Parliamentary debates: Tuesday, 25 August 2026

14:00

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

to the Prime Minister

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

14:03

Yes, and let me reassure the member: better starts now with no new taxes. [Interruption]

Just give the House a moment. Thank you.

Better late than never.

No one else needs to speak.

Better start releasing some policy.

No one else needs to speak.

Why are there 49,000 more New Zealanders out of work today than when he promised to get the country back on track three years ago?

Well, because a previous Government increased spending by 70 percent; that drove up inflation to a 32-year high to 7.3 percent. What that led to was multiple interest rate rises—I think about 13—that slowed an economy down and people lost their jobs. That’s why this Government has been working so hard. I can just say very simply to the member that if he wants to help, imposing more taxes on hard-working New Zealanders is not the way forward.

Why should the 20,000 construction workers who have lost their jobs under his leadership believe the economy has turned a corner when the first thing his Government did was cancel the projects many of them were working on, leaving many of those very same construction workers with no choice but to leave the country to search for work they should be able to find here?

Yeah, I wouldn’t call Let’s Get Wellington Moving, Auckland Light Rail, and three waters projects that were happening under his previous administration—they were not happening. But the member will be pleased to know that actually construction jobs, according to SEEK, are up 35 percent—the fastest growing industry for job ads—and that’s a positive thing. We’re getting things built in this country; not just talking about it.

Supplementary question.

Point of order, the Hon Chris Bishop.

No, supplementary question.

Oh, a supplementary question? Well, you wait until we’ve had three from over here.

When he said “the economy is on the rise”, was he referring to rising unemployment, rising inflation, rising company liquidations, or the rising price of household bills?

Well, let me help the member. We’ve had 2.1 percent growth in the last nine months. We’ve got strengthening growth forecasts from the Treasury, the Reserve Bank (RBNZ) economists, and Standard & Poor’s. We’ve got manufacturing growth at the highest it’s been since 2021, and it’s outperforming many other countries. Services are expanding, which is fantastic. We’ve had record exports, up 25 percent. We’ve got $12 billion in exports alone in the last two years. We’ve got tourism visitors up by 8 percent and a trade surplus for the first time in five years. Wholesale electricity prices are down by 35 percent. Building consents are up by 19 percent, the highest since 2023. Construction jobs I’ve talked about; consumer confidence, business confidence, farmer confidence, and retail and investor confidence. We’ve got the lowest rent increases in 25 years; stable house prices; and record first-home buyers. The official cash rate is remaining low at 2.5 percent, down from 5.5 percent; there is $7,500 for the average mortgage-holder, back in their back pocket; and the great news is that the number of Kiwis returning home from Australia is up 14 percent in the last 12 months.

And can I just say that no one speaks while the question is being answered.

Has the New Zealand economy grown faster or slower over the last three years than was forecast before his Government took office?

I can tell the member, as I’ve said before, that the economy grew 2.1 percent in the last nine months, but I want to tell the member that instituting a capital gains tax—

No, no.

—a digital services tax—

No, no, that’s enough.

—a business tax—

Prime Minister, that’s enough.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a pretty straightforward question. The Prime Minister has been touting his Government’s successes.

Yes, it was.

Has the economy grown faster or slower—

Yeah, good—we got that out, so—

—over the last three years than it was forecast to before he became Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister can address the question.

What I can say to the member is the economy has grown 2.1 percent in the last nine months, and isn’t it fantastic to see Standard & Poor’s, the RBNZ, and Treasury all expecting the economy to grow faster than the current forecasts that are on the table.

Is Government debt today higher or lower than it was forecast to be at this point before his Government took office?

Well, there’s a sad tale there, where we had a previous Government that cranked up spending from $60 billion to $180 billion. We spent $10 billion on the interest bill, which is four Dunedin Hospitals that we don’t get to build because we’re cleaning up your mess.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, it was a pretty straightforward question. The Prime Minister keeps going on about his Government’s track record. This question was very straightforward: is Government debt today higher or lower than it was forecast to be before the election?

I’ll ask the Prime Minister to make a further comment, but you can’t expect there not to be any commentary about how a situation may arise.

There’s been a range of forecasts in my 2½ years as Prime Minister. What I know is I’m focused on making sure we grow this economy faster; that’s what we’re doing. Frankly, cranking up spending another $4.5 billion a year and asking for Kiwis to pay for that in more tax and more debt isn’t the way forward.

If the New Zealand economy is back on track and the Government books are back in order, why has the $2 billion surplus that was forecast for the next financial year, before he became Prime Minister, turned into a $14 billion deficit?

Well, on this side of the House, we are a Government that has financial responsibility. That’s why we have got Government spending under control, that’s why inflation has come down, that is why interest rates are coming down, and that’s why we have $7,500 in the back pockets of average mortgage-holders. Spend more, tax more, borrow more is what got us into this mess, and that’s what you did.

Does he think his credibility on “spend more, tax more, borrow more” would be a little more credible if his Government hadn’t done exactly that for the last three years?

We cut taxes for the first time in 14 years—that party didn’t support it—for working New Zealanders, and their union mates didn’t even support it, either. He wants to put in a capital gains tax in New Zealand. What do you think that will do to the economy? What do you think a digital services tax or a business tax will do, or a streaming tax or a ute tax? Where are you on interest deductibility?

Question No. 2, Rawiri Waititi.

You need to get started.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Hang on, no one else is going to be speaking while people are asking questions, regardless of how important they think what they’re offering the House is.

14:09 · to the Prime Minister

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

Yes, and particularly our desire not to introduce an asset tax.

Thank you for that. Does he stand by his Government’s track record of legislating over court decisions to entrench the theft of the foreshore and seabed through the marine and coastal area amendment Act, and to choose corporate interest over the wellbeing of our taiao and our people through the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act?

I reject the characterisation of the second leg of that question.

Does he agree that tikanga is the first law of Aotearoa, as recognised by the courts, and, if so, will he ensure our people that so long as he’s Prime Minister he will not legislate over the application of tikanga in our judicial system?

Well, what Māori can be assured of across New Zealand is this is a Government that is interested in improving Māori outcomes, and when we see Māori youth offending down 28 percent, we see 4,000 fewer Māori victims of violent crime, when we see immunisation rates for under-24 young Māori up from 60 to 71.5 percent, this is a Government that’s delivering for Māori and it’s improving outcomes for Māori.

Can he rule out revisiting the Treaty principles bill or any legislation that aims to achieve the same goals as the Treaty principles bill, under any Government he leads?

Well, what I can rule out is a capital gains tax, a rentals tax, and a wealth and asset tax.

Is the Prime Minister aware that tikanga varies iwi by iwi by iwi by iwi, so which one did Te Pāti Māori recommend we follow?

Well, the Prime Minister can’t answer for Te Pāti Māori. Is there—question No. 3—

Point of order. I said: “Which one did Te Pāti Māori recommend to him that they follow?”

I thought—

No, no, no you don’t.

No wait on, I thought—

Follow the question very carefully.

Don’t argue; it’s not a safe thing to do. I thought the question was “Which one did he recommend?”, so that would be something he can’t do. If the Prime Minister wants to make a comment on that; if the Prime Minister—

No, no. Point of order. The question wasn’t that—I know what you thought. I know what you thought; I’m about to correct you. I said, “Which one did they recommend that the Prime Minister follow?”

No, don’t—listen, hang on a minute.

Any tikanga.

Drop that sort of comment—

Oh, any tikanga, how’s that, eh?

—or it’s an early afternoon.

So 45 different court decisions, now?

You make the choice. Sit down.

Yes, certainly.

Right, now that’s the end of that. We’re moving on to question No. 3.

14:12 · to the Minister of Finance

What is the Government’s fiscal strategy?

The Government’s fiscal strategy aims to repair the books after a period of deficits and rapidly growing debt. The key elements of the strategy are to reduce core Crown expenses towards 30 percent of GDP; to return the Government’s headline operating balance measure, OBEGALx—Operating Balance Before Gains and Losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses—to surplus by the 2028/2029 fiscal year; and to put net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP on a downward path towards 40 percent. Budget forecasts show the strategy is on track. Core Crown expenses, for example, are forecast to decline from 32.6 percent of GDP this year to 30.3 percent of GDP at the end of the forecast period in 2029-30.

Should the Government increase spending to boost the economy?

Well, no. For starters, it’s worth pointing out that we are already in deficit. It is true that if the Government borrowed more to spend more, it would give the economy a short-term boost, but that is just a sugar hit. There is no impact on medium-term growth; the money borrowed gets added to debt, and the Reserve Bank would likely respond with slightly higher interest rates than would otherwise be the case. Sustainable growth comes from structural changes that raise potential GDP, such as increasing capital intensity, as the Investment Boost tax policy seeks to do. Sustainable growth does not come simply from spending more.

Has the Government considered raising core Crown expenses to 33 percent of GDP?

No. Thirty-three percent of GDP would be very high for core Crown expenses. The Treasury’s core Crown expenses series goes back to 1993-94 and has only been at 33 percent or above on six occasions, including around the time of the global financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic. The average for core Crown expenses over the past 25 years—through, of course, both blue Governments and red Governments—is only 30.7 percent. Thirty-three percent would therefore be a very significant increase in spending and it is definitely not something the Government is considering.

How is additional Government spending funded?

If the Government wants to spend more, it either has to tax people more or borrow more. For example, to raise core Crown revenue to 33 percent, to match a similar increase in expenses, the Government would have to increase taxes by $10.4 billion in the 2030-31 fiscal year. To put that in perspective, colleagues, $10.4 billion is $5,400 of extra tax for every household in New Zealand; put another way, $103 more tax per household every week.

14:15 · to the Minister of Finance

Fa’afetai tele lava, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes.

Has she kept her promise that her Government would “reduce food prices for Kiwis”, when the price of white bread is up over 72 percent since she came to office?

Well, I can say that this Government has achieved lower rates of food price inflation than was the case under the last three years of the last Labour-led Government, in which food price inflation soared over 12 percent per year. Currently, food inflation is easing. Food prices rose just 0.1 percent in July, with annual food inflation now 1.9 percent, which is obviously a lot lower than the 12 percent food inflation that her mates managed to achieve.

Has she kept her promise that the Government would lower grocery prices, when the price of beef mince is up more than 33 percent since she came to office?

Well, as I said, food price inflation is lower on our watch than it was under the last Government. I think it is worth acknowledging that global beef prices are determined in a global market in which New Zealand participates. If that member’s policy is that she wishes to lower the returns farmers get for red meat, I would also indicate to her that that would have significant implications for jobs.

So are butter prices higher or lower since she came into office?

Well, as I said, food price inflation has eased during the time of our Government, which is to say simply that food prices are not increasing as fast as they once were. When it comes to butter, I think it’s worth pointing out that New Zealand is one of the biggest exporters of butter in the world, and higher returns for dairy have injected billions of dollars into the economy in recent years, which has supported jobs on farms. I am always on the side of shoppers who wish to see affordable butter, but if the member’s solution is that she wants to see dairy farmers getting lower prices, she should spell that out to the public.

Supplementary—

Is that like when you called Fonterra in?

I’m sorry, have you got a question?

No.

Then please don’t interfere with someone asking from your own side.

Why does she continue to claim that she will “reduce food prices for Kiwis”, when the price of cheese is up 28 percent; lamb chops, 31 percent; mince, 33 percent; milk, 33 percent; white bread, 72 percent; and butter, 88 percent on her watch alone?

Well, because week in, week out, this Government is doing what it can to control the costs that lead to excessive food price inflation. For example, last week, we made an announcement intervening on the Horizons Plan Change 2. The result that was described to me in a text message I received from a vegetable grower was this: “It will see growers held to account to demonstrate good practice and reduce the environmental impact, but it’s practical, workable, and achievable. Congratulations on doing what no other regional or central government of the past has done: listen to growers on the ground and implement workable solutions. We couldn’t have done it without your help to open doors for us along the way with what you’ve done to help keep New Zealand growing healthy food, stay accessible, and reasonably priced for everyone.” Red tape matters and our Government has been reducing it, and that means that vegetable prices will be lower than they otherwise would be.

14:19 · 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?]

14:20

Yes, and I can assure the member that we won’t be implementing a death tax or a gift tax.

Does he agree that Treaty—[Interruption]

Just a moment—just a moment. How many times do I warn people on the front bench of the National Party—don’t speak while a question is being asked? That applies to people on this side of the House, too—not to mention any particular names.

Does he agree that Treaty settlements create binding obligations on the Crown, or can those obligations be set aside when they become politically inconvenient?

This Government believes in upholding its Treaty obligations.

Was the decision to halt Plan Change 1 simply for the purpose of allowing continued pollution and degradation of the Waikato River for short-term private profit—

Oh, God, what a stupid question.

—despite water quality being one of the region’s most significant—

Who the hell wrote this question?

Mr Speaker, I’ve got chitter-chatter—

You can start that question again, and I’ll keep an eye on where the noise is coming from, because mumbling under your breath doesn’t save you.

Was the decision to halt Plan Change 1 simply for the purpose of allowing continued pollution and degradation of the Waikato River for short-term private profit, despite water quality being one of the region’s most significant environmental concerns?

No.

Why is it acceptable to overrule a decision that has been supported by the Environment Court and been through a 14-year collaborative process between iwi, farmers and growers, councils, industry, and environmental and community groups?

Because we’re changing our planning laws. We’re moving from an old system to a new system, and it’s important that things are done in the context of the new rules.

