Wednesday, 23 September 2026
Sitting date: 23 September 2026
Wednesday, 23 September 2026
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Start of Sitting Day
Karakia/Prayers
TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker) (14:00): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.
[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Speaker's Statements
Steve Streefkerk—Serjeant-at-Arms
SPEAKER: Members, I’d like to notify the House that today marks the last sitting day that Steve Streefkerk, the Serjeant-at-Arms, will bear the mace. Steve has served in this role since 2016, after a distinguished naval career, including being Commander of HMNZS Te Kaha. We thank him for his dedicated service and wish him well for his next role.
[Applause]
Privilege
Development of Framework for Recommendations for Punishing Members for Contempt
Referral to Privileges Committee
SPEAKER: Members, the Standing Orders Committee has presented its report on the Review of Standing Orders 2026. The report will be debated today. One of the committee’s recommendations is that a general question of privilege be referred regarding a framework for reaching recommendations for punishing members for contempt.
Historically, it has been very rare for the Privileges Committee to recommend that a member be suspended from the service of the House. There are only two known examples prior to this term of Parliament: one was for one day and one was for three days. The suspension of members in this term for as long as three weeks therefore represents a change in the House’s practice.
In its report, the Standing Orders Committee said it would be useful for a framework to be developed for how punishments for contempt may be determined in the future. Such a framework or set of expectations would support the Privileges Committee in reaching recommendations that are seen as proportionate and consistent.
A framework could set out factors for the Privileges Committee to consider when recommending punishments. It could also indicate steps to ensure a robust and fair process. For the public to have confidence in the House’s disciplinary procedures, it is important to avoid perceptions that they may be arbitrary in their operation.
Although I can refer a question of privilege without a recommendation to do so, I believe the Standing Orders Committee’s report provides useful context for why a referral should be made. Accordingly, I find that a general question of privilege arises and stands referred to the Privileges Committee. I expect that consideration to be undertaken and commenced when the committee reconvenes in the next Parliament.
Presentation
Petitions
SPEAKER: Two petitions have been delivered for the Clerk to present.
CLERK (14:03):
Petition of Consumer NZ requesting that the House better separate electricity generation and retail, ensure power prices reflect underlying costs, increase investment in renewable energy, and establish a long-term, cross-party energy strategy
petition of Waimauku Community Association Incorporated requesting that the House amend the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 to prohibit the approval of the Waimauku West development, and prohibit approval of other housing outside areas identified for future growth unless necessary public infrastructure is planned and funded.
SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.
Papers
SPEAKER: Ministers have delivered two papers.
CLERK (14:04):
2025-26 annual report for the Ministry for Women
Government response to the report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of James Bond.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Select Committee Reports
SPEAKER: Eight select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK (14:04):
Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the briefing on the response to the inquiry into banking competition
report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Military Decorations and Distinctive Badges (Modernisation) Amendment Bill
reports of the Health Committee on the
briefing on endometriosis and petition of Endo Warriors Aotearoa
briefing on mesh injury registries, and the
review briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission
report of the Petitions Committee on the Petition of Wendy Joy Baker
report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege concerning the release of a draft report of the Governance and Administration Committee
report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the inquiry into Ports and the Maritime Sector.
SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The inquiry, briefings, and report of the Privileges Committee are set down for consideration.
Bills
Customs and Excise (Border Security) Amendment Bill
Introduction
SPEAKER: The Clerk’s been informed of the introduction of a bill.
CLERK (14:05): Customs and Excise (Border Security) Amendment Bill, introduction.
SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading. We come now to oral questions, the first in the name of—
Points of Order
Ministers—Correction of Statements
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green) (14:05): Point of order. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I just want to raise a serious matter on Ministers taking the first available opportunity to correct inaccurate or potentially misleading statements. This is the last opportunity a Minister has to do so. On the 15th of this month, Minister Louise Upston, when asked whether she had sought advice on the impact on sick, injured, and disabled New Zealanders and whether they had been left into debt, homelessness, or hunger, answered yes. I posed the very same question in writing, and, today, just now, a couple of hours ago, she came back to me with the exact opposite answer, which was an emphatic no. I’m concerned that Ministers are not taking the opportunity to correct statements when a week ago I got an emphatic yes to a question and in writing got a very clear no to the very same question.
SPEAKER: Yeah, look, it’s fairly straightforward. I think the procedure for such contested responses like that is to either write to the Speaker or set down a notice of motion on the Order Paper. I appreciate that we are at the end of this Parliament, but, none the less, the Standing Orders remain in place.
Oral Questions to Ministers
Finance
Question No. 1
RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) (14:06) to the Minister of Finance: What has been the Government’s approach to tax in this parliamentary term?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:06): Well, one of the proud achievements of this Government has been to deliver real tax relief to working people for the first time in 14 years, against the cries of Opposition. The Government inherited rapidly rising debt, persistent deficits, and high levels of spending. Our main priority has been to get the books back in order. We’ve been very disciplined with Government spending so that our fiscal repair job has not required new taxes, but it’s more than that. While getting the books back in order, we’ve also made significant tax changes that let people keep more of their own money, increasing support for working families and giving businesses an incentive to invest in productive assets that will grow the economy.
Ryan Hamilton: What personal tax policies has the Government introduced?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In 2024, the Government increased personal income tax thresholds and expanded eligibility for the independent earner tax credit. The effect of these changes was to deliver the first personal income tax relief for 14 years, and that tax relief went to working people. The Government also increased support for low to middle income working families, who got up to an extra $50 a fortnight, and we introduced FamilyBoost to help families with young children meet the costs of early childhood education. This was achieved within an overall operating package of $3.2 billion, which was significantly lower than recent Budgets under the previous Government. We managed to do a lot more for Kiwis’ back pockets through tax relief than the previous Government ever did.
Ryan Hamilton: What business tax policies has the Government introduced?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the Government restored interest deductibility for residential rental property, returning to the normal practice of taxing profit, not revenue. While there were doubters, they have latterly had a road to Damascus experience on this one and recognised the value of this policy. In 2025, the Government introduced Investment Boost to encourage New Zealand businesses to make productive investments. It allows firms to immediately deduct 20 percent of the cost of a new asset, and this, of course, is an incentive to invest in machinery, tools, farm equipment, vehicles, industrial buildings, and other productive assets. Officials advised that this would increase productivity and lead to higher wages and higher employment, and, boy oh boy, the feedback from those who have used it is strong and positive.
Ryan Hamilton: What is the alternative to this approach?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Right now, people are very seriously proposing a capital gains tax. In fact, the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) in particular are promoting a comprehensive capital gains tax. I note that there are members of the CTU who are also prominently running in election seats this election. There are also people proposing a wealth tax, an inheritance tax, a gift tax, higher income tax rates, an increase in the company tax, a tax on profits sent offshore—a land tax removing interest deductibility for rental properties remains popular with some members of this House as a proposal—a 10-year brightline test, a vacant house tax, a stamp duty on residential sales, scrapping Investment Boost, and no GST on kai—those are all from parties over there. That hotchpotch, that potpourri of extra taxes, is the alternative.
SPEAKER: That’s it—OK.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We say no new taxes.
Prime Minister
Question No. 2
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Before I begin my question, I do want to acknowledge that it is our last question time before the election so therefore the last question time you’ll be presiding over before the election. I would like to take a moment to thank you for your good grace and your good humour in chairing question time in this term of Parliament. I hope that will continue for just a few more minutes.
SPEAKER: Thanks very much. Take an extra supp!
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (14:10) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:11): Well, I want to join with the Leader of the Opposition and say thank you very much for your fantastic work, and I’d be quite happy for him to have an extra supp anyway. Look, the answer is yes, and I just want to reassure the member that we won’t be introducing a comprehensive capital gains tax, as proposed by Craig Renney on the Labour Party policy committee, a candidate, and also the Council of Trade Unions.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which economic record is he most proud of: real wages going backwards, GDP per capita being lower than when he became Prime Minister, or unemployment reaching a 14-year high?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Actually, I’m really proud of the fact that we’ve delivered 2.6 percent GDP growth, which is higher than the US, Canada, the UK, EU, Japan, and Australia, for that matter. I’m really proud of the fact that we see our manufacturing sector going from strength to strength and the highest it’s been since 2021. I’m really proud of the services returning to expansion, record exports up $20 billion, tourism visitors back behind pre-COVID levels. We’ve got wholesale electricity prices coming down 35 percent, which is fantastic, and we’ve got consumer confidence, business, farmer confidence, and retail investor confidence at really good levels. We’re making progress. We’re really excited to kick on and carry on in a second term and get the rest of the job done for New Zealanders.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he acknowledge that Kiwi households struggling to pay for their electricity bill will take no comfort from the idea that wholesale electricity prices have been falling when their own power bills have increased 20 percent under his leadership?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can reassure Kiwis is that they take no comfort that the Labour-Greens Government ended oil and gas and drove up wholesale electricity prices and people lost their jobs. Low and middle income working New Zealanders across regional New Zealand lost their jobs because of very poor energy policy. I’m pleased with the fact that we have sorted it out in two and half years. We’ve done a great job.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he still laser-focused on the cost of living, given the price of butter is up 71 percent under his leadership; bread, 65 percent; mince, 36 percent—all prices going up since he became Prime Minister—or does he just say to New Zealanders struggling with the cost of living, as he did in the House last week, “cry me a river”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No. What I’d say to New Zealanders about the cost of living is that you sure as hell don’t want any tax increases. That’s what actually takes money out of their pockets and puts it into a Labour - Greens - Te Pāti Māori - Opportunity coalition, which would be an absolute nightmare for this country. But for the member—I want to reassure him—tomatoes are down 29 percent, eggs are down 16 percent, lettuce is down 15 percent, chicken is down 4 percent. As I said to him last week, he’s more than welcome to go create a chicken parmigiana up at the bach a bit further north.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which of the following actions that his Government has taken does he think have helped Kiwis most with the rising cost of living: real-term cuts to the minimum wage three years in a row, cancelling pay equity for thousands of Kiwi women across the country, or scrapping fair pay agreements which would have raised the incomes of a lot of low-income Kiwis?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The thing that makes the big difference is economic growth at 2.6 percent, because what that means is that we’re growing faster than many other countries around the world. We’re seeing our sectors start to fire up. That creates jobs and opportunities. What we have done is control spending and stop the dumb and wasteful stuff that we saw from the previous administration that drove up spending 70 percent. We’ve brought inflation back down from 7.2 percent—a 32-year high outside the band for three years. Twelve interest rate rises—we’ve got interest rates down, we’ve got the economy growing, and employment is coming.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which does he think has helped young Kiwis the most: cutting the Apprenticeship Boost programme, increasing student fees by almost 20 percent, or cutting financial support to 18- and 19-year-olds who can’t find work?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to any 18- or 19-year-old out there that we need 2,500 people in our defence forces—we’d really welcome applications there over the next few years. We need more police officers—there’s jobs going there too. But I’d just say to you, if you’re a young person in New Zealand, what you want to see is actually economic growth. That’s the important thing—2.6 percent is really great. That’s going to create 220,000 new jobs in the next four years, wages higher than inflation, and an economy growing at 2.7 percent on average each and every year.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which of his Government’s policies does he think has contributed the most to the record homelessness New Zealand’s currently experiencing: cancelling 3,500 new State houses, selling off over 1,000 State houses, or booting people out of emergency accommodation?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member, Labour used to care about housing, didn’t they? That’s what they used to care about, but, actually, we’ve made house pricing the most affordable it’s been in a long time. We have a record number of first-home buyers, running at 29 percent, and we have the most stable rent environment we’ve had in over 25 years. We come back to Government, and we find the State house wait-list has gone from 6,500 up to 24,000 or something. We’ve taken 6,000 off that list, and we’ve actually made rents go low. We have—yeah, we have. The wait-list is down. You don’t like to hear it, but that’s the reality of it, and we ended the scourge of motels and emergency housing—we stopped that—and we put a big investment into homelessness, and there are some good signs there too.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What does he think has most improved health outcomes for New Zealanders: a hiring freeze that’s seen just 54 new nurses hired by our health system in the last two years, making it more expensive to fill prescriptions, or giving a $300 million tax break to the tobacco lobby?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d just say to the member, isn’t it interesting. All they did in six years was actually introduce a Māori Health Authority and restructure the district health boards, and you didn’t give a toss about patient outcomes, and every single one of them went backwards. But isn’t it great; go look at the PR this morning because every health metric is on the up, and that’s thanks to the great work of Simeon Brown and Shane Reti, doing a brilliant, brilliant job focusing on patients rather than just tweaking and restructuring and dicking around.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why did his Government give the fire and emergency board a pay rise, whilst cutting $50 million in funding for fire and emergency services and offering front-line firefighters nothing?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have a lot to do in that space, and, as you know, we’ve got a new chair on that board. That board needs serious overhauling. They need to be able to get much more efficiency out of that corporate head office function, which was built up under his previous Government, and we have a package that, as I said, we announced this morning, a National policy on firefighters. It’s a good policy, and we’ve got work to do on that in the next term.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister consider that, after 34 months lambasting “tax cuts for landlords” only to adopt that policy, that perhaps Peter Fraser’s party of principle has become Chris Hipkins’ party of plagiarism?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I think the Minister raises a very good point—
SPEAKER: No, no, no. There’ll be no answer there.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which statement does he think best represents his view of New Zealand and New Zealanders: calling low-income Kiwis “bottom feeders”, saying Kiwi businesses have a “parent-child mentality”, calling Kiwi small businesses “C-listers”, or saying that Kiwis are “wet, whiny, and inward-looking”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ve got to say to the member, this is an awesome country, this is the best country on planet Earth, and we are setting up this country for the future, because we’re doing the serious reforms as well as fixing the basics that Labour broke. I want to say I’m very proud of the policy going forward. New Zealand’s going to have a great future in this country because we’ve got a growing economy; we’ve got our communities safe in their homes, their businesses, and their communities; we’ve got a world-class education system emerging; and we’re improving health outcomes for New Zealanders.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which of the following statements by his own Ministers best represents his Government’s attitude towards migrant New Zealanders, given none of them received any sanction from him as Prime Minister: likening Indian Kiwis to a “butter chicken tsunami”, calling Chinese Kiwis “liars”, telling Mexican New Zealanders to “go home”, or telling a Cook Island New Zealander that “they aren’t really a New Zealander”?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, that statement made by Chris Hipkins is utterly false, as is—[interruption]. Listen up, you might learn something.
SPEAKER: Hang on, just a moment. Points of order are heard in silence.
Rt Hon Winston Peters:—as is the very statement just made in the last few hours by that member of Parliament over there, who’s disowned what they’ve claimed to be the case. He said that the media got it entirely wrong as to what Winston Peters said. He made that statement. Why doesn’t that Minister know about it?
SPEAKER: Well, the—[Interruption]
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Not a Minister yet, but will be in a few weeks.
SPEAKER: Hang on, hang on. The point is definitely made, but the questioner was asking the Prime Minister’s views on various statements not attributed to anybody, so I think—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no he attributed it to me.
SPEAKER: No, he didn’t. [Interruption] Hang on a minute!
Hon Shane Jones: I put my hand up.
SPEAKER: What are you putting your hand up for? That’s the first time he’s ever asked permission for anything. Just ask the question again.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Which of the following statements by his Ministers best reflects his Government’s attitude towards migrant New Zealanders, given none of them received any sanction from him as Prime Minister: likening Indian Kiwis to a butter chicken tsunami, calling Chinese Kiwis liars, telling Mexican New Zealanders to go home, or telling a Cook Island Kiwi that they aren’t really a New Zealander?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well I’m incredibly proud of our migrant community here in New Zealand. I think they’ve added to New Zealand, they’ve made it an infinitely better place. They leave everything behind, they come here, they work incredibly hard, they don’t go on welfare, they get their kids educated, they take one, two, three jobs to get a deposit for a business, and they are a great example to many New Zealanders to follow. But also, this is a Government that has ensured we have a smart, fair, targeted immigration system: we have made sure that we have moved it from 70 percent low-skill, to 70 percent high-skill. Net migration has gone from 135,000 down to 25,000, and we link our immigration policy to our economic agenda, and where our job skills and shortages are, as well as to our infrastructure growth and development. That’s the way in which we maintain a good buy-in for immigration in New Zealand.
Hon Chris Bishop: Would he support a member of his Government taking real estate data, going through the names, working out ones that sound Chinese, releasing that data in order to castigate a particular community and blame them for high house prices?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I’d encourage the member to stand up for that too.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What would he like his term as Prime Minister to be most remembered for: higher unemployment; real wages going backwards; higher food, electricity and fuel prices; a health system descending further into crisis; a shrinking economy; businesses going broke; or record number of Kiwis giving up and leaving New Zealand?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’d like our Government to be remembered for cleaning up Labour’s mess. That’s what we did. We have the economy growing, we have a much safer environment because we restored law and order, we’re building a world-class education system, and we’re improving healthcare. That’s what Kiwi’s want. They know that is what this Government has done. I would proudly put my record up against his record any day of the week, and I’m really looking forward to it, son, in the next six weeks.
Prime Minister
Question No. 3
SPEAKER: Question No. 2, Rawiri Waititi.
RAWIRI WAITITI: No. 3, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: Oh, No. 3? Okay, sorry that last one was so long I’ve lost my way.
RAWIRI WAITITI: I was just in the spirit of the House. I also just want to acknowledge the stellar job you have done to facilitate this rowdy House at times. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Sorry, can we please hear this in silence?
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
RAWIRI WAITITI: For the sake of an extra supplementary—for your grace.
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (14:23) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions in relation to improving outcomes for Māori?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (14:23): Absolutely.
Rawiri Waititi: Why does the Prime Minister define success for Māori by counting how many Māori he has kicked out of emergency housing, how many Māori he has put into prison, and how many parents have been prosecuted to address attendance, rather than whether Māori have secure homes, decent incomes, good health, access to Māori-medium education, and genuine control over our own futures?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I have said to the member repeatedly, we don’t believe in histrionics and performative stuff; we actually get things done in this Government. Just think about it: 18 Treaty Settlements advanced; a thousand-plus Māori families out of emergency housing, 80 percent reduction; Māori health provider funding nearly doubled over this Government. I could go on.
Rawiri Waititi: Does he deny that good process leads to good outcomes; and if not, does he consider that his Government’s removal of Māori authority across processes that impact Māori the most will only led to worse outcomes for Māori in the future?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question. As I’ve said, Māori youth offending is down 28 percent. We have 4,000 fewer Māori victims of violent crime—that’s a good thing; I think the member would want to celebrate that, wouldn’t you?
Rawiri Waititi: On his last day, will the PM take responsibility or just his belongings?
SPEAKER: I didn’t hear that. Will what?
Rawiri Waititi: Would you like me to repeat it? On his last day, will the PM take responsibility or just take his belongings?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I take responsibility for the outcomes that we’ve improved for Māori. Tamariki Māori immunised at 24 months has gone up from 60 percent to 71.3 percent. I just find it unusual that the member who purports to advocate for Māori doesn’t care about outcomes and improving their daily life. We do, on this side—Māori, non-Māori.
