like we all say that we will of course support it because it just, effectively, confirms things that need to be confirmed so that they can continue existing—but I do think the politics behind some of these decisions really matters. It wasn’t like those machines one day woke up and decided that we needed to adjust, say, for example, income support to the CPI; it was humans on the other side of the House who decided that, actually, our poorest should have those benefit increases be lower than they could have been otherwise if wages were growing faster.

For a Government that claims that they want to lift wages and lower the CPI, what they’re, effectively, saying is that they want to lower the amount that benefits go up by and they want to grow the gap between people who are in work and people who are outside of work. I don’t want to sort of put aside the camaraderie and cross-party support for this bill over the political decisions that have meant that, actually, what we are confirming is decisions that in some cases are simply punching down.

So the Green Party does support this bill because, ultimately, should this bill not go ahead, some of these pipelines will just simply go away, but I really question the Government’s timing of this. To leave it, effectively, to the very, very, very last day of this sitting of this House on something that is actually so essential when we spent hours and hours on end last week debating legislation that was not essential puts the Leader of the House’s judgment, in my view, into question over what actually really matters to this Government.

Making sure that these lifelines continue to exist or criminalising homelessness, making sure these lifelines continue to exist or that we punch down on young people who actually need support as opposed to boot camps, and making sure these lifelines continue to exist or punching down on the Treaty—these are decisions that the Leader of the House made when actually deciding the kind of legislation that should be prioritised. So for any Government member who talks about how necessary this is, I implore them to have a chat with the Leader of the House—especially if she retains her role over the next term of Government—over whether maybe this kind of legislation should have taken priority over other legislation that actually and objectively causes harm to those that are the most vulnerable in our community.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (09:14): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. I’m very excited to speak on this important piece of legislation. It is actually really important that secondary legislation, like regulations and what have you, do come before this House because it recognises, essentially, the supervisory role of Parliament over the executive when they come to make this pretty wide-ranging series of orders and regulations and what have you, particularly in respect of levies.

We know that the Government has gone through and, in fact, increased levies pretty much across the board, pretending that they’re not increasing costs on New Zealanders, but, in fact, they’ve done that not only in respect of industry levies but all kinds of other levies, whether it be ACC levies or what have you. The industry levies that we see here, though, are something of a different order in that they are aimed at promoting in one way or another the industries to which they relate, and it is pretty important. I have sat on the Regulations Review Committee and, essentially, caught out some industries that were over-levying. They were building reserves, which isn’t what levies are for. Whilst it’s appropriate to be fiscally responsible, it’s not, essentially, a way to gather revenue from industry members. It’s simply a way to do the job that the relevant legislation gives you, and that’s often marketing for the purposes of export, ensuring biosecurity measures are appropriate, and so on.

Of course, the other levy in here is to do with the Biosecurity Act and the commercial vessel levy, which is actually really important. We see commercial vessels coming in, and quite often they’ll be carrying water as ballast and they’ll discharge it, and one of the things that this levy is about is ensuring that when that water is discharged, it doesn’t have any foreign biohazard material in it, whether that be starfish—which we’ve seen invading our seabed—or other seaweeds, clams and all kinds of things. That’s an important part, as well.

We’ve got the road-user charges order, as well, which is reducing the excise. Of course, that does leave a hole in the Government accounts, and we’ll be interested to see how that gets filled.

Also there is the prohibition on nitrous oxide, which we support as well because we do recognise that that has been entirely inappropriately used. Whilst it has a legitimate commercial use, the fact is that by far and away the majority of it was being used as an intoxicating substance, and there’s no substantial loss in saying that if you want to use it as a propellant for your whipped cream, you’ve got to look elsewhere. We support that, as well.

Other members have spoken extensively on the superannuation and retirement income, and social security measures. It’s totally important that these are kept up. At the moment, wages are not rising fast, and so the dual measure that the Labour Government put in, where it was the higher of wages or the Consumers Price Index (CPI), wouldn’t have kicked in, I imagine, this term, but it is problematic when we do see wages leaping ahead and we’ve got only a CPI adjustment. But, having said that, as Jenny Salesa and Ricardo Menéndez March have pointed out, it is an increase and it is an absolutely necessary increase, given the huge costs that are going up, and we’ve seen that the cost of food is going up. One of the challenges, of course, with having a CPI adjustment is that it recognises a basket of goods, whether it be rates, insurance, food, electricity, and so on, but it doesn’t necessarily mirror the exact costs that any given person has, whose accommodation costs, for example, might be a large part of their income, and so it can be somewhat skewed. But, as I’ve said, it is going up.

Now, I know that the House has got important business ahead of it, and I won’t, therefore, take any more time, other than to say that it is important that the House does seriously exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. It’s good to see that the Regulations Review Committee has done a thorough job in examining these levies and, surprisingly for this kind of bill, it has made some amendments to it. With that, we are supportive of this bill in front of the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (09:19): Kia ora, Mr Speaker, and may I compliment you on your very nice green tie.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you—just for you, buddy, just for you.

GLEN BENNETT: It’s very nice to see the respect you show this House on the last day of Parliament.

Also, to my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, I believe that’s probably your last contribution in this House, and so thank you for your nine years and your contributions and, I guess, you’re going out on a high note with this piece of legislation. It was riveting, and we thank you so much for your service.

We do support this legislation, and most of the things have been said, so I won’t say a lot. It gets everything from biosecurity to commodity levies to restrictions on some imported items, and adjustment to alcohol, tobacco, excise duty, road-user charges—the list goes on. The one I wanted to mention was around the biosecurity—biosecurity levies, imported goods, and commercial vessels etc. I was actually in Wellington International Airport recently, and got to see behind the scenes, to see the work that’s done there—everyone from customs, through to baggage handling, through to air-traffic control. I got to get an insight into biosecurity, and just the importance of biosecurity to our nation.

We are a small island at the bottom of the Pacific, and the gift that we have is our humongous moat around New Zealand. It protects us but is also a huge risk. We need to make sure that we are getting our protections at our borders right. It is only one mistake, or one lapse, or maybe one lack of funding to be able to provide the right border security, and the invasive species will get in, and we’ve seen those expressions time and time again over the years. This, to me, is a really important part of this legislation, around ensuring that those pests and diseases stay out of New Zealand, because we are lucky to be in the country we are and to have the natural beauty, and in natural species, etc., etc. Being at Wellington International Airport, seeing the staff and how diligent they were, seeing the work they do, not only at the airport but then to the port, etc.

Labour does support this. It is, as Ricardo Menéndez March said, it’s hard on the last sitting day, having to get it through as quick as possible, but we do need to do it, to make sure that secondary legislation is confirmed before the House rises for the election. The Labour Party supports this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) (09:22): I move, That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4) be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Acting Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) (09:22): I present a legislative statement on the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill.

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

First Reading

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Acting Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) (09:23): I move, That the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

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

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

I acknowledge and extend a warm welcome to the members of Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, who are in the public gallery or joining us online, and have shown extreme patience at this 11^th hour of the parliamentary term whilst we progress secondary legislation this morning.

This current moment marks a significant step and milestone on the respective settlement journeys of the imi of Moriori, and the iwi of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. More than six years ago—mid-February 2020—the Crown and Moriori signed a deed of settlement for their claims under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. On 17 August 2026, on a beautiful day in Wharekauri, the Crown signed a deed of settlement with Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. Both these deeds recorded the Crown’s commitments to provide shared redress to Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. The Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Deed and Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill deliver on those respective commitments.

On 16 September 2026, the Crown and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, some of whom are here today, signed the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Deed, and I acknowledge Moriori have not signed the deed at this time, but may in due course. I wish to acknowledge both the imi and the iwi for your commitments reaching this milestone; it has not been an easy journey to reach the point where we are today, and dare I say there will be some challenges ahead as well.

I want to acknowledge the work of lead negotiators, Harioa Daymond, your kuia, and Tom McClurg from Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, and Maui Solomon for the imi of Moriori. They’ve worked many, many years, tirelessly alongside others, to reach this point in time.

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

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

I also wanted to acknowledge the trustees of the respective organisations: the Moriori Imi Settlement Trust—Thomas Lanauze, Kushla Allen, Chas Taurima, Billy King, and Hayden Preece—and the trustees of the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Iwi Trust: Melodie Eruera-Fraser, Monique Croon, Deena Whaitiri, Di Grennell, Megan Lanauze-King, John Preece, and Paula Page. There are no doubt others who have been an integral part to enabling us all to reach this moment.

The various generations and whakatupuranga of the imi of Moriori and iwi of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri who have maintained your identities and languages—both ta rē and te reo—and often have had intermarriage and cross-pollination across the imi and iwi. Today’s reading is intended to acknowledge these groups, and the deep and enduring connections of Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri—to your henu, your whenua, your ūkaipō.

It’s also an opportunity to acknowledge the grievances, and the mamae, and the long-standing concerns carried by uri of both groups as a result of the Crown’s breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi. I’ll also acknowledge the Crown officials, some of you who are here today, some of whom are probably at Copperfield’s—officials, advisers, and all those who have worked in good faith throughout the negotiations that have led to the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Deed.

This bill, before the House today, differs from many of the settlement bills that have come before it. It’s bespoke and unique in nature. This bill does give effect to matters, but does not settle long-standing historical claims, or “herstorical” claims, or recount the interactions between Moriori, Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, and the Crown. Those matters are dealt with in the respective deeds of settlements, with the imi and with the iwi, and the settlement legislation that has arisen through those kōrero. Instead, this bill gives effect to the shared redress between these people and others, the iwi and the imi, on Rēkohu Wharekauri, through arrangements for the vesting and management of areas of cultural, spiritual, and ecological, environmental, taio, importance. It establishes a framework for the ongoing recognition and stewardship, kaitiakitanga, of those places.

The bill vests four cultural redress properties, at Tikitiki Hill Conservation Area, in the trustees of the Moriori Imi Settlement Trust, and in the trustee of Te Korowai o Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Trust. It also vests in those entities—Te Whanga Lagoon, and five adjoining areas, sites to be administered by the Te Whanga Lagoon management board, which will be constituted by representatives of Moriori, Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, the Chatham Islands Council, and the Director-General of Te Papa Atawhai, the Department of Conservation. That board will act as a guardian, with a focus on protecting and enhancing the cultural, spiritual, ecological, and environmental values of the lagoon. The bill establishes a permanent joint planning committee of the Chatham Islands Council, and members of that committee include councillors as well as appointees representing both the imi of Moriori and the iwi of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. It provides for the Moriori Imi Settlement Trust to nominate a member of the Chatham Islands Conservation Board, and an equivalent provision will be enabled through the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri settlement legislation. The bill provides commercial redress, through an opportunity for the Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri governance entities to jointly purchase, and lease back to the Crown, the whenua at Kaingaroa School.

Finally, it restores a number of traditional names of various areas across Rēkohu Wharekauri, and the motu tautoko that includes Chatham Island, and the wider Chatham Islands, which will be officially recognised under ta rē Moriori, te reo Māori, and English-language names. This bill reflects the relationships between the Crown and Moriori, and the Crown and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. It also gives effect to redress that acknowledges the significance of Rēkohu Wharekauri, and the enduring connections that both groups hold with it.

My hope, and certainly the hope of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Paul Goldsmith who sends his aroha and apology today, and the redress that it provides will support the aspirations of both groups, strengthen their respective relationships with the Crown, and with the kāwanatanga, and contribute to the long-term wellbeing of people and place, communities and whenua and wahi tīpuna, of ancestors and tīpuna of their respective iwi.

I consider that this bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee, and under the wise stewardship of the illustrious members of the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Ko te pātai kia whakaaetia te mōtini.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) (09:30): Tēnā koe, e te Mangai o te Whare.

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

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

I think, as far as I can remember, this is the first bill where there is redress between two different groups contained in one piece of legislation. I may be wrong, but it’s quite unique in that sense, and it reflects the complex history that this bill represents. It is an important step in recognising the history of Wharekauri and giving effect to the shared redress between both Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, as well as the Crown.

At its heart, this legislation is about acknowledging history, recognising that there are enduring relationships there to whenua and to taonga, and creating practical arrangements that will enable tangata whenua to participate in decisions that have deep cultural significance to them, both environmental and historical. It provides for shared ownership and management of those places, including Te Whanga Lagoon and Tikitiki Hill Conservation Area, and it establishes structures that bring together Moriori, Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, and local government in conservation agencies to protect these places for future generations.