Is his decision to halt the planned improvements to the health of the Waikato River a sign of intent for the resource management reform his Government is pushing through this week, which places short-term private profits over the health of our environment every single time?

Point of order. Mr Speaker, did you hear the end of that question?

I did, and I was about to interject on that.

Thank you very much.

The member can ask the question without the supposition added on to the end of it.

Is his decision to halt the planned improvements to the health of the Waikato River a sign of intent for the resource management reform his Government is pushing through this week?

No.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that the draft Amendment Paper to the Natural Environment Bill currently before the House specifically says that existing Plan Change 1 will be the basis for the new plan once the environment system changes?

Yes.

Does he believe that he knows better than the Environment Court and the Waikato River Authority about the state of the Waikato River, or does he simply not care and, as the chair of the river authority has said, is he willing to “pass the buck to the next generation”?

No. One of the biggest things holding this country back has been our Resource Management Act (RMA) reforms—our RMA laws—that’s why we’re reforming it, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re doing it because we’ve got to get planning and consenting things done and to build in this place—more roads, more wind farms, more farms, more supermarkets, more renovations, more houses, more hospitals. That’s a good thing. You cannot have an RMA reform—an RMA programme—costing us $1.3 billion. Costs are up 70 percent; actual time taken to get consents is up 150 percent. We’re changing it—we are changing it—because we’re going to get things done and built in this country, and we’re going to grow our economy.

14:24 · to the Minister of Housing

Is the Government considering removing interest deductibility for residential property?

No.

Why does the Government support interest deductibility?

There are many reasons—two the House might be interested in. On this side of the House, we believe in the eminently reasonable and best-practice tax principle that tax is paid on profit, not revenue. The Government does not tax small trade business on gross sales while ignoring the cost of wages, materials, tools, and fuel. Removing interest deductibility for residential property breaks this principle, and it means that the mum and dad investor, or someone who rents their home out, could have to pay tax on their property even if it’s making a loss. Secondly, removing interest deductibility raises costs for people who provide rentals, which, according to the experts, are likely to be passed on to renters. One might even call it a tenant tax.

Who would pay if the Government removed interest deductibility on residential property?

In general, people who provide rentals will pay. Some of those increased costs are likely to be passed on to renters—that is what IRD warned about back in 2021. Removing interest deductibility could also incentivise or force people who provide rental properties to sell, which, of course, affects renters as well. You cannot increase costs for landlords at no cost or consequence to renters. All these costs have an effect and a consequence.

What reports has he seen on interest deductibility for residential property?

I’ve seen many reports. One thing I have been reading at night is IRD’s 2021 and 2023 regulatory impact statements (RIS). From the 2021 RIS: “[IRD] has advised against any of these options to deny or limit interest deductions … additional taxes on rental housing are unlikely to be an effective way of boosting overall housing affordability. … [This would] put upward pressure on rents and may reduce the supply of new housing developments in the longer-term.” and could have “negative impacts on rents and housing supply, high compliance and administration costs for an estimated 250,000 taxpayers, and [would erode] the coherence of the tax system.”

Has the Minister seen any other recent admissions that taxes on a particular activity can be passed on to consumers?

Well, there is no shortage of proposals in this House, mainly on the other side—

No, that’s enough—that’s enough.

Aw!

Yes, I’d be upset about that, but I suspect if you tabled the document you claim you’ve been reading every night, you’d have found the cure for insomnia.

14:27 · to the Minister of Health

Is it correct that the net change in nursing FTE is a more accurate measure of workforce growth than hiring statistics, and why is the net increase in Health New Zealand’s nursing FTE between the quarters ending March 2024 to March 2026 only 54 nurses?

In response to the first part of the member’s question, yes, it is correct that the net change in nursing full-time equivalents (FTEs) is an accurate measure of workforce growth. That is why just last week in the House I referenced the 2,162 additional nurses on a net basis employed by Health New Zealand since 2023, which equates to a net increase of 1,640 full-time equivalents. In response to the second part of the member’s question, I’m advised that in a workforce the size of Health New Zealand, people are joining and leaving all of the time for a range of reasons. What’s important is that we have grown the number of nurses working at Health New Zealand by more than 1,600 FTEs, and that as at 14 August there were 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles actively being recruited across Health New Zealand, including 475 nurses who have accepted offers, with thousands more progressing through recruitment.

When Middlemore Hospital has lost the equivalent of 78 full-time nurses in the past two years, are his cuts the reasons paramedics are forced to treat patients in hospital corridors?

As I said in the answer to the primary question, there has been significant growth in full-time equivalents since we came to office. There is clearly more work to do, and that is why Health New Zealand is actively recruiting, as at 14 August, for 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles—by Health New Zealand—including 475 nurses who have already accepted offers.

When Auckland hospital nurses have been cut by 74 full-time equivalents over the last two years, is it any surprise the emergency department breached its capacity on a third of all days last year?

As I said in the answer to the primary question, since we came to Government, Health New Zealand has increased the number of nurses by more than 1,600 FTE roles. As at 14 August, there were 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles actively being recruited across Health New Zealand, including 475 nurses who have accepted offers. It’s also important to note that the number of vacancies has reduced, from 2,632 to 1,600 FTE, the turnover rate—

Point of order. We’re all sitting here while the Minister has, despite answering on the question of net nursing growth, repeated points about recruitment numbers which are totally unrelated. He is now introducing another matter, and under Speakers’ ruling 206/4, this is totally unrelated to the issue, which is the total number of nurses.

I think it’s very hard to argue that, given that the Minister is talking about vacancies and hiring, as I heard it. It’s hard to say that’s not related to the question. Please, take an extra supplementary.

When Waikato Hospital nursing staff has been cut over the last two years, by 53 full-time equivalents, why is he continuing to claim he hasn’t cut services?

As I said in the answer to the primary question, the number of fulltime-equivalent nurses working at Health New Zealand has increased by more than 1,600 full-time equivalents across New Zealand. We are hiring across the country, as at 14 August, currently recruiting for 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles, including 475 nurses who have accepted offers. There is clearly more work to do, but as I said, we have reduced the number of vacancies from 2,632 full-time equivalents to 1,601. The turnover rate has reduced from 11.7 percent to 8.4 percent, which means our retention rate is improving. The vacancy rate has reduced from 8.6 percent to 5.2 percent. There’s more work to do, but there is a lot of recruitment under way.

Why does he cite gross figures rather than net for the three months at the beginning of the Government’s term, when they hadn’t put in the hiring freeze, in order to disguise the fact that for the last two years, they have essentially not hired any additional nurses?

I reject the premise of that question, and if I wish to choose two different dates—as the member seeks to do—I’ll refer to March 2023, when the number of doctors at Health New Zealand was 10,093; and September 2023, when it had fallen to 9,962. Under her watch, the number of doctors reduced by around a hundred.

What is the net change in the number of fulltime-equivalent doctors employed by Health New Zealand between quarters ending March 2024 to March 2026?

I’m advised that Health New Zealand employed an additional 502 fulltime-equivalent doctors on a net basis between March 2024 and March 2026. Between September 2023 and March 2026 that number was 942 fulltime-equivalent staff.

14:33 · to the Minister of Local Government

What announcements has he made about capping council rates?

14:34

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: Today, the Government is introducing legislation to cap rates. Ratepayers have faced medium rate increases of 14.2 percent and 9.2 percent over the past two years. That is not sustainable for Kiwi households. Under the new system, councils will be required to keep annual rate increases within an initial target range of 2 percent to 4 percent. The rates cap will put a break on excessive increases, drive greater financial discipline, and sharpen the focus on delivering the basic services communities expect.

How will the rates cap ease cost of living pressures for New Zealanders?

Rates are not optional. Councils also effectively operate as monopoly providers of core services. Electricity retail companies, phone service providers—unlike those, households don’t actually have a choice on who they buy those services from, unless they pack up and move away. In recent years, New Zealanders have been hit with increases worth hundreds of dollars a year, compounding to thousands of dollars a year over time, and they have no choice but to eat that cost. We are putting a brake on excessive rate increase, which will flow straight to New Zealanders.

How has the Government ensured the rates cap balances affordability for ratepayers with councils’ need to deliver essential services?

We’ve designed the cap to be firm but practical. The 2 to 4 percent range gives councils room to meet cost pressures and to continue investing in essential services and infrastructure, while putting a clear limit on excessive rate increases. There will be exemptions for genuinely exceptional circumstances—natural disasters, for example. It’s not about stopping councils from delivering essential services; it’s about forcing prioritisation. It’s a policy against 70,000 bucks on decorative artwork for a single bus stop. It’s a policy against $2.3 million for light-up public toilets in Wellington. Central government isn’t perfect either and we’re working hard to get our books back in order, but we think the rates cap will deliver real benefits for working New Zealanders.

How does capping rates fit within the Government’s wider programme to improve the performance and accountability of local government?

On behalf of the Minister, it’s another part of the Government’s programme to get local government back to basics and focused on value for ratepayers. For too long, when council costs and appetites have increased, the answer has just been to say yes, because ratepayers will be there to pick up the tab. We’re changing that. The rates cap will require tougher choices, prioritisation of spending, and focusing on services that communities expect to get right: roads, footpaths, rubbish, parks and recreation. Ratepayers deserve councils that respect the money they are entrusted with. This Government is putting in place the accountability around how that money is spent.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. My question is to the Minister of Education and reads: does she stand by her claim that “2026 marks the first year of nationally consistent assessment and reporting in primary and intermediate schools”; if so, how is this consistent with reports that some schools are assessing differently to others?

Point of order. Members are required to repeat the question that’s written before them, and not change the words on the way through. She just did. She threw the word “how” in there.

Read the question again.

14:37 · to the Minister of Education

Does she stand by her claim that “2026 marks the first year of nationally consistent assessment and reporting in primary and intermediate schools”; if so, is this consistent with reports that some schools are assessing differently to others?

14:38 · to the first part of the question, yes

from 2026, schools must use one of three assessment tools which report consistently against progress descriptors. To the second part of the question, yes: some schools are assessing differently to others because there are three different tools.

How can she claim that her new school reports deliver “national consistency” when principals say identical student achievement is being reported in two completely different ways?

Well, last year, the Ministry of Education worked very, very closely with the education sector—with unions, with principals, with the New Zealand Rural Schools Association—to put together parent reporting. We then put together a very comprehensive document called Reporting to Parents and Whānau, which was released in term 1, which gives the sector a breakdown of exactly how to implement. Now, I understand that there are some principals who are needing some additional help, and I will say to them, and I’ve also said to the ministry, that they should, firstly, read this document, and, then, secondly, please get in touch with the ministry, because they are on standby for additional help.

How can she claim that the guidance was clear, when schools received conflicting advice from the ministry; and will she identify which of the two different methods currently being used are supposed to be used?

As I’ve already said, everything is laid out very clearly in this comprehensive document that was produced by the Ministry of Education, put out in term 1, and sent out to schools through, I believe, the method of communication that the ministry uses with schools. It all lays it out very clearly in here exactly how it’s to be done. If there is still some confusion amongst schools, I would say to them: please get in touch with the ministry, have a read of this document—it is all clearly laid out.

Will she accept responsibility for the inconsistent implementation of her new school reports, or does ministerial responsibility disappear whenever her policy goes wrong?

It’s really important to understand the backdrop of where we came from before we implemented this, because when national standards were removed, nothing was put in its place. For six long years, we’ve had all schools using completely different ways of reporting to parents—stars, ticks, ABCs. We are now bringing consistency to the sector. It is a big change, because nothing was replaced after they removed national standards, but now we have a consistent document. It is a big change; we are here to help schools if they misunderstand anything in this document.

Will she apologise to the children who received lower grades, not because their achievement declined, but because she rushed out a reporting system before schools had clear and consistent instructions?

Well, if there’s anyone that should apologise to the children of this country, it is the previous Labour Government for ignoring all of the warning signs of the dashboard that results were plummeting while they sat back and did absolutely nothing—no consistent assessment, no consistent curriculum, no consistent reporting to parents. We’ve done it all, and we did it in three years.

Question No. 10—Chlöe Swarbrick and nobody else.

14:41 · 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?]

Yes, and I just do want to reassure the member that we will not be implementing a 45 percent top tax rate, a death and inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rentals tax, or a wealth asset tax.

Does he stand—[Interruption]

Hang on, hang on—hang on.

Does he stand by his Government’s commitment to sign a contract with a preferred provider for the proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal before the election; and, if so, why is it appropriate for his Government to commit the country to a multi-billion-dollar investment in fossil fuels that lacks bipartisan support in the final months before an election?

Well, I want to thank the member for her question, because wholesale electricity prices have dropped 35 percent from the 2024 peak, and the strategy of “and, and, and”—a strategic coal reserve, a strategic diesel reserve, an LNG import facility as a backstop, coupled with building more renewables in two years than the previous eight years—is working. That is good news, because people lose their jobs, and businesses close down in regional New Zealand, because of failed energy policy from the previous administration.

What is his response to the Smart Energy Alliance, who wrote to him in July of this year stating that “the Government should exercise restraint in recognition of rushing through such a major investment with potentially serious safety, economic and environmental implications during the pre-election period”?

Well, I would say to them, just look at wholesale electricity prices on the forward curves, because the good news is that Meridian are saying they will pass that on to their commercial customers next year, and we expect them to do so.

Will his Government underwrite the billion-dollar LNG import facility with taxpayer money?

No.

Again, we’ll have more to say about that when we announce our policy, but what we have said very clearly is we are not going to fund that on power bills. We are not adding to the power bills of New Zealanders, but we are going to make sure that they actually get lower downward pressure on power bills, and the way that we do it is that we make commitments to thermal firming-energy as well as expanding and opening up more renewables as well.