RMA Reform
Question No. 4
Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (14:25) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: What recent milestones have been achieved in the Government’s work to replace the Resource Management Act 1991?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform) (14:25): As of around 9.45 p.m. last night, the Resource Management Act (RMA) has been repealed. After 35 years of the RMA being a millstone around the neck of this country, we’ve now passed legislation for a fundamentally different way of planning for New Zealand’s future, as I think there is widespread consensus in the Parliament that the RMA has made it slower, harder, and more expensive to build homes, infrastructure, grow the food, and build the energy we rely on. It’s failed to prevent environmental degradation; we’ve had the worst of both worlds. We now have a new system—narrower, simpler, faster, more consistent, more upfront about the trade-offs we need to make, to make sure that as a country we can grow and thrive.
Dr Hamish Campbell: What are the key changes that have been made as part of these reforms?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Unlike the RMA, most of the big decisions we made more upfront in the legislation and upfront in the system. It means we can stop relitigating the same questions over and over again through individual consent applications. One hundred planning documents will be replaced by 17 regional combined plans; we’ll have nationally standardised zones and rules to reduce variation across the country. Officials estimate around 45 percent of consent and permit applications currently required under the RMA could be removed under the new system. The economic benefits of these reforms are significant. Independent analysis projects the new planning system will boost GDP by an additional 0.56 percent every year by 2050, worth up to $3.1 billion annually. These are fundamentally good reforms to supercharge our economy.
Dr Hamish Campbell: How important is the implementation of the new planning system going to be to its success?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Passing the legislation is a significant achievement for the Government, but the hard work is just beginning. When Parliament passed the RMA in 1991, it was assumed that there would be a whole lot of extra work done after that, which never happened, so the Government is very focused on the implementation around spatial planning, around national direction, and around national standards over the next two to three years. We’re also focused on driving a culture change in the new system. The RMA encouraged a culture focused on process, repeated litigation, development treated as something to be constrained not enabled. We’re working hard at changing the incentives and we’re investing in implementation. Budget 2026 invested $294 million over four years to support the roll-out of our new planning system; more will be required but we are getting on with the job.
Dr Hamish Campbell: What do the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill do for New Zealand’s future?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: One of the things that I have been reflecting on over the last three years is that we are not as wealthy as a country as sometimes we think we are, and we are certainly nowhere near as prosperous as we should be. We are, indeed, at a crossroads. We can accept a low-growth past, present, and future; we can continue to be a relatively poor country, and the continued degradation of our natural environment, or we can take tough choices and make hard decisions. If we get it right, it means our children can access higher living standards, better education, better healthcare systems, and protect the natural environment. The RMA reforms that this Government has implemented represent tough decisions in the national interest to set New Zealand up for success in the 2030s. They are part of this Government’s plan to build the future.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister point to just one single fast-track consent application for developing industry that the dancing tussocks in the Greens have supported?
SPEAKER: No, look, you can’t make that—if he wants to, reword your question. Do you want to ask the question again without reference to a particular style of Government?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: You mean about the “tussocks”?
SPEAKER: As it happens.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: OK, then. Can the Minister point to just one single fast-track consent application for developing industry that the Greens have supported?
Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, I’ve struggled. There have been 35 fast-track applications that have now been approved, including projects that I think most people would say are pretty good. The first hydro scheme consented in New Zealand in a long time on the West Coast, Waitaha hydro; new solar, new wind farms, green steel—recycled steel proposal; development of aquaculture by iwi. Many, many projects; 990 megawatts of new renewable energy just in the last year alone. Sadly, the Greens have supported none of those projects.
SPEAKER: Yeah, good—good. He asked for one.
Finance
Question No. 5
Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) (14:31) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by all her statements and actions?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (14:31): In context, yes, and I am advised by the Parliamentary Library that this is the 51st time in this parliamentary term that I’ve been asked that exact question by the member, and not once have I resiled from my commitment to lower taxes for working people.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Dramatic. Is the total number of KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals better or worse since she became Minister of Finance?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, since I became Minister of Finance, people’s default contributions to their KiwiSaver funds have increased, as have the contributions that match those from their employers. This will have a material effect on the size of people’s nest eggs in the years ahead, and I am proud of that. It is also the case that, while I have been Minister of Finance, this economy has been going through an extremely difficult recovery, which is reflected in the KiwiSaver stats that the member refers to. I recommend the member a report put out yesterday from independent experts that says, in part, the difficult recovery in New Zealand has experienced was exacerbated by poor decision-making by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, enabled through the loosening of guard rails from the last Government that allowed it to take its eye off the inflation-busting ball, and it’s led to higher unemployment and slower growth than would have otherwise been the case. More Kiwis would be in work right now if you hadn’t mucked up the Reserve Bank’s job.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the number of homeless New Zealanders better or worse since she became Minister of Finance?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, that will depend on which survey you refer to. But I stood in this House in Opposition and lamented that children were being raised in gross motel rooms, and we committed that we would fix that. I am extraordinarily proud that this Government, through its prioritisation of families who were otherwise condemned to live in motel rooms, has put them into warm, dry, social homes, because I don’t think kids should be raised in emergency motel rooms. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Just one person asking a question.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the number of children living in material hardship better or worse since she became Minister of Finance?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: We have published a child poverty report with each Budget, and one of the things that that shows is that when you deliver income tax relief to working people, that improves the conditions—the material conditions—in which parents can raise their children. It matters if people can keep more of what they earn, and it matters when they can get a FamilyBoost tax credit for their early childhood fees, and it matters when the Government spends their money carefully so it can keep taxes low.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: If the number of KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals, the number of New Zealanders unemployed, the number of businesses liquidated, the number of people who are homeless, the number of children in material hardship, real wages, GDP per capita, and the cost of living are all worse since she became the Minister of Finance, are her chances of getting back into Parliament better or worse?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, given that member’s sole suggestion for addressing the cost of living crisis for the past three years has been “We wouldn’t have done tax cuts for landlords,” and now she’s changed her mind, I’d say to you: we’ve delivered on our plan, we’ve delivered on our commitments, we have fixed the basics, and we are building the future. You got nothing.
Regulation
Question No. 6
TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (14:35) to the Minister for Regulation: What actions has the Government taken to reduce regulation for New Zealanders?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation) (14:35): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and in keeping with other party leaders, I’d like to thank you for your grace and forbearance in trying to manage this place over the last three years. I begin my answer to the question by saying that this Government, I believe, will be looked back on as a Government where New Zealand started to turn the corner on regulation. The establishment of the Ministry for Regulation and the Regulatory Standards Act are some of the institutions that we’ve created, and they have saved hundreds of millions of dollars already. However, the changes that the House voted through last night to replace the Resource Management Act with two new laws based on property rights—that will halve the number of consents required for the same amount of activity; that will add half a percent or about $3 billion a year to GDP—that is the largest, most significant change that this Government has made, and yet it is far from the only one in this Government of deregulation.
Todd Stephenson: What has the Government done to reduce unnecessary regulation in health?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Many things on the health front—for example, 12-month prescriptions up from three, allowing Kiwis, particularly those managing chronic health conditions, to save time and money. Medsafe introduced the rule of two, something that all three coalition parties campaigned on. Now if a medicine has been consented in two other developed countries in the last four years, it will be available and consented here within 30 days. We’ve also aligned over the counter labelling requirements with Australia so more over the counter medicines can be sold here at better prices, with more choice. But perhaps most significantly, we have legalised pseudoephedrine to wake you up and melatonin to put you back to sleep.
Hon Andrew Hoggard: What has the Government done to cut red tape for farmers?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I have in the back of my mind your recent admonishments for excessively long answers, so I’ll give only a sample. The Agricultural and Horticultural Products Regulatory Review has dramatically reduced the queues for new products being consented in New Zealand, and that gives farmers more affordable and more environmentally friendly agricultural compounds, veterinary medicines, and the like that allow them to compete with the rest of the world. That is a very good example of deregulation, as are Andrew Hoggard’s simpler, risk-based freshwater farm plans, and we are currently ensuring that New Zealand farmers will be able to use drones more easily as the modern flying tractor of the innovative Kiwi farm.
Laura McClure: What has the Government done to cut red tape in education?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Again, many things. The sector review of the early childhood education sector is estimated to save $40 million in compliance costs while ramping up the focus on child safety, with a new proportional approach to regulation, a new regulator, and a much more constructive relationship between the regulator and the regulated. The Government has also introduced charter schools, which increase the choice and allow those who have innovative ways to educate young New Zealanders and help unlock their potential to teach and educate their way. The change that is making and the potential being unlocked in young New Zealanders up and down this country at over 20 charter schools now is absolutely touching and perhaps the thing that I, in politics, am most proud of.
Hon Nicole McKee: What has the Government done to reduce red tape for the hospitality sector?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: No sector has been left untouched, nearly. The hospitality sector has had a very hard row to hoe in recent years. The first was lockdown, then being told they could open the next day by a Government that didn’t understand that they hadn’t actually had time to order the food to serve that day, then a prolonged cost of living crisis in recession. This Government has relieved the regulatory pressure on them. For example, the Minister who asked the question has ensured that if you want to object to a liquor licence, you actually have to live in the community and be affected by it. You can’t object from another country. We will be rolling out, over the next half-year to a year, simpler food-control plans that are proportionate to risk, allowing venues to put up marquees more easily through the Building Act, and letting venues charge for courtesy shuttles to bring down drink-driving. In every way, we are making it easier to run a hospitality venue, by removing red tape and regulation. Nobody had listened to them for a long time, perhaps ever, until the Ministry for Regulation came along and gave them an intelligent, sympathetic ear, and it turned into action.
Hon Karen Chhour: What regulations has the Government changed to improve access to healthcare for children in care?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: I have to commend the member, who’s visited every single Oranga Tamariki facility and overseen significant improvements in safety in those facilities for some of the most vulnerable children—and she’s done it without a single bucket of KFC to get anyone off the roof. She’s also deregulated by letting trained, authorised staff administer emergency medicines like EpiPens, and by letting nurse practitioners carry out health exams so those vulnerable children are more likely to get the healthcare they need.
Cameron Luxton: What has the Government done to make it easier to build homes?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Many, many things. For too long, it’s been too hard to build a home, too hard to build a whare on your whenua. We have, for example, allowed recognised building materials—certified in trusted overseas schemes, including 128,000 Australian WaterMark products—to be used here. We’re letting plumbers and drainlayers self-certify; we’ve reformed the rushed earthquake laws, that I have to say only one member of this House voted against; we’re now saving $9 billion in regulatory relief there. We have got rid of the joint and several liability that meant that councils were so unwilling to say yes to construction. Furthermore—slightly tangential to regulation—we have introduced revenue sharing between central and local government, so councils have an incentive to say yes to growth.
Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Supplementary, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: No, I think we’re all done.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the ACT Party to have one more supplementary question so the people of New Zealand can learn about the enormous progress made by this Government of deregulation.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There is. The Hon Marama Davidson.
Prime Minister
Question No. 7
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: And what a fine Speaker you have been, Mr Speaker—the leadership, the guaranteed entertainment. I dressed up especially for you, Mr Speaker, and I’m always in the market for extra supplementaries. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: See how you go!
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (14:43) 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) (14:43): Yes, and in particular, our desire never to introduce a 45 percent top tax rate, never to introduce a death or inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rentals tax, or a wealth asset tax.
Hon Marama Davidson: Whose interests was he serving when he amended his resource management reforms to reflect the demands of corporate lobby groups?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we didn’t do that, as we have discussed previously.
Hon Marama Davidson: Whose interests was he serving when he cut funding for Predator Free, passed a bill legalising the killing of kiwi, and cut protections for fresh water?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question.
Hon Marama Davidson: Whose interests was he serving when he weakened our climate targets, disestablished the Ministry for the Environment, and cancelled plans to electrify our transport fleet?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Actually, I’m quite proud of the fact that we had 96.4 percent renewable energy in the last quarter. I’m quite proud of the fact that we’ve built more renewable projects in the last two years than the previous eight years, and I’m actually proud of the fact that we’ve had the lowest level of emissions from our economy, since records began in 2010, in the last quarter as well.
Hon Marama Davidson: What is his message to the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who took to the streets in Auckland on Saturday, marching to demand environmental protections, who now see his Government dismantling decades of environmental protections?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I disagree. They’ve actually got a Government that will ensure the environment is protected, but, most importantly, they will grow and they will have jobs and opportunities for them and their families.
Hon Marama Davidson: How are we going, Mr Speaker? Can I have one more? Thank you. Was he serving the interests of the New Zealand public when he decided to subsidise oil and gas, fast-track mining applications, and make it easier to mine in and around significant biodiversity and wetlands?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We are very, very proud of having reversed the oil and gas ban. That was, single-handedly, a point of absolute insanity from the last Government. That led to higher electricity prices and higher power bills, and we have a very comprehensive energy strategy that is working. We are proud of accelerating a renewables boom, and we’re also proud of having the thermal firming energy we need to keep prices low in a dry year.
SPEAKER: Question No. 8, Dr Ayesha Verrall—the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall.
Health
Question No. 8
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (14:46) to the Minister of Health: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m not going ask for extra supplementaries, but I am always on the lookout for good answers. My question is to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that the health system is “finally turning a corner”; if so, why?
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:46): Well, Mr Speaker, thank you so much for your leadership of this Parliament. I just want to add my congratulations, alongside everyone else, before I answer my question. In the context it was made, yes. This morning, I announced the most recent health targets results, covering April to June, showing significant improvement across all five health targets. All five health targets are set for 2030, and every one has now improved for two years running, which is the steady, year-on-year progress needed to reach the 2030 targets. Key improvements include more than 14,000 fewer patients waiting more than four months since the peak, a reduction of 41 percent; shorter waits for elective treatment in every district across the country, including a 21 percentage point improvement in Whanganui, a 14 percentage point improvement in Gisborne, and a 10 percentage point improvement in South Canterbury; continued improvement in immunisation rates; faster cancer treatment; and shorter stays in emergency departments, particularly compared to 2023, when that member was the Minister of Health. We know there is more work to do, and that is exactly why now is the time to double down on the health targets and not return to removing them, like Labour did in 2017, and to make sure that we continue the progress that our hard-working front-line staff are delivering across the country.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he confirm that Middlemore’s emergency department has routinely operated at 200 percent over capacity and that staff are being asked to come to work when sick?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: According to the emergency department target data that was released today, in the most recent quarter, Middlemore Hospital improved from 65 percent to 76.9 percent of patients being seen within six hours. That is one of the highest, best improvements of any hospital up and down this country, and that member should be proud of the great work being done by the front-line staff at that hospital.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he confirm that in Waikato, his Government has cut staff by 90 fulltime-equivalent nurses over the past year?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: I want to point out the most recent quarterly data on emergency departments, which shows that improvements at the Waikato district health board—69.3 percent, up to 73.8 percent of patients seen within six hours at the hospital. There are shorter wait-times for elective treatment, from 74.2 percent seen within four months, up to 80.6 percent—above the milestone. That is thanks to the hard-working front-line staff at Waikato Hospital.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he confirm that in Christchurch emergency department, 15,000 patients were treated in corridors last year, nearly four times more than in 2023?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: We’ve got more good news, and if you look at the most recent health targets report, shorter wait-times for elective treatment at Canterbury has improved from 62.9 percent of patients seen within four months, up to 71.4 percent seen within four months. What about first specialist appointments? 50.8 percent seen within four months last quarter, up to 57.7 percent. The member opposite might like to talk down our health system, but we are seeing year-on-year improvements under this Government, after decline under her watch.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister of Health consider that had qualified doctors and nurses not been mandated out of their jobs by the previous Government, leading to permanent employment scarring, that New Zealand would have more trained professionals in our hospitals, GP offices, and healthcare centres?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our focus has been to grow the number of front-line staff across our health system. We have 900 additional doctors working at Health New Zealand since we’ve come to Government. We are training more at the University of Auckland and Otago; with a third medical school that this Government is funding and building—that Labour opposed. We’re supporting our front-line nursing workforce with 2,100 more nurses working at Health New Zealand since we came to Government. We’re investing in nurses in primary care, with nurses becoming nurse practitioners. This Government is backing our front-line health workforce, while Labour continues to talk it down.
Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is he really content to leave his last comment in this Parliament, on the matter of 15,000 people in Christchurch Hospital waiting in corridors, to be, “More good news”?
Hon SIMEON BROWN: There is more work to do. Every time I’m asked about our healthcare system, I acknowledge there is huge amount more work to do. But after six years of decline under the previous Government, six years of decline in our emergency departments under the previous Government, things are on the way up. Improving under National; down under Labour. Let’s not go back to what they did to our health system.
Education
Question No. 9
KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) (14:52) to the Minister of Education: What has she achieved in this term of Government?
Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education) (14:52): After decades of declining achievement, we’re a Government that’s putting raising achievement and closing the equity gap at the heart of everything we’re doing. We introduced an hour of reading, writing, and maths; we banned cellphones in schools; we’ve delivered every single curriculum area from years 1 to 13 for the New Zealand curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa; we’ve mandated the structured literacy teaching in every school in New Zealand; we’ve introduced structured maths; we’ve trained over 50,000 teachers in structured literacy and structured maths; we’ve funded maths books, science books, and music kits in every primary school in New Zealand in English and te reo Māori; and we’re scrapping NCEA and replacing it with meaningful qualifications to set kids up for success—and the results are starting to show.
Katie Nimon: What has she achieved in assessment and reporting to parents?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: For the first time in our country’s history, we have consistent nationwide mandated twice-yearly assessments between year 3 and year 8 to measure progress in reading, writing, and maths, to measure progress over time. We’ve delivered the 20 and 40 weeks phonics checks in English and te reo Māori; we’re delivering the Year 2 maths check in term 4 this year; and parents are, finally, receiving detailed reports on how their children are progressing and how they can help at home using our new Parent Portal tool. We are measuring progress consistently. We’re acting sooner and giving parents clearer information to raise achievement and close the equity gap.
Katie Nimon: What has she achieved in learning support?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: Budget 2025 was the largest injection into learning support in a generation, with three-quarters of a billion dollars. We’re delivering a learning support coordinator in every single primary and intermediate school in New Zealand—promised by that side and not delivered. We uncapped Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme (ORRS) funding, with 1,057 extra children receiving ORRS support—uncapping ORRS funding: promised by that side, delivered by this side. We’ve funded the expansion of the Early Intervention Service, that saw over 6,000 year 1 students receive support this year to transition to school; a thousand extra placements have been made available for private providers to get children off wait-lists for specialist services; and we’ve taken 15.7 days off the average wait time for early intervention support—more children who need support are being seen sooner.
Katie Nimon: What has she achieved in school property?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: More good news. We’ve set up the New Zealand School Property Agency to drive better value for money and better response to schools. We’ve halved the cost of building a school classroom and put an end to open-plan classrooms; we’ve funded nearly 1,400 classrooms across the country in three years. We invested more than double the funding into property maintenance over Budget 2024 and 2025 than in the previous six years combined. We’ve raised five-year agreement individual school property and maintenance grants by 50 percent. We’ve funded three new specialist schools for the first time in 50 years; we’ve funded over 140 extra satellite classrooms for specialist schools; and we’ve funded 500 schools to have solar panels. We are delivering in school property.
Katie Nimon: What results has she seen on these reforms?
Hon ERICA STANFORD: We are finally, after decades of decline and stagnation, seeing results improve under this Government. The New Zealand Herald led with my favourite headline this year—“The Phonic Boom”—when, last year, we saw the number of children at expectation for early reading and writing go from 36 percent to 58 percent after just three terms. The 2025 Curriculum Insights data showed us that at year 6, the number of children at curriculum expectations for maths rose by 6 percent, and 5 percent for writing—the first time we’ve seen significant improvements for years. Our international Programme for International Student Assessment results showed that while the trend for the rest of the OECD was in decline, New Zealand held steady in maths and reading and improved in science. But, importantly, the equity gap closed for the first time. I want to take this opportunity to thank our principals and teachers for these achievements. Our plan to raise achievement and close the equity gap is working, and we cannot put this all at risk by returning to the low-aspiration, low-expectation, low-bar Labour.