Labour supports these measures because Treaty settlements and associated redress are more than just acknowledging those past grievances; it’s also about creating a meaningful framework in which to move forward. That is what the Treaty of Waitangi should be providing us, that framework not only for us but for future generations to enable us to work together between iwi and the Crown, but also to provide tino rangatiratanga, to provide certainty, to provide clear connection for iwi and those places that are so meaningful for you and for future generations going forward.

The Waitangi Tribunal’s landmark Rēkohu report documented the devastating consequences of invasion, dispossession, enslavement, and Crown action that left lasting scars on generations of Moriori. It also examined the experience and the claims of Ngāti Mutunga, whose own history was shaped by displacement, conflict, and Crown decision making. While no piece of legislation can undo history, Parliament has a clear obligation to recognise, in honesty, and support processes that allow communities to move forward with dignity and with mutual respect. That is why the shared redress of this bill is so significant.

This bill reflects an agreement reached by Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri themselves about how particular sites and resources should also be managed as well as protected. It reflects a commitment to cooperation, a shared stewardship, and respect for cultural values that both of those groups hold in these places. The establishment of the Te Whanga Lagoon Management Board is a particularly important aspect on this legislation that we’re considering today. It is one of the defining natural features of Rēkohu. The board’s role as a guardian and steward recognises not only the environmental importance of the lagoon but also its cultural and spiritual significance.

Likewise is the establishment of the Joint Planning Committee that ensures Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri have a permanent voice in planning and resource management. How important that is to have your voice included in the future planning of that resource and how it has looked after. That is consistent with the modern understanding of partnership and participation that is enshrined within Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It recognises that decisions affecting whenua, decisions affecting natural resources and cultural heritage, are stronger when tangata whenua are genuinely involved. Recent events concerning the ancient waka discovery under Rēkohu have reminded New Zealanders of the extraordinary cultural and historical significance of your islands. They are a huge part of our history and so important to have today.

I would like to conclude by saying that this is a really unique piece of legislation. I commend all of you for being here and making the effort. It’s been a privilege to be able to meet some of you. From the depths of my heart, I genuinely hope this framework provides a strong basis for you to move forward in your area and have pride, confidence, and tino rangatiratanga on your whenua. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (09:35): Kia ora koutou. Those of you from Moriori and from Mutunga o Wharekauri back in the gallery, mōrena. This bill is not without its challenges. I’ve been reading the background on it, and I think it would be remiss of us to not acknowledge those challenges, and that Moriori have concerns around the settlement implications with Wharekauri and questions of tino rangatiratanga. These are tensions that must be acknowledged and must be recognised.

I sit on the Māori Affairs Committee with most of my colleagues who are in the Chamber today. We grapple with overlaps in iwi interests in different properties and lands all the time, most recently Ngāti Ruapani mai Waikaremoana where there’s well-understood overlaps in similar pieces of land with different iwi and hapū. The relationships between those iwi and the historic tensions—I will give examples, without speaking to your specific example, of the East Coast where some were deemed as loyalists by the Crown and some were deemed as rebels, and those two groups ended up in conflict with each other.

I think it’s very important that we make clear in this House that the Crown’s purpose with these settlements is to acknowledge the harm the Crown has done to iwi. The challenge that we face in making settlements and redress is to make sure we don’t cause further harm by committing further failings against Te Tiriti and further failings of obligation to iwi. We are well aware that, in the conventional settlement process, they’re often very divisive—the settlement processes—because of the structure that the Crown and the red book that the Crown imposes on iwi and requires iwi to meet to achieve a settlement. These things must be said and spoken. These truths must be acknowledged, and that is what I intend to do today.

I want to reflect on the nature of colonisation. There’s a gentleman called Mazin Qumsiyeh, who is an academic from Bethlehem in Palestine, and he came and he gave a very dispassionate explanation of the different courses of colonisation. One is assimilation, disposition, and genocide, and destruction of an indigenous people by the coloniser; the other is ejection by the indigenous people of the coloniser. That doesn’t happen very often. It happened in Algeria; the Algerians kicked out the French after 100 and something years of colonisation. The Indians kicked out the British. It does happen, but not very often.

The other one, the third option, is reconciliation and redress between the coloniser and those who were colonised, and that must be based on a principle of genuine mutual respect and coexistence. That is what we are seeking to do, I believe, in Aotearoa New Zealand: to properly reconcile and redress for the harms caused by the Crown to iwi. The complexities of the relationships contained in this bill are part of a story of how we make amends for harms done in the past, and how we make good for the future; that we may live in peace and mutual coexistence, in a way that everybody thrives, and the dignity, autonomy, and rangatiratanga of the indigenous people is upheld by the Crown. Kia ora koutou.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT) (09:41): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak in favour of this piece of legislation. The quote that Steve Abel just gave on the complexities of human relationships is nowhere more stark than in the need for legislation such as this.

The complexities of relationship between iwi and imi and the Crown have been seen in 2018, when we had a historical account, apology, and acknowledgment; and last night we did the first reading of the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill. Those are dealing with the complexities of the relationship between the Crown and imi and iwi.

Here is a complication in the relationship, and I hope, in the same way Steve Abel has mentioned, that we are doing this in a way that isn’t unhelpful. It’s going to go through the select committee. I’m not a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, but I can see this is going to take a lot of working out and understanding; and making sure that, as Government so often does when it tries to help, it doesn’t makes it worse. I really do hope that the process that we’ll go through will make sure everybody who is trying to overcome the complexities of human relationships finds in this legislation the path to do so, for some of the most beautiful, productive, and important cultural, economic, and environmental places in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) (09:42):

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

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

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill. I’d like to begin my contribution by acknowledging the Minister who spoke first to this piece of legislation, the Hon Tama Potaka, and acknowledging that this, in his words, is a “bespoke” and “unique in nature” piece of legislation. We’ve heard that through some of the contributions we’ve had so far.

Yes, as humans we are a little complex in nature, and our relationships with ourselves and each other can at times demonstrate complexity in the way in which we interact with each other, and the way in which we have interacted with each other in the past. But that sets a foundation for building a new way of interacting into the future. Treaty settlement bills and redress bills enable us to reset our relationships, with ourselves, with our whānau, and with our wider communities in all their shapes and forms.

I believe these types of pieces of legislation enable us to move forward together as a people and as a society. The society on the Chatham’s, this idyllic setting to the east of the South Island, is a mere 500 kilometres or so away Wellington, but also a lifetime away from Wellington, which is not such a bad thing.

My colleague the Hon Shane Jones obviously has a deep connection with the Chathams. As the regional development Minister and fisheries Minister, he has focused heavily on the Chatham Islands through infrastructure funding, shipping, and transport support in fisheries management decisions. And it is his hope, through the course of this Parliament, that he’s been able to strengthen the bonds between the Chathams and Wellington.

And, of course, we heard last night in the Treaty settlement bill for Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri about the trip that many went on last year on the Air Force Hercules, which I was actually meant to be on myself. However, because there was a desire to take the Rātana band, some of us got left behind on the mainland. But it was a great trip, and the stories that have come back from that are legendary in nature.

Today does mark a significant step forward as we come together to discuss the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill. This piece of legislation is born out of patience, enduring commitment, and the shared vision of two distinct iwi: Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. It’s important to be clear about what this legislation represents. The bill gives legal effect to the key elements of the shared redress deed. And at the heart of this legislation is the recognition of shared connection to the whenua, to the awa, the moana, and identity. It is a collective effort designed specifically to acknowledge shared redress. Their areas of interest are completely overlapped, and that’s where that complexity comes in, and has been noted already, the Māori Affairs Committee with have some work to do, to panel beat it all into shape, so that everybody is satisfied with how the bill makes its landing—the final shape of it.

I will conclude that I am pleased—though I haven’t yet been able to get to the Chathams—I do have the mug. In fact, there are cupboards full of them all throughout the Parliament, probably the most generously given mug that Parliamentarians receive, particularly when we arrive in this House.

On that note, I wish everybody well as we honour the past, provide certainty for the present, and build a sustainable future and foundation for Rēkohu Wharekauri. I commend this bill to the House.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth) (09:47): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I’m very pleased to stand for this first reading for the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill. I couldn’t help but chuckle a little bit when the previous speaker spoke about Shane Jones travelling over there, and I do wonder whether he’s actually one of the present day’s largest traders that goes to Wharekauri Rēkohu. He brings across plenty of his kumara from up the Far North there, in exchange for the wonderful kai that, of course, the islands are very famous for.

This redress bill is appropriate. It’s an opportunity for a new beginning. It will be interesting, as my colleague Steve Abel said, with the select committee opening up for submissions later on today. Hence, we’re wanting to get this done; let’s get this done expeditiously so we can start the process off. And, of course, with those submission processes, we do get lots of communications from different lenses, from all different sides of the debate itself. We hope that this redress is indeed what that word actually says: it is a redress.

I do want to thank the work of all those that have been involved with getting this particular bill to this stage here. I’m sure many of them are in the gallery today, as well as our officials from Te Tari Whakatau. They have a very important job themselves, in making sure that this is indeed a satisfactory process, and one that doesn’t cause further aggravation to what the Crown has historically done and what we’re trying to fix here. I acknowledge the work of the office and the work that they do.

So this bill here has a number of things. I think one of the interesting parts is Rēkohu, the name. It’s not, perhaps, so familiar to a number of people, being the Moriori name. I’m from Ngāti Mutunga, as I mentioned last night, and I’m very familiar with Wharekauri. I’ve got to wonder where the kauri came from, because on my visit recently I didn’t see too many kauri or trees around there, so it would be interesting to learn that story. But Rēkohu: I understand the meaning of that is “the mist before the sun”—another beautiful word, a beautiful name for the islands, and of course, part of this redress is looking at including the Māori and Moriori names within the certain landscapes over in the island there.

But without any further delay, I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (09:50): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

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

I just wanted to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. He’s done, surprisingly, a really good job in the last year! Yes, they’re full of surprises, this National Party, sometimes! Obviously, he’s one of your relations; I want to mihi him. To Greg Fleming, who, no doubt, will have a kōrero, our Māori-speaking Pākehā member, I want to mihi to him for his tautoko. It has been a good committee—a really good committee—very bipartisan. To our deputy chair, too—I want to mihi to her for her contribution. Oh, there’s my mate Georgie at the back there, too. I’d mihi to the Māori Party too, but they’re having the day off today!

Hon Tama Potaka: Like most days.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: They’re having the day off today. It’s been a really good time, traversing these types of kaupapa—challenging for the committee, as it is challenging for whanaunga up there in the gallery.

I do think these types of kaupapa are real challenges for politicians and our communities and whānau to traverse: how we whakakotahi for this kaupapa; how we address this. This a unique settlement in terms of what happened to Moriori and, also, where the kaupapa conquest comes in. Those are the sorts of things that the courts traverse: how you apply that kaupapa conquest in terms of a people who were going about their own business for 400 years, until our chairman’s relations turned up and took over. Then they—and I should say “we”, too, because I am Ngāti Mutunga too. Their rights were breached by the Crown. So we as a Government, or whoever the Government is, have to get our heads around that, because there is no doubt that our people—first of all, Moriori, and then our Taranaki people—had their rights breached. The Crown breached those rights, so we don’t want to get into this—so it’s really hard. And then, of course, everybody marries each other, right? Everybody is relations in the end. We’re all whanaunga in the end anyway.

We have to understand, though, as Steve Abel talks about, who is the major fault here: who is the coloniser, who is running the divide-and-rule strategy, who is splitting the indigenous people? We have to get our act together so that our families and our young people can benefit, because the reality is that, whether it’s Moriori or Māori, we’re living off the smell of an oily rag, and it’s the Crown that keeps getting away with murder, because it is the Crown that has robbed Māori of the opportunity in terms of great potential, in terms of economic development, in terms of developing our reo, whether that’s Moriori reo or Ngāti Mutunga reo. It’s always the Crown at fault, and if we can focus on that area, we will see the benefits of these sorts of initiatives and kaupapa. I just want to say to all our whanaunga, all our people who have come here today, that this is a special bill, the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill, and it must be traversed in a bipartisan way, because of the problems that we have, in terms of overlapping claims, which is a constant problem for Governments, a constant problem, and people are missing out. If we focus on who has the pūtea, who has the resources, who has the chance to support our whānau, I think we will have a better result in the end.