Are we to take that answer as confirmation that his Government will use tax—

Winston said, “no”.

Sorry—sorry. Please.

Well, who’s in charge? Winston Peters is answering questions as well.

It’s kind of true.

Answering might be fine, but we’re about to have a question asked.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Are we to take that answer from the Prime Minister as confirmation that he is comfortable with billions of dollars of taxpayer money being used to underwrite his LNG import facility?

What I’m very comfortable with is wholesale electricity prices dropping 35 percent, and gentailers saying they’re going to pass those on to commercial customers, which means businesses stay alive—the mills in regional New Zealand—and that means people stay in jobs.

Is the Prime Minister telling the House that he will use taxpayer money to underwrite his billion-dollar LNG import facility?

We’ve said previously that gentailers will pay for it.

Point of order. [Interruption]

Sorry, that’s absolutely got to stop.

As well traversed, Mr Speaker, I understand that the Prime Minister doesn’t actually have to answer the questions in question time, but he does have to address them. My question was specifically about the use of taxpayer money to underwrite the LNG import facility. I asked that question three times. He did not once specifically refer to the underwriting.

Well, he’s most certainly indicated where the funding is going to come from. Now, beyond that, he also started the answer by saying that those announcements will be made when they finally announce the policy. I don’t think he can take it much further than that.

Point of order. I wonder if you could clarify for us: when Winston Peters answers a question before the Prime Minister, saying, “The Government’s position is no.”, who do we accept the word of: is it the Prime Minister or the other one?

Well, you see, you’re really asking me: if someone interjects at some point on an answer, do we assume that they’re right? There’d be numerous people on your side of the House who do also attempt to answer for the Prime Minister and other Ministers, but, by and large, we recognise it as an interjection only.

Does the Prime Minister stand by his Government’s decisions to cut thousands of Public Service jobs, particularly in Wellington, when those job losses remove income from whānau and spending from local communities at a time where Māori unemployment has risen to 10.8 percent, double that of non-Māori?

Well, we want to build a Public Service for the 2040s and beyond, not for the 1990s, and so we are going to transform the Public Service. We’ve talked about that before, and we’re very comfortable with the fact that we want to see better services and better delivery of customer service to the public of New Zealand, and we can do a much better job.

Does the Prime Minister stand by his Government’s cost of living actions when petrol has risen by 15 percent, and diesel by 35 percent, placing added pressure on whānau Māori in Te Tau Ihu in particular, who travel significant distances to access essential services like healthcare and schooling?

Well, I stand by this Government’s efforts to lower inflation, to lower interest rates, and to get the economy growing so that we can get people into work. I also stand by the fact that we have done a number of things across New Zealand to actually help the Māori economy. Whether it’s been in Regional Infrastructure Fund investments, that’s all designed to create opportunity for Māori and non-Māori across New Zealand.

How can the Prime Minister justify removing Tai Poutini Polytechnic as a standalone institution at a critical time where we need more pathways into education and employment, and considering 22.3 percent of rangatahi Māori aged 15 to 24 are not in employment, education, or training?

Well, I’m actually very proud of the fact that we have improved regular attendance amongst Māori students from 51.3 percent to 54.6 percent just in the last year. I’m very proud of the $104 million Budget 2025 package for Māori learners, and the $334 million in Budget 2026 for Māori school property. These are all positive things designed to create opportunity for Māori and non-Māori.

What single action can the Prime Minister point to that has measurably improved the lives of whānau Māori in Te Tai Tonga through better cost of living, health, or education outcomes, considering the results of these measures have worsened under his Government’s watch?

Well, I refer the member to the answer in the last question.

14:49 · to the Minister of Agriculture

Is the Government considering a land tax on farms?

No, absolutely not. The Government is keeping taxes low so that New Zealanders can keep more of what they earn and have more choices about what they and their family can do with their own money.

What reports has he seen about a land tax on farms?

I’ve seen a report by Federated Farmers that said—and I quote—“A land tax would cost farmers as much as the previous Government’s methane tax and send financially marginal farmers to the wall.” In contrast, this Government is reducing costs and cutting red tape for farmers and growers so that they can get on with doing what they do best: producing the highest quality food in the world and creating more, and higher-paying, jobs for New Zealanders.

What other reports has he seen about a proposed land tax?

More taxes would make our farms less competitive internationally and push up costs on New Zealand consumers. Federated Farmers also said, “The best way that we can address the cost of living crisis is by having successful businesses that can pay higher wages, so let’s not provide another tax that takes away from that opportunity”—that was a quote. We won’t be introducing a land tax or any other new tax on rural New Zealand or other New Zealanders.

Has he seen any other reports about the impact of a land tax on farms?

Yes, a report that stated the cost for farmers could be as much as $47,000 every year. A land tax would be as harmful to rural New Zealand as a capital gains tax, a wealth tax, an inheritance tax, or a death tax. None of those taxes is proposed by the Government. Instead, we’re supporting farmers by implementing business-friendly initiatives like Investment Boost—as they hit record exports of $64 billion this year. We want productivity, not punishment.

Does the Minister agree with ACT’s 10 August announcement committing to no new taxes, and if so, when did the Minister decide no new taxes was the right approach?

Well, I’ve been in this Parliament for 18 years. I’ve always believed that New Zealanders should keep more of what they earn. I absolutely agree with every Prime Minister of a National Government I can think of, including our current Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, who has said that the way to grow an economy and create jobs is not new taxes, which is why the Prime Minister, on behalf of the National Party, ruled out any new taxes in our next term of Government.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question had two legs: one sought an opinion on a political party’s policy, and the other asked when the member changed his mind on the policy. I don’t think he actually addressed either of them; he just gave a general dissertation on his beliefs.

No, no. What I heard is that he said he’s been here 18 years and he always agrees with the Prime Minister.

14:52 · to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Does he stand by his statement, “We believe that New Zealanders pay too much for their groceries. That’s what we’re focused on fixing”; if so, when can New Zealanders expect lower household bills as a result of this Government’s work?

Yes, that’s exactly why we’ve taken action to remove regulatory, enforcement, and structural barriers that limit competition in the grocery sector. We’ve opened the fast-track process to supermarkets, we’ve created a nationwide building consent pathway, and we’ve made it easier for new entrants to use proven supermarket designs. We’ve also strengthened protections for suppliers and we’re strengthening our competition and fair-trading laws. With regard to prices: food inflation is currently running at 1.9 percent—substantially lower than the 12.3 percent that it was in June 2023.

Why does the Minister defend rising grocery prices on his watch, when this Government promised more than a year ago to increase grocery competition and reduce food prices for Kiwis?

We, as a Government, are all about more sustainable food price increases and we have it, so far—[Interruption] It’s tracking at a much better rate than it was in 2023. In the month of July, grocery prices increased by 0.1 percent. In the year to July, grocery prices increased just 1.9 percent. It’s a big improvement from 12.3 percent in June 2023.

What does the Minister say to people paying bills for junk insurance, when the Financial Markets Authority’s (FMA’s) report found that some insurances pay out just 3c for every dollar paid in premiums?

I would repeat to the member, as I did in the Estimates debate last week, that the FMA have got a target on junk insurance—

You called them loan sharks.

Hey!

—and that is what they are focused on and that is what they continue to look into and investigate.

When will this Government stop defending high prices when those insurers are keeping 97c in the dollar every Kiwi pays?

We look forward to our insurance affordability review, that the likes of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, that the likes of the Commerce Commission, that the likes of Treasury, and others on the Council of Financial Regulators are putting together. We await their analysis with great interest.

What hard decisions has this Government actually taken to break the market power of the major supermarkets and insurers to bring prices down?

We have done a number of things, as I said in my primary answer, but we’ve also introduced stronger enforcement and greater supplier protections when you look at the Grocery Supply Code, when you look at competition law, when you look at the increasing penalties that we’re putting around fair trading breaches, and when you look at the resourcing that we continue to give the Commerce Commission.

14:58

Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill.

The Government has indicated that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Minister of Health, the Minister for Energy, and the Minister for Resources will be available today to speak to their portfolios. Leading off the debate, the chairperson of the relevant select committee should take care not to be overly political and should ensure their call gives a fair reflection of the select committee’s report on the votes relevant to the portfolio.

This debate expires after 11 hours, at which point the questions will be put that the votes stand part of the schedules and on the provision of the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill. There are 4 hours and two minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand National has 48 minutes remaining. New Zealand Labour has one hour and 14 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 36 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 48 minutes remaining. New Zealand First has 37 minutes remaining. Te Pāti Māori has 16 minutes remaining, Tākuta Ferris has three minutes remaining, and Mariameno Kapa-Kingi has no time remaining.

The Estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans, as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. The question again is that the votes contained in the Estimates of Appropriations for 2026-27 stand part of the schedules.

Members, we start with the Minister for Social Development and Employment. The Minister is available to speak to the portfolio from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. I call Joseph Mooney, chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee.

15:00

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I begin this Estimates debate by speaking briefly to the report that my committee has delivered to the House.

Vote Social Development is the largest vote in Budget 2026; it makes up 24 percent of total funding allocated in the Budget. The vote funds many social services, including income support, student loans, emergency housing, and disability support. In 2026-27, the appropriation sought for Vote Social Development totalled $48.37 billion. The appropriations in this vote come under six ministerial portfolios—the Ministry of Social Development administers the vote.

The Minister for Social Development and Employment is responsible for 94 percent of the vote, with appropriations totalling $45.56 billion, including benefits or related expenses. Five other Ministers all have responsibilities for appropriations in the vote: the Minister of Revenue, $2.36 billion; the Minister of Housing, $297.4 million; the Minister for Veterans, $132.43 million; the Minister for Youth, $16.62 million; and the Minister for Seniors, $6.28 million.

Vote Social Development funds the provision of income support and the administration of associated systems and processes. The category benefits or related expenses include appropriations totalling $42.9 billion, or 88.7 percent of the vote. These appropriations are demand driven. The Minister for Social Development and Employment is responsible for all but two of these appropriations.

The select committee also discussed the proportion of the total benefits or related expenses in Vote Social Development as proposed for New Zealand superannuation payments. We note that forecast amounts are set to increase, and the committee considered that work needs to be done to ensure financial sustainability as demand continues to increase for superannuation. As a total of benefits or related expenses in the 2026-27 appropriations, 62 percent were for New Zealand superannuation.

There’s a lot more in our report, and I’d recommend people read it. I look forward to the forthcoming debate.

15:02

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to follow the hard-working chair of the Social Services and Community Committee with a few comments and a very clear, straightforward message to the committee of the whole House. Our Government’s approach to social support is simple at its heart: New Zealanders who genuinely need assistance from the Government should get it; New Zealanders who can work should work. Being in work is better for the country and better for the person than sitting on a benefit. We need to ensure that the social support system, including benefits and housing payments, are fair both for those receiving assistance and for taxpayers paying for it. The system should neither incentivise people to be supported by the State nor disincentivise people from seeking work or living independently. I’m happy to answer questions.

15:03

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you, Mr Chair.

I just want to start by asking the Minister for Social Development and Employment some questions around job seekers, and I want to ask if the Minister can confirm that the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update shows jobseeker numbers will be above 200,000 in 2030?

Further to that, has there been a single Budget Economic and Fiscal Update or Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, since she came into office, that has revised numbers down for 2030?

15:04

I can confirm that the jobseeker forecasts were always anticipated to get higher when we came into office with the dire economic position that we inherited.

Further to that, then, have her officials verbally or in writing told her that her target of 50,000 fewer job seekers is unachievable?

No, Mr Chair; I’ve always said it’s ambitious.

Picking up on the line from the Minister, who said New Zealanders who can work should work, does the Minister have any evidence to substantiate that there is a job available for every single beneficiary in this country?

That’s never been the assertion. Our Government is very clear that it is important for New Zealanders who can work to be available to work, to be preparing for work, and taking work when it is available.

What is the Government’s goal, then, of stripping benefits from 18- and 19-year-olds when she has just basically conceded that there’s not a single job available for every beneficiary out there?

15:05

Well, don’t put words in my mouth. What I would like to say is that from Budget 2026, Treasury’s forecasts say 220,000 jobs will be created. That is the Government’s hard work in terms of growing the economy. We want to ensure that 18- and 19-year-olds, instead of being stuck on welfare for another 20 years of their life, are connected with the opportunities that this great country provides.

Mr Chair.

Ricardo Menéndez March, and if you wouldn’t mind just giving me, each time you stand up—the technicians need time to catch up with you, which is why we call your name.

I’m saving as much as time as possible! Thank you. Can the Minister confirm that every single person on jobseeker health condition and disability—who may be facing cancer, skin conditions, congenital disorders, or psychiatric and psychological conditions—is fit to go into study or training?

15:06

We are very clear that we want 18- and 19-year-olds in employment, training, or in work and, if they’re not able to do so, then their families should be the first line of support.

Thank you. To the previous comment from the Minister, who said that I was putting words in her mouth: can she confirm, then, that there is a single job available for every 18- and 19-year-old who she’s about to cut the benefits for?

I reject that assertion.

Can she confirm that there are now 9,000 more 18- to 24-year-olds on jobseeker support compared to when she came into office?

Does the Minister accept that taking jobseeker support away from 18- and 19-year-olds who can’t safely rely on their parents may reduce the benefit count, but it doesn’t put those rangatahi into work, education, training, or even a home? Off the back of that, what specific appropriation in Vote Social Development will guarantee that every rangatahi refused jobseeker support under the new parental assistance test has safe accommodation and enough income to meet their basic needs?