SPEAKER: Question No. 10, Arena Williams. [Interruption] Hang on a minute. Sorry. I’ve called it.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: It’s a two-way street, isn’t it.
SPEAKER: No, no, no. You’ve got to allow your member to ask the question she’s called to ask.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: She’s more than capable.
SPEAKER: Yeah, she is, and that’s why she doesn’t need your assistance.
Commerce and Consumer Affairs
Question No. 10
ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (14:56) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Are New Zealanders paying more than they should for groceries; if so, does he agree that they should not have to wait for another review before the Government takes action?
Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) (14:57): Mr Speaker, if I’m nice to you, will you give them less supplementaries?
SPEAKER: If this was a Government question, you wouldn’t be getting an answer at all!
Hon CAMERON BREWER: Yes, New Zealanders pay too much for groceries. That is why this Government has made it easier to build supermarkets, strengthened the grocery supply code and competition settings, and backed the Commerce Commission’s enforcement work. We also commissioned independent analysis of structural reform, and that independent analysis is now finished and public on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) website. Of the options tested, separating Foodstuffs has the strongest case.
Arena Williams: Why should a family whose grocery bill is higher today than when National took office believe that their food will be more affordable under that plan, when all along he has been telling us that, under his Government, it will just get more expensive more slowly?
Hon CAMERON BREWER: Because, under this Government, our track record on inflation, food inflation included, stands for itself. In the last 12 months to July 2026, food inflation was just 1.9 percent. In the last 12 months of the previous Labour Government, food inflation for one year was 12.5 percent.
Arena Williams: Why, when even the Prime Minister acknowledges that supermarkets are already making excess profits, does he need another review to tell him if changes to the grocery sector are needed?
Hon CAMERON BREWER: We’re not doing another review. If the member was to look on MBIE’s website, it’s complete—it’s complete. Government’s commissioned independent analysis of structural options is finished and is public. The autonomous, independent Commerce Commission will then take—with all the intention in the world, after this election, when the mandate’s even bigger, ComCom will look at that and make up recommendations, and, in six months’ time, we’re back in business.
Arena Williams: Why has his Government spent $274,000 on a review of a review to tell him to break up the supermarkets, when he was too weak to get a supermarket break-up through Cabinet?
Hon CAMERON BREWER: I suppose the question could be put back: why consider, hypothetically, a wholesale retail split, when MBIE’s own commissioned independent analysis, and the Commerce Commission, outright ruled against a wholesale retail split?
Arena Williams: Point of order. I seek leave to table a document from MBIE dated 21 September 2026, obtained under the Official Information Act (OIA) but not publicly released, which details the cost of the review of the review.
SPEAKER: How’s it not publicly released if it’s obtained under the OIA?
Arena Williams: It was released only two days ago and is not available on MBIE’s website.
SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Arena Williams: Thank you. Why should Kiwis expect any better from a Government whose answer on food prices has been to tell Kiwis to be grateful for price increases of only 143 percent for the tomatoes and 31 percent for the cheese in the Prime Minister’s chicken parmigiana?
Hon CAMERON BREWER: Because, as I’ve said before, our record speaks for itself on food inflation. The member, in chapter 1 of “spaghettigate”, waved around a can of spaghetti proclaiming that the price had fallen by 1c, and then the Minister of Finance stood up and reminded her that in one year under Labour, that same tin of spaghetti went up 35 percent.
Arena Williams: Supplementary. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Yeah, when the House is settled, we’ll have another question.
Arena Williams: Has he missed the latest food price data that shows the price of a tin of spaghetti has actually gone up 8 percent under National, or is that all he’s got?
Hon CAMERON BREWER: Oh, we’ve got much more than that, but fruit and vegetables, in the 12 months to July 2026, fell 1 percent—fell. Now, should we compare that to the 12 months to June 2023 under the previous high-inflation Labour Government: fruit and veges, in one year, went up 22 percent.
Arena Williams: After spending $274,000 of taxpayers’ money on a review of a review, has he committed to spending another $5 million on a review of a review of a review?
Hon CAMERON BREWER: Any review, any analysis, is on the MBIE website, independently done and commissioned by this Government. It’s complete for the member to go on and see it. The review is complete.
Arena Williams: Supplementary.
SPEAKER: You’ve used up the allocation well and truly.
Arena Williams: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table this can of spaghetti.
SPEAKER: No, no, you can’t do that; it’s not a document. You can’t table something that’s not a document, and besides that, there’s not enough to go around. Question No. 11—[Interruption] Excuse me.
Prime Minister
Question No. 11
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (15:03) 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?]
SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister, and—[Interruption] Excuse me. Let’s just calm everything right down—two more questions to go.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (15:03): Yes, and particularly our desire never to introduce a comprehensive capital gains tax.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his statement to Jordan Williams and the Taxpayers’ Union to “Be louder.”, and, if so, what exactly did he mean by that?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, sorry, I haven’t seen that reporting or that quote because I’m much more focused on an Indian free-trade agreement getting ratified on Monday and Resource Management Act reforms being done last night.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Green Party that our country needs to regulate lobbying?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: No, I don’t agree with the Green Party on many things.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Why did his Government cancel work that was already under way to regulate lobbying if he had, as he said in answer to me yesterday, “not considered it deeply”?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, look, I mean, we’ve improved the transparency of this Government. Our diaries as Ministers are freely available. We’ve managed conflicts very assiduously across a very big legislative programme. We’re also proud that we’re a Government that does something quite unusual, I’ve found out in the last week, which is actually talk to New Zealanders when we have policy ideas to get all that feedback.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he think that companies should be able to donate to political parties, or does he agree with the Independent Electoral Review that only people should be allowed to donate to political parties?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’ll just say to the member, when I think about large donations that end up going to the Green Party—$100,000; $132,000—they should practise what they preach.
Chlöe Swarbrick: Is he aware that the majority of New Zealanders believe that the economy is rigged in favour of the rich and powerful, and, if so, can he name just one thing that he or his Government has done this term to demonstrate the opposite?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question and the assertion at the top of it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the issue of the Indian free-trade agreement (FTA), has the Prime Minister established whether the $33 billion to be invested by New Zealand in India’s economy is “aspirational”, as claimed, or a commitment, as written and stated by India’s Prime Minister, Modi?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I want to thank the Foreign Minister for his question. I want to reassure him that it is a commitment to promote. It’s very different from other FTAs that have been struck with India. We’re going to make sure that we get more business-to-business connection between the two countries. But I’ll just reassure him: commitment to promote.
Tākuta Ferris: To the Prime Minister: will he rule out—
SPEAKER: Just a minute. They need to turn on your microphone.
Tākuta Ferris: To the Prime Minister: will he rule out campaigning on a referendum on the Māori seats and ending the Waitangi Tribunal?
SPEAKER: Hang on. Look, sorry, do you mind just asking again and we’ll just try and get the sound modulated properly.
Tākuta Ferris: Āe. To the Prime Minister: will he rule out campaigning on a referendum on the Māori seats and ending the Waitangi Tribunal?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I’m sorry, I don’t campaign as Prime Minister.
Tākuta Ferris: On the eve of the campaigning period, what message do you have for te iwi Māori?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What was the question? Sorry, can you repeat it?
Tākuta Ferris: Sure. On the eve of the campaigning period, what is the message that you have for te iwi Māori?
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Oh, party vote National for sure, because this is a Government that cares deeply about outcomes and improving outcomes for Māori: 18 Treaty settlements advanced; 1,000-plus families out of emergency housing; Māori health provider funding nearly doubled; the Nelson Tenths deal, which I think was one of our proudest achievements over that period of time; the Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Act passing; improving regular attendance for Māori, from 51.3 percent up to 54.6 percent just in the last year. I could go on: Māori youth offending—did I tell you about that one—down 28 percent; 4,000 fewer Māori victims of violent crime.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect to the last question, has heard the quote “Better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and be removing all doubt”?
SPEAKER: Well, I’m sure no one would direct that at the member’s particular person.
Trade and Investment
Question No. 12
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the class of 2023, we would like to acknowledge your guidance and leadership for this term, and hopefully you will give me an extra supplementary as well.
SPEAKER: No, I won’t.
Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) (15:08) to the Minister of State for Trade and Investment: What progress has been made on the New Zealand-India free-trade agreement?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG (Minister of State for Trade and Investment) (15:08): Well, Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, who also sends his kind regards and congratulations and thanks to you, we have made excellent progress. New Zealand and India now have formally ratified the New Zealand-India free-trade agreement (FTA). This is a significant milestone towards the implementation of one of New Zealand’s most significant agreements in decades. For farmers, growers, foresters, manufacturers, and other exporters, this FTA creates new opportunities to earn higher export returns and expand into a market of 1.4 billion people when it enters into force on 20 October this year.
Dr Carlos Cheung: What does the entry into force timing mean for exporters?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Well, the sooner the FTA enters into force, the sooner New Zealand exporters can benefit from the improved rules and market access achieved in the agreement. This includes tariff-free access of 57 percent of our current exports to India on day one, rising to 82 percent once the agreement is fully implemented, with most remaining exports benefiting from substantial tariff reductions. The entry into force will open a new chapter for Kiwi exporters and positions New Zealand businesses to take advantage of India’s rapid economic growth.
Dr Carlos Cheung: Which sectors benefit most, from day one?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Several sectors will benefit from tariff removal on day one—for example for forestry, over 95 percent of exports will be able to enter tariff-free immediately. Tariffs will also be removed immediately for wool, sheep meat, and coal. Others—like fish and seafood, mānuka honey, wine, and bulk infant formula—will benefit from two tariff reductions in close succession, with the first cut on 20 October and the second on 1 January 2027.
Dr Carlos Cheung: What do the most favoured nation commitments mean in the free-trade agreement (FTA)?
Hon NICOLA GRIGG: Three years ago, they said we wouldn’t be able to get a deal with India and this Government has got out there and got it done. The agreement secures valuable most favoured nation protections for wine and key service sectors. For wine exporters, tariffs will fall from 150 percent today to 25 percent or 50 percent over the next 10 years, depending on the value of the wine product. It will then further reduce to 20 percent or 30 percent in the next seven years. This is just another example of our plan to fix the basics and build the future.
SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions. [Interruption] Look, if you are leaving the House, just be courteous enough to leave as quietly as you possibly can, and quickly. Unreal; move on.
Standing Orders
Adoption of Amendments
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (15:12): In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, I move, That the House adopt the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Appendix A of the report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders 2026, with effect from the day after the dissolution or expiration of the present Parliament.
As we close out the 54th Parliament, we come to a debate held at the end of every term, one that I suspect only the deepest Parliament nerds will ever pay close attention to. Each term, the Standing Orders Committee needs to consider how Parliament operates and the rules it uses to keep things working well. It is an incredibly collaborative process, and I want to thank all of the members of Parliament who sat on the committee and worked through the changes before us. I also want to thank and acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, for presiding over the committee and ensuring the Standing Orders review was run in an efficient and considered way so that final decisions were not rushed. I also want to acknowledge the Clerk, Dr David Wilson, and his staff, particularly David Bagnall, for the tremendous amount of work that they have put into this report.
We discussed many issues during this process. I want to speak briefly about urgency, which was raised at length in submissions. I think a lot of people misunderstand urgency. A bill being included in an urgency motion does not in itself mean it is bypassing scrutiny or has been poorly drafted. In this Parliament, urgency has largely been used as overtime. Only 10 bills skipped select committee this term, outside the first 100-day plan and the normal Budget urgency. Part of the reason urgency has been used in that way is this is the first three-party coalition Government, which has placed additional pressure on legislative priorities. Bills have also, in general, taken significantly longer at the committee of the whole House stage than in previous Parliaments. I do want to note that the committee has agreed to changes that I think will encourage a better use of urgency, including requiring Ministers to explain why they need to bypass select committee, and I hope that will help demonstrate that when urgency is used, it is for good reason.
By far the biggest change we have agreed to is the establishment of the Legislative Scrutiny Committee which will act as a kind of second Chamber for the House. This committee will be able to take the place of the committee of the Whole House for non-controversial bills that would not normally receive high priority in any Government’s programme. The committee will be chaired by the Deputy Speaker and will not have a Government majority. The intention is that almost everything referred to it will be broadly supported, so that votes are rare. The Standing Orders Committee has thought carefully about how the legislative scrutiny would examine legislation and what would be referred to it, but thought experiments do not enact legislation, so it is important that we see that it is tested once the new Parliament begins.
There were other changes agreed by the committee that should make Parliament a better place for the public to engage with. I personally am particularly pleased to see a change requiring MPs who are on the parliamentary precinct to attend select committee meetings in person during sitting weeks, rather than by joining from Zoom from their parliamentary office. For many people, making a submission is the only time in their life that they directly engage with Parliament. People travel from all over the country to come here and to make an oral submission, often only for 10 minutes. It is incumbent on us as elected members of Parliament to give them the respect they deserve by being physically present and listening to them in person.
Similarly, just as a Minister will need to explain why a bill may be skipping select committee entirely, there will now also be a requirement for a Minister to give a reason if they choose to refer a bill to a select committee for less than six months. This is not necessarily to discourage that practice, because there will be cases when it’s needed, but it does put the justification on the record and will help members of the public understand why the Government has made that decision. It is another step towards increasing transparency in the legislative process.
There were many other changes agreed by the committee, and I’m sure other speakers in this debate will address some of them. These include making the pecuniary interests register clearer and fairer, looking at how select committees can use modern technology such as artificial intelligence to help manage the sometimes overrun submissions process, and further refining scrutiny weeks for the next Parliament. I’m incredibly proud of the work that we have done to make the next Parliament just that bit better, both for elected members but, more importantly, for the members of the public we are here to serve.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour) (15:17): Thank you, Mr Speaker, on this final sitting day of the 54th Parliament. I want to begin by acknowledging the members of the Standing Orders Committee, and you, Mr Speaker, for chairing that committee; the Clerk of the House, Dr David Wilson; David Bagnall, Principal Clerk; and all of the officials and the specialist advisers that we were afforded the opportunity to have with us, who have worked through this process of this review.
Now, uncharitably, Standing Orders can sound like the somewhat boring machinery behind Parliament rather than the substance of what Parliament actually does, but they do matter, and they matter enormously. They determine who gets heard; they determine who can object to who gets heard. They determine all sorts of things that happen in this place. It’s about how the Government gets scrutinised. It’s how much opportunity the public has to participate in these processes, and, ultimately, it is determinative of how carefully this House makes law.
So changes to the rules of Parliament shouldn’t simply be imposed by whichever Government happens to have the numbers, or whichever party happens to have the numbers at any particular time. The committee works on the basis of overwhelming support across parties, because the legitimacy of the rules that make this place work depends on all of us having confidence in those rules.
The committee has tried to do two things at once—and I agree with many of the points made by the Hon Louise Upston. These are to make Parliament work more effectively while protecting proper scrutiny and democratic participation. The first and probably the most significant proposal is the creation of this new Legislative Scrutiny Committee. The Standing Orders Committee, at least, was trying to deal with what is a very real problem, increasing pressure on House time and on select committees, while still protecting what should be proper scrutiny of legislation. The Parliament has seen a very substantial use of urgency this term. The committee heard directly about the consequences of going through legislation at pace, going through the lawmaking process too quickly, less scrutiny, fewer opportunities for members to influence legislation, less public participation, and legislation sometimes bypassing or receiving a truncated select committee process, which is very important in terms of appropriate consideration.
The legislative scrutiny committee is an attempt to respond to that very pressure and to do things in a slightly different—or, hopefully, slightly better—way for appropriate, largely non-controversial legislation, of which there is certainly some. It would provide another place for that level of detailed scrutiny to occur. It’s a new place where we could examine legislative quality, consider bills, question Ministers—still in public—and have some cases, undertake a detailed consideration that would otherwise happen in the committee of the whole House stage. The point is not to just reduce scrutiny in order to save time—and it’s really important to emphasise that—it is to free up House time whilst still preserving scrutiny, and in doing so, hopefully, reduce some of the pressures which have led to an overuse of urgency.
Urgency—it would be remiss not to comment. Urgency is, of course, a legitimate parliamentary tool. It’s used by Governments of all stripes. But it should not become the routine answer to pressure on legislative programmes. Those are about choices, and Governments make choices about what occupies this House’s time. The Government devoted a significant amount of time—this House’s time and select committee time—to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill this term, which went through a huge select committee process and was ultimately defeated. It also progressed several bills, including things like the English Language Bill, through all stages this year, some of which many people considered completely unnecessary. When Governments say there is not enough House time, it is also fair to ask how that time has been prioritised.
Now, the second point follows directly from that. Where urgency is still used, we do also need to make sure that there’s a greater accountability for bypassing that scrutiny. Under these proposed changes, a bill read for the first time under urgency would still go to a select committee process unless the member in charge specifically requested that it skip that stage and therefore has to, with some particularity, explain why that is warranted. That’s a modest but important safeguard and we’re yet to see how that will play out in reality but we hope that that works well. If a Government wants to remove an important stage of the parliamentary and public scrutiny, it is only fair and reasonable that they should at least have to explain why.
One of the other important parts of the work of the Standing Orders Committee was, as always, looking at financial scrutiny. One of Parliament’s most fundamental constitutional roles is holding the executive to account for the money it spends. The scrutiny weeks were introduced following the previous Standing Orders review, in which they established a parliamentary calendar. This Standing Orders Committee has received the feedback from that and decided that those changes shouldn’t be overruled. They worked well. There were some select committees that said that it definitely seemed to improve that process, so we are continuing with that.
Finally, this report, as said, is also about modernising Parliament without losing sight of what Parliament’s for, and that includes some modernisation of processing submissions, given that sometimes, depending on the nature of what’s passing through this House, it can engage and exercise the community quite vigorously. We do need to have much more modern ways of dealing with what could be a huge submission process, and seeking stronger processes around international treaties, changes to public engagement, and clearer rules also for committees. Technology changes, workloads change, Governments change—even—but the underlying purpose of this place doesn’t. It’s important that Parliament needs enough time, enough information, and enough independence to scrutinise the executive so that ultimately we can make good law. I commend this report to the House.
SPEAKER: Ricardo Menéndez March. This is a split call.
RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (15:25): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I also want to commend the Clerk, officials, and, actually, our Green Party staffers who supported myself and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan here, and a special shout-out goes to Raewyn Tate and James Coad for their assistance in our participation in this report.
Looking at the amendments that we’re proposing to make, I wanted to actually begin by giving a shout-out to one of my colleagues—that is, the person next to me, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan—because I actually think that if you look at the amendments on page 43, there’s one that I think is the “Lawrence Amendment”, which is the one on grouping of amendments. Few people, I think, in this Chamber have been able to produce as many amendments like my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. That speaks, in my view, of both an ability to actually go through a piece of legislation well outside his remit of portfolios and actually be able to look at ways of improving it. He has supported colleagues to draft amendments. In my view, it has created a bit of a conundrum where now we have spent considerable amount of time voting for individual amendments.