The main thing is that we must whakakotahi for the kaupapa and focus on the Crown, focus on the Government, and get over what happened over the previous 400 years. I just want to make those points, congratulate everyone, and wish us all luck as we traverse this over the next few years. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (09:55): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too really love that tie that you’re wearing. The chakra is green. I rise in support of the first reading of this bill. As we’ve heard from colleagues across the House, it is a bespoke bill; it is unique, it’s tailor-made, if we say it that way, and it needs to be, because we are dealing with a beautifully unique set of circumstances. I am really glad that this bill has been drafted in order to tackle the issues that are going to arise.

When we speak about overlapping interests and overlapping claims, when I was blessed to be placed on to the Māori Affairs Committee after being voted in, the first settlement bill that we dealt with was the Whakatōhea bill. I remember that was very emotionally taxing on myself and some of my colleagues. It was the first time I had been able to observe the whole issues arising from what people feel are overlapping interests. I am really glad that this bill has been drafted. I’ll be watching it from afar if I’m not blessed to be on the Māori Affairs Committee again, and I commend it to the House.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (09:56): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Nau mai, haere mai ki Pāremata.

It’s an honour to rise on behalf of the Labour Party to speak in support of the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill. It has been a really interesting journey, learning about the shared whakapapa, from both my readings but also from discussions with my colleagues. I was fortunate to grab the Hon Willie Jackson for a few minutes this morning to get his reckons on it as whanaunga. The history is such a complicated one. I think one of the parts of this that really stuck out for me was that I remember learning about Moriori at primary school, but that story that was told was so inaccurate and didn’t address or speak to the people of Moriori in an accurate way. We know we have such a long history in this country of telling the wrong story about Māori and telling the wrong story about colonisation and what happened in New Zealand when the Europeans arrived.

It is a real pleasure and of great importance, but also comes with some sadness, that we are putting into our history books some correct information about what happened for Moriori and Māori during colonisation, and I think it’s important, because we need to set the record straight. I hope every single child in our primary schools is not learning the same stories, the completely made-up stories, that I learnt in primary school, and instead are learning the accurate information about the harm done by the Crown to so many Māori, including your two iwi. The sadness comes because of how many kids, tamariki like me, 30 years ago in primary school—the inaccuracy, and I hope that every 40-year-old is relearning, like I am, what actually happened and knowing the deep racial implications that colonisation had on everyone in New Zealand, especially tangata whenua.

I really want to acknowledge both the Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri for your time, for coming and making the effort to come to the House today.

As other speakers have spoken to, this redress bill is unique. The Hon Ginny Andersen said it’s the first time she thinks that we’ve had a bill of this nature. The compromise, the ability to work together, the ability to move forward, I think, is highly commendable to everybody who has been a part of this process. A lot of that mahi has happened over many, many years, and so I commend all of that journey that would have been painful and challenging but, also, one that looks to the future, and a future for two iwi who have such deep connections to whenua. I hope that, moving forward, those connections to your whenua, to your tikanga, to your reo, are only enhanced for your whānau as we move forward in New Zealand.

There’s been a huge question around tino rangatiratanga, both to do with this redress bill and the two iwi concerned but, also, in New Zealand as a whole, for many, many years. I hope that this is one tiny step in the direction of tino rangatiratanga for whānau and iwi.

It’s really fascinating to read more about this history. I feel incredibly privileged to learn more. Congratulations on getting to this point, for Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Greg Fleming.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (10:01): Pai rawa atu tō neketai.

[Your necktie is awesome.]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Oh, mihi mai—mihi mai [thank you—thank you].

GREG FLEMING:

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

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

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Ko te pātai kia whakaaetia te mōtini.

[The question is that the motion be agreed to.]

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Referral to Select Committee

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono) (10:04):

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

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Waiata

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Tēnā koutou. OK. Kei te haere tonu te tereina—the train’s going to keep on going.

Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Food Safety) (10:08): I present a legislative statement on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.

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

Third Reading

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Food Safety) (10:08): I move, That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It is a pleasure to bring this bill to its final stage today. I want to start by thanking members of the House, the submitters, and the officials that worked on getting the bill here. At its heart, this bill is about making sure our regulatory system keeps pace with current practices while retaining its robustness.

The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act is approaching 30 years old. The science has moved on since it was written. Our trading partners and regulators have moved on. The practice of assessing these products has moved on. The law has not kept up.

This bill is a core part of delivering on the promise of the Ministry for Regulation’s review into agricultural and horticultural products. That review found what farmers and growers had been saying for years: that while the system of approvals is generally effective at protecting against risk for things like trade and food safety, it had become cumbersome to navigate and approval times had stretched, to the point that companies are questioning the value in registering new agricultural products in New Zealand. That means that somewhere in Europe today, there is a product on a shelf that could help a New Zealand farmer treat a sick animal or help a grower protect a crop with less chemistry and lower application rates. It has been assessed, it has been used safely, and it is not available here.

As a response, one of the central things that this bill does is strengthen the framework to build on assessments done overseas. Where a trusted overseas regulator has already done robust work on a product, our assessment will rely on that work rather than repeat it. What we will not do is skip the questions that are ours alone to ask. New Zealand’s specific risks will still be assessed and managed appropriately. So let me be very clear: we are not cutting corners, we are cutting duplication.

Here is what that means on the ground. For a dairy farmer: access to a new animal treatment in a sensible time frame, instead of waiting for years for a product that has already been thoroughly assessed and safely used overseas. For a grower: quicker to access to crop protection that is more targeted, needs lower application rates, or replaces older chemistry. For the people who make these products: less time filling in forms for an answer another regulator has already given, and more time and money going into the next product. The principle is simple: if the product is safe, if it is effective, and if it meets New Zealand requirements, we should not be making people jump through hoops for the sake of the hoops.

My colleague acknowledged the select committee at second reading, and I’d like to do so again today. This was a technical bill, and I thank the Primary Production Committee for the collegial way it conducted its review. The changes the committee made struck the right balance between flexibility and standardisation of notification, and it sharpened how we can use trusted overseas science without loosening New Zealand standards. These are practical improvements to transparency, certainty, and fairness, and they came from people outside this building telling us how the thing would actually work.

It is important that implementation is done well. That is why there is a two-year commencement period, unless the implementation before this date. It should absolutely be a priority for the Government to pursue the additional measures that are required for full implementation at pace, including new regulations covering the set-up, accelerated exemptions pathway, and processing time frames. I’ve also directed my officials to prepare operational guidelines that show how overseas assessments will be incorporated and will speed up the process. The two-year commencement provides a buffer, but it should not take that long.

I’ve spent most of my working lifer on a dairy farm. I know what it is to look at a sick animal or a paddock infested with weeds and be told the better option is not registered here. It is not a theoretical frustration; it is the sort of thing that makes good people lose faith in the system that is meant to be serving them.

This Government has been clear that regulation should be proportionate, practical, and focused on outcomes. It should guard what matters and leave alone what does not need guarding. That’s what this bills does. It keeps our standards where they belong, which is high, and it gets good products into the hands of the people who use them every day sooner. What it doesn’t do—as some people have asserted—is change, in any way, how genetically modified organisms are regulated under New Zealand law. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, known as HSNO, provides the framework by which new organisms, such as GE, GM organisms, are permitted or not permitted in New Zealand; not the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Act. Section 21(5)(b) of the Act is clear that no product containing a new organism can be approved for use until it is first approved under the HSNO Act. This bill does nothing to alter that arrangement.

This bill is a proportional response to a real problem. It will boost farm productivity by enabling to access to better management while properly managing risk. This will, undoubtedly, help unlock rural New Zealand’s potential. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is the motion be agreed to.

Hon JO LUXTON (Labour) (10:14): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to rise and take on call in this, the third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. But before I do move on to that bill, I just want to wish all colleagues around the House a very happy last day here in Parliament, and wish everyone well on the campaign trail—make sure you take time for your family and good eating and exercise, and remember to play the ball and not the player. That’s my one piece of advice I want to leave you all with today.

We’re here in the House, on the last sitting day, in the third reading of this piece of legislation, and I want to acknowledge my colleagues on the Primary Production Committee, and, as the Minister mentioned, we worked together in a really collegial way, and that is one of things that I have loved about my whole time in Parliament, actually. When I’ve been a part of the Primary Production Committee, we do work in a really collegial way, because, as a select committee, we recognise that whilst there will be times we disagree, we need to make decision based on what is, ultimately, going to be best for our primary producers, farmers, and growers out there, but also ensuring that we do need to make sure that we keep our environmental protections in place, and things like that. I do believe that over the years of my time here in Parliament, we have managed to work really well as a select committee.

It’s an interesting process, this bill, and we do continue to support it at this third reading—I just wanted to make that clear. We do have concerns, still, about the fact that it was a shortened process. We have some concerns also around the consultation that was undertaken being a targeted consultation process. And so I do worry that, perhaps, we didn’t hear from as many people or that other people may have wished to be consulted as part of this process. I worry that in doing that, given that our primary production, our farmers and growers are a huge part, if not the biggest part of our economy here, that if we have rushed and accidentally missed something, which I’m hoping we haven’t—I would hate to think there could be unintended consequences as a result of that.

I completely understand the purpose of this piece of legislation because we’ve heard for many, many years, actually, about the frustration from our farmers and growers about the inability for them to have access to some of the things that are available currently overseas. I mentioned in my second reading speech that some of the products and things that are available overseas are, perhaps, often more environmentally friendly or more effective than what we have available here. So I completely understand the reasoning for this piece of legislation. An example of one of the hold-ups that the country has been facing, or our growers have been facing, has been an insecticide—the one the I mentioned, actually, for mealy bugs and grapes. An example of that was that, as at November 2025, it had been sitting in the approval system since 2019. That simply isn’t good enough. Our farmers and growers need access to products in a really timely manner so that they can also remain competitive. We need to have these products in a timely manner because if something that we’re using here somehow should hinder or impact our ability to sell our goods overseas—because we are an export nation—we need to make sure that we are keeping up with the most up-to-date veterinary medicines and agricultural compounds.

We did hear some concerns from submitters. They were concerned about the overseas regulators and taking into account those throughout the process. And, again, I want to give assurance to people who have those concerns that whilst the director-general must take into account—I think that was the new wording that we decided on—what overseas regulators have done and found, there must also be the consideration taken into our individual flora and fauna here in New Zealand. So just because something has been approved overseas does not mean it’s automatically going to be approved here without the appropriate measures and things taken into consideration.

It was really interesting that, when Government parties were wanting to put amendments forward, suddenly they were withdrawn. It does make me wonder if there is some concern, even within Government parties, about some of the pieces of this legislation as it’s gone through the process. But I guess we’ll never know since they were withdrawn.

We still have some concerns also with regard to some parts of it, where—actually, my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking was hopeful that her amendments might have been accepted and that they would have been able to take more account of environmental risk, and it does seem that, in some parts, that hasn’t happened. That is still a concern because, given that we’re a trading nation, we do need to consider environmental risks for everything—and I can hear the Minister muttering over there at me, and I’m sure he’ll tell me what he thinks.

Hon Andrew Hoggard: I was saying that’s what HSNO does.

Hon JO LUXTON: Oh yeah, well—OK, I take your point. The other interesting part about this piece of legislation is that we haven’t the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act come through. I find that quite intriguing in that we looked at both of these pieces of legislation alongside each other in the select committee—

Suze Redmayne: We tried to have them as one bill, but you wouldn’t let us.

Hon JO LUXTON: —and yet this is the only one that has come out. I find that quite intriguing, and I’ll look forward to my colleague Suze Redmayne’s contribution because I think she has some things to say over there.

Rima Nakhle: Short and sweet, like her.

Hon JO LUXTON: Oh, yes, and I don’t disagree with you, actually. She’s a lovely person to be on the select committee with.

Hon Rachel Brooking: So Suze is not short?

Hon JO LUXTON: Well, no, she’s not, actually—no, she’s not.

Anyway, one of the beauties of having it go through a select committee process, which is an appropriate thing that Governments should do—using the select committee process—is the opportunity for our Regulations Review Committee to also look at pieces of legislation, as well as our submitters, who can bring forward things that perhaps may have been missed. One of the things that was missed and that is actually very important—but we have since corrected it, obviously, for this since it came out of the select committee process—was that the Regulations Review Committee picked up the fact that if something has been declined or exempted by the director-general, they didn’t have to necessarily say why or have it out there in the public arena as to why. I think it’s important that we’ve made the change in this legislation that it does have to be notified or put out there publicly as to why something might have been rejected, because I also think it gives New Zealanders confidence that things have been looked at in a proper manner and assessed as to the suitability for something being here in New Zealand or not.