15:07

We have a parental assistance test for that very reason: to protect those who either don’t have a family connection or whose family’s income is low.

How does the Minister’s parental income test distinguish between income recorded on paper and a home that is safe, available, and willing to support that rangatahi?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Given that the Minister couldn’t or wouldn’t answer my previous question about confirming whether there are 9,000 more 18- to 24-year-olds on jobseeker benefit since she came into office, can she confirm that there are now 10,000 more Māori on jobseeker compared to when she took office?

15:08

I should just put on record that one of the challenges with these debates and why I’m not going to be able to answer every question is that we are time limited in the National Party. From here on, I will wait for a significant number of questions that I will try and group together so I can provide answers, otherwise I won’t have sufficient time available.

Therefore, I would like to know: are there 10,000 more Māori on jobseeker compared to when she took office, 9,000 more 18- to 24-year-olds since she took office, and 10,000 more women?

No.

On the parental income test, does she deem a family earning a total combined income of $68,000—say, a family of four—actually able to afford their basic essentials? Why did she set the parental income test so low, to the point that it makes it impossible for a family to survive on, say, a total combined income of $68,000 a year? Will she commit to ensuring that no family experiences hardship as a result of the settings that she has set for the parental income test and the fact that she will be cutting benefits from 18- to 19-year-olds with health conditions?

15:09

Will the Minister guarantee that no rangatahi or young person will become homeless, remain in an unsafe home, or be forced to return to an abusive household because the Ministry of Social Development has determined that the parents should support them? Further to that, will the Minister support a statutory duty requiring agencies to prevent rangatahi homelessness before it occurs, including coordinated assessment, referral, and housing support—the very approach proposed in my youth homelessness prevention bill?

Many members have referred to our policy for Budget 2026, which is tightening jobseeker support for 18- and 19-year-olds. I think it is important for us to put on record the policy intent behind this. What we do know is that in terms of the forecasts, 18- and 19-year-olds—actually, anyone who goes on to jobseeker benefit under the age of 25 is forecast, on average, to spend another 20 years of their life on welfare. Our side of the House doesn’t think that that should be as good as it gets for 18- and 19-year-olds, which is why we have put this policy in place.

15:10

Does she think it’s better to answer questions than instead just give a speech that does not address any of our questions?

Oh, thank you. After excluding 18- and 19-year-olds, are there any other groups that she can arbitrarily exclude to reach her target of 50,000 less jobseekers?

15:11

I’d like to now ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment questions around sanctions and hardship. In June 2025, Māori comprised 39 percent of working-age benefit recipients but received 55 percent of sanctions. What Māori equity assessment has the Minister required before funding a strong sanctions regime?

I’ll ask another question. How many Māori adults and tamariki are forecast to lose income through sanctions in 2026-2027, and what amount has been appropriated to meet the resulting demand for food grants, housing assistance, and community support?

One more: does the Minister consider a policy equitable when Māori receive a majority of sanctions, and, if so, what evidence supports that conclusion?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve got several questions. The first one takes up the point that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has made about people who are on benefits at an early age ending up with a lifetime on benefits. I wondered whether the Minister would like to tell us whether, in fact, what we’re looking at there is correlation or causation, because there must be many other factors that need to be looked at in terms of what support or non-support we put around people at that age. What we have, from what I could see—and I was on the Social Services and Community Committee—is a situation where there isn’t a great connection under the new policy with support for this very group. They’re not in a situation where there are going to be those kinds of support. So I’d like to know about that.

I’d also like the Minister to answer the question about the issue around domestic and sexual abuse, because this age group, when they are suddenly unable to be put on benefits, etc., they often end up on the street, and I’d like to know what kind of wraparound support she’s putting in place to make sure that that is not an outcome of what she is doing today.

15:13

I want to address the question around Māori on the jobseeker benefit and other benefits. Yes, they are disproportionately affected. That is also why, in terms of the percentage of programmes that we have Māori participating in, they are also significantly higher: case management, 42.5 percent; Flexi-wage 33, Mana in Mahi 31; He Poutama Rangatahi 75. That is also why I would say our $93 million investment in sole parents—a large proportion are Māori. We want to support sole parents into work; that’s why we’re investing in it.

I have just a few questions on different topics. How much money has she saved up to date on her cuts to accommodation supplements for people who have boarders?

I’m also interested to know, with the savings that she’s producing through the use of automated decision-making and the use of mandatory reviews: would she be able to confirm that no supported living payment or other main benefits have been wrongfully cut because of mandatory review policies?

15:14

Budget 2026 actually increases the accommodation supplement. The maximum rates of accommodation supplement for all areas get an increase of between $10 and $30 per week.

Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Sorry, but if I ask about one specific policy and she talks about a completely different one, how are we supposed to have an actual exchange or debate, where she’s literally speaking of a completely different policy? She knows which policy I’m talking about, but she’s choosing to instead just mention something completely unrelated. We will not have a—

Well, the good thing about this question/answer: you’re always in a position to answer the question again, and continue to ask it.

Is the Minister aware that she just quoted an entirely different policy, and I was simply asking: how much money has she saved through the cuts to the accommodation supplement for people who have boarders? That is completely unrelated to the increase in accommodation supplement for a completely different group.

15:15

I understood that this Estimates was about Budget 2026. In Budget 2026, we have increased the accommodation supplement by $10 to $30 per week.

All right. Does she think it is fair to cut the accommodation supplement for low-income homeowners while she herself is claiming $50,000-plus in subsidies that she is receiving directly from taxpayers?

Were the winter energy payment cuts budgeted for in this Budget, and, if so, how much? Further to that, how long did the average pensioner or veteran who lost their winter energy payment have to go without money to pay for their energy bill?

There were no cuts to winter energy payments in Budget 2026. The member is traversing an issue that has come into play because of modernisation legislation. I have apologised to those superannuitants who had their winter energy payment reduced when they should not. Within less than three days of me being aware of it, all of those payments had been returned.

15:16

Will she answer my question and confirm whether any main benefits were wrongfully cut through the use of mandatory reviews?

Mr Chair, thank you. Following the debacle with winter energy payments, does the Minister accept that one of my colleagues—Ingrid Leary—raised this very issue during the committee stage and that she failed to take it into account; it was a mistake to put this particular piece of legislation through under urgency; and, in fact, this Parliament has let the public down by using a process where she did not answer, address, or take seriously those issues which were raised in an urgent situation and could have well not been raised at all?

15:17

Why is she not answering my question as to whether main benefits were wrongfully cut through the use of mandatory reviews, and why will she not answer my question as to whether it is fair to cut the accommodation supplement to produce savings from low-income homeowners while Ministers are able to take tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer subsidies each year for accommodation that they already own?

When were staff at the Ministry of Social Development first alerted to winter energy payments being wrongfully cut—and then being rectified in this financial year and, therefore, out of this Budget? I have some questions which are now overdue, and I want to know what was the total number of people receiving superannuation and any other forms of support that were cut. Have any winter energy payments been mistakenly cancelled for people who were entitled to them and were receiving them, and, if so, how many of those occurred?

15:18

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to return to the issue of automated decision-making because there was a regulatory impact statement that went on the Table during the committee of the whole House stage which had large parts of it blocked out. One of those parts that was blocked out was about what the problem was that the Minister fixed in that piece of legislation, and what I’d like to know is whether the Minister is prepared to tell us what the problem was.

It was actually blocked out because it was seen as legally privileged. My concern was that automated decision-making may well have been going on without that kind of legal licence and I wondered whether that was the risk, but that was only guessing. I could only guess, because the problem that we were apparently fixing in urgency was blocked out. Can the Minister tell me—and she’s perfectly entitled to do so—what the problem was that we were fixing when we brought in an automated system when, in fact, there are risks associated with that, and recorded overseas, which are quite significant?

After that process, I had people contact me who were experts in this area who were particularly concerned with that sort of use of automation in our social welfare system, and I’d like that answer for them. Thank you.

15:19

I accept that there is significant interest in the issues that occurred with the winter energy payment.

In terms of the detailed questions that the member asked about time frames and quantity, a review is under way with the Ministry of Social Development, and so I will provide answers to all of that when I have it. I think that that is a better option than me putting some information on the table that with greater investigation might be deemed to not be accurate. I do want to reassure the House that automated decision making was not the problem with the winter energy payment. As I’ve explained in the House—

It has nothing to do with the winter energy payment.

Uh, yes, it was.

No, it wasn’t. As I’ve said in the House—

The reviews are triggered through ADM.

Well, if—[Sits down]

15:20

I appreciate that the Minister is undertaking a review. However, she says that all of the payments have been made, so surely they have that information, and therefore, my questions, that are now overdue, could be answered. Further to that, I also ask the Minister: have any disability allowance recipients had their winter energy payment stopped without a request to do so, and how many did that occur for?

Can the Minister confirm that the winter energy payments were cut through the process of confirming your circumstances, which in and of itself is triggered by the mandatory review policy, which is also triggered through the use of automated decision making?

15:21

I’m happy to answer the question if members would like it; if they interrupt, then I’ll just sit down again. In terms of the winter energy payment, there is no eligibility requirement for superannuitants around the winter energy payment, unlike others. The issue only relates to superannuitants, where there is no requirement—no means or asset testing, no other requirements around eligibility for the winter energy payment. The issue was a policy oversight. The oversight was then reflected in the legislation; the legislation was then put forward into the automated decision making, the IT solution, which was where the mistake occurred right at the start, as a policy error. It was not an automated decision making error; it was a policy error.

15:22

I also have questions around the previous member from Labour—automated decision making. Budget 2026 provides $9.28 million operating, and $2.64 million capital for automated decision making. How much of the $11.92 million allocated to automated decision making will be spent independently testing for bias against Māori? Were Māori data sovereignty experts, iwi, or Māori benefit advocates involved in designing the Ministry for Social Development automated decision making standard? If so, who were they? Will the Minister guarantee that an automated system will never impose a sanction, suspend income, decline hardship assistance, or create a debt without meaningful human review? Why does the Vote fund the expansion of automated decision making, but contain no specific published performance measure for Māori equity? This is the last one to the Minister: who is accountable when an automated decision is technically consistent with a rule, but fails to understand the reality of a whānau Māori?

15:23

The automated decision making standard was introduced in 2022, and the Social Security (Modernisation) Amendment Act strengthened it, to take into consideration issues like the member has just raised. so that the statutory requirement now is that it must consider bias and discrimination, legal and policy considerations, fraud considerations, transparency, human oversight, and compliance and assurance.

If the Minister is refusing to outline the policy problem that this bill was trying to address, why did she need to push it through urgency?

I have asked the question a number of times, including in committee stage, about what was going on with the automated decision making legislation, in terms of its urgency and its policy problem. It’s a seriously Orwellian issue, when I look at a piece of legislation, and I look at the regulatory impact statement (RIS), and it says, “What is the problem that we are trying to fix?” And then it is all blanked out. I do not think that that is democracy. I would like to know what the problem was that the Minister was fixing under urgency. It is a perfectly plain thing for me to try and understand. There have obviously been issues with that piece of legislation, and it’s a serious issue of policy, and I would like the Minister to tell me what it was that was the problem we were trying to fix. It’s not brain surgery. I’d like an answer.

15:24

I have questions to the Minister about kaupapa Māori delivery, and Te Tiriti, especially around the $48.38 million sought through Vote Social Development. How much is contracted directly to Māori providers, and what percentage is that of the Vote? What binding Māori equity targets apply to this Vote? How does the Minister define success for Māori: fewer benefit recipients, or greater mana motuhake, secure housing, adequate income, and sustained employment? Why does the Vote not require the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) to report systematically on whether each major appropriation is reducing inequities between Māori and non-Māori? And the last one on this section: will the Minister commit to co-designing MSD services and employment programmes with Māori, including devolving resources and decision making to Māori organisations with established relationships of trust?

15:25

Is it correct that her cuts to the accommodation supplement for low-income homeowners will be primarily borne by families with children? Why is she choosing to cut the accommodation supplement for thousands of low-income families?

15:26

I wonder if I could ask the Minister about the winter energy payment situation, and I know that she has said that it has been remediated. I understand the issue arose through policy perhaps not finding its way into the legislation that was passed under Budget urgency. Could she explain how it is that the payments were made without the legislative fix, seeing as it was a legislative error that led to the failure of the payments. How is it that the Government can make those payments, which weren’t authorised by the Budget, without amending the legislation?

15:27

I have been advised by the whips that my time allocation is nearly at its end, but I know that there is a lot of interest in that. In terms of the issue, it is the review that was required. It was a review of circumstances. It was not authorisation—authorising or not the winter energy payment. There is no legal requirement in terms of reimbursing people that had payments taken away that they shouldn’t have.

I acknowledge that the Minister has very little time, so hopefully this will only require a yes or no answer. Where there any main benefits wrongfully cut through the use of the “Confirming your Circumstances” policies triggered by mandatory reviews?

No.

Further to the question from my colleague: it’s not required to make reimbursement, but was reimbursement made, for the winter energy payments?

I’ve already said that.

They were?

Yeah.

They weren’t required by a law change to be able to make those reimbursements. I did ask the question about whether anybody with the disability allowance had their winter energy payments removed. In addition to that, is superannuitants who might also be receiving further disability allowances being impacted in that way.