Amendment 23 allows for amendments to be grouped not just by individual members but by members of political parties. I do hope that Chairpeople who are reading out amendments and choose to group those do make good and responsible use of this new amendment and provision to adequately explain why these were grouped, because we cautiously support this amendment—as we do think that ultimately it is in the interest of all Governments to be able to progress legislative agendas and members to have a right to try and improve legislation—but I do not think that this amendment would have happened if it wasn’t for the contributions of my colleague. I know that he has been asked by other colleagues across the House as to whether he has used AI to draft amendments, and I think that may speak more perhaps to the tactics that other political parties have used to draft them, rather than Lawrence. I can assure you he has never used AI.
But if we look at some of the other amendments, including amendment 19 on the legislative scrutiny committee, I think this will be one that we are also supportive of, particularly because I think that this will address the reality that Governments want to progress legislation that particularly draws public attention while dealing with non-contentious bills in a way that doesn’t use more of the House’s time. I think it’s particularly good to see the Deputy Speaker chairing this committee. I think that will elevate the Deputy Speaker’s roles as well. I think it’s good to have that committee giving the ability of all members to be able to be there and participate. One of the tensions, I think, that this committee will create will be particularly for smaller political parties who may have to juggle, for example, the ability for this committee to sit after 6 p.m., and the reality that smaller political parties will have to juggle having less members to, for example, contribute on bills during the evening, while perhaps also trying to participate in these committees. I think it’ll be good to really test how that works.
Testing how these new amendments will work is really important because we have also made improvements and changes to how things like scrutiny week work. Scrutiny week was a feature of the last Standing Orders review—one that I think was really welcomed. It’s really good to see the amendment to enable, for example, in-depth reviews to occur beyond just one meeting. One of the challenges I think, in the annual reviews has been the tension between Opposition parties and Government members on the length of those reviews. While, initially, I think there was a lot of good faith, in my view, of giving large agencies like the Ministry of Social Development adequate time, that time has actually, for some agencies’ or Ministers’ sessions, been sort of trimmed down. That is really concerning because I think scrutiny week should afford the time of non-executive members to actually scrutinise how decisions by the executive are made.
I don’t want to remark on the use of urgency, and particularly the Leader of the House’s remarks that your urgency was not used to bypass scrutiny. I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t think any member can really say that when there is urgency, there is adequate scrutiny. When we have had urgency, we often rely on massively redacted regulatory impact statements, at times—no input from stakeholders and experts. While we may have a committee of the whole House stage, I don’t think that actually is a good replacement for the reality that we still need to hear from the public. While there are amendments here that seek to improve and better justify the use of urgency, we remain concerned about the precedent that this term of Parliament and this Government have set over its use. But overall, we really support this report. We commend everybody who’s worked on it, and I think this will, hopefully, lead to improvements in our democratic processes.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (15:30): Mr Speaker, thank you. I rise to give my final speech in the 54th Parliament on the Standing Orders report.
Now, I think one of the things that’s really important, as my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March said, is the importance of the Standing Orders, but also the Standing Orders reviews—one of the most important documents that we have here in the New Zealand Parliament. This particular report is important in the sense that not only does it introduce a few elements but, also, some tidy-ups, which are much needed.
With that, I do want to thank you, Mr Speaker, as the chairperson of the Standing Orders Committee and thank you, Dr David Wilson, as Clerk of the House, and everyone at the Office of the Clerk for helping us through this, and everyone in all political parties who took part in the Standing Orders review to get us to where we are.
There are a few things I do want to touch on, further from what my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March has said. Most importantly, the legislative scrutiny committee is something that is going to be introduced in the new Parliament, and I think that is going to be something that we’re looking forward to seeing how it’s going to work in practice. As my colleague said, it is going to be chaired by the Deputy Speaker and, with that, it’s also going to have equal membership between Government and Opposition party members, just to ensure that whatever does happen within the legislative scrutiny committee is able to have the same transparency but, also, the same robustness as what we do here in this particular House.
I note that the legislative scrutiny committee could take part in or replace what is considered the select committee stage between the first and second readings, as well as, for some bills, even committee of the whole House, between the second and third readings, with the approval of the Business Committee. I think that’s really important, when we’re looking at how that is going to be working in practice—ensuring a level of oversight by the Business Committee.
It was mentioned previously, I think, by the Leader of the House that there are some elements in the report around the use of artificial intelligence (AI). This is something that we are approaching in an incredibly cautious way with how AI can be or could be used in terms of looking at some of the submissions. I think one of the things that the committee and the report is very clear on is to ensure that there is still a high degree of oversight in terms of how and when that could be used, and the committee must still be asked permission in order to undertake that, noting that we have seen in select committees a significant increase in submissions in this term of Parliament, particularly on the Justice Committee. With this, there has been some allowance that has been given in the analysis—or the expediency when it comes to analysis—of some of the submissions. Again, this is something that I think is important and prudent for the 55th Parliament and the future Standing Orders Committee and select committees in general to keep an eye on.
A couple of other things I want to touch on is, number one, some of the changes to the omnibus bill and some of the changes to the way that we look at minor updates. This is specifically to Standing Order 267. I think it’s also an important ability for any Government to be able to include more minor amendments or the allowance to have more minor amendments—again, pending the approval from Business Committee—incorporated as part of an omnibus bill, particularly when minor amendments affect more than two principal Acts.
Something that’s very important to me and very dear to me is some of the adjustments to international treaty examinations in Standing Order 405. The reason I say that is because, currently, as part of our dualist system, international treaties can be signed up to by any Government and that includes trade agreements, and then it goes through a trade examination process by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. But then the agreement has already been signed, and there’s very little ability to truly really examine the agreement when any Government has already signed up to the agreement. Of course, it only becomes domestic legislation if there is an ensuing domestic law. While we didn’t get everything we want to see in terms of, I guess, the specific ability for Parliament to scrutinise any executive branch of the Government around international treaty examination, the review does allow the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee greater power in conducting some of those analyses, including some of the abilities to have briefings, etc.
Finally, in terms of the ongoing tidy-ups of how we now conduct the financial scrutiny with the introduction of scrutiny weeks under this Parliament, I do want to thank our previous Green Party MP, Jan Logie, for some of the work that she has done in getting this new system up and running. It’s something that we are continuously improving on. With that, we commend the report to the House.
TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (15:35): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I rise to speak on the review of Standing Orders. Again, just like my colleagues across the House, I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for chairing the Standing Orders Committee, and to the Clerk of the House and his team. It’s not a very easy task to get consensus across all of the different political parties, but that’s exactly what we did do in these in this Standing Orders review. I think it was a great process, taking the time—and I think you commented, Mr Speaker, that we started a bit earlier in this Parliament, so we took a bit more time to get to work through the different issues, which was good.
I also want to thank, actually, submitters. This is just like any other select committee, where submitters were able to make submissions on the Standing Orders. I just want to thank the people that took the time to do that. They’re actually set out in Appendix C of the report, so if you want to have a look, you can.
I’m just going to use my time to talk about a couple of areas which I think were really useful. I want to suggest to incoming MPs that they actually take the time to read the report in the new Parliament, because that’s where it’s going to be most useful. We did spend quite a lot of time on select committees and, actually, in the report, it talks about what is the purpose of a select committee. I think a lot of discussion has been because of the large number of submissions that a lot of select committees, including the Justice Committee, got in this Parliament. We’re actually outlining, now, in the Standing Orders what is the purpose of the select committee process. Again, it really is to try and result in high-quality legislation.
So it’s really providing—and, again, that’s why it’d be important for MPs in the next Parliament to read this: it provides a bit of an outline as to what is the objective of the select committee process so that when select committees are going through legislation and getting submissions and deciding who’s going to submit, they can say, “Well, are the submitters we’re going to be hearing from actually going to help us deliver high-quality legislation—yes or no—or are there other reasons?” So, again, just to say you don’t actually have to hear from every submitter and actually think about the value of the submissions on a particular bill and what it might add. I think there’s some really good material in the report around that; making sure that when you are hearing from submitters, it’s actually aligned to that purpose. Again, I think that’s going to be useful for the next select committee members.
The other one, and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan talked about this is, is just talking about some issues around omnibus bills, but particularly regulatory systems bills. We saw quite a few of those in this Parliament, as we’ve seen in other Parliaments, but they’re being now specifically called out as a type of omnibus bill that can be used. They are really important bills, regulatory systems bills, because they do keep our statute book up to date. I think that was a really good discussion.
The other one, again, is around scrutiny week. This is the first Parliament that has had two weeks set aside for different types of scrutiny. I don’t have anything to compare it with, because it’s my first term, but, again, I think just acknowledging some of the learnings from this Parliament around scrutiny weeks—what can be improved or done differently. That provides some really good guidance for select committees.
The only other two things I’m going to call out were just around petitions. We actually had a sessional order in this Parliament around highly discriminatory content in petitions to Parliament. We don’t want to be hosting or allowing petitions that do have highly discriminatory content, so we had a sessional order, which has now been put into Standing Orders. I think that process we worked really well, and I want to thank both the Clerk and the Petitions Committee for bringing that process to us, and seeing how that worked and how that’s now being put into Standing Orders.
Finally, I just want to draw people’s attention to Appendix B, which is a really helpful table which talks about Parliament’s workload. You can actually look, over quite a number of Parliaments—I think we’ve got seven set out there—at the number of hours we’ve spent on sittings, different extended hours, committee of the whole House, petitions; everything. It’s a really good resource. You can actually see how this Parliament has compared to others: the number of bills—everything. Again, I think that’s a really useful piece of the report, and I think it’ll be used by people. So, with that, obviously, I want to commend this to the House. Thank you.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) (15:40): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the review of the Standing Orders 2026 carried out by the Standing Orders Committee.
Obviously, we’ve got a number of recommendations in front of us today. Some of those I will touch on briefly, but, firstly, I just thank you for your leadership, for chairing the committee, for your wise words as we went through a number of different submissions on different issues; to the Office of the Clerk and to Dr David Wilson for your reports, that were always timely and very well informed. Obviously, transitioning now from the 54th Parliament, what we’re sitting in today, into the 55th Parliament, my reflection with the Standing Orders is that this is something that has, over many Parliaments, been refined, and what we’re doing here is just, as the Leader of the House did mention, making this a better process, making this place a better place for the 55th Parliament. As we did see last week, there are still times where we get caught off guard, when we were in urgency last week, and there’s going to be continual need to refine these Standing Orders every Parliament. It is something that we just keep refining as we go forward.
The select committee, if we go back, actually first sat on 30 July 2025, so it has been a very long process, but starting early has been able to give us, I think, a better result than trying to put it into such a short period of time. We received 86 submissions, we received 27 oral submissions to the select committee, and the report back also takes into account the three petitions that the select committee had in front of it.
The most major change in front of us to the House is the Legislative Scrutiny Committee. That’s something that is going to be new for the 55th Parliament. From all parties involved, we’ve come to the conclusion that that is the best thing to trial in the 55th Parliament. It is there for those non-controversial bills, stuff that otherwise might not be prioritised, and pieces of legislation that Parliament struggles to get to with the workload that we do have. This Legislative Scrutiny Committee no doubt will need some refining. It is something new, but I think we all struggle in this House, from time to time, with some of the processes through the committee of the whole House, the hours that are spent, often on legislation that we all agree on. This opportunity to trial this new Legislative Scrutiny Committee is, I think, something that will see a lot more legislation passed but also the more important pieces of legislation actually debated in this Chamber.
Also, around the scrutiny weeks, there is some clarity around Estimates and making sure that Ministers are available around Estimates—not so much around the annual reviews—and also that question in scrutiny weeks of making sure that the business that is conducted in those weeks is actually scrutiny and not other business in front of the committee.
An important part, also, was the select committee having a purpose statement. That purpose statement—I think it’s on page 17—actually sets out that the primary purpose of considering a bill is to ensure that, if the bill is passed, it results in high-quality legislation. Why I bring that to the attention of the House is that we’ve received a massive amount of submissions on bills in this term of Parliament. I think it’s, like, 700,000 submissions; 39 bills have attracted over 1,000 submissions. What that actually relates to is, in the past 30 years of the House sitting with legislation, 1.4 million submissions in 30 years, but 700,000 of those have been in this term of Parliament. With the amount of submissions being received through select committee, having a purpose statement—it is not practical any more to hear from everybody, but it is actually making that quality of legislation.
One part important to New Zealand First, that we did comment on through a submission, was members’ attire—how members actually present themselves in this House. There is a statement here, and something that you did circulate, Mr Speaker, during this term of Parliament, about how the expectation is, obviously, set by the whips and, obviously, our leaders, but, importantly, in the Standing Orders now it does include that men must wear jackets, women must have covered shoulders, T-shirts are not acceptable, and clothing that conveys a graphic or message is not acceptable. I think that, from New Zealand First’s point of view, we’d probably like to see something a little bit stronger, but it is in the right direction.
Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Winston likes things that are a bit stronger.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE: The other thing—thank you, Chris, for that. The other part to that is, on page 147, what was alluded to by the last speaker, Todd Stephenson: the combined statistics, and the work that this Parliament has done was up to something like 1,773 hours of Parliament’s time, counting the committee of the whole House time. It’s the busiest Parliament that there has ever been, so those statistics going forward are only going to increase, and the numbers that are included there are only up to 11 September. Obviously, with the urgency debates last week, that time frame will push well over 1,800 hours.
On all that, it was really a pleasure to be part of that select committee—learnt a lot—and I commend the report to the House.
SPEAKER: Before I put the question, I just want to put on record thanks to Dr David Wilson for being so generous with his time and guidance to members, but also to David Bagnall, who was a key adviser to that committee, for his work. This report is the result of a very collaborative process, and I have no problem saying that the question is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion agreed to.
Sittings of the House
Adjournment Debate
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister) (15:48): I move, That the House do now adjourn until 2 October 2026.
Mr Speaker, let me begin by thanking you and your wise leadership of this House, and also, to everyone who has kept this place working over the term: the cleaners, our Copperfields staff, the messengers, Hansard, VIP drivers, the Dignitary Protection Service, security, Parliamentary Counsel Office, the library, IST, select committee staff, finance, travel, reception, building staff, the Cabinet Office, our sign language interpreters, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, electorate office staff, private secretaries, and everyone in our offices who makes it possible for us to do our work here, can we say thank you, thank you, thank you.
Can I thank our coalition partners: to David Seymour and to Winston Peters, to all of our colleagues across ACT and New Zealand First, thank you for all of your work this term. Despite every prediction, we have delivered strong and stable government at the moment New Zealanders needed it most. We have shown that three parties can disagree honestly and still work together for New Zealand; we have found common ground, and we have governed in the national interest.
I do want to pay a special tribute to my National Party colleagues, because they are working away in select committees, late night sittings in urgency, making sure that the promises we made to Kiwis make it through this House. The long hours here away from their families, the long hours back at home solving problems for their constituents, showing up at the school galas and also the public meetings.
A few thankyous for the other side, too. Can I just thank Willie Jackson for his absolutely outstanding services to the National Party this term? Can I thank Ayesha Verrall, whose relaxed and easy going nature has brought such levity to this Chamber? And can I wish Chris Hipkins all the very best with his now four-year attempt at “just getting warmed up”? I have to say, if that’s him getting warmed up, I’d hate to see him having a lie down!
I’m incredibly proud of what this Government has achieved. Let’s start with the economy, because three years ago, New Zealand was in trouble. Under Labour, spending grew at one of the fastest rates in our history. Debt tripled, from $60 billion to $180 billion, and it doubled as a share of GDP. For all those billions and all that extra spending and debt, we didn’t get better schools; we didn’t get safer streets or shorter hospital queues. What we got was inflation at a 32-year high, we got food prices up 12 percent, we got higher interest rates, and we got a massive debt bill that’s loaded up on our kids and our grandkids. That is the Labour formula: it is simply spend more, tax more, borrow more. It didn’t work then, but they want to do it all again if they get in.
Now, on this side, we are getting the books in order. We are stopping a billion dollars that was spent on consultants and contractors. We have halved the price of a new classroom. We are cutting the waste. That means that we can invest more in front-line services. You’re seeing that in health and education. We can invest in those services with no new taxes. We are growing the economy, and growth means jobs, and it means higher incomes. When Todd McClay set out to land a free-trade agreement with India this term, people said it couldn’t be done, but we did it. That means real opportunity, and it means prosperity for all Kiwis across New Zealand. When Chris Bishop set out to fix the Resource Management Act, people said it couldn’t be done, but we did it. That means that this country can now crack on and get things built and get things done. When we promised tax relief, we did it. Nicola Willis delivered the first tax relief in 14 years, because we believe the best place for a Kiwi’s hard-earned dollar is in their back pocket, not sitting over there with Chris Hipkins to waste as he did.
Let me set the record straight for just one last time, please. Is National considering a capital gains tax?
Hon Members: No.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Are we considering a land tax on your farm?
Hon Members: No.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What about scrapping Investment Boost?
Hon Members: No.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: An inheritance tax?
Hon Members: No.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: A new 45 percent top income tax rate?
Hon Members: No.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: And what about bringing back Labour’s rental tax?
Hon Members: No.
Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Good. Well, Labour and their mates are lining up nine new taxes, to cover off $18 billion of election freebies. And what’s our answer? Our answer on this side is: no new taxes.
Well, I’ve got to tell you, New Zealand is heading in the right direction. We have 22 months of manufacturing growth; record exports, up $20 billion; tourism back above pre-COVID levels; first-home buyers are actually a record share of the market, at 29 percent; rent rises are their lowest in 25 years; more Kiwis are choosing to come home for good. In fact, the ones from Australia are up 14 percent; the ones from around the rest of the world up 7 percent. Most importantly, growth is outstripping Australia, the UK, the US, EU, Canada, and Japan. We know it’s been a hard few years, but this is a resilient country that knows, if we stick to the plan, our best days are ahead of us.
Labour had exactly one law-and-order goal when they were in power, and that was to cut the prison population, irrespective of what was happening on the streets and with crime. I have to say we’ve learnt that “soft on crime” doesn’t work, because violent crime went up 33 percent, retail crime doubled, ram raids quadrupled—all under a Labour Government. So what did Mark Mitchell and Paul Goldsmith do? They put three-strikes together, tougher sentences, and more police on the beat. They banned the gang patches; a new anti-stalking law, and real action on retail crime. Wouldn’t you know it, when you stop making excuses for offenders and you get on the side of victims and start enforcing the law, it actually works! We’ve got 37,000 fewer victims of serious violent crime, serious youth crime is down 26 percent, the ram raids are down 85 percent, and the police out there on the beat doubled, which is fantastic. Incredibly, one of the parties that Chris Hipkins wants to govern with has on their website, “If you’re not trying to abolish prisons, what are you doing in Parliament?” I’ve got to say, well, National is unapologetically backing our police and victims, not the criminals and not the offenders.
Now, Chris Hipkins was the Minister of Education for five years, and I have to say the record is utterly, utterly shameful. In a First World country, only 46 percent of our kids attended school regularly; 47 percent, by the time they got the high school, were at the standard they needed to be in reading; and, sadly, at high school, only 23 percent were at the standard that they were needing to be at in mathematics. I’ve got to say, Erica Stanford, on the other hand, is doing an excellent job, because she is teaching our kids the basics brilliantly: an hour each of reading, writing, and maths; phones out of the classroom; a brand-new Curriculum; structured literacy; structured numeracy; a relentless focus on attendance; and the biggest investment in learning support in a generation. What are the results: 176,000 kids back at regular school attendance; kids making 12 months’ progress in mathematics in 12 weeks.