Ultimately, this will allow our farmers and growers to have access to the agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines that they need in a timely manner. It should give confidence to people overseas. I know the Minister mentioned that it is about people being concerned about looking to invest here in New Zealand and bringing their products here, and we know that some have looked to leave the country, as well, because it’s been such a difficult process.

We do support this piece of legislation. It will mean farmers and growers have access to the products that they need to remain competitive, to continue to have good animal welfare, and to continue to farm in more sustainable ways as different products are made available. I commend this bill to the House.

STEVE ABEL (Green) (10:23): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Boy, these are dense pieces of legislation here. The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, as we came to understand through the process—and I acknowledge my colleague here mentioning that fact—has a high degree of interaction between the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act). One thing that struck us—or that struck me at least, and perhaps others on the Primary Production Committee—was that there is potential merit in combining these two Acts at some point because there is so much overlap.

One of the anomalies that was drawn out through the debate in the committee of the whole House is that the environmental risks of hazardous chemicals and substances are managed through the HSNO Act, as the Minister for Food Safety has just pointed out, but the residue issues with those chemicals where they’re applied in agriculture are managed through the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act (ACVM Act). The interaction between those two Acts adds a level of complexity.

Similarly, on the question of genetically modified organisms, you can end up with a genetically modified organism being managed through the ACVM Act if—as the Minister also pointed out—it is first passed through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act because it’s captured as a new organism. Or is it captured as a new organism, because part of the debate which we’re intimately involved with in this Chamber and in this term of Government, in particular, because we’ve dealt with the gene tech bill, which did not make it back to the House for a second reading—part of the challenge we’re grappling with is definitions of what are genetically modified organisms.

We may already have an instance where something has been deemed to not be a genetically modified organism by the regulator through a process at the Environment Protection Authority and it has been released in a field trial—I’m talking about a compound that’s a potential solution to varroa mite—and there’s debate as to whether it was correct to define this double-stranded RNA compound as not being genetically modified, or not involving the potential release of a genetically modified organism that could convey heritable material. The courts found that it was an appropriate approval, but there is still contention and question around that.

All of this combines with the adding in of veterinary medicines. There are hazardous substances and new organisms, agricultural compounds—and, just for clarity, “compounds” means pesticides and herbicides, which is a far more familiar term, I think, to most people for what we’re talking about in practical terms—but also we’ve got veterinary medicines. Now, that is a much less contentious question, and going to the purpose of the bill in trying to ease the regulatory pathway for access to veterinary medicines, we support that. That is not contentious because, just like with human medicines, the processes in international jurisdictions around evaluating where it is appropriate and where a veterinary medicine is safe are very rigorous. Just as a paracetamol has an effect on a Homo sapiens in Denmark, it’s going to have the same effect on a Homo sapiens in New Zealand, and so you don’t need a separate regulatory regime for a human medicine; neither do you need a separate regulatory regime for a veterinary medicine, because we know that if it works on a horse in Sweden, it’s going to work on a horse in New Zealand.

Now, that’s why I actually think that one of the more useful solutions to the complexity of what’s being combined in these bills would be to separate out veterinary medicines because they are less contentious. What should have been done with the gene tech bill—which is part of this trio of legislation that occupies this space—is that it should have been separated into medicines and contained use versus environmental release. Had the bill been split into those two parts, it would have been much easier to deal with because the medicines bit is not contentious. Likewise, the veterinary medicines bit of this bill is not the contentious one.

But, on balance, our concerns around the loss of regulatory sovereignty around those agrichemicals is the reason that we’re not supporting this bill at the third reading. It’s because those pesticides and herbicides that are also regulated by this bill, as well as the HSNO Act, include pesticides and herbicides that are potentially novel and toxic. The worst effects of them—as is often the case with synthetic chemicals created by humans and laboratories over the last hundred years—are not understood or known until some years down the track or some decades down the track.

That’s why the precautionary principle and the precautionary approach is vitally important in regard to agricultural chemicals and compounds. We have, in the history of modern industrial agriculture, a pretty terrible track record of using some very damaging and destructive chemicals created by chemical companies—that they make a lot of money out of—and they serve a very simple, blunt, and effective purpose of killing things that we don’t like in the agricultural production monoculture, usually; killing the particular bugs we don’t like, killing the particular plants we don’t like. Now, the long-term effects of that on an ecosystem level are where we have a 2 percent decline in global insect population year on year. That is a catastrophic problem for us ecologically. The loss of bee populations globally is a major problem for agriculture and food production in general, let alone for ecology. One of the obvious causes of that is neonicotinoid chemicals. They have been used in the agricultural sector to kill the bugs that we don’t like but have had a knock-on effect on the bugs that we do like.

Similarly, we have to be wary and pay close attention to which companies are keen on deregulation of these chemicals. I just want to remind everybody that some of the companies that pushed hard for this deregulation of agricultural compounds—which are pesticides and herbicides—include BASF, one of the world’s biggest agrichemical manufacturers; Bayer, the company that bought out Monsanto, who invented glyphosate and who invented a number of highly toxic chemicals, some of which are now prohibited in other jurisdictions; Syngenta, who produce atrazine, a chemical banned in 40 countries around the world but not banned in New Zealand. It should be banned in New Zealand. We have to heed who is pushing for this deregulation of these chemicals. Whose agenda does it serve, and should we forfeit our regulatory sovereignty in terms of the management of those chemicals, and should we be so willing to accept an overseas jurisdiction that might be under the influence of the lobby of those massive agrichemical companies to get a lighter-touch approach at the regulatory level?

For those reasons, we stick on the side of a precautionary approach, notwithstanding that there will be some new chemicals and substances and biologicals that will be useful and will help us move away from more toxic chemicals. On balance, we do not believe that this amendment meets the right balance. We think it is too great a liberalisation, particularly in regard to those agrichemicals, those pesticides, and those herbicides, and so we won’t be supporting this bill at this reading.

MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) (10:33): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill on the last day of the 54th Parliament. Look, I just wanted to thank the Primary Production Committee for the work that they did, and the officials and all of the advice that they gave us. We certainly did harass them a bit around certain issues.

I just want to reiterate that, in our report, we noted that the bill does not amend the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act or alter New Zealand’s regulatory settings in relation to GMOs or GEs. It’s in our report. We had no differing views that were proposed by any party for the committee report. Originally, we were going to report back mid-September, but the committee agreed unanimously to report back in late August.

We are not losing regulatory sovereignty. That is the whole process that will be enabled by this new bill, taking into account overseas jurisdictions and their assessment of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. It doesn’t mean we rubber-stamp it. There are processes involved to make sure that they are acceptable for New Zealand conditions.

This bill is a real step forward for farmers who have been asking for changes in this space for quite some time. A number of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines that are available offshore are not available here. In many cases, these agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines have less of an impact on the environment and are certainly more effective in what they’re being used for.

I would just also like to note that we’ve actually lost a bit of scientific capability as well with the current system. We’ve lost one of our research labs that’s associated with one of the big companies and has shut up shop and moved to Australia, and that’s certainly restricted the number of opportunities for scientists and researchers here in New Zealand. This, hopefully, will help in bringing back some of that research and development of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines here onshore.

Finally, I’d like to close with, I guess, a shout-out to glyphosate, in particular, as one of the best and most useful inventions of the 20^th century. It’s been an incredible chemical that has changed the way people farm. It has certainly been environmentally enabling, because, instead of tilling the soil, it’s allowed low-tillage or no-tillage systems to evolve. With that—

Steve Abel: Tell the bees that.

MILES ANDERSON: It’s a great chemical, Steve Abel, and I think—

Steve Abel: You wait to see how much you can grow when you’ve got no bees.

MILES ANDERSON: It’s a great, great chemical. Anyway, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture) (10:38): Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. New Zealand prides itself for having the best farmers and growers in the world, but they do need world-class tools, or competitive world-class tools, to be able to maintain that status. What we heard coming into Government was the enormous frustration by those involved in the sector, from both the companies and the farmers, of the ability to get new chemicals tested and regulated in this country. We did hear an example from the Hon Jo Luxton in her presentation about a six-year wait.

By international standards, even though we’re a great primary producer, we are, essentially, a small market, and we were perceived to be closed for business, and that was having real-world consequences: the closure of Bayers’s research facility in Hawke’s Bay; they shut up shop and moved to Australia as Miles Anderson has pointed out. The system was just not working for anyone and the length of time for the approvals was chilling investment, because it was narrowing the window of opportunity for a patent to be effected before an agricultural compound or veterinary medicine was to become generic. So it definitely was having a chilling effect. We do need to sort this out.

The main part of this bill is it gives effect for the ability of work done by trusted overseas regulators to be taken more fully into account by our team in the Environmental Protection Authority, as we’re not starting from scratch every time we get a new chemical or agrichemical veterinary medicine; we are able to take more fully into account work done by trusted overseas regulators. That does not mean that it’s an open door—there’s still New Zealand context to be taken into account—but we should be able to save a lot of time and effort and duplication through this new system.

We have put a lot of effort into making sure that this is robust and being satisfied with that. The stakes are very high. We had the dicyandiamide incident, where treatment of urea fertiliser—traces were found in the milk, which caused havoc, particularly in China; of course, milk powder and the like for infants. That was extremely detrimental to our reputation as a trading nation with really high-quality, safe food. The stakes are really high here, so we do have to have a system that is robust and will protect us from those sorts of outcomes, which can have a devastating impact on our reputation internationally.

The Hon Jo Luxton also referenced a series of amendments that came through at one point in this process under my name. The reason for that was that there was a late flurry where there was some Official Information Act information that was released showing that there had been some trials of a double-stranded RNA that, at face value, would breach the GMO-free rules. We were scrambling around to understand exactly what that means, how that got through the system, and how this particular piece of legislation as drafted would handle that—bearing in mind it’s gone through the previous, or the existing, policy framework and regulatory framework.

I would thank the Minister and his officials for indulging us, walking us through what had happened in terms of that being a treatment for varroa mites and their impact on bees, and that that is a contained experiment that has gone through the existing Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HASNO) Act. But I agree with the contribution from Steve Abel that, as the next Parliament looks at the HASNO Act and continues to grapple with where we land on GMO, we must make sure those definitions are clear. To me, as a layperson, double-stranded RNA is a modified organism, and how that got through our system to the point where it is—I think there are very real questions about that. I guess, the issue here is that that lies within the HASNO Act and how that is informed by the Gene Technology Bill that’s also been before the Parliament and goes through the next Parliament. So that’s the background of where that went. We’ve taken this issue very, very seriously. We wanted absolute assurance that we were not opening up a back-door pathway to GMO.

This is fiendishly complex, and those three bills—this bill, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) Act Amendment Bill, the HASNO Bill, and the Gene Technology Bill—are all linked. They’re probably being slightly done out of sequence here, actually, but it was important that we get this through before the election, because of this: that pipeline of products that we’re not getting access to. We needed to speed that up. With the other parts, we’ve got time to take more time and get that absolutely right. It’s going to be critical for the future of our agriculture and primary sectors. But it is fiendishly complex.

I will thank Miles Anderson and the Primary Production Committee for the work they’ve done on this, and the Minister and his team for shepherding the new bill forward. We now have, hopefully, the ACVM rules and regulations that allow much more effective and less toxic chemicals to work through our regulatory system. I mean, ironically, some of the stuff Steve Abel was talking about, some of these really toxic agrichemicals that have been used in our past—we actually have pretty rose-coloured glasses about our past and farming systems and our ecological and environmental record, because we used some horrific chemicals back in the day. This bill will allow us to get access to some much less impactful chemicals, treatments, and tools for our farmers and growers. New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

LAN PHAM (Green) (10:46): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, it’s quite incredible to hear the Government member and their shout-out to glyphosate, particularly at a time where we know that Monsanto, which is now Bayer, has been forced to pay literally billions of dollars in payouts to farmers, sprayers, and users because of the severe health impacts when it comes to glyphosate use. That’s the human health aspects, not to mention the environmental impacts, particularly on what we know is the true backbone of our economy and, actually, our entire world, and that is bees. Glyphosate has huge impacts when it comes to the environment and insects like these, and there are actually very valid ways to farm without these chemicals that are actually highly profitable. I just want to note that first.

I want to say, as well, that initially the Green Party did support the intention of this bill. That this generally streamlined approval of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines by streamlining the existing regulatory requirements is not necessarily a concern in itself, and particularly those veteriny—those veterinary, I should say; it’s a very hard word to say at the end of a long week—medicines. It is uncontroversial.