15:28

They’re two completely separate issues. Where the issue has occurred is with superannuitants where there was no requirement around winter energy payment and their eligibility. As I’ve said, there will be a review; there will be more information available. I’m limited in my time now, so I’m not going to answer any further questions on that.

Would the review be able to include the process that we went through in this House with regard to that matter, where we raised that issue and through the net that is supposed to work—the safety net that is that committee process—we were supposed to be able to get answers, and yet those answers didn’t come. Would we be able to go that far to look at what we got wrong? Because after all, we have New Zealanders who really needed to stay warm this winter who were put at risk, and who knows what the consequences were for some of them because we didn’t pick up the alarm bell when it went off in this House. Is that possible? That really would require a yes or no answer. The Minister, I think, does have time to do that.

If she’s not going to, I would like to return to the issue of the change in the safety net that we provide to our younger people who are unemployed. I do understand that the Minister hasn’t got much time left, so I’m going to say what I need to say about that, given that the Labour Party still has quite a lot of time.

What I want to say is that we have a situation where, in the Social Services and Community Committee—which I lead for Labour—we have seen an absolute increase in unemployment in that particular group; but we also have a group which are now, as I understand it, put in a position where, if they are to receive any kind of support, it is because they are going to be in training, and that training is not without cost. In fact, that’s the nature of what we’re doing to training beyond school now. Everything has a charge attached, and so this group are in a situation where, if they’re going to receive any kind of financial support, it’s going to be going into training.

Now, there’s training and there’s training. Some of that training is great. I’d love to see people in it, but they have to be in the mindset and in the physical capacity to do that training. What, in fact, they’re being encouraged to do, from what I can see, is pick up a loan and do training when they’re actually not necessarily ready for it. What they’re ready for is a job. They want a job, and, actually, the best training in the world, I think, is that early work where you get in and you get a job and you get started.

My understanding of this policy is that it actually hurts that group—that group that just needs to get working. Because this Government has tanked this economy, there just isn’t the work for that group. Our stats tell us that people in that age group are the ones who always fall into that situation of being the least likely to get work. We know that because the stats are through the roof. We talk and celebrate these rates of unemployment, which might hover around 5 or 6 percent, but the rates for that group are through the roof. We are talking 20 to 25 percent, and they get worse if you’re Māori.

Those particular groups are the ones who are not able to find work, and their only pathway now into it is, actually, through going and getting into some sort of training, which they might not be ready for, and all it’s doing is racking up debt. I always think it’s kind of weird that we encourage young people to get a whole lot of debt when they’ve never paid back a penny. They have no idea how hard it is to pay that debt back, and that’s what they end up doing. We encourage, as a society, that group to go into some sort of training that they’re not ready for just so they can receive support. We do it, and we basically say that it’s their problem if they can’t get a job, when, in fact, there are no jobs for that group.

Now, I meet other groups impacted like this. When unemployment hits our economy, I meet other groups. It’s not just youth; it’s also often migrant groups who can’t get the work because they don’t have the contacts, and I see some things that work. One of the things I saw that worked this time in the Social Services and Community Committee was the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs, a fantastic organisation getting people employment. But when I asked them, “How do people approach you and get jobs?”, guess what! You have to be in the know. You have to actually know it exists to get into that situation. Again, the same kids, the ones that are disconnected, the ones that haven’t got the family contacts, the ones that are poor, they’re the ones who are being impacted here, and the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s answer to this is, “We’ll put it all back on the parents.” Well, guess what! The parents don’t have any money, either. Actually, the rates that we’re cutting off are too low for that group. They are low rates. I would challenge the Minister to try and live off that kind of money. Thank you.

I’d just say that, obviously, the Minister for Social Development and Employment is at something of a disadvantage where her colleagues before her have, let’s say, misappropriated her time. It doesn’t really represent an opportunity for free shots. What it does represent is to make sure there is some context to any long or shorter statements you may make that do relate to the current spending plans. A wise speaker would reasonably often refer back to that.

15:34

Mindful that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has little time remaining, and so do we, so these are yes or no questions if she would like to give succinct answers. Was there a policy problem that the modernisation bill was trying to address—yes or no? And will she commit to 18- to 19-year-olds with health conditions, injuries, or disabilities that their health conditions, injuries, and disabilities will not get worse once their benefit gets cut?

15:35

Mr Chair, I do just have a few questions around seniors in hardship given we’ve been talking about the cuts to superannuitants’ winter energy payments. What in this Budget is there to address hardship that seniors are increasingly enduring? What advice did she get about increasing poverty among seniors and how this Budget could respond to it?

Last week, we had the release of the first ever Older Person’s Poverty Monitor 2026 report, which showed that 25,000 older people are living without the essentials. Almost 12 percent, or 102,000 older people, are living in income poverty after housing costs; 25,000 people are experiencing material hardship, living without the essentials needed for a decent living standard; over 50,000 older people rely on support for housing costs through the accommodation supplement; and 76,000 special needs grants were provided to those aged over 65 years in the 2025 calendar year so that they could meet their basic needs.

My question to the Minister for Social Development and Employment is: what, in this Budget, is there to address the hardship that seniors are increasingly enduring?

15:36

In Budget 2026, for the first time ever, Food Secure Communities has baseline funding of $8 million, and as I said before, the accommodation supplement has increased between $10 and $30 a week.

Does she think that there is adequate funding in this year’s Budget for food security when we have findings from 35 food rescues across the country that are worried about closing in the next six months due to the rising costs and lack of funding? Also, the Salvation Army says that demand is up 50 percent and that this hasn’t improved since COVID, so why did she not secure funding for food banks beyond that of June next year? Also, the sector has been calling for a strategic approach to food security; is there any funding in Budget 2026 for this, and, if not, why not?

15:37

As I said, first time ever baseline funding of $8 million for Food Secure Communities—first time ever.

Thank you. Just going back to an earlier question: can the Minister for Social Development and Employment confirm that there were no incidents where the mandatory review policy meant that someone on a supported living payment or another main benefit sent information but case managers were not able to get to it in time and it resulted in someone’s benefit being suspended? Can she confirm that there were no incidents in which a main benefit was cancelled due to case managers not being able to get to the paperwork that the beneficiary sent as part of the mandatory review policy, resulting in the suspension of main benefits?

15:38

I can confirm that there were delays in processing. The reason for this is that the expectation was that more of the change in circumstances would have been completed online rather than paper based.

Did any of those delays result in the suspension of main benefits?

They were delays. They’re not policy changes.

But did it result in any of them being cut?

Again, members, and including the Minister for Social Development and Employment, just so your initial statements are caught, just give me the opportunity to introduce you to the committee.

Did those delays in processing result in any benefits being cut?

Oh, look at the Minister for Social Development and Employment pretending like she has no time left to be able to answer that really important question. Did those delays result in any benefits being cut?

15:39

Possibly, and, for the last time, I have no more time. I’m not speaking, all right? I don’t want to upset anyone. We’ve tried to improve this process, and the Labour Party didn’t agree.

Point of order. Just seeking your guidance: is there any way in which we can seek leave to give the Minister for Social Development and Employment a bit more time? I seek leave to grant the Minister for Social Development and Employment a minute.

Just hold on. I’ll just take some advice on this from my very learned Clerk.

This is not going off anyone’s time, you’ll be pleased to know. All right, the situation is that, actually, the Minister is not allocated time; the National Party are allocated time. I understand there are 37 minutes left for the National Party at this stage. It’s up to the National Party whips how that time is allocated, however, members can continue to make statements or ask questions. At this stage, the Minister is in the chair until 4 o’clock.

15:40

When the Minister says “possibly” to main benefits being cut as a result of managerial policy, can she confirm she has made any attempt at actually checking whether that was the case or not, considering this issue has been in the news quite a bit over the past few weeks?

There’s time, the whips just aren’t giving it.

15:41

We have an allocation; I’m not going to take time off following Ministers where there are Energy, Resources, Health, and Housing.

Point of order. I seek leave to grant 15 seconds of my time to the Minister so she can answer with yes or no answers, in case she needs to give brief answers.

If you were going to do that, you would actually need to have a time number on that.

Fifteen seconds to give yes or no answers to simple questions.

Leave is sought for the Green Party to allocate 15 seconds of their time in this debate to the National Party Minister. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

When she said “possibly” to my question in relation to main benefits being suspended as a result of processing delays, has she made any efforts or sought advice from officials to clarify this?

15:42

I said there’s a review under way. I appreciate there is lots of interest in this. There is a review under way—I have said that. If members have questions, please put them into written parliamentary questions; I can give you full answers. I can’t do that here.

Does the review include the cancellation of main benefits?

Further to that, does the review include the cancellation of main benefits, or is it only of superannuitants when she said earlier that this only applies to those receiving superannuation?

It appears that this allocation has come to an end. The Minister is not answering. There appear to be no further questions or comments. The Minister of Health is the next Minister.

15:44

Sorry, Mr Chair, this Minister is responsible for which part of Health?

Feel free to answer that question.

Which portfolio are we examining? All of it? [Minister Simmonds nods]

OK, well, in that case, Minister, I’m very interested in understanding, in terms of the Budget allocation, how much of that allocation went into recruitment, and in particular the costs of wages. As recent media has demonstrated, it appears that there has been, if not an actual freeze, clear directives on going slow on recruitment in the health space. We’ve heard about the 54 fulltime-equivalent nurses, and we’ve also recently seen media reports about the under-resourcing at below safe levels in a number of areas. I’d be very interested in understanding whether part of the financial approach of the Government is, in essence, to have a go-slow on recruitment so that that can meet some of the shortfalls in budgeting.

15:45

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to briefly acknowledge the Health Committee, and I see my colleague Dr Ayesha Verrall over there, and other members, for all of the work that they have done on this Estimates process.

We had a number of hearings with the Minister of Health, the Minister for Mental Health, the Associate Minister of Health with responsibilities for Pharmac, and the Minister for Seniors and Associate Minister of Health. We covered a number of topics over our hearings, including around the three-day postnatal stay—I see Catherine Wedd in front of me; well done, Catherine, for your work in that space; on primary care; on the workforce; on Māori healthcare; and around the health infrastructure, including some new and upgraded hospitals, including in my electorate of Tauranga. That was very exciting. We discussed mental health, the funding for mental health and addiction services, the funding for youth-specific mental health services and Gumboot Friday, the introduction of the psychology assistant role, and the introduction of crisis recovery cafes.

In our hearings with the Associate Minister of Health with responsibilities for Pharmac, we discussed a $1.8 billion Vote to purchase medicines for patients in the health system, funding for new medicines, and improved access for around 50,000 people. In the hearing with the Minister for Seniors with Associate Minister of Health responsibilities, we discussed smoking cessation and vaping and aged residential care. I’d just like to thank all of the Ministers for participating in those hearings and all of the members of the committee for their hard work and questions and their input into this report.

15:47

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I do acknowledge the very good work done by my colleague as chair of the Health Committee. It’s good to have the opportunity to return to the material in the Estimates hearing, because we have some additional information to consider now that it’s been reported that the deficit for Health New Zealand for the financial year 2025-2026 was $350 million against an original budget of $200 million, and the budgeted deficit for the coming financial year is $475 million.

Clearly, my question to the Minister of Health is why is the deficit at Health New Zealand getting worse? Why do we see reported today Health New Zealand quoted in media saying that Health New Zealand has been allowed to run a deficit for longer to enable hospital delivery to be maintained, and then comments that “Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health”—and this is reported in The Post today—“are coordinating on an agreed future deficit reduction plan to return Health New Zealand to return Health New Zealand to break even. The timeframe and actions for this have not been finalised.”? So a worsening deficit picture from what was expected for the last financial year, escalating in the current financial year, and then, it appears, no plan agreed between the Ministry of Health and Health New Zealand.

15:49

Mr Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to that question, and I appreciate the member’s questions in relation to the Health New Zealand deficit path. Clearly, there’s been some significant improvement over the term of this Government in relation to the deficit path for Health New Zealand. There has been an agreement to allow that deficit to continue for slightly longer in order for the focus to remain on the delivery of key health services, which are needed to meet the health targets.

We are seeing year-on-year improvement against our health targets, which is positive and which is after years of decline. We are now seeing year-on-year improvement, which is a positive thing to be seeing for patients, particularly those on wait-lists for elective surgeries. That is making a big difference, however, there’s still more work to do. We’ve agreed with Health New Zealand for a slightly longer period of time to return to a break-even perspective, but the focus very much is on delivery of services.

15:50

Thank you. Further to that, the reporting today on the deficit set out that, essentially, increases in general practice funding were paid for out of subsidies or transfers from the hospital and health services appropriation. There’s this worrying situation in our hospitals at the moment where nursing recruitment is held at a fixed level, a hiring freeze, and then there’s pressure to cut more money because the hospitals are being run at a deficit.

I do not consider it to be, as the Health New Zealand spokesperson said to the press, a positive thing to be allowing the hospitals to run at a deficit in order to maintain services because, fundamentally, it points to either a Government intention to undertake more cuts or an inadequate funding level. I would like the Minister, returning to an item that he didn’t address in my initial question, to outline what is intended to be cut in order to have the hospitals balance their books or Health New Zealand balance their books. If he won’t give an outline there, does he have any intention to bail out the hospitals so that they can recommence hiring nurses?

15:52

In response to the question, I mean, the number of issues that she’s raised, I would point out that in accordance with the statement of performance expectations, the budget for hospital specialist services in 2026-27 has increased by $1.24 billion compared to 2025-26. We are putting significant additional funding into our hospitals and specialist services because we know how critically important that it is in order to deliver those services. The focus that we very much have and the expectation of Health New Zealand is that more is delivered for patients to focus on the key health targets that this Government has put in place.