I think one of the worst things that Chris Hipkins did was he scrapped the health targets. Instead, Labour focused on a Māori Health Authority and reorganising the district health boards—not on improving outcomes for patients. The result was longer stays in emergency departments (EDs), longer waits for surgeries, slower cancer treatment. Well, Simeon Brown, and Shane Reti before him—they are turning that around. We have brought back the targets. We’ve invested a record $34 billion in health this year. We’ve boosted doctor training. We’re building a Waikato medical school. We’ve funded 66 new medicines—33 for cancer. And we’ve delivered 51,000 elective surgeries in a single three-month window. As we saw today, it is working: shorter ED wait times, faster elective surgery, faster cancer treatment, higher immunisation rates, and shorter waits for a first specialist assessment.
New Zealanders have been knocked around by COVID, by lockdowns, by inflation, by Trump’s tariffs, by war in Iran, but things are turning around. We know, in the National Party, that this is the greatest country on Earth, with extraordinary potential still to realise if we make the right choice. This election is a very straight choice: a National Party growing the economy so Kiwis can get ahead, or a radical—a radical—Labour coalition addicted to spending and taxing and borrowing. The choice is poverty or prosperity; chaos or competency; nine new taxes or no new taxes. Be under no illusion, a Labour coalition is going to tax every single ounce of aspiration out of the people trying to leave the next generation better. That is not a New Zealand that we believe in in the National Party. In 45 days, I’ve got to tell you, New Zealanders are going to get a choice, and it’s going to be on our record and on who has the better plan. Make no mistake: this is a policy election.
A party vote for National will deliver economic growth, new jobs, higher wages, tougher consequences for criminals, more police out on the beat, more trade deals, better school results, replacing NCEA and teaching the basics brilliantly, 30 weeks of paid parental leave, better infrastructure, roads of national significance, new classrooms and new and upgraded hospitals, 5 percent deposits for first-home buyers, universal KiwiSaver, higher contributions, and a $1,500 baby boost, and, most importantly, no new taxes. Yes, there’s more to do, but we are building a future for New Zealand where hard work is rewarded and families can get ahead. There is no time to waste. Our best years are ahead. Bring it on; party vote National.
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) (15:58): Traditionally, a Prime Minister’s speech in the adjournment debate is light-hearted and contains some humour. I was worried when Christopher Luxon got started, but then he decided to talk about the Government’s track record, and the humour arrived unexpectedly! Three years ago, I said that if Christopher Luxon went into Government with David Seymour and Winston Peters, they would run circles around him. Well, it’s just as well they work in a round building, because they’ve run the carpet threadbare. I also said Christopher Luxon would have to get better at answering questions. On both of those predictions, I think I was right; on both of those predictions, we have seen no discernible improvement under this Government.
They promised to fix the cost of living. They have made everything worse for New Zealanders. This is a Government that’s had the wrong priorities, that’s been out of touch with New Zealanders, and now, they are out of time as well. This is a Government that has been focused on their own jobs, not the jobs of New Zealanders.
I want to share three stories in this adjournment debate speech which illustrate the real track record and the real New Zealand of this Government. The first is from Tauranga. An emergency department nurse came up to speak to me in a car park, and she said, “Mr Hipkins, I saw you on TV, and I wanted to say you were wrong, because you said that our emergency department was often in crisis, and you got that wrong. We are always in crisis under this Government.” Those nurses and doctors in our emergency departments feel like they are always in crisis. The numbers prove that and back them up. This Government has descended our health system into an absolute crisis, and they have no plan to fix it. Fifty-four new nurses in two years is the best they can do. Many of our hospitals have fewer nurses working in them today than they did three years ago. That is the track record of this Government. It is no wonder our hospitals are in absolute crisis. That emergency department nurse was right.
The second person who I spoke to in the last few weeks was a business owner here in Wellington—
Rt Hon Christopher Luxon: Oh, yeah, that would be right—Wellington.
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —a small business owner here in Wellington, a hospitality business owner here in Wellington. I know Christopher Luxon hates Wellington; he’s just proved that, once again, with his interjection. On Budget day, he said that from there on in, his turnover went down by $1,000 a day because this Government announced they were going to cut 9,000 more jobs. Those 9,000 job losses won’t just affect people working in the public sector; they will affect the private sector as well. That business lost $1,000 a day in turnover because of the axe that is now hanging over the jobs of 9,000 people. But it’s not just the 9,000 people; it’s everybody else who doesn’t know whether they’re going to be one of the 9,000 people who is now facing that uncertainty under this Government.
The third story I wanted to tell was about people I spoke to in the supermarket at the weekend, a couple with a newborn baby, who came up—
Hon Member: In Wellington?
Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, that was in Wellington. I live in Wellington. I live in Wellington. I speak to people here in Wellington. A couple came up to me while I was doing my supermarket shopping—which, coincidentally, Prime Minister, added up to a lot more than $60. They came up to me, and they said they just can’t make ends meet. They feel like they’re doing everything right. They go out to work—both of them work—and yet they can’t make ends meet. They’re doing everything that the country asks of them. They work hard, they contribute, and yet they don’t feel like they are better off with their own hard work. And they, like so many others, are considering leaving the country. Record numbers of New Zealanders have left the country under this Government, and the exodus is only going to continue if this Government gets re-elected. We cannot afford three more years of this Government.
Let’s look at the track record that Christopher Luxon is supposedly so proud of: higher unemployment—50,000 New Zealanders who had jobs three years ago don’t have jobs now. That’s his Government’s shameful legacy. Youth unemployment is up, with nearly 100,000 New Zealanders under the age of 25 doing nothing. They’re not in education, they’re not in employment, and they’re not in training—nearly 100,000 New Zealanders. That is our future that this Government is writing off. Wages have been going backwards for New Zealanders, and this Government, the National Party and their mates, want to freeze wages for three more years. They’re not talking about freezing anybody’s costs. They’re not talking about freezing board directors’ fees, which they’ve hiked up by up to 80 percent. They’re saying that those people who go out and earn salaries and wages should have their wages frozen if they get re-elected. This country cannot afford three more years of this Government.
Then there are the tens of thousands of women up and down the country that had their pay cut by this Government in the dead of night under urgency, because this Government doesn’t think the work of women is worth the same as the work of other New Zealanders. It was one of the most disgraceful and shameful things that I have seen happen in this Parliament, passing under urgency a law that took away pay equity from the woman who have worked so hard to get it—care and support workers who work hard in our rest homes, caring for our elderly in their own homes, now earning barely minimum wage under this Government. It says everything about where this Government’s priorities are. Eighty to 90 percent increases in fees for company directors, but pay equity for hard-working women in New Zealand gets cut.
New Zealanders face a clear choice at this election. Where this Government promises more chaos, which is what we’ve had, we will offer the stability that New Zealand deserves. Where they promise more cuts, we will invest in New Zealand’s future. Where they offer fear, we will offer New Zealanders hope. Where they embrace conspiracy theories, we will back science. Where they offer arrogance and entitlement, we will offer humility and service, because that is what public service and politics should be about. While they offer blame, excuses, and word salad, we will offer honesty and answers—something this Government has spent three years avoiding delivering.
Homelessness is up, and their excuse—their answer—to homelessness: just pass move-on orders; make the problem go away by making it less visible. KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals are at record levels, food prices are up, business liquidations are up, and attacks on migrants and Māori are happening more and more. This is disgraceful behaviour by this Government, and the National Party have a lot to say on a lot of issues but not when their own coalition partners attack migrant New Zealanders. They tout the India free-trade agreement, and yet they don’t mind Ministers in their own Government talking about a “butter chicken tsunami”. They had nothing to say in defence of migrant New Zealanders when that happened. They had nothing to say in defence of Chinese New Zealanders when the Minister of Foreign Affairs chose to attack them. They have nothing to say on the division that Ministers in this Government have been stoking. They’ve shown no leadership on those issues, and now they’re going to go cap in hand to those same communities and ask them to vote for them. Why should those communities vote for them when they weren’t willing to stand up for them in Parliament when their own Ministers were attacking them?
Better is possible. Labour will offer New Zealanders real help with the cost of living, making sure that you can get to see a doctor and that you don’t have to go to a hospital emergency department because you can’t get in to see your doctor or you can’t afford to see a doctor; making sure public transport is more affordable for New Zealanders, with a public transport fare cap of $20 a week, or $10 a week in the provinces; making sure people can install solar panels on their roof; taking on the supermarkets; telling all New Zealand corporates that we will not tolerate price gouging in New Zealand—we will make sure Kiwis stop being ripped off and get a better deal—standing up for Kiwis in a way this Government has completely failed to do for three years; backing New Zealanders back into work by supporting the 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand that are small businesses, who have been completely forgotten by this Government; helping young New Zealanders into a trade by restoring the Apprenticeship Boost that was cut by this Government; taking action on AI, where our Government has been completely absent on one of the major issues facing humanity.
This Government has completely failed to do the thing that it promised to do. They promised to fix the cost of living; they made it worse. They promised to get New Zealanders back to work; they’ve increased unemployment. They promised to fix the health system, and Kiwis are dying in hospital waiting rooms. This Government are out of ideas, and they are now out of time.
CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) (16:09): What I would say to you is that I want to start by thanking the workers who actually make this place tick. That is, the cleaners, the clerks, the security guards, the Chamber officers, the messengers, the librarians, the Coppers and catering staff, the team at the Parliamentary Service, and our dedicated lean Green parliamentary fighting team. Shout-outs to all of the press gallery, who are up there doing their best to report on the rolling trash fire that is this Government’s one term. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for finding a way to kick me out of Parliament more times this term than Winston Peters for the crime of asking whether we could find any Government MPs with a spine. For the record, I never actually said that the Government MPs were spineless; I simply asked if we could find six of 68 Government MPs with a spine to sanction Israel for its genocide in Gaza, but clearly we could not find an answer to that question. But, as we know, in this place you can’t say that something is racist if it is racist, and you cannot call a lie a lie. And, clearly, you can’t say that an MP is being spineless if that is what they are. It turns out you cannot even ask the question. You can, however, as this Government does every single day, serve its corporate mates.
Let’s take a little moment to do a retrospective of what Christopher Luxon, Winston Peters, and that other guy have done with their three years in power. They came to office three years ago and reinstated the Resource Management Act, which the previous Government had already replaced. Then they spent three years complaining about that very Resource Management Act, which they had reinstated, only to finally claim victory yesterday by finally scrapping the law that they had put back in place. Congratulations, guys. It must have been really difficult to pat yourselves on the back for doing something that the last Government did, but worse.
Then, before Christmas, under urgency in 2023, they revoked the Inland Revenue Department’s ability to report on the unfairness of our tax system. I wonder why the Taxpayers’ Union wasn’t up in arms about that one! But, then again, the Taxpayers’ Union was also missing in action when the Government chose to dish out $200 million in taxpayer money to subsidise new fossil fuels in the middle of a fossil fuel crisis. Of course, the problem, Christopher Luxon believes, is not with corporate greed; Christopher Luxon’s problem is not the bloated corporations that are ripping New Zealanders off on their energy and their grocery bills. His problem isn’t that our infrastructure is failing or that we are too dependent on imported fossil fuels and therefore exposed to imported inflation. No, Christopher Luxton’s problem is the environment, that pesky Treaty, those school kids and their lunches, the teachers, the nurses, the firefighters, the small businesses, and those pesky frogs.
Nothing will get in the way of the Government’s growth agenda. Not the climate that is necessary for life on Earth as we know it. Not the health of our soil or our air or our water. Not those bloody fish in the oceans. Not the biodiversity on our public conservation land, and not the endangered geckos or skinks or moths. Indeed, Christopher Luxon has decided that it’s the kiwi who are the problem, getting in the way of all of those motorways that he thinks we need to build. It was a dedicated ministry for the environment that was the problem, so he disestablished that. Christopher Luxon decided that women actually are the problem, so he took away the rights of 300,000 of our lowest-paid working women to access pay equity. In fact, it’s actually renters who are the problem! So he passed law to allow landlords to evict 1.5 million people without any cause, undermining every single other right that they have.
In Christopher Luxon’s New Zealand, it is the Public Service and the poor who are the problem, so his Government has cut benefits for the severely sick and disabled, pushed 47,000 more children into poverty, and intentionally increased homelessness to the highest levels that we have ever seen. But don’t worry, the Government has decided that they will just empower the police to move those homeless people out of sight and out of mind! Christopher Luxon has delivered us the highest unemployment that we have seen in 11 years. Then he decided that we’re going to sanction those who are struggling to find work. But don’t worry young people, Christopher Luxon has not forgotten about you! While one in three young New Zealanders is currently looking for more work that doesn’t exist in Christopher Luxton’s economy, he has decided to make those young people financially dependent on their parents, increase their tuition fees if they decide to turn to studying, and told them to just move to where the jobs are. So 178,000 New Zealanders have taken the Prime Minister’s advice, leaving their home and our country, along with taking their skills, their creativity, and their energy.
But here comes the Government with the full power of the Public Service to tackle the real problems! Under their direction, this Parliament has spent hours and hours making English an official language, and the three men in charge of this country have decided to waste all of our time defining what a woman is. Here we are, in the middle of the campaign, and Captain Simeon Brown is at the helm. I was first introduced to his handiwork two decades ago almost, when we were both students at the University of Auckland. Lecture theatres had been littered with flyers filled with disinformation about abortions. Simeon’s Pro-life on Campus was later disaffiliated by Arena Williams from the Auckland University Students Association, but it was an early exposure to just how this man works. Now he’s graduated to big boy tax billboards and AI slop.
Look, I know the National Party hates the arts and they hate artists, but you’d think with all of those corporate donations, perhaps they could pay some creatives to design their attack ads—although I will say one cool thing about all of these artificially generated illustrations of KiwiMart is just how popular it is. That’s the funny thing: this Government cannot run on its track record. It is, frankly, embarrassing. Instead, they have decided to attack the very idea that the Government could actually do something with the power that it is given to improve the lives of New Zealanders. In Christopher Luxon’s world, people don’t work together; they screw each other over to make as much money as possible. That is why this Government has no vision, no aspiration, no plan to bring us together to do the things that none of us could ever achieve alone. It wants us fighting each other as their donors laugh their way to the bank.
The Greens believe in the power of New Zealanders. We believe in this plucky little country’s ability to lead the world. We believe that nature should flourish. We believe in fixing what is so obviously broken. We believe in making life easier, less exhausting, and, God forbid, more fun for all New Zealanders, and that is why we are in this building.
I was actually probably a little bit dumb, given how long it took me to realise that that is not the same reason that all politicians are here. One day, early on in this term, when we were in the midst of one of the many urgency sessions spurred on by this Government’s lobbyist wish list, I must have had my head in my hands, and Rawiri Waititi turned to me and said something that made it all starts to make sense: “Politics is a game to these guys.” Politics can be a game when you’re wealthy and sorted. Politics can be a game when you’re entitled to your entitlements, Prime Minister. But politics is not a game when it is the difference between whether your family can eat, whether they have a roof over their head. Politics is not a game when you sit with the reality of the climate crisis. I know that means that we get a reputation for being uptight dorks. I know that it means that we get a reputation for being angry, but I make no apologies for caring about this country, because that is the point, if there has ever been one.
Hon Shane Jones: Drill, drill!
CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I want every New Zealander to know that, in the real world out there, Shane Jones, we here in this place are fighting for you, to fix the real basics necessary for all New Zealanders to live a decent life—for Te Tiriti o Waitangi, because it is indeed ironic that the Prime Minister doesn’t recognise Māori sovereignty despite his co-Deputy Prime Minister being the most self-sovereign individual that Parliament has ever seen. Winston Peters is living proof that Māori never ceded sovereignty.
For affordable bills, healthy nature, and honest politics, the Greens are fighting for New Zealanders every single day, for a country that works for all of us.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Deputy Prime Minister) (16:19): Mr Speaker, thank you. I couldn’t help but think, if Chlöe Swarbrick’s speech just then needs background music, it could be set to “Help!” by The Beatles as a perfect accompaniment.
I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for this term of Parliament and your work; my coalition partners, fellow leaders Winston and Chris, for the way we’ve worked together more successfully than our worst enemies’ worst nightmares to put a record amount of legislation through this House, making New Zealand a better place. I particularly want to thank all of those who work across the parliamentary precinct, some 700 people, and especially my colleagues in the ACT Party, who have shown up every day with courage and conviction to make New Zealand a better and freer society. Particularly, I want to farewell Mark Cameron and Brooke van Velden. I think their valedictories, for us, have been highlights of the term—a pure expression of why they came here.
I think, if we’re honest, this country faces some challenges that it has faced across Governments. Productivity growth has been too low, for 15 years at 0.2 percent. Houses have been too expensive, recently as high as 10 years’ income to buy one. These are challenges that require serious solutions, executed well, over time so that problems which grew up over a long period can be fixed.
The most urgent need is, first of all, to lock Labour out of power, because we know that they won’t make it better, but worse. The Labour Party was soft on violent crime and gangs. You can’t trust them on law and order. If you can’t be safe on the streets, you can’t produce an honest buck. But, even if you can, you know they’ll tax it and then borrow $120 billion more, putting debt on to you and your grandchildren. When you hear these speeches, the visionless, energy-less nothing from cynical Chris Hipkins; the madness of business class Chlöe—and we can only dread what may be to come; hopefully at least a laugh from Rawiri—you see why it is so critical to lock Labour out.
It is even more important—it is even more important—that we unlock this country’s potential. I would argue that the ACT Party has played a consistent, effective, and honourable role in this Government at unlocking this country’s potential. We do that in three ways. One is that we need a smaller, more efficient Government. We need to spend less and get better results. The ACT Party can point to $14 billion of savings from our Ministers and our policies over the last three years. We worked out that’s $57,000 for each person who voted for us. Now, when you consider it’s free to give your party vote to ACT, that’s got to be a good deal.
We’ve also stopped three new taxes during this term of Government. We welcome new disciples to the “Church of No New Taxes”, no matter how recently they may have sinned. All are welcome. We know Chris has changed churches before, and we’re glad to see him at our one, preaching “no new taxes”. But there’s something more than that. We don’t just need to stop reaching for people’s money in new taxes; we must ensure that our Government is smaller and more efficient, has fewer Ministers, fewer departments, and has clear objectives, with one Minister in charge of one department, with one chief executive that they’re responsible for and can hire and fire. When you do that, you get a real focus on efficiency, which I don’t believe we’ve done enough of in this Government, but I’m proud of the effort that our party has made to ensure that the savings are there—a smaller, more efficient Government that delivers the medicines on time, that gets the children to school, that makes sure that they’re safe if they’re taken into custody by Oranga Tamariki, that the court system goes faster, and that you can even get your passport so fast it’s almost not worth paying for the rapid service.
That’s just a few of the things that ACT Party Ministers have been up to in this Government. Even as Andrew Hoggard has acted as a one-man biosecurity defence army, keeping every kind of bug, from microbes to pests and—
Hon Andrew Hoggard: And hornets.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: He stopped the yellow-legged hornets by putting little devices on them. I mean, there is nothing that Andrew Hoggard cannot do in defence of the realm against biosecurity threats.