What is a concern is that while there can be value in improving these regulatory processes, this should not be achieved by relaxing very necessary precaution and safeguards, particularly when it comes to the safeguarding of the health of our people and our environment and our animals. I mean, there are really clear lines where caution and adequate information and evidence that is fit for purpose for New Zealand is actually required. When it comes to the health of our people, the health of our animals, and the health of our environment, we absolutely draw that line, because this bill ultimately goes beyond simply improving efficiencies. It was really at the select committee process and, also, now at committee of the whole House where really clear Amendment Papers were put forward by my colleague Steve Abel and others on this side of the House, which just would have provided some greater clarity and certainty about those safeguards. Unfortunately, the fact that those were not picked up or adopted by the Government only then strengthens our concerns around this bill.

I want to pick up, too—and I want to acknowledge the first reading of the bill that was just passed, with Rēkohu Wharekauri whānau who were in the gallery just now.

We are very concerned about Māori participation and Te Tiriti o Waitangi when it comes to this bill. There is an absence of meaningful requirements for Māori participation. That’s a significant concern for us.

We find it really hard to be in the Chamber consistently for these settlement bills where the Government are saying one thing, and then, in so many of their actions, they are taking away the rights and the obligations that the Crown holds under Te Tiriti when it comes to iwi Māori participation. For example, particularly with this bill, there is no requirement for the director-general to actually consult with iwi Māori before approving agricultural chemical products that could considerably impact te taiao—environment—and also, as we’ve covered, human health.

We’re really concerned about this specifically because environmental impacts can have severe consequences when it comes to taonga, to whenua, to waterways, and to Māori communities. We think there is absolutely a place for Māori knowledge, for mātauranga, and for expertise in this. It’s completely absent. We’re really concerned about the safeguards, and we oppose this bill.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (10:51): As the member for Whanganui, including South Taranaki and Stratford, and soon including the Ruapehu, too, I’m proud of our Government’s record in backing our farmers and our primary producers. Passing the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill is another example of this. It improves farmer’s, grower, and business access to agricultural and horticultural products while maintaining strong protections for public health, food safety, biosecurity, environmental outcome, and our international trade. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson) (10:52): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill at its third and final reading. And, yes, it is a bit of a challenging word to pronounce.

I want to begin this contribution just by—I was very interested to listen to the contribution from the New Zealand First Associate Minister, because last week, this was one of two bills where we saw what was the three governing parties in a little bit of disarray, where New Zealand First were popping up amendments on Government bills, and this was one of those.

It was quite intriguing that the amendments appeared on the Table and then subsequently disappeared from the Table. I’ll come to that a little bit later, because Labour did have a solution that was subsequently not agreed to by New Zealand First at committee of the whole House stage, which could have helped to allay some of the concerns that our colleague Mark Patterson has mentioned previously and also from the Green Party. So I’ll come to that soon.

We do support this bill. The reason we support this bill: it is as an important tool for regulating agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines—there’s that word again—and it is important that we have a process that is straight forward, that’s rigorous, that’s easy for people to participate in, but that does protect people and that does protect our environment. That’s what this bill’s approach is, is to ensure that that happens.

What this bill does is it amends the existing Act; it doesn’t create a new Act. But one of the fundamental things that it changes, where we have had a lot of debate in the last few days, is that, in addition to the main regulatory process—a permanent regulatory process for compounds and medicines—there has been a change to what was once called “provisional registration”, which is now going to be called a “consent”. So I’ll come shortly to some of the things that the Labour Party believes could have been amended—I’m sure my colleague Rachel Brooking will have more to say on this in her contribution—to add some more guardrails around that particular process. But I do want to just, I guess, put on record some of the things that we understand around that what is now called a consent process.

The first thing is that a consent doesn’t automatically then lead to a full registration. So just because a product has been granted a consent, it does not mean that there will then follow an automatic registration process. That’s one of the concerns that has sometimes been asked. OK, so if a product gets a consent for a short period of time in order to—mostly it would be to undertake some research in a defined way and in a defined area—would that automatically lead to research?

Discussions with officials have been helpful in assuring us, as elected members, that actually what occurs with that consent, with that shortened consent time is an opportunity to undertake research, to actually test out—to test out—whether that compound is going to be able to be used safely in New Zealand. That research that comes from that consenting process can then be used to determine whether the full registration application is robust. So just to note that there’s no guarantee that a product would be fully registered later; it would still need to meet all of the requirements for a full registration.

I just want to touch on some of the other concerns that have come up and some of our proposals, as the Labour Party, via my colleague Rachel Brooking, that would have added some more guardrails. The first was that a consent, we believe, could have a maximum duration of less than five years. One of the concerns is that a consent could go on and on indefinitely—so, essentially, have an effect of having a full registration, even if it is limited in terms of where it’s able to operate and how it’s able to operate, it could still have an indefinite consenting time frame. That adds risk to the use of that particular product. So it was a pragmatic suggestion, and we’re surprised that New Zealand First didn’t take us up on the opportunity to vote in favour of that, to put some more guardrails around after having raised some fair concerns.

The second amendment that was put forward was to add some more guardrails around the environmental effects. It has been traversed in the House today around the relationship between the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act and the amendments to the HSNO Act and the amendments to this Act and this bill that’s going through the House. We did consider them in committee at the same time, and it is of interest to us on this side of the House that considered both bills together and asked questions about them together and have been advised that, no, we don’t need to have environmental guardrails in this particular bill because they sit in the HSNO Act.

However, the HSNO Act is also being updated, was reported back at the same time, but has not then appeared on the Order Paper in the House, so has not made its way into the debating chamber for its second reading, committee of the whole House stage, and third reading. Those two pieces of work have been dovetailed together. So it is of interest to us that one of those bills is now going to pass its third reading today and will have Royal assent and so forth, and the other one that it talks to, that it speaks to, will not. So it’s going to be an interesting little quagmire for officials in terms of how those two bills relate to each other. I mean, perhaps Government members can give us some more information on where that bill has gone—into the deep hole of bills that go nowhere, potentially. So just on the basis of, I guess, observing what’s happening with coalition parties and a bit of chaos at times, with New Zealand First popping amendments in on Government bills—Ministers, no doubt—it would be interesting to know what’s happened to HSNO.

We thought it would have been a pragmatic solution to add some guardrails around the environment into this bill. That would have helped allay some of those concerns raised by New Zealand First and ourselves and the Greens.

We also—and again, this came through my colleague Rachel Brooking; I’m sure she’ll want to mention these amendments she put forward, herself—wanted an amendment to say that any product sitting under that temporary consent shouldn’t be sold for commercial gain. There is the opportunity and references to those products being sold. We did discuss this with officials and understand that it’s a very rare thing to happen. We wanted an extra guardrail which would say that if those products were to be sold, because, essentially, if they’re having a provisional consent, it’s not for a commercial process; in future, it could be for a commercial purpose, but at the time, it’s usually for a research purpose.

It would be unusual for a product that’s being used for a research purpose in a very small way to have some type of sale process, but we believe that a guard rail to ensure that there wasn’t, I guess, a sideways option for one of those products to then be used to be sold for commercial gain, would have been an extra guard rail that could have been put in. Then we also just note that it would have strengthened the role of consents for research, rather than for commercial sales.

In the short time that I have left on this bill, I do just want to note that we are supporting this with those reservations I’ve laid out, because what it does do is it streamlines that process for approvals for compounds and veterinary medicines. We have heard those stories of products taking an extraordinarily long time to go through that process.

We believe it’s important to be very defined and clear between the two processes that exist: the short-term provisional consenting process—that is, primarily for research—where a product may only be used in a defined area in a defined way with extremely robust guard rails around it, versus a product that has actually received its full registration and that can be used in that environment. We know that that system, for many people, has been far too slow, and often, when there hasn’t potentially been a large risk, the process has largely been too slow, and that’s been very frustrating, because being able to have compounds that can be used in the primary production sector to treat animals is important for our primary production sector, which is so important to New Zealand’s economy.

On that note, with some of those reservations, which I’m sure colleagues from my party—the next two speakers—will be able to eloquently espouse also, we do believe that this bill, on the whole and on balance, will be useful for our primary production sector. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (11:02): Look, this bill is really important for a region like Hawke’s Bay, where I come from—

Grant McCallum: The fruit bowl.

CATHERINE WEDD: —the fruit bowl of New Zealand. It is the powerhouse of horticulture in this country. Growers and farmers need these products to be able to produce the best products and export them to the world, and, currently, it is taking too long to approve these products. We’re losing our competitive advantage with the rest of the world, and we need to step up and approve these products a lot faster and a lot more efficiently so that we can continue to be the powerhouse of horticulture and export to the world, to create jobs and opportunities for New Zealand, and to grow our economy. So I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin) (11:03): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is slightly strange to be standing in front of you—and I’ve spent a lot of time standing in front of you—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have, in the last couple of weeks.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —in what I think would be my last contribution in the 54th Parliament, and it is on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.

As we traversed last week under urgency in the committee of the whole House stage, this bill—or the ACVM Bill, as it is called—is an amendment bill. We’ve already got the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, and the purpose of that Act has not changed, but some bits and pieces are changing in this legislation. We heard from the Minister for Food Safety that it is to enable these safer products to get permissions to be used in New Zealand, and then that will mean that the less-safe products can be swapped out.

That is great, and that is why we—the Labour Party—have been in support of this bill. However, we did suggest some changes that would make that more explicit. It is useful to have it on the Hansard from the Minister because there doesn’t seem to be an explicit hook in the bill that does what I’ve just said, which is that it really has a focus on enabling these safer products to come into New Zealand and be swapped out with those less-safe ones. But I very much hope that that is how this legislation is used, because that is why the Labour Party is supporting it.

Now, we also heard some things about the select committee process. I’m not on the Primary Production Committee—I am our food safety spokesperson, but it sits at the same time as the Environment Committee. We heard from Miles Anderson at one point that Labour was supporting the shortened report-back time to select committee—it absolutely was not. There was a vote on the motion in an earlier contribution, and Labour opposed the vote for the earlier report back. It didn’t get a six-month report back; it got the sort of four-month report back, and then the select committee did report back slightly earlier than that.

We also heard from the Minister that there was this collegial approach in the select committee, which is interesting when you have a coalition Associate Minister of Agriculture tabling Amendment Papers during urgency against another Associate Minister of Agriculture’s bill. Now, those amendments disappeared, and that was interesting. Obviously, someone was not pleased in the coalition.

But, I have listened to the Hon Mark Patterson, and what they were trying to do was to give some clarification and some comfort that where this new consent for research is given—so it used to be called a provisional registration, or it’s called a provisional registration under the Act that is being amended—and when this consent comes in, it is really for research. We had some discussion in the committee of the whole House stage that even though the word “selling” is used in the bill, the intention is not for these products that get a consent—this is clause 40 of the bill—are not to be sold. It is that these consents, which have a much less rigorous process than the other consents, are there just for research.

I put forward an amendment that would have said “and other related purposes”, but the Government voted that down, which I think is a shame. But we did get some useful comments on the Hansard in the committee of the whole House stage of that process that really go to the scope of other purposes—which is in the subheading—which is that it is restricted and related to research. So it was useful to have that debate. I also suggested that there should be a time frame on the duration of these research consents, but the Minister didn’t agree to that amendment, which is a shame, I think, because we could have made it a little bit better.

In conclusion, for the 54^th Parliament, I very much hope that this bill will do what the Minister has said. I hope that it will enable these safer products to be used in New Zealand, that we will see some of the older products stop being used, and that it will, indeed, be better for the environment.

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (11:08): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, this is not the first time I’ve spoken on the same bill as the previous speaker Rachel Brooking, but it will be the first time, I think, that we’ve both supported a bill. So I’d just like to acknowledge that. See, good things do come eventually, Rachel—thank you.

Look, this is a great bill for the farming communities of New Zealand and for Northland. It will allow our farmers to get on and do their jobs better, with better environmental outcomes and better economic outcomes. I commend it to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour) (11:08): Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the last day of Parliament for this Parliament, this is quite both a significant day and, I guess, piece of legislation. There will be people out there saying, “The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill—why is this here on the last day and why is it important?” Well, we are an agricultural and horticultural trading nation and we have been very successful at it, and the tools that we use for that are really, really important, but sometimes we have to be careful what we ask for.