In relation to the question in relation to front-line staff, as I mentioned on numerous occasions during question time, Health New Zealand is currently recruiting for 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles. Those are actively being recruited across Health New Zealand, including 475 nurses who have already accepted offers. Improving workforce on the front line is a key part of what this Government is focused on.

In relation to the question around the transfer of funding between hospital specialist services and primary care, as outlined in that article, this is about ensuring that we can focus investment on areas which will actually reduce pressure on hospitals, such as in aged care. The deal which was done with aged care this year was around making sure that they can do weekend discharges from hospitals. I think that’s a really positive step because, actually, our hospitals get incredibly busy, obviously, through the week, and then if patients aren’t able to be discharged over the weekend—Monday’s typically the busiest day in a hospital—there are not beds available. That’s a really important step forward.

Likewise, the funding for palliative care. A significant uplift in funding for palliative care is really important so that palliative care can provide those services in the community and likewise take pressure off our hospitals. All of those investments are really important. At the same time, allowing Health New Zealand to run a deficit for longer means that they can continue to deliver more services and, ultimately, over time, they will work towards a balanced approach. But I would note the funding path that was agreed by this Government was set by the previous one when she was the Minister.

15:55

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, that is not a wholly satisfactory answer. The Health New Zealand deficit, I mean, essentially, amounts to running the hospitals on Afterpay. That explains why hiring is so constrained in hospitals to the point where the last couple of weeks have seemed very difficult for hospitals to manage.

Can the Minister shed any light on what advice he’s received about addressing the deficit and what options there are for addressing this $475 million deficit? Is he planning further cuts in the data and digital space? Will there be further restrictions on hiring? What is the future of the maintenance budget? You know, $475 million having to be made up is not easy, even in a big organisation. In fact, as we started out this debate, we heard that the hospital deficit has got worse.

There’s been a lot of pain in the health system. A lot of people have lost their jobs. A lot of cuts; maintenance deferred. Yet the issue of the deficit is not under control. I think it is fair, with an election coming soon, to ask the health Minister what he is doing about this. Are we just letting the hospitals run more and more into deficit or is there a plan to either bail them out or to find a way of making them actually being able to provide the services they need and stop this hiring freeze?

15:57

I appreciate the member’s questions. In terms of the budget for hospitals and specialist services, I mentioned, according to the statement of performance expectations, it’s increased by $1.24 billion compared to 2025-26. That is a significant increase—

Yeah, and a third of that’s gone on the deficit.

—increase in funding—no, that is around how much of the funding is that’s available to spend. That is funding to spend for hospitals and specialist services. That is outlined in the statement of performance expectations. Our expectations are that that’s very much—as the member will be aware, when we came to Government the budget deficit was significantly larger. There’s been a lot of work done to ensure that it gets into a better shape. However, the focus is on delivery of services.

I’m not going to stand here as the Minister of Health and say, “Actually, the focus has to be on balancing the books.”, when we have waiting lists of people who need to be seen, following the years of those waiting lists growing under the previous Government. We need to get on top of those waiting lists and the focus is on service delivery, which is exactly what we’re doing.

In terms of data and digital, I’m pleased that in the Budget, there were two elements of investment in data and digital. One was around cyber security, which is correctly important for both our hospitals and the wider health system; secondly, also investment, in terms of a capital operating swap, which will allow Health New Zealand to progress a number of elements of the Health Digital Investment Plan. That’s going to make a big difference for the front line, who work incredibly hard.

Finally, just around recruitment, as I said earlier, Health New Zealand is currently recruiting. As at 14 August, 2,378 fulltime-equivalent nursing roles are actively being recruited to, and that includes 475 nurses who have accepted offers.

15:59

The Minister tries to make a virtue of allowing Health New Zealand to run a deficit, but it is, essentially, pushing tough decisions for Health New Zealand into the future and not answering the question of if the Minister is so committed to continued service delivery, why hasn’t he obtained, from the finance Minister, a bail out for the health system? That means that they’d be able to return to normal hiring practices, the hiring freeze could end, and the cost pressure investments could mean that the health system services could grow in order to address the wait-list issue, which we’re all concerned about, but also to make sure that services just grow in line with population growth and with the needs of our ageing population. So why is it that he’s accepted that health services need to go into hock rather than have additional funds appropriated for the health system? Of course, you know, we do hope to be able to see the health system get out of this period of cuts that it’s been going through and be able to actually get on with the business, but with this deficit hanging over them, the prospect of hiring freezes just stretches on into the future.

So can the Minister please answer: why hasn’t the Government bailed out the health system so that it can actually get on and address need? Secondly, if he thinks that cuts can be made internally and there doesn’t need to be a contribution from the centre in order to address Health New Zealand’s deficit, well, can he say what those are? Why is he so confident he doesn’t need that money? What other savings that he’s yet to make—him and his colleague Dr Reti, who preceded him, that are yet to happen—could return Health New Zealand to surplus?

16:01

Well, our focus is on cutting the wait-lists and reducing wait times for patients, which ballooned under the previous Government. That’s exactly what she left behind, including a much bigger deficit, which we’ve had to address. The reality of what happened in terms of recruitment when she was the Minister: the number of fulltime-equivalent doctors fell from 10,093 in March 2023 to 9,962 in September 2023. Since then, it’s improved to 10,905 fulltime-equivalent doctors working on the front line in our health system. That is significant progress that has happened under this Government, under our watch, due to the investments that we’ve made to improve health outcomes for New Zealanders.

16:02

Thank you. Well, that’s a remarkable diversion, isn’t it? I think what we’ve just had is a Government who likes to give out lectures on fiscal responsibility basically admit that they’re running the health system into deficit to make sure that the things the Minister of Health cares about happen, like providing hospital services. They’re just putting it all on the credit card, putting healthcare on Afterpay. The Minister had no serious answer for that.

So Health New Zealand’s running up a deficit. He won’t tell this committee why he’s so confident that there doesn’t need to be any additional funding put in—he won’t tell this committee. Apparently, he’s got this magical thinking about how he’s going to magically get rid of this deficit without any further compromise for services, and yet on this side of the House, we heard his comments last week in question time: only 54 nurses hired over two years—54 nurses.

You know what? I was doorknocking in Wellington North on the weekend, and I opened the door to a gentleman who says, “Oh, I know you: you got the Minister of Health to admit there were only 54 nurses hired in the last two years.” It does seem to be something that’s reaching out to everyday in New Zealanders and causing considerable concern, so I’m not sure why the Minister won’t answer on this important issue of the deficit. Instead, he’s got some glib confidence that he doesn’t need any additional money for the centre and yet is unable to say how he’s actually going to address it. I mean, it does seem like the Minister really does not care for what credibility he might have as the manager of the health system.

16:04

Well, there is significant work under way to focus on the health targets across the health system. They went backwards under the previous Government; they’re making year-on-year improvement under this Government. There is a significant focus on hospital and specialist services, as I’ve outlined. In terms of decisions around future funding, there will be, obviously, decisions made as part of the Budget 2027 process, and a pathway will be agreed around the funding going forward. But, ultimately, the focus very much this year, which is what the Estimates is about, is about continued service delivery, continued improvement in performance—that’s what we’re focused on.

16:05

Now that the Minister of Health has repeatedly talked about targets, can he answer why he has agreed, and the Minister for Mental Health has agreed, to count the wait times for specialist services in mental health for youth but is not going to count the declined referrals? In fact, why are declined referrals not counted across the whole of Health New Zealand services, except, apparently, in the South Island? How is that a complete picture of wait times and targets if we don’t know how many people are not being able to be referred?

Can he also answer as to where and what other services people are being referred to, particularly in the mental health space, where I have a document that shows that between 1 July 2024 and 31 March 2025, there was a total of 3,681 declined referrals. This has come from Health New Zealand, but it fails to say where they have been referred to when it comes to mental health.

16:06

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, there’s nothing more comfortable than consistency, as that member reaches for her top drawer and gets her question out at every Estimates we’ve done for two years now, and every annual review, actually. I’m happy to confirm for the committee: when you look at youth referrals, the decline rate is 11 percent. I’ll make it very clear to the committee: that doesn’t mean that when a young person is declined, nothing happens. It is actually the expectation that the most appropriate service is found for that young person. What I would say on top of that: only 3 percent of those referrals are declined because a service is unavailable; 97 percent of times a service is available. If the referral is declined, it’s because a clinical judgment is made that there is another service best appropriate for that young person, and we connect them with that appropriate service.

16:07

Can the Minister for Mental Health please tell the committee how the declined referrals that are going to other services—where that information is being collected and stored, so that we can scrutinise that. Secondly, where there are declined referrals being made for clinical reasons, he talked about the expectation. Are they always being made by clinicians, or are there others in Health New Zealand making those decisions at any point?

Clearly, ChatGPT wasn’t working today. Look, in a health system there is no shortage of health information. I’d actually put it to you that in a health system, the opposite is true; we have too much information. I can assure the member that not only do we record declines—because, in fact, that’s why I can come to the committee and say declines are 11 percent and only 3 percent are due to service unavailability. Yes, of course they are a clinical decision, because I would encourage the member to go and visit services where they have a published criteria of the type of referral criteria they would accept for a young person.

16:08

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to check with the Minister on, I guess, in some ways, aged residential care and also in-home care. Now, it is heartening to see an increase—though, one would say, not sufficient—of a 4 percent uplift in aged residential care. However, other than the mileage increase, we have not seen any other significant increase for in-home support and for home and community care providers. Now, we have seen, both in terms of the latest ministerial advisory group report but also in terms of the reports from the Helen Clark Foundation, etc. on the desperate need for us to invest more in home and community care. So could the Minister please elucidate this committee on why home and community care has not received any significant upgrade in this year’s Budget, other than mileage?

16:09

The contract negotiations for each year go through a quite a thorough, robust process, and I think just recently the in-home community care budget contract has been finalised and those uplifts will be communicated. The budget uplifts, I think, for in-home community care—funding for the support services has been a 3 percent increase in 2025. The total funding increase for 2025 was a $140 million top-up to the annual increase, so there have been funding uplifts each year for the in-home and community care services.

I would highlight that that is the importance of the ministerial advisory group: to ensure that we have a thorough and robust process around how those services are applied. I’ve been very clear in my position that it is a critical component of the aged-care system to ensure that there are as many options available for older New Zealanders to be able to live where they want to, for as long as they choose to. That illuminates the point that it is “right care, right place, right time”. There has been another component, which was the in-between travel allowance that was applied in April 2026 to offset the fuel cost, which has been retained. That was about a 30 percent increase applied to workers that rely on the in-between travel component. So there have been funding uplifts; there will continue to be funding uplifts.

The contract process is really important in this, but beyond the actual contracting process, it is really important that we recognise that the system is a critical component of our aged-care system. Therefore, we are very focused on ensuring that we have a comprehensive answer to this situation that is a long-term, sustainable component. That is about the other areas that we have been applying, which is important in this space, which is the case-mix model contracting, which was rolled out in the South Island. The case-mix model allows for greater flexibility; effectively, it’s a bulk-funding system which ensures that the services are delivered. That was first rolled out in the South Island. It is being rolled out through the North Island. This is really that opportunity to ensure that those care workers are able to put the person at the heart of the care. It is shifting from that very fee-for-service model to an outcome-based contracting model, which has helped significantly. Those that are working in this space have found it greatly beneficial. Not just for the workforce themselves but for the clients that use the service, it has proven very beneficial. It has been, as I said, rolled out initially in the South Island. It will continue to be rolled out in the North Island, and that was the process under the contract reviews that have been completed.

In short, there have been contracting uplifts, there have been funding uplifts, but, more importantly and most significantly, this Government has invested in a comprehensive solution focus, which is what the ministerial advisory group report has given 40 recommendations around—what the system needs to look like into the future to be sustainable; but, more importantly, as the Minister alluded to earlier, to take some pressure off the system. Those practical components around allowing the system to be funded to receive discharges from hospital over the weekend to actually improve the outcomes and take pressure off the hospital system are, I think, an important component of this solution that we’re putting in place. Really, I recommend that we continue to work in a very bipartisan approach to how we deliver these changes to the aged-care system into the future. We have engaged very closely with the in-home and community support care workers and the aged residential care providers to ensure that we are meeting solutions that are effective into the future.

16:14

Thank you. I thank the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello for that contribution and, being as it is an Estimates hearing on the Estimates and noting in the Minister’s recent press release that advice has been sought on implementation of the ministerial advisory group’s recommendations, I wonder if the Minister can expand on the immediate term—as in, forecast period—fiscal impacts of those recommendations, and what type of implementation advice is being sought. Is advice relevant to health commitments in the next two Budgets being sought?

16:15

As we’ve been very clear about, the 40 recommendations are very robust, and they are quite detailed. There is no commitment at this point. The advice that we are seeking is “How would implementation work? What are those future states looking like?”—you know, the timelines under which they could be applied. We will, of course, always look at opportunities to improve the system through future Budgets, but we aren’t making any commitment to the recommendations made. There is a lot of work, and the ministry is looking at advice around what those recommendations mean and how they would be applied into the future. That is a very comprehensive piece of work, and the ministry has started already on looking at that advice, but we’re not making any commitments into future Budgets at this point.