The second thing we’ve got to do, other than have a smaller, more efficient Government, is be safe. We brought back three-strikes. We defunded cultural reports after we found the last Government was spending more on sob stories for convicted criminals before they were sentenced than they were spending on Victim Support. Then we said, “If you attack someone working sole charge or at a place that’s adjacent to their dwelling, that’s an extra crime.” But we’ve got to go further. We’re going to make it a crime to coerce someone by animal abuse, perhaps the most despicable crime in this country that I’ve been shocked to learn about in the last few years. We’re going to make sure we throw the book at it. We’re going to get tough on shoplifters, with accredited security guards, and we’re going to ensure that burglaries—if you get caught for three, you’ve probably done a heap, so you’re going to jail for three years for three-strikes burglary.
Then there’s something else we’ve got to do to unlock the potential of this country and get prices down and productivity up, and that is stop the stupid rules and the red tape that has tied New Zealanders up in process instead of production. Again, this Government has made a fantastic start. We’ve done fast track. We’ve replaced the Resource Management Act with new laws based on property rights. We’ve got new medicines consented faster. We’ve got new agricultural and horticultural products consented faster. We’ve made sure that the Holidays Act has been replaced with something that actually makes sense for small business. The Ministry for Regulation has saved at least a quarter of a billion dollars by cutting red tape out, sector by sector by sector. This Government, I believe, will be seen as a turning point where we began to start saving money and saving time by stopping tying people up in red tape that draws people into process instead of production. That is work that we will continue in the next Government, carrying out a jihad on red tape so the potential of New Zealanders to produce more of the day, more creatively, with more Xeros and ZURUs, more Halters and Gallaghers. We’ll make sure that higher-paying jobs are available so New Zealanders can afford more of the things that we need.
Finally, if we want to really unlock the potential of this country, we must ensure that we each are valued as human beings with hopes and dreams, with equal rights no matter when it was that our ancestors made the pioneering journey to these islands. We should not be judged differently based on which wave of migration brought our family here, whether it was in our own lifetimes—or, in my case, starting 600 years ago. We are all united as New Zealanders who made that journey, and I’m proud that, in this Government, when two patients come in for pre-diabetic medicine, they both get the same treatment, based on their clinical need now, not treated differently, where one pays and the other doesn’t because one’s ancestors came here at a different time. It’s the same with bowel cancer screening.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh David, that is not right.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes, that is right. That’s exactly what we’ve done. Carmel Sepuloni needs to keep up. Then you look at the Māori Health Authority, gone; three waters, no longer co-governed. This Government has brought about one law for all and one future together. Yes, we started a debate no one else had the courage to start, let alone follow through, on the true meaning of our Treaty. It cannot be the case that our founding document is the Treaty, that the Treaty divides us into a partnership between races, and that we are a liberal democratic society. You can have any two of those, but not all three at the same time. That is why the ACT Party will continue to campaign for one law for all, one future together, equal rights before the law as human beings, not discriminated against on the basis of when our ancestors arrived in this country.
This country has great potential; it has great hope. If we can ensure that the work of this coalition Government continues, that the streets remain safe because victims are the priority in the home, in the shop, and out in public; if we can ensure that the Government is smaller and more efficient—perhaps with 10 or 15 or 19 departments but far fewer than we have right now—and if we can ensure that we have a red tape jihad that frees people up to be more productive and spend less time in compliance activity; and if we can treat each other as New Zealanders, equal before the law, regardless of when we arrived, there is no limit to what we can achieve. There is no reason that we should not be the wealthiest country on Earth, and there is no reason we should not be proud to call New Zealand home, as the greatest society that humanity has ever known. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) (16:30): As this Parliament adjourns, it’s appropriate to record our thanks to the cleaners, the library staff, the security teams, Hansard staff, committee clerks, chauffeurs, receptionists, and every other worker in this House, including yourself, Mr Speaker, your deputy, and assistant speakers.
Now, adjournment debates are traditionally a time to outline a politician’s record in this House across the term of Parliament. Unlike others, we have the rare privilege of actually having a record. That is why we say thank you to Shane Jones, Casey Costello, Mark Patterson, Jenny Marcroft, and their teams supporting them in their Government portfolios and, indeed, to the entire New Zealand First caucus and our team.
We are a party limited by the Standing Orders to only four member’s bills at any one time, but we have introduced 56 private member’s bills in the last term—56. That means we’ve done the work, we’ve done the research, we’re not all talk—fast on the lip and slow on the hip—no, we do the actual work.
These bills represent—[Interruption]—no, you can cheer later; you can applaud later—new ideas in line with New Zealand First’s values of social conservatism, patriotism, economic nationalism, and common sense. Our bills will be ready to be adopted in the forthcoming coalition agreement, and members of our supporting governing parties will, no doubt, look forward to advancing the interests of the common man and woman in the next term of Parliament.
We cannot get too far ahead of ourselves, because there is much too much good news to share in our record of this term. When New Zealand First makes an agreement, we keep our word. We’re famous for it too. You need to not judge us only by our words but by our deeds. We said the regions needed investment. We invested $1.2 billion into the regional infrastructure fund—money directed into productive and resilient assets around this country. Jobs, jobs, and jobs and wealth created in New Zealand with training chances for our young people.
We said that the Therapeutic Products Act was the wrong law, overtly complicated, over-bureaucratic, and a threat to the natural health products sector. And it was repealed. We said young New Zealanders waiting for mental health assistance needed practical help right then with providers like Gumboot Friday. We kept our promise. By November last year, more than 40,000 counselling sessions had been delivered through the Gumboot Friday programme.
We said English, the international language of commerce and the language used overwhelmingly in this House—including by the Greens, on a good day—should have the same statutory recognition of its official status that other official languages have. On 7 August this year, that became the law.
We said New Zealanders were entitled to a wider examination of the country’s response to the COVID-19 occurrence and not a mark-your-own-homework exercise as happened under Labour. The expanded royal commission completed its work and delivered its final report in February this year. It found young people between 12 and 17 were given second doses when Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verrall were told not to do that; 311,000 young people wrongly got the dose.
Labour were found scurrying amongst nurses and teachers—meaning training professionals who were desperately, desperately needed in hospitals and classrooms—and they sacked them. They mandated them out of a job. And then they get in this House every day and talk about a lack of nurses and doctors—hundreds and hundreds of which they sacked. The Opposition yells about the need for more teachers and nurses—well, shame on them for mandating them out of the profession.
We said our citizens deserved recognition and practical support. Budget 2026 funded the next generation of the SuperGold card, including the option of a free physical ID that seniors have long called for.
Then there is the question of the infrastructure. While others campaigned to get our country back on track, you need look no further than New Zealand First to get evidence of who actually delivered it—$1.075 billion for rail network funding in Budget 2026. This is the first time ever a full three-year programme has been funded in advance—not fiscal cliffs like under Labour.
On the Cook Strait: we fixed the ferries for road and rail, and we’re going to save $2.3 billion from the idiocy we inherited, where the ferries were going to cost 20 percent of the total cost. So you go to buy ferries and they spent 80 percent of the money on infrastructure. How foolish. Go look at Tasmania and see where that would have got us; $2.3 billion saved—
Hon Rachel Brooking: Government by text message—what a shameful way to govern!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Don’t argue about the common sense of this. I know you’re slow. Can I ask you this question: what’s your business background? What’s your business background?
Hon Shane Jones: Zero!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Zero—exactly. It ain’t hard to get it right when you have experience—unlike the last lot who pursued palatial department allowances and wanted to lift the arts so high that Noah could berth his ark. When the fuel crisis hit our shores, who ensured we finally sorted out increased storage at Marsden Point by nine days, just like that? That’s right, it was New Zealand First.
Likewise, this House has finally grappled with the 1980s misadventure of the legal fraternity to invent Treaty principles. Now, I know imitation’s the most sincere form of flattery, but how many people now agree with us? Māori leaders like Ngata, Pōmare, Buck, and Carroll all understood the Treaty was a pact between two peoples to create one nation, one people under one flag and with one name. They understood the Treaty has no principles in it. This country has had it up to here with the wah-wah-wānanga delivering nothing but grievance founded on spurious words invented by the Labour Party. The country respects the Treaty signed in 1840—not the made-up nonsense written in those 1980s university clubhouses. That is why we have repealed those provisions with certain legislation—and we have more work ahead of us.
That is what it looks like to understand reality. We know what a Treaty is; we know what a woman is—[Interruption]. Oh, it’s got them going. One more time: we know what a woman is—hush for a while—and we know what realpolitik looks like in foreign affairs. We’ve got the experience; the others are all talk.
In our efforts, we have spent eight months abroad rebuilding New Zealand’s relationship with the world, including visiting all 17 Pacific member States and China—yes, I’ve been to China, not once but twice. Yes, I have a great relationship with China. Of course, I was the first guy to ever have a business connection with China when I did the export education in 1997—the first deal ever; you’ve all forgotten. So we’ve been offshore for eight months.
But, look, we’ve spent more time in this House than every Māori Party MP combined, including the two who got chucked out. Now, tell me, what on earth is going on in the mainstream media when I have to tell you that information? All this time, since 1867, the law was changed to accept Māori into this Parliament and they don’t turn up, for the first time ever.
Members, there is much more work ahead to fix this country. To govern a country, you need to know the ropes. The world is tough out there in reality and away from the cloistered comfort of the Green and Labour Party MPs in the leafy suburbs.
We are the party who ensured the minimum wage, who lifted and strengthened the fast-track legislation to enable industry to create jobs for our own, and who knows what hard work looks like. New Zealanders are sick and tired of globalist ideologies capturing politicians and leading to industry closing down and people losing their jobs—
Hon Member: Tell us about the gays, Winston!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Look, come to Tauranga on Saturday afternoon at 2 o’clock to Trinity—it’ll be wall to wall again. The only party that is filling the halls in this country—it’s called democracy, it’s called market share, and it’s called logic. Now come and learn; you just might find out something.
You see, the Greens have been here trying for Parliament since 1972; 54 years and they’ve never been in Cabinet—54 years, never been in Cabinet.
Francisco Hernandez: And we’re still bigger than you, mate. You won’t be around next time. Bye-bye, Winston! Bye-bye, Winston!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, “Bye-bye, Winston!” Stand back, sunshine; I’ve got news for you. I’m coming back real big-time. We’re coming back with an army. We’re going to come back much bigger. Oh, don’t wave out to me. You should get up shortly and make your valedictory speech, because you guys are going to be out of here. No, we’re coming back—not for the first time. Out there, there are hundreds of thousands of people who’ve realised one thing: there’s a party that understands this country better than any other and that offers real hope for tomorrow. Thank you very much.
RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) (16:40): Thank you. How generous. Thank you for that applause. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe e te Pīka. This is the second time I’ve mihi-ed you today. I just want, again, to pass on these sentiments and thank you for the hard mahi, and also to all the staff here in Parliament for making the House work. This is my last speech I will give in the House under this Government, but like Arnold Schwarzenegger said, I’ll be back. This has been the most anti-Māori, anti-Tiriti, anti-taiao, anti-worker Government in a generation, and they have finally run out of numbers on the clock. On 7 November, we will issue their move-on orders from this House.
This is a Government that challenged our resilience, who we are forced to activate against, and although we couldn’t count on them, we have run their numbers. It took them two days to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora. They removed 24 Māori wards from local councils across Aotearoa; that’s 24 tables that will no longer have an unapologetic Māori voice. A hundred thousand voters—that’s how many people will be disenfranchised because the Government’s parties are afraid of our voting power. A hundred and eighty thousand women—that’s how many hard-working wāhine had their pay equity claims cancelled under urgency so that this Government could give out handouts to landlords and corporations.
They removed section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, and they have weakened Treaty obligations across education, pae ora, and the Resource Management Act. There are 19 more Treaty clauses that they will weaken or remove if we don’t vote this Government out. Four million dollars—that’s how much taxpayer money was wasted on the failed Treaty principles bill. Fifty days—that’s how long Te Pāti Māori MPs were suspended from this House for daring to challenge the most racist and ignorant bill of this century. This Government overturned at least three major court decisions; they entrenched the theft of our foreshore and seabed with the marine and coastal area amendment bill; they protected the biggest polluters in Aotearoa from litigation; and they legalised the killing of those, Chlöe, pesky kiwis. They have prioritised the erasure of our rights and privilege of our whenua—wow.
Over 112,000 people in Aotearoa don’t know where they’re sleeping tonight. One in seven tamariki is living in poverty. One in four tamariki Māori is living in poverty. Māori continue to die seven years earlier than non-Māori, and Māori unemployment has gone from 6.8 percent to 10.8 percent under this Government’s watch. These are the numbers under this Government, yet when Te Pāti Māori challenges the lived reality of te iwi Māori in this House, we are met by excuses and justifications centred in statistics of crime reduction and incarceration. A Government that measures the success of te iwi Māori in crime reduction is one content with keeping our people incarcerated. A Government that measures its wealth in the tax breaks afforded to the 2 percent is one content with keeping its country in a cost of living crisis. A Government that measures its “clean, green” New Zealand image in only tourism sales is one content on allowing mining and drilling and the further degradation of whenua Māori for profit. A Government that measures its unity in the regression of equitable policies is one that doesn’t understand Te Tiriti o Waitangi and has never read Matike Mai.
When Te Pāti Māori stands in this House, this Government calls statements performative. I would argue that should be said for the Government’s ability to create positive change for this country. The Prime Minister can reject the characterisation of our questions in the House, but we reject how this House characterises te iwi Māori. Despite everything this Government has subjected te iwi Māori to over this term, and the harmful rhetoric and narratives they have generated, I want to share the real stories, and stats, our people live in: 312,000 people are on the Māori roll; 100,000 people hikoi-ed against the Treaty principles bill and this Government; 300,000 submitted against the Treaty principles bill; and te iwi Māori’s population is now almost one million.
Hon Member: 30 seconds.
RAWIRI WAITITI: Our stats live—point of order. I was under the understanding we all get 10 minutes?
SPEAKER: No, it’s a split call.
RAWIRI WAITITI: It’s a split call.
SPEAKER: Yeah, sorry.
RAWIRI WAITITI: I will go to the back page, Mr Speaker; 8 November will be an opportunity for New Zealand to see a brand new Government. If you want to see more Māori in Parliament, if you want to see a one-term Government, and to maintain an unapologetic Māori voice, the only way you can do that is candidate vote Te Pāti Māori. That is how we do that. This is the last stand that this Government will make. Come 7 November, you’ll be bye, bye, goodbye. Kia ora tatou.
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) (16:45): Democracy should work for all of us, not just the wealthy few. Te Tiriti has always been about taking the best possible care of each other, but right now a handful of very rich and powerful corporations can buy access and influence the Government for their private benefit.
In 2024, an Ipsos survey revealed that two-thirds of people feel that the economic system is rigged totally in favour of the rich and the powerful. Yet, it is Te Tiriti that has been weaponised as being divisive, despite the generosity that Māori have shown to all people for generations, whether it is marae opening up when the roads are closed, feeding and caring for multitudes of strangers with the utmost manaaki, whether it is iwi and hapū restoring the health of our rivers and oceans, native forests, and native taonga species for all of our mokopuna to enjoy, whether it is iwi and hapū providing social and health services to whoever needs it in their communities.
They label Te Tiriti as being divisive, despite the overwhelming majority of select committee submissions from the public and diverse organisations pleading to the Government that Te Tiriti and the relationships with local Māori have been vital to improving their work; that’s churches, unions, local and regional governments, local businesses, even developers, environmental groups, migrant groups, professional bodies, health bodies, and just ordinary members of the public who outright reject the attempts of these Government parties to sow division, who come with all the receipts of how Te Tiriti is one of the last bastions of protection for the environment, for workers, and for a community voice. That is why Te Tiriti is the target: because it stands in the way of the outright exploitation of our living systems, of workers’ rights and safety, and of community voice.
Which brings us back to where the real, unelected representation has always been, and it’s not Māori on boards wanting to ensure there is accountability for environmental protection that benefits everybody. No, the real unelected representation has always been the underhand, backdoor connections between political parties who are refusing to tax their billionaire and big corporate donors, and who instead want working people like tradies and nurses and the local barbers to keep paying twice the effective tax rate of someone who owns 50 houses. To copy and paste the demands of the wealthy straight into their law; that is where the real divide has always been.
The good news is that the Green Party will take big money out of politics. We will cap political donations at $30,000 and ensure that only people can donate and not companies. The Green Party has consistently stood by our values and our evidence-based policy solutions, to prioritise the wellbeing for the many and not just the few. We have not just a powerful opportunity to get rid of this Government, who have shown outright that they are here to serve billionaires, and bugger everyone else, but people have the chance to demand a Government that prioritises affordable living, healthy nature, and democracy for all of us, not just the powerful. Thank you.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance) (16:50): Well, I thought that was a very good example of the co-leadership in action. Marama Davidson has certainly been taking Chlöe Swarbrick’s advice to touch grass. I think the only problem is there is such thing as touching too much grass.
Colleagues, this is a time for gratitude, and I want to express some gratitude to a few people; first of all, to you, Mr Speaker: this is the first term of Parliament I have not been kicked out once, and I want to recognise you for that. Thank you.
SPEAKER: Well, thank you for highlighting my failures.
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Ha, ha! In particular, I want to acknowledge the extremely special piece of correspondence I received from you—in your handwriting—reminding me, as the Minister of Finance, of the existence of the Parliament Act 2025. I shall always treasure that correspondence.
I want to also acknowledge the staff at Copperfields, especially the baristas who pour long blacks directly into my veins, along with all of the unsung heroes of the precinct: the cleaners, the messengers, security guards, the Crown car drivers. These people don’t just deliver apricot danishes—but they do do that—they provide numerous moments of genuine kindness every day in this place. Chamber staff, Office of the Clerk, Parliamentary Counsel Office, Parliamentary Library, researchers—all these people who keep the democracy going. The members of the Press Gallery: in an age of declining trust, short-format video, clickbait, you soldier on and democracy is better for it, thank you.
I want to acknowledge my caucus colleagues in the National Party, and also our dedicated National Party members and volunteers all over the country. They are the very, very best people, and I am so looking forward to campaigning with them.
Our coalition colleagues: it has been an honour to have delivered this country’s first three-way coalition, and boy oh boy, have we got stuff done. Yes, there have been things on which we have differed, but we have gotten so much done for the good of this country.
I want to acknowledge the agency staff, especially, in my case, the Budget and fuel response teams; departmental private secretaries; my extraordinary political office staff, who have saved me from so many potential troubles, and whose grace and kindness continues to astound me.
But I feel that while we have achieved a lot for New Zealand—the first tax relief in 14 years; Investment Boost, ensuring tax incentives for those investing in growth and development; extending contributions to KiwiSaver; the tightest spending allowances in years, and yet prioritising investments in things that really matter: 33 new cancer drugs on our watch; the biggest boost for special education in our schools in decades; the FamilyBoost payment to help parents with the costs of early childhood education; funds in each of our Budgets to restore the dignity of the New Zealand Defence Force and the men and women who put their lives on the line for our country; backing our police; building infrastructure; getting things done.