If I can go back to the reasons that this bill was brought in by the Government, there’s been grumbling for a long time. In fact, there’s always grumbling from the farming sector, and we have to admit that, but some of the chemicals that they—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am attempting to stay neutral, Mr O’Connor!

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I think even the Deputy Speaker will admit that. Things take too long to get through the process. I think there’s some truth in that, and I’ve had discussions with the Environmental Protection Authority over the years as to why it takes so long, but I could simplify it and say that there’s just too many lawyers—that’s the simple way—because the world is a very litigious place. We export some of the most vital ingredients in the world—that is, food, particularly if you talk about things like infant formula; highly sensitive. People care a lot about the ingredients that go into food, particularly if they’re feeding it to their infant child.

We’ve had incidents, unfortunately, across the globe—New Zealand being involved in one of them—with melamine in infant formula in China, and that put our international reputation at risk, in fact, and under a cloud for quite some time. The components that go into the white powder that we export—and we export about 1.4 million tonnes of white powder from our country each year. Now, the only other country that probably relies so much on white powder is—

Suze Redmayne: Colombia?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: —no—Colombia, and they export about 3,000 tonnes. It’s called cocaine; very valuable. One point four million tonnes of white powder and it goes into ingredients into some of the finest food products around this world. It is critical that we know exactly what is in that white powder, and we’ve had incidents when unknowns were in the white powder. Dicyandiamide (DCD) was a product that was applied by farmers in good faith and supplied by chemical companies to try and reduce methane emissions. Good tool—innovative Kiwis, as we always are, sometimes using products off-label. They might be for animal use, and some were thinking, “Oh, maybe we can use it on a different animal or maybe we can use it on a different crop.” That’s what has gone on for many, many years, but now the ability to identify residues in food products is far greater than it has ever been.

We exported some white powder, and it had residues of DCD, and indeed, the Europeans said, “Well, what is this? What’s a safe level for maximum residue level?”, and there wasn’t one, so that product is now off the shelf. We had another product come along called Bovaer, produced by a European company and supplied to animals—to cows, mainly—in indoor settings and in small amounts on a very regular basis into the feed that the animals consumed, and it had been claimed, I think, that there was some evidence that methane emissions from those animals was being reduced. So the Kiwi farmer thought, “Oh, this is a great thing. We were looking to reduce methane.” Many farmers are still looking to reduce it, even though this Government has given them confused signals over that—should they, shouldn’t they; that’s another issue. None the less, they thought, “This would be a great product for us. Let’s just kind of put it in the stalls. We don’t have a lot of in-stall feeding. We have more and more, but mostly it’s pastures, so can we use this on the pasture?”

They were frustrated. The farmers were frustrated that this wasn’t going through the process fast enough and we wanted this tool, and so they started banging on the door. Indeed, the company Bovaer were banging on the door of Ministers—we were in Government—saying, “We want this rushed through because this is a tool.” Well, in fact, the application hadn’t been made because there wasn’t sufficient proof that this would work in a pastoral system, and, indeed, still had unknowns about whether this would flow through into the milk and into the white powder that we export. So we do take a cautious approach to this, and, indeed, we should do to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act) and to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act.

Our concern is that this Government has been stupid with many, many pieces of legislation that it has brought through this Parliament over the last almost three years—stupid. We, in Government, when we get there after November 7, will have to reverse some of those because some of them either put individuals at risk through really crazy health and safety legislation, or they take away people’s rights, or they undermine our innovation; there’s a whole lot of reasons. I haven’t got time here to go through all the stupid pieces of legislation that this coalition Government has rushed through, much of it under urgency. This bill passed through the House under urgency, parts of it through the committee of the whole House stages. It had gone to a select committee, I’ll acknowledge that, but the risks here, if we get this wrong, are massive—absolutely massive.

That’s why the Opposition scrutinised this very, very carefully at every stage, and through urgency in the committee stages of this House. Indeed, one of the coalition partners in New Zealand First—and I have to acknowledge them because, from time to time, they show a bit of vision. In fact, their agricultural policy is not too bad; a little bit visionary, so they’re a bit cautious about this, as they should rightfully be, but, unfortunately, not National and ACT. They just want to dump anything on the market and let the market decide with the inherent risks that go with that. We are taking a more cautious approach. We should take a more cautious approach, given the impacts of getting this wrong.

There will always be companies that want to sell us chemicals. There will always be chemical companies coming up with new innovative products, and they may apply in other parts of the world, but we have a unique agricultural and horticultural environment in this country. We’re blessed with a moderate climate, with some fertile new soils, with a reasonably reliable supply of water and rainfall and some storage irrigation—we are blessed with all of those things. But if we screw it up by putting on the wrong fertiliser—and someone over there said, “Oh, glyphosate’s great.” Well, be cautious—be cautious—because, around the world, people are starting to connect cancer with glyphosate residues. We have used it cautiously; some countries don’t. They abuse the use of it.

The point being is that we can’t be dragged into a system that might apply elsewhere in the world just because companies want to sell us chemicals. We do need to have robust systems in place. This bill will speed up some of those processes, but it also raises the risk that something might get through, given, like urgency in Government, if you rush these things, you sometimes screw them up and you have to backtrack. But if we have another melamine, or another DCD, or Bovaer was proved to be clastogenic and it would get through into the food system, our economy would drastically suffer. I know, Madam Speaker, you understand this.

Labour has supported this piece of legislation through. We’ve scrutinised it to try and make sure that there are no stupid mistakes in this, but we have to table the fact that urgency, which was part of this process, doesn’t always deliver those safe outcomes. Look, we’ve got AgriZeroNZ trying to work on methane reduction, we’ve got people advocating for genetic engineering, all of those things. Be very cautious that, as we move forward and continue to be innovative producers of some of the finest food and fibre in the world, that we don’t let the market—which is the ACT stupidity and ideology—decide what we should have or should use. No, we should have proper oversight by people with ethical values through the Environmental Protection Authority and other areas of the HSNO Act. Labour supports this bill with caution, and we hope that people use it wisely.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) (11:19): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the MP for the mighty Rangitīkei, and a proud farmer, I know firsthand that farmers rely on and depend on effective science-based regulation to enable them to remain productive, competitive, and innovative. This bill is about fixing the basics and building the future. It’s about helping our farmers access the tools they need while maintaining strong safeguards for animal welfare, food security, and market confidence. For a region like the mighty Rangitīkei, where agriculture drives local jobs, exports, and economic growth, greater efficiency and certainty means better returns at the farm gate and stronger rural communities, and that is great for New Zealand and all New Zealanders. I commend the bill.

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (11:19): Can I just, firstly, start with a quick mihi to my very good mate Mark Grantham, who, on his 50th birthday, has come to Parliament here for the first time. Gidday, Mark. G’day, Mark. Mark is an absolute stalwart in our central communities in Auckland, particularly in Maungakiekie, and has raised thousands of dollars to help people in need. It’s amazing to have you here, my mate, with my other good friend your dad, Chris Grantham. Tēnā kōrua. E mihi ana ki a kōrua i tēnei wā.

National supports farmers. This bill is going to support farmers, and, therefore, I commend it to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 101

New Zealand National 48; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 21

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill

Legislative Statement

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (11:21): on behalf of the Minister of Health: I present a legislative statement on the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment 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 CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) (11:21): on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It is a privilege to rise for probably my last time to speak in the 54^th Parliament for the third reading of this bill. The legislation delivers on a clear commitment of this Government and significantly strengthens post-natal care for mothers and their babies across New Zealand. It ensures an entitlement of a minimum of three days of in-patient post-natal care that is delivered in a way that is safe, responsible, practical, and sustainable. It is reinforced by a significant increase in funding for maternity care provided in this year’s Budget.

This bill was introduced as a member’s bill by Catherine Wedd, who should be applauded for her advocacy. She ensured that post-natal care received the attention it deserves in this House. She has been a credit to this issue, and I’m very proud that we’re able to get this bill passed. This Government was proud to adopt the bill because we agreed with the importance of guaranteeing mothers the option of three days of in-patient post-natal care when that is right for them and their baby.

Taking this bill forward gives effect to commitments in the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement to ensure proper funding for birthing units and maternity care, including a three-day stay for new mothers. It reflects our view that post-natal care matters both for the health of the mother and baby and for the longer-term health and wellbeing for their entire family.

I want to thank the very hard-working Health Committee—and specifically the chair, Sam Uffindell—for its careful consideration of this bill and to thank those who made submissions, including clinicians, midwives, maternity providers, and organisations. There was a wide support for providing greater clarity and consistency in post-natal care, and that feedback has directly informed the version of the bill now before the House.

This Government is backing this legislation with a significant financial uplift of $34.4 million over four years through Budget 2026. This funding will ensure Health New Zealand has the resource available to build post-natal capacity, strengthen the maternity workforce, and implement the three-day post-natal stay safely. It gives the system the certainty it needs to plan and deliver high-quality post-natal care for mothers and babies across the country.

The Government has made a number of important changes as part of this bill’s adoption as a Government bill. Firstly, the bill now provides for phased implementation of the three-day in-patient post-natal stay. Health New Zealand has been clear that increasing the workforce and capacity to deliver on three days of in-patient maternity across the country will take time. The bill, therefore, commences immediately on Royal assent, with a transitional period during which access to longer in-patient stays will be progressively expanded as capacity grows.

Health New Zealand will be required to publish an annual capacity plan setting out how in-patient post-natal capacity will be increased over a three-year period. Those plans must be approved by the Minister of Health, and Health New Zealand must give effect to them. This approach ensures the arrangements under the bill are implemented in a safe, well-managed, and responsible way. It gives the maternity workforce and, equally importantly, mothers confidence that this entitlement will be delivered safely.

In the early stages of implementation, first-time mothers will be prioritised, recognising that they often have the greatest need for additional support as they navigate childbirth and early parenthood for the first time. Alongside this, there will be a focus on districts where capacity has to lift the most. Over time, as capacity increases, the entitlement to three days of in-patient care will be extended to all eligible mothers, culminating in full delivery of the entitlement by 1 July 2029.

The bill also includes exemption arrangements providing that the entitlement does not apply in exceptional circumstances, such as a civil defence emergency, an epidemic, or other serious disruption that is outside Health New Zealand’s control. This exemption is tightly constrained. It does not apply to routine system pressure, such as staffing shortages or bed availability. It cannot be used as a way to manage capacity constraints; rather, it is a safeguard to ensure that the system can continue to operate safely in circumstances where strict compliance would create risk to mothers and babies.

Taken together, these amendments strengthen the bill. They preserve its purpose while ensuring it can be implemented safely, sustainably, and at scale. This bill guarantees mothers the choice to remain in in-patient post-natal care for at least three days after childbirth. It places that entitlement clearly in law. Some mothers may choose to return home earlier, supported by community-based services and their families, as they do now. Other mothers will stay longer because they require more extended in-patient hospital care. This bill guarantees mothers the right to at least three days of in-patient post-natal care when they choose it. It recognises that physical recovery, bonding with the new baby, establishing breastfeeding, and gaining confidence as new parents all take time, and it recognises that no mother should feel unsure about what care she can expect or feel pressured to leave before she feels ready.

Fundamentally, this bill reflects the Government’s broader approach to the health system—more accountability, more efficiency, and the focus on delivering better outcomes for patients. We believe in using taxpayers’ money responsibly, and we believe in making full and effective use of all capable providers across the system, whether they operate in the public or private sector. Post-natal care in New Zealand is already delivered through a mix of public hospitals, primary maternity care units, and contracted providers, including community and private facilities. This bill recognises that reality and strengthens it.

Primary maternity units, whether publicly or privately operated, play a vital role in delivering safe, high-quality in-patient post-natal care closer to home. For many women, these settings are more appropriate than a large public hospital. They support continuity of care, offer genuine choice, and reduce pressure on hospital wards. The Government makes no apology for backing capacity wherever it delivers outcomes. Many community facilities will be closer to home, meaning mothers can be with their families after childbirth. Not every family lives close to a hospital. We are confident in the ability of community providers to contribute to high-quality care. We are confident in partnerships that improve efficiencies and expand capacity, and we are committed to ensuring all providers are held to clear standards and accountability.

This bill sends a strong signal that this Government values effective delivery wherever it exists. That is good for mothers, it is good for families, and it is good for the health system as a whole.

The bill now before the House for its third reading is clear in its purpose, and balanced in its design. It delivers a coalition commitment, it includes arrangement that will ensure its implementation occurs in a well-managed and sustainable way, and, most importantly, it significantly strengthens the healthcare entitlements for mothers and babies, with significant additional resources provided in this year’s Budget. This is good lawmaking, this is responsible Government, and this is exactly what New Zealanders expect from us. I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (11:30): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I’m happy to make those contribution to vote in favour of this Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill. The bill is founded on a sentiment I’m sure we all can agree with.