16:16

Thanks, Mr Chair, and I wholeheartedly agree with the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello’s comment that it is a comprehensive piece of work, with many detailed recommendations there. Could the Minister clarify, then—and I appreciate there has been work on a bipartisan basis, with the Opposition being kept informed of the advisory group’s direction—is the implementation advice likely to come back to Government before the election, or after the election? I note the Minister’s comment that Government hasn’t taken a position on that; is that because the Government is waiting for that implementation advice before taking a position on the advisory group’s recommendations?

16:17

Yes, fundamentally, we have put a relatively high-pressure timeline on the ministry to report back in early 2027, which is what we said in the media announcement. How much time that gives the ministry to answer all the questions that need to be answered, even to the extent they will be able to provide the level of advice needed to make those decisions—we wouldn’t be expecting to see anything in this term of Government regarding that advice, but we will continue to consider all of those recommendations moving forward.

I think it’s clear in the report that they have suggested virtually a 10-year implementation timeline around all the recommendations they put in place. We know this is not a quick fix; therefore, we’re prioritising those recommendations, looking at how that would look, what those impacts are, and what advice they can put back within the time frame that we’ve given. We’re in the ministry’s hands, and I’m confident that they will give us a detailed consideration. This is something that we have said: categorically, we need bipartisan agreement and support. We’ll continue to ensure that we engage to ensure we deliver the very best outcomes into the future.

16:19

Thank you, Mr Chair. Following on from those questions, my question to the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Casey Costello is: has she heard any reports that the time frame that was given to the ministerial advisory group to put their report together was a fairly truncated period of time, considering the complexity of looking across the sector and working out what those recommendations might be? And did she feel that was too short for the work that they needed to do?

Then, also, looking forward in terms of the time frame that she feels is necessary for the ministry to come back now and provide advice on those recommendations, is it important that she takes the time necessary to get this right?

16:20

The ministerial advisory group was put under a lot of time pressure to deliver a report in the six months. They worked incredibly hard. I have said quite sincerely that I’m incredibly grateful for the professionalism and expertise that they offered into this report. The advantage that we had is that the ministerial advisory group wasn’t starting from ground zero; there was the Health Committee inquiry, which had produced an incredible piece of work with clear recommendations as well. We had the funding model review that had already been reported. There was a lot of information that the advisory group was able to call on to progress this.

I think that this is one of those instances where there is a lot of work. There are 40 recommendations to consider. I think that the time line that we’ve given to report back is sufficient to continue providing us a good direction of travel and a way forward into the future. So I think that the time allocated, although tight, was useful, and I think the time for reporting back is relevant to what we’re trying to achieve at this stage.

16:21

You might recall, Mr Chair, around this time last year, there were a number of providers of mental health and addiction services who were really worried about their existence because they didn’t have contracts and were therefore not able to access funding. So particularly for small ones that had been going for a number of years, it was a bit of a dog’s breakfast. I recall the Minister at the time being unhappy with his officials and saying that this wasn’t going to happen again and he’d like to see longer-term contracts.

Looking at this year, I saw in the media recently and we’ve got information that a number of the providers have not received contracts or hadn’t by 1 July. This is to do with moving to longer-term contracts. In fact, I believe the Minister’s office told one of the reporters that some of them could expect their contracts in November. I’m just wondering if the Minister could please clarify how many of those providers are waiting on contracts to be completed, how many didn’t have completed contracts and signed contracts on 1 July, whether that caused any funding problems, and what his attitude is towards officials this year? Is it their fault again or is it something that perhaps should have been sorted out earlier?

16:22

Well, I agree with that last member—it should have been sorted out earlier. It was probably six years under a last Government that sat on their hands and did nothing. That’s why, under this Government, we know we’ve increased the mental health and addiction ring-fence. It’ll close to top $3 billion this year—a third of that, $1 billion, is what we call the funded sector: NGO, community, and iwi. So 80 percent of them were on single-year contracts—that’s tough, if you work in those services and you’ve got a mortgage and you need more certainty. We’ve actually reversed that now to give 80 percent of community and NGO services multi-year contracts—80 percent. We did that. It shows you don’t actually need to spend more money sometimes to make a real difference. Not only that, but in another area, we didn’t actually spend any more money; we just changed the settings, and we’ve seen an 82 percent increase in providers offering ADHD assessment and a 44 percent increase in providers offering ADHD prescriptions.

16:24

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I’m wanting to ask the Minister of Health, in relation to Māori health and the hauora Māori appropriation, and knowing that we saw a loss or a reduction in funding for the last period, but we had heard from Health New Zealand officials that, actually, the risk around the reduction in funding would be mitigated by underspend from the previous year, which is heartening—it’s lovely to hear. What I am keen to understand from the Minister—because, oftentimes when talking about hauora Māori and the gains being made for hauora Māori, we often end up talking about immunisation and Tamariki Ora and the way that hauora Māori have done really well in the immunisation of our pēpē, which is a great win. But beyond the Māori immunisation targets and the mahi being done there, can the Minister please give us an overview of some of the tangible delivery that the hauora Māori appropriation has been delivering within communities across Aotearoa to reduce inequalities for iwi Māori?

16:25

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I’d like to ask questions about the maintenance spend and infrastructure spend in our hospitals. The Health New Zealand infrastructure plan has been now quite some time ago, but it remains unclear what the funding commitment for that 10-year piece of work would be or how much of it is currently funded. Just to pre-empt where the Minister may choose to go with this answer, I’m not looking for a repeat of every press release he’s ever issued about a segment of a capital works project—that would be extremely tedious. But really, we’ve had the Infrastructure Commission set a trajectory for health infrastructure that appeared to be very well considered. We’ve seen commitments that have not come close—it’s approximately half of that trajectory suggested by the Infrastructure Commission. The infrastructure plan, while being helpful, is a set of PowerPoint slides and has one page on the hospital building programme.

We all in this House repeatedly talk about how we want infrastructure to be bipartisan, but it would be great if we could hear a little more than this about the future trajectory for infrastructure funding and how that matches up against the needs that are identified in the infrastructure plan. I am aware of advice that the Minister has received that states the infrastructure plan is currently not fully funded and that what can be delivered on the level of funding is markedly reduced. If we are to have sensible bipartisan conversations about infrastructure, it should be that the Minister is able to share information on elements of what is a 10-year piece of work being undertaken by the health system.

16:28

I’m advised by my whips I’ve got no time left to be able to answer questions, but I would briefly articulate—

Oh, why are you looking so sad?

No, I’m not. I’m answering the questions to say that in terms of the infrastructure plan, the answer to your question is that the plan has been published. There are obviously business cases under way which would look at the different funding that is required. Each Budget obviously allocates capital—this Budget did, the previous Budget did.

In terms of hauora Māori appropriation of investment, the answer is there is, of course, additional investment. There are sometimes underspends which get transferred forward. The focus, though, is on delivering results.

Now, we may have reached a situation we met with the last Minister, where the Minister in the chair has run out of time. This debate is set to go through to 15.42. It does represent an opportunity for any party in the House to speak, so it’s up to members how they use their time. Byzantine use of timings may be required through whips and others here, but the call now goes to Ingrid Leary.

16:29

Yeah, Mr Chair, it’s interesting that the Minister for Mental Health talked about the ring-fence and seemed so confident in his numbers about the increase in the ring-fenced funding; because, actually, Official Information Act requested documents show his own officials questioning whether the mental health ring-fenced funding is actually reaching front-line services. If I look at what the correspondence shows, it says that officials can’t fully reconcile financial summaries with the underlying spreadsheets. It says they question how much confidence they should have in the underlying district data used to report mental health spending. They talk about anomalies, including a $50 million difference between budgeted and actual provider payments for hauora Māori services; significant variation in alcohol and drug service spending compared with the plan; and a $61 million shift between mental health appropriations during the year. The officials also confirmed that the mental health “ring-fence” is not a protected budget but the minimum amount Health New Zealand is expected to spend.

The reason this is significant is because it means that the Government can’t actually demonstrate what services were delivered, where the money actually went, and whether ring-fenced mental health service funding was reaching payments. That’s really important, and if we look at one particular example, there’s an official document that has the ministry officials saying that a case in point is with the Gumboot Friday funding wherefore, for some of the accounting, it’s included in the ring-fence and for other parts of the Health New Zealand accounting it is not. My question—and it’s such a shame the Minister won’t be able to respond, but he’s speaking so confidently about additional money into mental health when we know that front-line services are struggling, we know many of them are cut, and we know that there’s been a hiring freeze, and now we’ve got documents that show they cannot track the ring-fence to the spend and where those services are being delivered.

I’d just like to put that question here in the committee for people to consider, because I don’t think that this committee should have the confidence that the Minister does that there’s additional funding for mental health.

16:31

Fifty-four—54. Only 54 nurses hired across two years in our public health system. That is the number that this debate keeps dancing around. We’ve had discussions on the number of nurses in the hiring pipeline, the number of nurses hired by Labour—but that spilled over into the period of the first three months National were in Government—we’ve had discussions of other occupational classes, but the number that the Minister of Health does not want to repeat, because he was made to last week, is 54. In a big country like ours, where 29,000 nurses work in the health system, only 54 more for two whole years, as our population grows, as people get sicker, as wait-lists grow, as emergency departments bulge—just 54.

Why? Because this Government has got the health system running on the credit card. It’s in debt. They have cut funding to the health system; they have made debt pile up against it so that the health system is forced to cut and cut and cut. What have they done? Well, they’ve frozen the hiring of nurses, and there’s some complicated shell game going on at Health New Zealand where they only let people be recruited into so-called funded vacancies once people have been delayed in their hiring for so long, so these gaps in the health system move from one ward to the next but the theme is the same: it’s understaffing. If you’re waiting in a queue in an emergency department, if you’re waiting for an operation, the reason for that is because this Government has not funded the health system properly.

Yep, they’ll tell you stories about how they’ve hired X number of people, but they don’t count the ones who have left. They’ll tell you stories about how much extra money they got, but they won’t tell you about the cuts they’re also making Health New Zealand make. Well, let me tell you this: New Zealand cannot afford three more years of cuts like this to the health system, of repeated dissembling and misinformation about what’s happening with the important issue of nursing hiring. Just remember what we were told before the last election: no cuts to front-line services. Since then, repeated denials; repeated denials that there’s a hiring freeze in place. Well, the facts don’t lie: there are only 54.

At this question time earlier today, we went around the country, didn’t we, because in parts of New Zealand, actually, the number of nurses in your hospital has shrunk. If you’re waiting for care in Middlemore Hospital, if you’re waiting for care in Auckland hospital, in Waikato Hospital, well, the number of total nurses employed in those hospitals has actually gone down. This Government has no reason to have the trust of the New Zealand people when it comes to an issue like how they are resourcing the health system, because the fact is that they’ve been talking about everything else other than the actual number of nurses that they’ve employed.

You know what really upsets me about this? What really upsets me is the fact that this whole thing—this whole shell game—is being used to lock out young people, many young women, who have trained in nursing. It might have been during the pandemic that they saw our country struggling and needing more nurses and they thought, “What could I do about that? Well, I’ll train in my community to become a nurse.”, and now those young people cannot get jobs in New Zealand, cannot—

What you could do is mandate half of them out of activity.

I won’t take it from the anti-immigrant party when they won’t—

Well, why have you mandated some of your own nurses out of being able to do their job? That’s what you did.

—stand up for New Zealanders not being able to get jobs here. Absolutely ridiculous. Those young people trained to help their country, and they are locked out of jobs in the New Zealand health system because of the hiring freeze that is in place under this Government. They should be able to get a job helping their community here—the job they trained to do, that they’re qualified to do, that they can do better than anyone else. We know that when we hire our own graduates, they’re far more likely to stay, but what does this Government do? Well, they’ll talk about anything else. They’ll talk about how they’ve hired half of them, and then they make the other ones wait in order to get a job later on in the year. You know, they’re never just straight-up about what they’re doing. It’s always some other thing. They’ll just talk about some other point, because they don’t want you to know the truth. The truth is that there’s a hiring freeze on at Health New Zealand, that our young people are blocked from getting jobs in there, and that we cannot afford three more years of this Government.

16:36

I really want to reflect back on hauora Māori services again, because as I spoke to previously, we have had funding cuts in hauora Māori, and with the loss of Te Aka Whai Ora, we have now heard and we have seen in the recent report from the Public Service Association the fact that our hauora Māori services required the sign-off of the CEO for any new roles into positions. I just want to share the fact that I’m, like, aghast. We’ve heard this in the northern region; there were panels set up for our region and then the roles were going to go up to the panel and then they’ve got to ask the panel for these roles to be appointed.

I want to reflect on the kaumātua role in the Regional Rangatahi Adolescent Inpatient Service: it took 25 weeks to appoint that. Māori peer specialist support services in mental health and addictions in Waitematā: that took seven weeks. Smokefree facilitator: for me up in Tai Tokerau just recently, in mid-2025, it took 12 weeks to finally get approved.

So with these types of gaps that are happening in the system, we get stress. We can hear the stress; we can see the stress. When the kaimahi are talking to us out in community about the stresses, it took the report to finally lift the lid, when we know that there had been budget cuts across the board, particularly with the hauora Māori focus, and then these cost-saving issues have come up whereby we’ve been told, “No, there’s kaimahi, there’s nothing wrong, there’s no freezes.” Well, actually, we’ve heard, for example, in the northern region, for us in Tai Tokerau, that we have limits in the way that we can appoint full-time equivalents.

These are some of the concerns that are coming through constantly but now have been validated. So I thank the Public Service Association for bringing this to light, because in talking with kaimahi as of last week—as of last week—in the hospital, they said they are short-staffed, they are stressed, and they need support.