But it is wrong in a speech like this to save all congratulations for the Government. I do want to recognise the Opposition. I really want to hand out some awards to them. I think the first thing we need to recognise is that if Parliament handed out medals for political gymnastics, Labour would have swept the podium this term. Yesterday, in a routine that would have scored a perfect 10 from the East German judge, Chris Hipkins performed the finest backflip this House has seen in a very long time. For three years, that member, backed up by his chorus of MPs, has practised one routine and one routine only. For every problem that has been ever described under this fair sun, he has had something to blame: it’s the tax cut for landlords! Interest deductibility—that was the problem. Whether it was the cost of living, whether it was unemployment, whatever it was, the problem was tax cuts for landlords. But then yesterday, we had a dismount, and we had—what I’ve been told they call in gymnastics—is a case of the “twisties”. Now, what happens with the twisties is that when you’re rotating in mid-air, you suddenly lose your sense of direction—completely lose your sense of direction—don’t know what’s up, what’s down, where you’re going, what you’re doing, and you panic. You panic in mid-air when you get the twisties, and I think this is what happened to Chris Hipkins yesterday. He was in mid-air, he realised he had no plan, he had no policies, he had no energy for the campaign, and he went, “Actually, I’m going to flip it and reverse it. That is exactly what he did.
Speaking of routines gone wrong: Ginny Andersen—can we just recognise her? She tried her signature move on live radio a few weeks ago, telling Mark Mitchell that road maintenance is not funded by the National Land Transport Fund. “You don’t even know what you’re talking about.”, she told him. “It’s a separate fund—you need to go check that.”—you need to go check that—“[if] you want to be credible on financial things, then you’re really kidding yourself.” She learned the truth during the ad break: there is no separate fund for road maintenance. She attempted a Hipkins-like backflip to correct herself, face planted on the mat, and then— this is the impressive part—got up and instead insisted that the beam had moved.
She is said to be receiving some coaching from Willie Jackson, her senior colleague, who is a master at never letting the facts, or your absence of policy, get in the way of the story. In fact, in Willie’s experience, the best way not to let the policy get in the way is to be blissfully unaware of it—that way, you don’t even have to defend it, you can just say, “I don’t know, ask Barb.”
This is actually someone I do want to spend some time on. On the one hand, I see in the member for Mana, a lack of imagination—51 times she’s asked me the same question this term. But on the other hand, I feel genuine sympathy for Barbara Edmonds, and let me let me tell you why: because she is surrounded by people who know one thing and one thing only, and that is how to spend other people’s money. That’s what they’ve done all their political careers, and that’s what they want to do with the rest of their political careers. They have gone out there and they’ve promised, so far, $18 billion worth of promises. And they’ve said, “Barb will tell you how she’s going to pay for it”. Barbara’s been sitting there with the calculator, trying to make it add up, and she knows it won’t add up. Maybe one of the little fig leaves she was holding on to with hope was, “Well, I think the leader will let me raid the landlords for the interest deductibility. I think I’ll do that.”—but, no, even that little glimmer of hope was taken away from her yesterday. But the good thing for Barbara is she knows that in a case of emergency, she can break glass. What is in that little glass that she can break if she really can’t make it add up? Well, the good news is Craig Renney’s got some ideas.
He’s been a bit painful for her, he’s been kind of competing for the role, but Chris Hipkins put him down the list, so he’s got his message. But he has come up with the idea—he said, “Look, this whole idea on a capital gains tax (CGT), don’t make it narrow, make it comprehensive.”, and that’s his plan. I just want to say with friends likeCarmel Sepuloni, Barbara—I don’t know how you do it. She was asked, on Morning Report, how Labour was going pay for its promises, and this is what she opened with: “Well, we certainly wouldn’t be giving tax breaks to landlords.” That was her answer! Poor Barbara, she’s left there going, “How on Earth do I make it up?”
But here’s the thing—actually look at the mates they’ve got in the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Yes, Chris Hipkins is half baked and he’s got no energy and he’s got no policies, but look, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are brimming with ideas, they’re generating new taxes every minute. And don’t worry: Chris Hipkins says. “Well, trust us, we’ve sort of ruled it out.” This is the same guy who said he’d never deliver a CGT—and what’s he campaigning on? A CGT. If the leader of the Opposition can backflip on tax deductibility in the space of one press conference, why should anyone believe a thing he rules out between now and polling day? You can’t trust Labour on tax. You can’t trust Hipkins. There is a way forward for this country, we stick to the plan—no new taxes. Don’t let Labour ruin it all again.
SPEAKER: The Hon—[Interruption] At least start with a bit of silence. I call The Hon Carmel Sepuloni.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) (17:00): In about 6½ weeks, the Hon Nicola Willis is going to look back on that speech and think, “Is that really the valedictory I wanted to deliver?”
I do want to reiterate some of the thanks to the staff that have been given by many of those that have spoken before me today. I also want to acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, even though Willie Jackson is speaking to you—not the first time that Willie Jackson has interrupted anyone—and, Mr Speaker, I want to acknowledge that I sit rather close to you and I do have a voice that carries—
SPEAKER: Yep.
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —so thank you for your tolerance over the course of this term.
I’m going to take a slightly different tack and acknowledge the fact that we are all going into campaign mode. Campaigns are hard work. They are not for the faint-hearted. I’m pretty seasoned now—not as seasoned as some in here—and as an experienced campaigner, I thought I’d offer up some do’s and don’ts to Government parties as we all head out into the wilderness of the campaign trail. These particular words of advice that I’m going to offer up are based mostly on the learnings of the past three years, observing the members of current Government parties, a Government that will go down in history as the coalition of chaos, and a Government that will be the first ever one-term National Government.
Now, what not to do on the campaign trail. My first piece of advice: do not ride scooters on the campaign trail. As we all know, our emergency departments do not have the capacity, let alone the nurses, to deal with avoidable injuries, particularly given there’s been only 54 additional nurses added over the last two years.
Second piece of advice: steer away from discussing sports teams when you know nothing about sport. No one wants to be the guy who refers to his childhood respect for the Crusaders when the Crusaders did not even exist during his childhood; and no one wants to be the guy that gets the Waratahs and the Warriors confused.
Do not say, “What I would say to you”. People can see and hear when someone is talking out loud. You are not thinking in your head. There is no need to premise every answer with that statement. Best not to talk about growth, growth, growth, Nicola Willis. When people hear National say those words three times in a row, they think they are referring to the growth in unemployment, the growth in business liquidations, and the growth in Kiwis moving overseas. Even if the three words were said by Nicola Willis whilst she was clicking her heels together, no one would end up in a better place.
Please, also—and this is a serious one—do not pretend to be political parties who support women. Women are not stupid. The scrapping of pay equity and the decision not to pay women what they are worth will go down in the books as one of the most shameful acts of this Luxon-led Government.
Now, on to the do’s for the campaign. It’s important for politicians to sound like they are in touch with the everyday experiences of New Zealanders. Telling them to cry you a river when talking about the cost of living is out of touch. Try hard, Government parties, to be honest about the alternative policy positions of other parties. People will tire of lies about taxes. I know how hard it must be for the current Government having nothing positive to talk about after three years, but people can sniff the desperation, and it is not mana-enhancing for any of you.
What parties must do is look like they actually support their boss. Two failed coups in National haven’t helped with their boss’s credibility. To be honest, you already look like the try-hard dad in the schoolyard or at the PTA meeting before his own team turned on him. I know that’s a little bit mean, but so was scrapping pay equity.
Most importantly, keep at the forefront of all statements and actions what is important to New Zealanders. Their jobs; not the jobs of politicians. Their health; not the healthy size of some political party donations. Their homes; not the multiple homes of those politicians trying to avoid a capital gains tax. Their cost of living; not the $60 a week one guy reckons is all he needs to do his grocery shopping. And finally, their country; the one thing they love, and the one thing they feel has gone backwards. It may hurt Government parties whilst out on the campaign trail when they hear people say over and over again that they simply cannot do three more years of this National-led Government. Suck it up and remember: “Better starts now”.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (17:05): Well, that’s the end of the most anti-Māori, anti-worker, anti-rainbow, anti-disability, anti - New Zealand Government that we have seen in our lifetime. You’ve got to ask yourself, why are they so weak? Well, because they’ve got a weak Prime Minister, who has allowed David Seymour and Winston Peters to take this country to a place that would shame Chris Finlayson, shame Jim Bolger, and shame Sir Douglas Graham.
The Prime Minister can’t control New Zealand First and ACT, and they have polled 6 percent and 8 percent. My God, imagine the nightmare—imagine the nightmare and the influence—if they return with greater majorities. We’ll fight to make sure this never happens.
Hon Shane Jones: Bye, bye, Willie. Haere rā, haere rā!
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: We’ll never forget what they’ve done—never forget what they’ve done. Their assault on Te Tiriti obligations. The Waitangi Tribunal found the Crown’s approach to the education changes breaches Treaty principles. That means nothing to Shane Jones. He’s a disgrace to his people in the North. He no longer supports principles he formerly supported when he was a young, recognised, and principled young man.
This racist friction that came about through the Treaty principles referendum cannot be complete without us acknowledging the honourable member for Epsom; the member who, this year, has managed the extraordinary feat of introducing a bill, losing it in the largest protest march in New Zealand history, and then telling us all he won. I mean, how delusional is that? The Treaty principles bill, 300,000 submissions against; the Regulatory Standards Bill opposed by every major Māori organisation, every legal academic who submitted, and at last count, the entire common-sense caucus of New Zealand; but the member for Epsom marches on, because he’s on a mission—a mission to erase kaupapa Māori and change the Treaty.
Meanwhile, on the National benches, the Prime Minister, whose biggest achievement this term was to fend off Chris Bishop and Erica Stanford and his mates—we want to thank the Prime Minister. We want to thank him very much for staying the Prime Minister. He’s Labour’s best chance of winning this election. He’s not here, but I wanted to thank him and acknowledge his acknowledgment of me earlier in the day.
Hon Mark Mitchell: And you’re our best chance of staying in Government.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: You know this, Mark Mitchell; you’re in big trouble. When you look at the Public Service and what’s happened here, at a time when every second news story is about the Public Service failing in terms of underfunding, they attack the Public Service. Look at the economic vandalism that sees one in three Pacific kids in poverty, one in four Māori kids in poverty, 5.6 percent unemployment, 10.8 percent unemployment for Māori. And, of course, let’s not forget the fast-track development that weakened environmental protections—
Hon Shane Jones: Fast track! Gold! Gold!
Hon WILLIE JACKSON:—for Shane Jones’ donor mates. For Shane Jones—that’s what the Greens said—and for their mates. We’ll never forget the school lunches, where hungry kids became an experiment in how cheaply lunch could be made, thanks to Mr Seymour again. What about the appalling pay parity betrayal? New Zealand women must never forget the betrayal of this coalition Government. New Zealand women do not count for this Government. They are a disgrace. Pay parity means so much to us, and we will change the position and reinstate equity.
This Government came to office promising to fix the basics. Instead, they have made it worse. Three years later, unemployment rose, thousands of public servants went, hungry kids became the norm, environmental protections were weakened, and Māori spent the term watching rights and Treaty obligations stripped from statute after statute.
They told New Zealand they were cutting bureaucracy, then spent three years restructuring the machinery of government. They told us they were restoring accountability, while their own officials warned that some of the Treaty changes had no apparent benefit and risked serious damage in the Crown-Māori relationship.
Perhaps that arrogance, in terms of ignoring officials, is how we should remember this lot. Because when the experts warned them, they knew better. When communities protested, they knew better. When Māori marched, they knew better. Well, now there’s one group of New Zealanders whom they don’t get to tell that they know better, and that’s the voters. Kia ora Mr Speaker.
TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Tai Tonga) (17:11): Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Mr Speaker, thank you, and thank you for the call today. I’m going to take my opportunity to just present a little bit about what hope and vision has looked like for te iwi Māori over the last 50 years. The story of advancement and development for te iwi Māori over the last 50 years has been one of clear vision, of hope, of determination driven by the people. It’s never been about gaining things from Parliament and Governments, although they’ve played their role. The people have driven that growth and that development. We thank everyone involved, and to the people, [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.], and the people of Te Tai Tonga, tēnā koutou.
The debates, or the kōrero, this afternoon—it’s quite defensive, you know? It’s what we’ve done, and what we haven’t done, what they’ve done or what they haven’t done, what we’re going to do—all of this type of thing. But, really, the people in our country need to hear vision. They need to hear vision and commitment, drive, hope. What does the future Aotearoa look like, instead of just stones going across the aisle here?
And then I’m reminded of some things that great Māori leaders have said. One of them was Dr Ranginui Walker. And he said, “I have little time for people in privileged positions in our country, who use that privilege to attack the most vulnerable of our society.” Those aren’t my words; those are Dr Ranginui Walker’s words.
And as I think about the actions of this House over the last three, six, 30, 50 years, they ring true—they ring true. They are great words that last for ever, not like these ones that are just going to be here now and gone later. But those people shaped the course of Māori development. Those people shaped the course of Māori building out of what is one of the darkest ages for any people across the globe. And the story of Māori advancement, Māori development, is one of those stories. Māori have to live with the reality of it. The Māori whānau out there, living right throughout Aotearoa, have to live in the reality of it, and the reality is crippling.
Our people were once trapped in low-income work and poverty-type situations. They’re now firmly entrenched in poverty and homelessness. They are being shuffled further and further down the ranks, slipping through the cracks, while some in the country just keep going the other way. But when the majority are left behind and a few advance, that’s not the story of a people’s development; that’s the story of the development of only a few. And it ultimately won’t last.
Our development and our potential as a people has always been in our hands, e te whānau. It’s always been in our hands, and our story of Māori advancement, Māori development, is an astonishing one.
Over the last 50 years we’ve reclaimed more ground than was taken from us in 180 years, and that frightens a lot of people. The parliaments and people of power and influence in this country held that power in their hands for a very, very long time, and in the last 30, 40, 50 years, that grip has slowly come undone. And that’s an uncomfortable thing, for them. But what we should never forget is that that’s the story, that’s the reality, and despite the temperament of Governments that come and go, we remain and the story of advancement continues.
The Māori economy is one of the newest players, the newest pieces, in that development story, and everyone is all of a sudden interested in it. I’m reminded of the words of Whata Winiata, who said to us as a people that the best way for us to reclaim and retain our rangatiratanga and our mana motuhake is to behave as if we never lost it. And the story of Māori development is that in action, e te iwi, so make sure that we keep that in our hearts—those things that our rangatira said over decades, and has been the bedrock, the driving engine of the vision, the hope, the determination of te iwi Māori, and that is how we continue on. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Tai Tokerau) (17:16): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. This is a first, again, for me, to provide an adjournment speech. I’ve listened to a few so far, and I’m thinking, “Shucks, is that how those things are meant to go?” So I’m thinking, well, no, that’s not, from my point of view. So I’m going to approach it in a different way.
Firstly, the obvious thing to say is to thank you, Mr Speaker, for looking after us in this particular piece of this Whare—and I think in a good way, and I think in a fair way, and a loving way. So mihi atu ana ki a koe.
And I acknowledge the other Speakers as well, who in fact I had the opportunity to travel to Japan with, at your request. Thank you for that, too, because it was a bit of a homecoming for me, having the time that I spent there, and I appreciated being back in that particular piece of the world.
Ironically, you might recall, Mr Speaker, that we were at a summit meeting, which is interesting because it’s important in this context, because you never know when your name and your children’s names are going to show up. Suddenly somebody on this summit table on that side asked me about my son’s name, because he meets him every three months in Nelson. So, again, you know, it’s interesting, the privilege and the responsibility that this role provides us, which I’m grateful for, by the way.
To all the clerks and all the coffee makers, and all the people that keep this House warm, and look after us, mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa.
I want to mihi to my mate Doc, sitting right here. I want to mihi to him—he’s a great man, he’s a loving man, he’s a family man, he’s a fisherman, and he backed me. And he backed me in one of the most important times that I needed that. He backed me—
Tom Rutherford: An absent man from the House.
MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI: Tom, that’s enough, thank you, or whoever else is chatting over there. He backed me, as good men do, and I’m grateful for that, because that’s why I get the opportunity to remain in this House for Te Tai Tokerau and bring this speech to you today.
I want to acknowledge the team. So we’ve got Tapi and Sue and Maia. I want to say Maia’s name because Maia is beside me all the time doing the work that I need to be able to do to stand and take these speeches, and present at select committee. So, Maia, to you, big love to you, darling; good for you for sticking with me.
In my maiden speech, I referred to the word “lioness”, because everyone, when they knew I was coming here, just said, “Gee, Meno, you’re going down to that lion’s den.” You might recall I said, “That’s true, except it’s the lionesses that do the hunting, and get the work done.” So, as a lioness, yeah, again the importance of being able to be in this House for Te Tai Tokerau and—and I expect to do that on 8 November when I have my job interview on 7 November; I expect to come back and continue to do that.
But I also have a lion cub; as all good lionesses do, you have lion cubs, and I have a lion cub. He happened to be the one that led the biggest march in this country to the steps out here, and his name is Eru Kapa-Kingi. And he’s obviously known for other bits and pieces in this House, but, most importantly, he led the march from Te Rerenga, where I was born, all the way here, with near to 100,000 people, based on love, compassion, and for all people. He knew then what our tupuna Parāone Ngāruhe signed in 1840, and I’ve trained my kids to know this: that you must stand, you must fight, and you must speak for your people—Te Tai Tokerau people, Māori people, and all people that share this land. I want to make sure to make that mentioned in this adjournment speech.
Then, in closing, I just want to say this: I went to this interesting meeting the other night—it was a “meet the candidates”. You wouldn’t necessarily find me there, because there are lots of farmers and foresters and food producers, but it was one of the best meetings, because I once was a farmer, right? In fact, just before I came here, I used to manage 3,000 bulls, 37 ropes of mussels up in Te Kao, and I learnt what a R1 was and an R2 and what bull collars are and what fences are, and how much grass seed I need to make that cow fat to get it to McDonald’s. So, yes, I do know something about Māori economic development, and I want to be part of that after 7 November.
It has been a pleasure, even when it’s been a pain, to sit amongst you, to debate with you, and have a “pint of order” with you. Kia ora tātou.
Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (17:20): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s the last day of Parliament in this term, and for some of the people across the other side of the House, you can see they are a little bit exhausted getting all the way to the finish line. For some of them, they might even need a little bit of rest, a little bit of sleep, in order to get there.
Of course, Chris Hipkins, with that lacklustre speech he gave at the start, you could tell why he made his slogan “Better start now”: because it’s not just about helping him warm up; it’s like a self-motivational statement. Every time he’s driving around the country, he says, “Better start now.” Well, the reality is he doesn’t actually drive around the country, as the Prime Minister says. He only manages to get as far as Rongotai, to the south, and slightly north of the Remutakas, to those public meetings. Well, of course, we wish him well as he tries to warm up for the campaign and get started.
For some people, when they’re sleeping, they like to count sheep, don’t they? Some like to count sheep. Well, some in this House also like to count nurses, as I’ve been hearing, quite obsessively. As tradition is in these adjournment debate speeches, having some numbers is always a helpful thing. Well, for the last time in this Chamber this term, there are 1,640 additional fulltime-equivalent nurses under this Government—a huge achievement. I’d encourage members who are trying to “better start now”, or just warm up, that counting to 1,640 might aid them with their sleep; it might put them to sleep.
Here are some other numbers: one—that’s the number of cats at Chris Hipkins’ first public meeting. No one knows what the cat said, only that the cat attended, but no one knows exactly what anyone else said, either. In fact, I have four children and we sometimes have more people at our home for dinner than attend a public meeting with the Labour Party. The number four—that’s how many parties will be needed for the left and the far left to be able to form a coalition Government after the next election: Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori, and Opportunity. What a disaster this country is going to avoid on 7 November. Of course, two of the four parties each have co-leaders, so that’s six leaders of one potential Government. What that adds up to—you know, maths and all of that. I must acknowledge Erica Stanford. She’s doing a great job getting our kids reading and writing. That all adds up to one big shambles, because 10 percent of the combined caucuses would be leaders.