We have, throughout the course of this bill, asked questions about the resourcing of the bill. It’s good to see that a commitment was made in order to make sure the resourcing is in place—though it would be important to point out that a commitment that was made to deliver this during the electoral term has actually been pushed out to 2029. It has been difficult for us at both the select committee process for this bill and at Estimates to scrutinise the resourcing and its adequacy for this particular commitment. But I guess the next Parliament will see.

One of the changes to the bill in the course of its life has been the deferred start until 2029, the addition of an implementation plan, as I’ve mentioned. But the other is the discussion about the information about a requirement, the content about a requirement for lead maternity carers to tell pregnant women their obligation or their entitlement has been removed. I think that’s a backwards step. It is precisely those women who are unaware of their entitlement who probably need it the most. It is a way in which the equitable outcomes of this entitlement are potentially undermined. And that’s a shame because one of the purposes, I would have thought, of putting an entitlement into law, which is usually left for operational delivery in the health system—but putting it into law, it should actually be that everyone would know about it, and then that would be able to make sure that everyone enjoyed the same benefits of it. So it’s a shame that opportunity was missed, but, with those caveats in mind, I commend this bill to the House.

MIKE DAVIDSON (Green) (11:32): Thank you for the opportunity to rise to make a call on behalf of the Green Party. This is a very important bill that obviously has unanimous support around the House. I would like to acknowledge the MP Catherine Wedd for the work that she did on her member’s bill that the Government took up. The Green Party also commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (11:33): I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this bill. At one of the most magical and sensitive times in the cycle of life, people are in deep need of support—mothers, in particular—and it is difficult to oppose the goodwill and the intention of this bill to give security of tenure in a hospital at that particular time. Three days, no pressure.

I think it’s fair to say that sceptical and thoughtful people together might question the apparatus that is being constructed to ensure that that happens and whether such an apparatus is really necessary or whether that might be better to leave in the hands of those who know, those midwives, those who run hospitals, those charge nurses, and, of course, the mothers and surrounding families themselves—to leave in their hands the decision about how long to stay and who should stay what length of time.

That is a view that I have to say I have some sympathy for, but in the spirit of our coalition Government, we support this legislation. We will see, in the goodness of time, whether the construction of this bureaucratic apparatus is indeed necessary to achieve a very noble objective or whether it might have been simpler to leave the choices and the decisions up to the people who do this stuff every day. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) (11:35): It’s a pleasure to be able to rise in support of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill. Catherine Wedd has done a wonderful job bringing this and it has Government support and the support of a number of members around this House.

I think we can all recognise that the first 48 to 72 hours are absolutely crucial for mother and for baby and ensuring that mothers have 72 hours—and more, if needed—in hospital or in a birthing centre to care for themselves and their baby is really essential to getting those first steps right. And also making sure that they are informed of their choices to have their entitlement. This should reduce the risk of complications. This should enhance those very special first few days and make them a much better experience.

I’d like to thank the committee for all of their work on this and for all the other work the Health Committee has done this term. It’s been a pleasure to chair. I’d like to congratulate this House on putting this through. I commend the bill to the House.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) (11:36):

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

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

I just want to thank the member for bringing this bill to Parliament and acknowledge Catherine Wedd and the select committee and the process of getting this to a third reading today. It’s absolutely crucial—we’ve heard it from a bipartisan support across the House—the first 48 to 72 hours between a mother and child for post-natal care and stay within a hospital. So it’s a no-brainer to support this bill. It’s crucial and needed within our healthcare system and within the many different wāhine and pēpē who are born. Te Pāti Māori supports this bill and commends the member for bringing it to Parliament.

Of sudden unexpected deaths, 63 percent occur within the first 13 weeks. So it’s absolutely crucial to bring this in. This is 50 percent more than the unexpected death in infancy—this is 50 percent more now than when New Zealand cot death study first started in the 1980s.

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

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

CELIA WADE-BROWN (Green) (11:38): I’m here to support the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill. Of course, as we all bring our personal experience to this, I was in the very fortunate situation of being able to go home to a supportive home pretty immediately. That’s what I wanted to do. My first son was born at 10.30 at night, so we stayed in overnight; second son was jolly well nearly born in the car park—maybe explains his fondness for cars—and we were able to go and we actually went and took a library display down, if I remember rightly, immediately afterwards. But our situation should not define what people have the choice about.

I think it’s really important—sometimes the maternal health or the baby health mean you need to stay in longer. Sometimes, home may not be that peaceful; there may be other children, there may be overcrowding, and so on. So I think the idea that you should very clearly have the opportunity to stay in hospital for three days is useful.

But it has been brought to my attention—particularly by our health spokesperson, Hūhana Lyndon—that it’s all very well changing the law, but if you don’t change the resourcing, it’s a bit abstract. So if there is not room, if the corridors are full of people in emergency situations, if there are not enough staff, if the staff have been on such long shifts that they can’t give the attention they need to mother or baby, there are a whole load of other issues that need to be solved to make this really work.

I know there have been different narratives about the level of staffing, and it’s not my area of speciality. I’m not going to charge in and say whether it’s 54 or whether it’s some other number, but the training of midwives and the training of support workers that are not necessarily fully qualified as midwives is really under pressure. There are too many going overseas and not staying here, and not able to help Kiwi mums.

I also find it—maybe “hypocritical” is too strong a word. Maybe it’s just a little bit blinkered to say that for three days, we’re going to look after you, and then we’re going to go back to—what is it? What awful percentage is it of children in poverty—children in homes that are damp, mouldy, unsafe, where the families, if they’re in a rental home, have no security of tenure? They won’t know that that little baby will be able to go to the same preschool or the same school as their siblings, because there is no-cause eviction.

So it’s a little bit of nice glimmer, and sometimes that’s what members’ bills do. They address a small and specific issue, and we get agreement around the Table, but unless we can address the systemic issues that mean that when the mother and baby, or babies—twins, triplets, or whatever. Probably, if they’re triplets, they might be in for a little bit longer. If we don’t make sure that those first 1,000 days of childhood are warm, well-fed, loved, whether it’s a Plunket nurse or some other person who comes round to make sure the baby is going to thrive, not just survive, and that the mother’s potential post-natal depression is addressed by good mental health services—if we don’t do that, then this is just a random flag blowing in the wind of public health underfunding. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) (11:42): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a real pleasure to speak on this last bill that’s going through the 54th Parliament. To extend the right to a post-natal stay of three days is, I think, an extremely sensible approach. It shows that this Government cares about the early lives of the most vulnerable New Zealanders: those early little babies and their mothers.

When a woman goes through the postpartum experience, within those first three days she will experience one of the most humungous hormonal changes that a person can go through. It is an extremely delicate and sensitive time, and often a time when the breastfeeding is being established and those bonds are being made. For that reason, it’s important that we focus on this time. It’s another way that we are supporting women’s health, and I commend this bill to the House.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert) (11:43): Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker Pugh. Thank you. First of all, I just want to wish you well—your last day is today—and I’d also like to wish Celia Wade-Brown well, too.

I am tempted to tell my own story, but I thought I’d tell my mother’s, because I think we have to look at this in terms of the history of maternity care. At the time my mother had me, she was supposed to stay in that hospital for two weeks, and that was the norm in New Zealand society. By the time I was having my first baby, my doctor wanted me to leave the hospital straight away with my first baby, and it was one of the hospital midwives who picked up a major issue within the first few hours and my baby ended up in intensive care. Quite frankly, if I’d gone home, I would not have seen the signs that were there of serious pneumonia. He ended up in intensive care, and so it was incredibly important that there wasn’t pressure put on people to move me out of that system, even though my own instincts were to flee.

I have got to say that with my second child, I left that hospital with my baby within about an hour and a half of giving birth, and I know that that’s fairly extreme, but I did. The care that we have been giving people has been decreasing and decreasing and decreasing.

I absolutely take Celia Wade-Brown’s point that we really do need to have a think about that phrase, which is so strong in the Labour Party, of cradle to grave. We really do need to think about the wraparound support for our families because it is so hard at the moment to have a child in New Zealand. Most people in New Zealand rent, and they don’t have security of rental. Most people are going into homes that are not necessarily the best places for babies to go into. They need more support than we’re giving them, and it can’t just stop after three days’ stay.

I went into the select committee for just a short period because I am not on the Health Committee, but I was in for the submissions. I represented the midwives for quite a long time when I was a lawyer, and so I was well aware of staff shortages with midwives, and the fact was that we had had a dispute where they couldn’t take any industrial action because they didn’t have safe staff numbers—because they had been promised that would happen as part of their agreement and it had never happened. We have a real issue with the shortage of midwives, and we have an issue with the fact that we don’t have enough nurses and other staff in our hospitals, and so it was pointed out to us in that select committee process was that it’s a lovely idea, but the risk was that we would rob Peter to pay Paul and we would end up giving this care here but taking it from others.

I think we’ve been living in a society where there is way too much scarcity. It is always the situation where people are competing for resource, and, actually, there are some fundamental bottom lines as to what our job is. We are not running a business, in Government. That is not our job. We are not a business—we are not Air New Zealand. We are a country, and we have to choose our values, and then we should run our Government according to those values and according to the needs of our population.

Right now, our population is not well served, and so I commend the objective of letting women stay in hospital for three days—and I have told you why, at a very personal level, that matters to me. I also think that we need to follow up, as Celia Wade-Brown has said, on some of those other fundamentals. We need to join the dots.

It is too hard for people to have children. Because it is too expensive, it has become an issue that is absolutely about affordability. People cannot afford to live well in this country, and they are doing great things in this country, but they are not being well served. They are not well served, because there is still an absolutely biblical reliance on the belief in trickle-down economics.

Trickle-down economics has never worked. It is not well-founded, and anybody who wants to look at it will see that. Trickle-down economics is not the way through here. We have to think about the building blocks of our society. The first thing we need to do is make sure that people are actually in work and that they’re in decent work, with decent wages, and we have to recognise the value of the work they’re doing that may not have had recognition in the past.

Now, things like caregiving are going to become incredibly important in the future, but they’re important now. Caregivers, midwives, nurses—they are the backbone of our society. They are the people who are the true heroes and we need to start to reward that work, and we do have to look at the mechanisms with which we do that. This Government cancelled pay equity, and when it did that, it made a big mistake. This Government told us that it had hired a whole lot of nurses when, in fact, there had been a nurse freeze, and in fact, there were 54 nurses employed. That has caused issues and will cause issues with regard to this bill. It will not work if we do that and we take that mentality in.

I’ve got three kids, and my youngest one, she works in an area I highly value. She works as a teacher with children who are high needs. She has seven of them. There are lots of days when she gets hit because of the nature of that work. I want her to be able to stay doing that work, and I still want her to be able to buy a house. I don’t want her to miss out on those things in my very community where she grew up. I’d like her to be able to buy a house near me where I can wraparound and support her so that when she has a baby and she has been actually given this three days, she doesn’t come home to a place where she doesn’t have that support because she can’t afford to live in the community she grew up in. These things are interconnected.

I go back to what I said at the beginning—what are the values here? Cradle to grave was a beautiful ambition—cradle to grave. This has got a little bit of cradle in it, and I’m pleased to see a little bit of cradle in it, but there are years and years of support required. It starts, for me, with work, and it doesn’t end there. I’m not afraid to look at the connection between this bill and all the other things we need. It also starts with walking away from an old fashioned, absolutely morally barren concept like trickle-down economics. It’s not just about growing the pie; it’s about who gets the pie, and it’s about our value system as a society.

I hope that this bill is fulfilled and we have three days care offered to women in New Zealand, and I would personally love to see every person informed—because that was taken out of the bill—and every person who goes into hospital to have that baby told that they have that right, because that’s a really important way of making sure that the very people who need it get this care, and not just the assertive ones who know their rights and know the law, because that is part of the divide in this country. I hope we get this, but I hope we get a lot more.