The four parties, with their six co-leaders, are all promoting nine new taxes between them—nine new taxes between them. Well, at least nine new taxes, because they’ve got the capital gains tax from the Labour Party, but we’re not sure if that’s a capital gains tax or, as Craig Renney says, maybe it’s a “comprehensive capital gains tax”—ask Barb—a 45 percent top tax rate, an asset tax, an inheritance tax, a digital tax, a gift tax, a business tax, a rental tax, and a land tax. In fact, if you look at all their taxes, they will tax you on your income while you’re living; they’ll tax your house if you’ve got a rental property; and they’ll tax you on your inheritance when you die. In fact, they’ll keep taxing you—a land tax, which will be on top of your rates, as well. I know there’s also a proposition for a death tax, which means they’ll keep taxing you after you die. That’s the reality of the Labour Party, the Green Party, the Opportunity Party, and Te Pāti Māori. They want to tax, tax, tax, and this election is going to be about tax.
Some of our achievements: here are some more numbers: “32”—a 32-year high. That was inflation under the previous Government. They did it once, and the reality is they could do it again. That’s not a challenge—that’s not a challenge—even though I have no doubt they could rise to it, because that’s exactly what they’d do: spend more, tax more, borrow more. That’s why we’re campaigning so hard against the taxes at this year’s election. Eighteen billion dollars—that is the gap between what a Labour Government wants to spend and the money they’ve got available from just their taxes, just their taxes. That’s not the Greens’, Te Pāti Māori’s, and Opportunities’ taxes. No wonder they need those taxes from the other parties, because they’ve got no way of actually being able to deliver it themselves. The last number is unknown: the amount that Te Pāti Māori MPs have spent on lawyers; not to fight the system, just to fight each other. No one quite knows, do they?
Well, here’s some numbers on our side: zero. No new taxes under the next National Government. One oil and gas ban overturned this term. In three years, we’ve doubled the renewable generation that was commissioned—more in the last three years than in the previous eight. Five health targets, and all of them improved under this Government; they declined under the previous Government. Fourteen years: that’s how long New Zealanders waited for tax relief until this Government came to office and delivered it. Sixty-six new medicines, including 33 new cancer medicines, making a huge difference for patients up and down our country. Four percent: the new rates cap that we’re putting in place, which Labour still doesn’t know what they think about. Nine hundred and forty additional doctors, and add to that the 1,640 nurses you count at night if you’re an insomniac. We also have 14,200 fewer New Zealanders on the elective treatment waiting lists waiting over more than four months.
There is so much that’s been achieved and so much more to do, but of course, every election is a choice. I want to just highlight the choice and the member of the Opposition, the Opposition leader. I call him the Opposite of the Midas man—you know, the opposite of Midas. I’ve got four young children, and I love reading them stories. One of their favourites is, of course, the story of King Midas, who turns around and touches everything and it turns to gold. Well, the Leader of the Opposition, the man who wants to be Prime Minister, he’s got the opposite of the Midas touch. He was Minister of Education and achievement kept sliding; Minister of Police and ram raids became a nearly daily event under his watch, while gangs flaunted their regalia on our streets. Minister of Health: wait-lists and emergency department waits blew out. Minister for the Public Service: 47,000 public servants became 65,000 public servants, growing three times faster than the workforce at large.
Minister for COVID-19 Response: well, he forgot to order the vaccine, and kept Auckland locked down longer than needed. Of course, he then didn’t even follow the health advice, as the royal commission has now confirmed. Chris Hipkins doesn’t have a record of fixing things. He has a record of breaking things; in fact, breaking everything he touches. He’s failed upwards, and now he wants the top job again. So, when Chris Hipkins asks New Zealanders to trust him and this country again, understand what you’re actually being asked; not to trust someone new but to trust the man who’s already run the Police, the Public Service, Health, Education, and the Covid-19 response, and delivered exactly what you just heard.
In closing, it’s important that we thank all of the people who play such an important role here at this House. We want to thank you, Mr Speaker, Deputy Speaker, and Assistants. I do try hard to be good, as you know, Mr Speaker. The officials who have worn the carpet, coming in and out of my office, from Energy, Health, State Enterprises, Transport, Auckland, that I’ve held over this term; my private secretaries; my political office staff, electorate office staff, electorate team.
It’s also important to acknowledge the families. In this Chamber, all of us know the price of us doing this job. To my own family, especially my wife Rebecca, my four children, for whom, too often, I’m simply a face on screen saying goodnight at bedtime—thank you very much.
Finally, my favourite number: it’s 45 days until the election, when New Zealanders choose who they trust to form the next Government. I say to the Opposition: don’t take it personally, but I hope to see fewer of you when we return to the House. I also wish everyone all the very best on the campaign trail. Good luck and may the team offering the fewest taxes win.
GLEN BENNETT (Labour) (17:30): Fifty-four is the magic number, not of today, but of the whole of the term. He talked about the favourite number that he has, in the countdown to the election, but Mr Simeon Brown is the “54 nurses” man. I think, if we look back, we have Studio 54, which was a famous studio that was famous for glamour and glitz and parties and celebrities—very opposite to the current National Party; they have none of that. As I listened in, the comment was made about being continually obsessed with the Labour Party; all they could talk about was us—in fact, for the last three years. All I can say is, if they’re still talking about fixing the basics, it’s because, clearly, the basics are pretty broken for themselves and what they’ve done, and they need to obsess more on what they’re going to do, as opposed to what we are going to do.
Now, three years is a long time in this place. For me, it was a different experience. At the start of this term, I was out, then I was back in—something you won’t often hear a gay man say, but I will say that this afternoon. For many of you in this room, this will be your last time in this space. We acknowledge the work that people have done and how tough that is, but I want to comment as the chief whip of the Labour Party and the privilege I’ve had, and the responsibility, to take on that role. I had one key performance indicator when I came into this role and that was to never be seen on the black and white tiles as a chief whip. You know what happens if a chief whip is standing on the black and white tiles? You have not done your job, because you’re standing behind an MP who’s either apologising or resigning. Thank the Lord—touch wood; we’ve got about 40 minutes left—it has not happened under my “whipship”. Thank you to my caucus for being so diligent, so focused, so passionate, and so driven; to my colleagues, to Tracey and to Cushla for your support. Also, I do acknowledge whips from across the aisle and the work that you do together.
I was listening really carefully as we gave our speeches and comments this afternoon, and David Seymour had some really interesting comments—which I would never have thought I’d bring up. He talked about this cultist church that he was drawing the Prime Minister into—his strange Seymour-ACT church. Well, if his church is one that is callous, if his church is one that punches down and is compassionless and is mean, that’s a pretty stink church, and I don’t want to be part of that church. I don’t think the Prime Minister should either. But then, if I look at the meanness and the punching down that we have seen this term—look at our trans whānau, our rainbow communities, our Māori, our ethnic communities, when it comes to working women, when it comes to 18- and 19-year-olds, our disability sector, the homeless, the list goes on and on and on—that is a church of unkindness and meanness and we will have no part of that.
As I was listening to the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, as we’ve been preparing for the election over recent weeks and months, it’s really got me thinking about what church I want to be a part of. I think about Michael Joseph Savage. He talked about applied Christianity when it comes to the work of this place and looking after society. Then I look at the Rt Hon Dame Jacinda Ardern, and she talked about kindness, which, again, is that same thing, around how we look out for and work for people here in Aotearoa. And then, as I’ve listened to Chris Hipkins, over recent months, he uses this phrase about “a fair go for everyone”—a fair go for everyone. I think that is what the people outside of this building are looking for: a fair go for everybody; lifting people up, not punching people down, being kind, not callous and rude. I want to be part of the Labour Party whānau and church that is advocating, that is lifting people up and not pushing people down.
We do want to say thank you, because we don’t always look this beautiful and sound as wonderful on our own. We do have people all over this building and around the country looking after us—when it comes to, I think, it’s Colin and Keith in the booth up there, keeping our microphones going; when it comes to our security teams; when it comes to our electoral office staff, our staff here in this building; when it comes to the caterers, the building team, the press gallery; when it comes to the library and Hansard; the cleaners, the clerks, the messengers, the Chamber staff, and, of course, you, Mr Speaker, for really holding this place together and in good stead.
We look forward to counting down to the election, and we look forward to having more nurses in our hospitals. Better starts now.
CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) (17:36):
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
People get ready, change is coming.
You don’t need no ticket, just enrol and vote.
We need more than faith to get New Zealand humming.
Get out and tick it, and give Labour your vote.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
That’s right, Aotearoa. Change is coming, and that change sits with you. Māori enrolments are up, and, whānau, the mana is in your hands to make sure that this National-led coalition is a one-term Government. Let’s turn out, let’s vote, and make history, whānau. Ka nui tēnā. Aotearoa can’t afford three more years of this National-led coalition.
For three long years, whānau across Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and Aotearoa have told this Government what matters most to you. You have told them that the cost of living is the number one issue facing your family. They have blatantly ignored you. They have made other choices, choices that begin with
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
They’ve also takahi-ed on workers’ rights, kaimahi, the backbone, the pillars of our economy, the people at the coalface with our whānau each and every day. Even worse, whānau, they have takahi-ed on you. They have left whānau out there feeling bereft and without a voice. Well, now is the time for change, and the change starts with you, whānau. Come 7 November, you need to get out there. You need to take your mokopuna, auntie, uncle, all your breathers, whānau. Get out there and vote to make history and make sure Aotearoa doesn’t have to endure another three years of this National-led coalition. Māori mā, this is our call to action. Each and every Anzac Day, we gather to remember our fallen; those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Well, we don’t have to take up arms, e hika mā, to enjoy the freedoms they fought for. We simply have to pick up a pen and make two ticks on paper. Get out and do it and take everyone with you.
That said, during my maiden speech, I acknowledged the members opposite who serve in general electorates throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, and I want to acknowledge the members opposite and Ministers with whom I have worked, collegially, in my service of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I am sure—I’m confident—that, as we prepare to swap sides of the House, we can commit to continuing to work in that same spirit.
Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, it’s been my absolute privilege to spend the last three years serving you. I’ve spent those three years moving amongst you and bringing your kōrero back to this House and getting ready to govern, whānau.
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
It’s time for change, and that change is in your hands.
To my colleagues, what a privilege. Thank you for teaching me the tricks of the trade and getting ready for Government.
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Get out there, make sure you vote, and
Remember, the mission is an easy fix:
Put two ticks in 26.
Give it to me one time—two ticks.
Give it to me two times—two ticks.
Two ticks are in that for Labour in 2026, whānau.
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Better starts now.
[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]
Vote for change. Better starts now.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (17:41): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think, for anyone who is watching, they can tell it is the last day of school. It is the last day of the 54th Parliament. As the member of Parliament for Taupō—the very proud member of Parliament for Taupō—I do want to just reflect on this period of time. Every single one of the 123 members of Parliament who have sat in this House serve a number of people in their communities, and they do it with the best intent. But, today, primarily I rise as the Leader of the House, and I want to acknowledge our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, and the privilege that he gave me in serving in this role. I want to acknowledge the support of my predecessor, the Hon Chris Bishop. We’ve worked together very closely over this term.
Most people look at this House, they look at this Chamber, as an amphitheatre of war, where members go into battle each and every day, and it’s something to win, something to endure—blood, sweat, and tears lie on the floor. It’s all about the legislative outcomes that people are willing to fight for, and that’s the end result, the political fight, the war which captures the media headlines. What is often not reported is the amount of work that goes in to getting a bill before this Parliament. I want to just run through some of the stats of the 54th Parliament, the collective efforts of the National Party, New Zealand First, and ACT: 230 pieces of legislation—210 Government bills, 14 members’ bills, four private bills, two local bills; 240 bills have been introduced by our Government this term. Yes, sometimes it’s felt like a bit of a political marathon. My thanks to this side of the House, who have endured many hours of urgency, overtime, over time. I do have to say the Hon Paul Goldsmith takes the gold medal for the most legislation, with 34 bills enacted. Chris Bishop comes up second, with 23. I’m a little bit down the medal table, on only 10. I do want to acknowledge the amount of effort that goes into each and every one of those bills—hundreds and hundreds of hours to get those pieces of legislation ready.
I want to acknowledge some of the unsung heroes in the parliamentary process. Firstly, we are blessed in this country with phenomenal public servants. They work incredibly hard to deliver for the Government of the day policy solutions to the problems that our communities and our countries face. Then there is the Parliamentary Counsel Office, more commonly known as PCO. They do incredibly hard yards, translating the policy ideas into legislation, and they often, in our term of Parliament, have had tight time frames to do that. I do want to acknowledge and shout out Cassie Nicholson KC, who is the Chief Parliamentary Counsel, and Richard Wallace, the Deputy Chief Parliamentary Counsel, who have been incredibly helpful for our Parliament and our Government, working through an enormous amount of legislation. There’s also the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. There is also the legislation coordinator in the Cabinet Office and all of the staff who support the legislative process for our Cabinet committees. Of course, then, when it comes here, it is the Clerk’s team who are really significant in terms of making sure everything is correct according to the Standing Orders. There are also other teams that make sure the Parliament runs as best as it can. As well as the Clerk’s Office, there is the select committee staff, and Hansard.
I also want to draw on my own experiences of the 54th Parliament and reflect on the people in my own team who have helped progress those 10 pieces of legislation. In our team, we call it the “middle office”. Thank you to you all. I also want to thank somebody whose name is probably on more emails that run around this Parliament than anybody else. Of course, he would never have put his own name in a speech, but I do want to acknowledge my trusted House adviser Carlos Webster, who makes sure, with lots of challenges at times, that the legislation gets through the House on time. Also, as in every Minister’s office—and in our office, we call it the “Team Upston Class of 54”—there is an enormous team of private secretaries who are seconded from agencies. Every Minister has them. They are absolutely worth their weight in gold. I think the private secretaries who work in the Beehive are a particular special breed of public servants who deserve our acknowledgment today.
As I approach the end of my speech, I also want, given it’s the end of the 54th Parliament, to offer a shout-out to the Opposition members. We do know that, in terms of accountability, question time is a really important part of this process. The public must have confidence that Ministers will be questioned robustly and—Mr Speaker and your presiding officers—if they transgress, they will be held to account. I’m reliably informed that, during the 54th Parliament, I have faced 153 primary questions, with only 99 of them coming from the other side. It is a really important part of the process.
As I said, 240 bills have been introduced by this Government, and they have all been about making New Zealand a better place for all New Zealanders. One group of people that we could not do without are the incredible staff who work in our electorate offices. To my electorate office team and to the electorate office teams of every member of Parliament, thank you for what you do.
I want to just have a look at the legislation that our Government has passed, because we have been fixing the basics; lowering inflation and interest rates to begin easing the cost of living; reducing taxes on Kiwis so they keep more of their own money; making it easier for Kiwis to farm, to build, and to grow businesses. National has continued to restore law and order, making New Zealand safer and putting victims at the heart of our justice system. We have been getting our kids back to school, teaching the basics and setting them up for life. And, of course, now, what are we doing? We are building the future. We are growing the economy to create more jobs and better opportunities for New Zealanders. We are maintaining disciplined spending so taxes are spent wisely. We’re upgrading roads, schools, hospitals, and giving Kiwis quality and reliable public services. By securing affordable housing for families and first-home buyers, hard-working Kiwis will have the security of owning their own home.
Do you know what, Mr Speaker? I thank you, and I thank your presiding officers, but I want to particularly thank the National Party team. You’re an extraordinary group of New Zealanders. I know how hard you work. I know how dedicated you are to serving our communities and our country, and I feel enormously proud to be part of team National. And guess what! We’ll be back after 8 November. We’ll be here to do it all over again for the 55th Parliament. There are two things to remember: firstly, under National, there will be no new taxes; and if that’s what you want, you’ve got one choice before the 7 November, and that is party vote National.
SPEAKER: It’s usual, at the conclusion of this debate, for the Speaker to offer not only some thanks but also some statistics to the House, but Louise, you’ve just completely stolen my thunder, which leaves me—
Hon Member: Kick her out!
SPEAKER: I’m sure she’d be pleased to go, but it leaves me with some stats that aren’t quite so exciting, like Copperfields having sold 166,000 cups of coffee; 18,000 scones—Bish, where’s he; 5,690 doughnuts—that’s you, Willie, I think, is it? Oh no, it’s the pies, Willie—12,000 pies. Are you putting your hand up, Duncan?
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Could be me.
SPEAKER: Yeah, it could be. Most of all, I was asked if I would say that the brilliant catering manager, Mr Bryce Hughes, has a personal favourite, which is the 1,000 servings of mince on toast.
I want to put on the record an acknowledgment of all the work that all the members of this House have done over the past three years. It’s not an easy job and, as many have mentioned in their speeches, it does affect families and it does take people away from all of the normal things that people might do in life, and you do that because you have that commitment to the democratic process.
Inside of that, there’s always this talk about the hours that we work here. There’s a lot of people today mentioning urgency, etc. Breaking it down, this House does about 600 hours—or, over the last three years, about 615 hours a year. It may not seem a lot if people hear that in a bald sort of way, but the time that MPs put into all of the knowledge that they bring into this House, all of the views they bring to this House, and all of the ideas they bring to this House is extraordinary, and I don’t think we should allow people to get too fixated on the time that people spend here in the House. There are always people away doing stuff. What I’ve learnt as Speaker, working with the whips, who I really do have a lot of respect for, is that there is an enormous number of things that people do that require them to be away from this House, and I fully respect that.
I just want to add my thanks to the Clerk’s Office for the work that they do, not only with select committees but also here in the Chamber, and the Chamber staff as well. I want to thank the Chief Executive’s Office for the work they do in making everything that is Parliamentary Service work for members, and I want to thank the security staff for the work that they are doing. Security is one thing that we’ve had to improve significantly over the last three years, and the staff here have picked up on that extremely well, with a great deal of pride, and they now also work, of course, outside of Parliament should any of us need them.
I want to mention the catering staff. They do a great job. I mentioned them before. I also want to—
Hon Members: Ha, ha!
SPEAKER: Well, look, imagine what it’d be like spending your time making 5,000 doughnuts. You’ve got to respect that. I also want to thank my executive assistant Laree Taula, and I also want to thank Kellie for stepping in when Roland Todd retired. I also want to thank Alyson Groves, from Parliamentary Service, who has done 42 years here and is about to retire, as well. I should thank the triumvirate of advice that I’ve had over the last three years, and part of that triumvirate is Dr David Wilson, who’s our Clerk and is a very learned man, and I’ve enjoyed our discussions with him; and also Rafael Gonzalez-Montero, the Chief Executive of Parliamentary Service, who genuinely has the best interests of members at heart; and also, the person that makes them both good, Andie Lindsay, in the joint office, who I’m sure everyone knows.
I want to thank the VIP drivers—I’m just going through my list here—and I also need to thank Barbara Kuriger, Greg O’Connor, Teanau Tuiono, and Maureen Pugh for the work that they have done, sitting in here for those long hours of committee.
With those remarks, can I wish everyone well as we go out on to the campaign trail, allowing New Zealanders to make a choice about how they want to be governed, in one of the freest democracies in the world.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.