I hope that that child goes home to a house, whether they rent or they own, which is warm and dry, that has curtains in it to keep the heat in, and I hope that that child gets looked after by our community, not just their parents scraping by. I hope that that mother and father have got access to good childcare, and I hope that they are also in a position to choose a life for their children which is not just scraping by—not desperate, not stressed. That’s what I see in my community at the moment. I see desperate and stressed, and I hope we can do better.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki) (11:53): Look, I’m so excited to see this three-day stay bill pass today. Supporting better postnatal care is a huge victory for mothers across New Zealand. I would like to acknowledge Minister Louise Upston for starting this journey, and then I picked it up as a member’s bill, and I’ve been advocating for better post-natal care in New Zealand since I came to Parliament, so it’s great to see the progress and delivery here today.

No mother should have to leave hospital before she is ready after having a baby. Those first few days bonding with your baby are so important for setting mothers and babies up for a lifetime of success. This bill will give mothers a legal entitlement to three days stay if they choose, and now we have funding, the maternity beds, staffing, and resourcing needed to make this happen. This is about providing meaningful support for new mums at a time when they need it most. We know that every birth is different, and every family situation is different. A three-day stay may not be right for everyone, but for those who need it, this bill provides the choice for them to remain in hospital and receive the care that they need if they choose.

The first few days after having a baby are so precious and special. They are the time for mothers to rest, recover, and begin bonding without the pressure of having to manage everything alone. It is also a time when mothers are learning how to care for their baby—feeding, bathing, sleeping, there is so much to learn and it can be so overwhelming, and we can relate to those sleepless nights and that exhaustion. Having access to midwives, nurses, lactation support, and other maternity professionals can make an enormous difference to a mother’s experience and the confidence she gets from that to recover, and it’s so important for the wellbeing of the baby too.

We often talk about the first 1,000 days of a child’s life as being important for the health, wellbeing, and development, and the future of that baby; but we must also recognise that the first three days are especially important. They are the beginning of that journey, a time when mothers and babies need to bond. We must do better in New Zealand when it comes to post-natal care, and this bill helps ensure that families have the time and support that is required to recover safely and begin life together with confidence. It is about giving mothers a genuine choice and ensuring that that choice is backed by the maternity beds, staffing, and resources needed to make it real.

My advocacy for this bill was born out of my own personal experience when I felt pressured to leave the hospital when I wasn’t ready, and I believe that no mother should feel pressured to leave when she isn’t ready. To every mother across our country, we see you, we value you, and we will back you. Today is about standing up for mothers and families and protecting and supporting our babies. This is the last bill of this 54^th Parliament, and I’m really proud that it is a bill that supports women and mothers across New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call.

GEORGIE DANSEY (Labour) (11:58): Tēnā koe e te Mangai o te Whare. It’s a pleasure to stand and speak to the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill, our last bill for this Parliament. Congratulations to Catherine Wedd on your mahi in this space. I can hear that it is a big day for you, so congratulations on that. Labour supports this bill because we agree that those first few days for any new parent is so important, and it is so important that we protect that very special time for parents and families.

It’s been fun to hear the stories of parents and mothers around the House, and we all think very fondly of those times when our babies were born, probably because our brain cuts out the bits that were difficult, so we have more babies, right? Isn’t it lovely that we can reflect on those wonderful days? But they are very, very precious.

I wanted to speak in a broader sense around the application of this bill and what it will look like in practice. I had a very informative and interesting hui at River Ridge East Birth Centre based in Hamilton East. Rivier Ridge East Birth Centre was created by Claire and Warwick Hutchinson, and they were one of the first and largest birth centres in New Zealand Aotearoa. They’ve been working in that space for the past 30 years, so they were able to share a lot of stories from throughout their time. They, too, see the huge value in looking after our young parents, and I want to acknowledge the work that they do in that space and other birth centres and maternity services, parental services across New Zealand.

One of the things that we talked about, however, was the current disparities in pay between midwives that are working at hospitals and midwives that are working in the community. We know that midwives provide a lot of care building up to a birth, but also they’re so vital, after you have that baby, to establish the bonding and how to actually care for a human being, and they remain very important for those three days. The issue is that because this Government cancelled pay equity for hundreds of thousands of women across Aotearoa, they cancelled the pay equity claim for community midwives. Those community midwives were 10 days away from settling their claim—having worked on it for about three years. This has left us in a situation where, if you’re a midwife at the hospital, you get paid much more than if you’re a midwife in the community.

I 100 percent back those midwives in the hospitals getting paid well, they do incredible work, but there’s a real disparity here. And I think, as more and more people choose where to birth their baby or where to have their care, we need to make sure that there’s consistency across the board. So while we support this bill, I think there’s a little bit of a contradiction here because we’re not actually backing our midwives to do that work that is so vital to our families in New Zealand. Labour has committed to reinstating pay equity and paying women in this country what they are worth. And if we, as a Parliament, say that we back women, then let’s pay them what they are worth, which this Government has, very sadly, not done.

I want to speak a little bit to the inequities that could amount. My experience of walking into a birth centre in New Zealand, is there are a lot of white women there and not so many women from other ethnicities. I’d love to see this bill come with education around what is available to women, what services they can access, in order to get the best use of the services for every single parent in Aotearoa. The education that comes with caring for a new baby, lactation consultants, whatever that looks like, needs to be a priority for any Government to make sure our families are getting the best start in life.

NANCY LU (National) (12:03): That’s right, the best start for any family in New Zealand. That’s why I’m proud to stand to speak on the third reading of the last bill for the 54th Parliament, and to congratulate Minister Louise Upston, who had first started the process of providing a better start for families with newborns and their mothers. But to also carry on the banter, is our colleague Catherine Wedd, the MP for Tukituki, who’s been very present on social media and also in all interviews possible to be fighting for the best start for babies and new mothers. As a fellow female colleague in the National Party, I also congratulate all the female colleagues that I have, but also all the male colleagues who have shown support, to make sure that we have the best start for babies and their mothers in New Zealand.

As a personal experience, I remember when I first became a mother in the year 2020. I was over the moon with the coming of my first daughter, but then, before I knew, I fainted in the hospital, in the birthing room, and I couldn’t be more grateful because I wasn’t there alone; I was under care. I had all the professional care from the nurses and the doctors at the Auckland Hospital. So I was very grateful, in first-hand experience, to know that, for new mums and their new babies, we need professional care; people who know about the medical expertise but, as well, caring for the mental health and also emotional health that is needed for new mums and new dads.

So I’m very grateful and very happy to support this third reading for the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill, but also to note that this is a National Government who has put in the funding and the support to provide that choice—to provide that choice—for families to stay up to the three full days. And I have to emphasise that choice is very important, especially in families, now, who may feel that they are confident and experienced enough to leave should they wish to.

But also very fitting, I think, to comment, and if I may, quickly, to say that this is the last time I’ll be standing to speak in this Parliament, in this term, and to say a very happy Mid-Autumn Festival to everyone that is celebrating the Mid-Autumn Festival, especially in the Chinese culture, for all Chinese-Kiwis and their families in New Zealand. The Mid-Autumn Festival is to celebrate reunion and to celebrate family. So I think it’s especially fitting that I’m standing to speak on a bill that supports family, that supports the best start of newborns and their wider family, and to celebrate them at the Mid-Autumn Festival with our wider Chinese-New Zealand community. So I wish everybody a very happy Mid-Autumn Festival.

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

I’m just extremely proud to be part of the National Party and the National-led Government; to be supporting the better future for all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour) (12:06):

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

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

This is a good piece of legislation for us to end this parliamentary term on. And can I acknowledge all of our mums out there, who take care of us in the very early stages of our life, and throughout our life, in fact. What this piece of legislation does—

Hon David Seymour: Who’s going to take care of us for the next 10 minutes?

SHANAN HALBERT: What was that, Mr Seymour?

Hon David Seymour: Who’s going to take care of us for the next minutes?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): It’s not a debate across the House.

SHANAN HALBERT: I’ll take care of you, don’t you worry about that.

It’s important that we support our whāea, our māmās to be the best that they can be to take care of our tamariki, over all of our lives, in the periods that we need them to. This bill does that. And can I acknowledge Catherine Wedd, who I also remind that good things are growing in the Hawke’s Bay. But, yes, this investment is very important in enabling mums to get the care that they need over a three-day period. I think that’s a very good idea; to enable legislation to support that is a great outcome and a great way to finish this Parliament on.

There has been caution that has come out throughout the select committee, and it has been debated in this House, that, you know, we all know that it’s incredibly challenging times in our health system, and to enact this piece of legislation, in its totality, does require funding in other places. It does mean that resourcing has to be put in place in areas like staffing and beds to make sure that, to enable this legislation, or for our mums to be cared for at this particular period, up to three days, that it doesn’t take away from other vital services that support women within our hospital and maternity services as well. So that’s a significant part that has come out of this bill. The Ministry of Health warned that without more beds, other women’s health services could be deprioritised to make room for this. So you know, whoever is the Minister of Health after November 7, has got a big job ahead of them. It’s nothing new that there are some challenges in the sector that we need to overcome. Some of it is about resourcing and investment of that; and some of it is just about ensuring that the decisions that we make for health, for people, as politicians, are the right ones; and that investment and resourcing is going in to the right place.

So, without further ado, Labour supports the “Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill”, and we are very happy to be able to support this legislation, support our mums out there, and, in due course, support our tamariki. We commend this bill to the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) (12:10): It is fantastic—in this final bill in the 54th Parliament—to address this House in doing what matters. This bill fundamentally recognises that mothers matter. That is exactly where the origin of this legislation started, back in 2018. We might stand here, eight years later, as if there was always unanimous support across the Parliament. In the early stages, there wasn’t. Mothers Matter is an organisation that, at the time, were advocating to ensure that women got the 48 hours that they were entitled to. That group of people who came to Parliament who had formed Mothers Matter were the late Chloe Wright, Dame Lesley Max, Nathan Wallis, Dr Anil Sharma, and Tracy O’Sullivan. They came and met with every party caucus. Who was the party that picked up the mantle? It was National. It was National who recognised that mothers matter.

That is why, in 2019, I introduced a member’s bill to extend and ensure not just the 48 hours, but actually three days post-natal stay. All of the evidence tells us how critical those first few days of a baby’s life are. And, look, if we can’t invest in the first three days of a baby’s life, seriously, what are we talking about in terms of health priorities? There was a little warning in what we just heard from the last speaker about how future health Ministers—not a National health Minister—might prioritise health funding. Well, we say, on this side of the House, that mothers matter. That is why we are here today passing the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill.

I do want to take the time to traverse the history, because I think it is really important that people understand that you don’t just dream up an idea and then it gets passed. In October 2019, I launched a petition in the National Party social services discussion document, where you—I may address you, as you, Maureen Pugh, member of Parliament—were involved in the caucus discussions and getting it in our discussion document because we wanted to take it out to New Zealand to say, “Is this something that is important?” We campaigned on it in election 2020. It was particularly poignant that year, because several months earlier, it was the National Party who fought for women who were forced to birth alone because they were not allowed a support person there during COVID. In March 2021, Mothers Matter continued their campaign, joined by people like Sir Peter Gluckman, Gemma McCaw, Dr Johan Morreau, and others. Then in the 2023 campaign, it was National that was campaigning on a three-day post-natal stay.

It was fantastic then when my colleague the MP for Tukituki, Catherine Wedd, picked up the member’s bill and took it further. It was then, of course, adopted by our Government, and, in Budget 2026, we funded what we knew needed to be funded to ensure the infrastructure and the workforce would be there to support it. I do want to put on record my thanks to the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, who has been a champion of the three-day stay all of the time, and also to Minister Brown.

Let me just say this, because a number of MPs in this House have talked about how critical that time is. I remember when I sat in that caucus room, and I actually reflected it to those advocates who were here as founders of Mothers Matter. We were talking about how critical it is that mothers—new mothers—have the confidence to take on that special responsibility. I recounted my experience of being a solo mother taking home a brand-new baby. My mother had passed away a long time before, and my father had come to visit. I remember begging him not to leave me, because I was petrified about holding this tiny, wee, precious baby and not knowing if I was going to be able to be a good mum. I don’t want any mother in New Zealand to feel that way.

To me, that is why the three-day post-natal stay is personal. It is important, because no mother in New Zealand should leave a post-natal facility, a hospital, a birthing unit, like River Ridge, not feeling as if they are up to the job. It’s our job, not just as a Government but as community and as family, to give them the support and confidence that we want every single mother to have. I want to put on record: it is the National Party, time and time again, who knows that mothers matter. We have backed it in policy. We have backed it in the Budget. I’m enormously proud of the National Party delivering today for mothers.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members, as this is my final shift in the Chair, I say thank you for your contributions over the 54th Parliament. Go well. The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.16 p.m.