But what can we do? What can we do if regional funding panels or these appointment panels are being established and they are the ones who tick off what positions get filled? There are limits; we’re hearing there are limits, and now we’re seeing the limits. This is my pātai to us as a House as to what we can do to genuinely work together to establish a health system that is stable, that is well resourced, that puts people and wellbeing first across the board, whether you’re rural or urban, so that we all have the ability to access timely, quality healthcare.

So that’s what the Green Party is asking. Unfortunately, the Minister can’t reply, but we’ll take our time to be able to articulate these concerns, because it happened yesterday; it’s still happening today. What are the assurances that we will see the necessary staff filled in these positions that are much needed across the regions?

16:39

I mean, 54, I think, is the number of times you say something over and over again and maybe that will convince everybody that you’re right. The question has been answered repeatedly, that there are 1,600 full-time equivalents additional in the nursing staff.

As of 14 August, there were 2,378 nursing roles actively being recruited, including 475 nurses that have accepted offers—this is the reality. Then we have, again—recounted repeatedly—the number of additional doctors. This idea that we can say things in this House and suddenly they become true is just inappropriate. It is wrong to suggest that we have this crisis, that we have funding cuts, all of these things, when we know that this is the Government that actually delivered targets, and accountability, and measures, and performance tracking to ensure that we are doing exactly what my colleague in the Green Party said, which is delivering services for the people—putting the people at the heart of the solution and saying, “What can we do better?” This is exactly what this system is doing. We are delivering outcomes. We are continuing to deliver outcomes. What is important is what the impact of this is. Throwing money around is not a solution; delivering outcomes is a solution.

Across the health system, we have invested. We have invested in mental health, we have invested in aged care, we have invested in ambulance services, we have invested in helicopters—we have delivered things that the previous Government did not deliver, because we see the entire system in its entirety, and this is what we are delivering. We are actually delivering outcomes. We are improving. This is not a quick fix—of course it’s not; there are a lot of things to be done—but to say that we can walk around a hospital and tell people that 54 nurses are all that have been appointed is not the facts. The facts are that we have increased the nursing staff, we have increasing doctor numbers, and we have actually resolved the issues at the heart of our system because we have put in practical measures. We have put in accountability. We have put in targets—that were removed—to ensure that what we spend money on is delivering the outcomes that New Zealanders need for a good health service. This is what is occurring in our health system. This is what needs to be done: to actually have some sensible investment to deliver a sensible outcome that actually puts the person at the heart.

When we do things that are practical, when we do things that are common-sense, when we do things that are right, that is driving the accountability that puts the patient at the heart of the system. That is what health is for: to ensure that people get better, that people get well, and, most importantly, that we actually try and get people out of hospital, back home, and recovering as quickly as possible. That is the investment in medicines, that is the early diagnosis, that is the access to treatments, and that is the investment in rural health. Those are all of the practical things that this Government has delivered to ensure we get a system that works, that is comprehensive, and that is about the people we are trying to serve. I think that this continuing narrative about how dire the situation is—yes, we are in the middle of winter; yes, we have had a huge workload put on our people. But the fact is that we have invested. This concept of budget cuts—this concept of “We’ve cut back”—is just not played out. We have seen significant investment in aged care. We have seen nearly $490 million invested into the aged-care system since we’ve been in Government. That’s nearly $2.5 billion now being spent on aged care.

We have developed good investment systems. We will continue to do that—the work is not yet finished—but ensuring that we continue to drive accountability to our health system is critically important. We will continue to do that, because we have the practical, common-sense solutions to deliver a better system overall.

16:44

The practical improvements that many New Zealanders would love to see would be a reduction in the household bills they have to pay, and that includes healthcare services. When I knock on doors around this area, it is the same thing I hear from door to door to door: people pay too much for their everyday items. In fact, in this area, they pay the highest GP costs in the country. Costs for GPs have gone up 15 percent under this Government. Ambulance costs have gone up to over $125 per ambulance callout. Of course, the Government willingly put up prescription charges on everyday people. I couldn’t think of anything that’s more of a tax on being sick than the amount you have to pay for your prescriptions. New Zealanders cannot afford three more years of these escalating healthcare costs.

That’s what’s happening under this Government. They refuse to fund the system, and therefore the community providers—whether they’re general practice, whether they’re aged care—have to put up their bills, on to people. That’s what we’ve seen under this Government. That’s why there’s more pain in your back pocket: because of the underfunding of the everyday services that New Zealanders need and depend on. There is nothing in these health Estimates that’s going to ease the burden on New Zealanders in terms of cost, either this year or in coming years. The Associate Minister of Health in this debate has refused to give any indication that she’s going to take up some recommendations for a report that might help low-income people access aged care in the future.

If you’re struggling, if you’re doing it tough, you’re not going to get funding for access to services; that is all being cut back. New Zealanders cannot afford three more years of National.

Members, the time for the Minister in the chair has come to an end. We now have the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Resources, and the Ministers are available to speak to that portfolio.

16:47

Thank you, Madam Chair. There were a number of areas that were covered off with the Minister for Energy when he came to the select committee to talk about Vote Energy. One of the first areas that I’d just like to ask the Minister around is around liquefied natural gas (LNG) and the LNG procurement that is going ahead. We heard the Prime Minister and Winston Peters saying quite different things in the House today in terms of the future of the LNG terminal, but the first thing to ascertain from the Minister is to see if there’s any change in his position around whether or not it is the intention that the Government will sign a commercial contract with a provider before the election.

The procurement is going through a procurement process at the moment. Of course, that is well under way. The Government’s intention is to sign a contract as soon as possible in order to ensure that we provide the energy security that New Zealand needs. We’re not going to leave this country high and dry like the previous Government did, which let New Zealand have the energy crisis 2024 with wholesale prices going through the roof, businesses shutting down—we’re not going to let that happen.

16:48

Sorry, will the Minister for Energy be taking the finalised procurement details back to Cabinet before the contract is signed?

Significant decisions such as this will of course go through Cabinet.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was interested that the Minister for Energy seemed to be indicating that this decision around liquefied natural gas (LNG) was in the best interests of New Zealanders and our energy system. Of course, that is not what anybody else, really, except this Government or the oil and gas sector have claimed is the case. We saw only recently that the Ombudsman forced the Government to release modelling and advice that it had received that it had withheld, but they were forced to release it. What that showed was that the LNG terminal could increase gas and electricity prices and may not even maintain security of supply. This was the advice that the Government had received. What we’re clearly seeing when it comes to energy really is that New Zealanders cannot afford another three years of this Government’s inability to do anything in the interests of New Zealand’s energy system.

What advice has the Minister received that counters the arguments that were put up in the advice that was commissioned for him and advisers from Concept Consulting that said that LNG wasn’t going to lower prices for New Zealanders in terms of electricity or gas, necessarily? The Minister told us that these were only some of the components they looked at, but what we haven’t heard either in the Estimates hearing or subsequently is what other advice is the Minister relying on and who did it, when did he receive it, and will he release it?

16:50

Thank you, Madam Chair. As the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, I was going to provide a very quick summary of the hearing that we had with two Ministers in the select committee. In my calendar, the debate was going to start at 5 o’clock, but it started earlier, which is not a bad thing.

The energy appropriations are worth $457.78 million in 2026-2027. These appropriations fund the work of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and the Electricity Authority. We were very pleased to have the Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, and his officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Electricity Authority, and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to discuss the appropriations.

We discussed managing dry-year energy risks and the liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal to support energy security options that were analysed to decide to build an LNG import terminal. We also talked about the electricity generators and retailers to fund the LNG import terminal. There were other topics discussed, which included warm, dry homes, solar power for schools, and the powers of the Electricity Authority within this appropriation.

Then moving on to the resources appropriation, the Minister for Resources is responsible for appropriations within the Vote, totalling $26.9 billion in 2026-2027. The single significant appropriation is $22.6 million for management of the Crown mineral estate. This funds the allocation, management, and compliance of the Crown on petroleum and mineral resources under the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

The resources portfolio is also supported by just over $163 million from mineral royalties and $10 million from levies. We were pleased to have Minister Shane Jones and his officials to discuss the appropriations. We discussed potential mining of critical minerals, possible mining of the conservation estate, the gas security fund, and risks linked to gas extraction projects. I say this: anybody interested in more information should read the select committee report, and I look forward to this debate. Thank you.

16:53

Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the questions that we talked about with the Minister when he came to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee is what mechanisms he was receiving advice on for putting in place to ensure that gentailers wouldn’t simply pass on the cost of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to their consumers. Of course, the Government has backed down on the gas tax and are now saying that they are going to ask the gentailers to pay it, which really is code for passing it on to consumers and consumers picking that up.

When he came to the select committee, the Minister couldn’t point to any work that he was doing that was going to be put in place to ensure that gentailers simply didn’t pass on the costs of the LNG terminal. Given that he’s had advice that this doesn’t necessarily lower gas or electricity bills for New Zealanders and, indeed, could raise them if they’re passed on and isn’t going to increase our security of supply, I just wonder if the Minister has asked for some advice so that New Zealanders aren’t going to end up paying the price of an LNG terminal that only himself and the oil and gas industry seem to want.

16:54

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the Minister. Because we’re in an energy crisis that’s deeper and wider than the 1970s, why has the Minister rejected work on a bipartisan national energy strategy when we know that the sector and Kiwis are calling out for a national energy strategy and for some certainty and clarity on where we’re going? In addition to that, why has the Minister rejected the expertise, as we’ve heard from Concept Consulting, but also the Sapere report, the Frontier report, and the OECD? Why has the Minister rejected that expertise while seeking to invest our country in an expensive folly that is a liquefied natural gas terminal? Why has the Minister rejected all that expertise? Thank you.

16:55

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister about the competition regulation within his appropriations. For context, on 12 August, the Electricity Authority reported that household and small business electricity prices rose an average of 6.8 percent in just the first half of the year. Previous to that in 2025, prices rose an average of 8 percent. The Minister proposes to spend $120 million in this appropriation on governing and operating a market whose statutory regulator exists for the benefit of consumers and to produce a competitive and reliable market, one that is forward-looking and deals with these challenges.

The question for the Minister is what consumer outcomes is that regulator being charged with delivering? I’m not just asking about those rising prices, although that is of critical concern not only to the Government but to all New Zealanders. I’m asking him about whether he has expectations of his regulator within that appropriation to deliver on things like lower margins and greater switching and more retail entry into the market.

Particularly on the question of greater switching, I want to ask him about the role of the tools within the market which are meant to provide greater transparency for consumers which enable that switching of providers. It seems to be that switching is going backwards in some respects in the New Zealand market and that that transparency of information that enables consumers to switch is not enough to incentivise that switching. Why is it that the Government has been talking about open electricity as the next cab off the rank for open data rights in New Zealand, but that seems to be coming at the expense of open banking, when both of those things should be able to be advanced at once.

I also want to ask him about retail entry into the market. Why is it that some of the smaller providers are going out of business and are part of the thousands of liquidations that have happened under this Government’s watch when in fact we need more of those small retailers to be able to compete in that market? They will never be bigger than the gentailers but they make up about 4 percent of the market now. That has gone down from about 5.5 percent on his watch. What is the regulator doing to ensure that there are more market entries and that those small market participants are growing?

16:57

Thank you, Madam Chair. When the Minister came to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, he told us that he had asked his Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials along with the National Infrastructure Funding and Financing Agency (NIFFCo) to currently negotiate a funding model with gentailers to enable them to pay for the terminal.

One of the things that I’d like an update from the Minister on and for him to expand on what he talked about when he came to the select committee is exactly what he has instructed or asked NIFFCo to do or what the group of Ministers that are working on this have asked NIFFCo to do. Are they are assessing financing? For example, are they giving advice to the Government on whether or not the taxpayer will provide an underwrite? There seemed to be an indication from the co - Prime Minister—sorry, Winston Peters—in the House earlier today that the Government would provide an underwrite on that. The Prime Minister didn’t seem to think that was the case, but there seemed to be some confusion there in whether that was the case and whether that’s something that he’s asked either his officials or NIFFCo for some advice on.

Scott Willis.

Madam Chair.

Sorry, I had already called.

16:58

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are approximately 700 hard-working people directly involved in the Warmer Kiwi Homes delivery through member organisations delivering all around the motu. There are 34 member organisations that make up the Community Energy Network, and they are responsible for over 325,000 Healthy Homes assessments and have delivered insulation and heating to over 150,000 homes. I’ve had the privilege of working with many of these member organisations and I’ve seen the impact they make for people, whether it’s removing black mould and putting in ventilation, putting in ceiling or under-floor insulation, or just helping people move out of energy poverty. They have attracted over $150 million of philanthropic funding since 2009 to lift people out of energy poverty.

My questions to the Minister are what certainty can the Minister give to households, providers, and the sector about the continuation of the Warmer Kiwi Homes scheme, given the incredible return on investment and benefit to society that that programme delivers? How will the Minister ensure funding procurement and contracting will support that continuous delivery, and, with an estimated 140,000 homes still needing insulation, efficient heating, and practical support, will the Minister finish the job to make our homes warmer and safer? Finally, will the Minister make a commitment to ensure that the Warmer Kiwi Homes scheme funding continues beyond 30 June 2027 in order to avoid damaging delivery capability?

17:00

I thank the members for their questions. As I’ve said in relation to the liquefied natural gas terminal, that is critical for our national security. The work’s under way, there is currently a procurement process under way, and there are negotiations actively taking place with the gentailers. The Government is committed to continuing that process. We’ve been very clear in my speech to the business chamber earlier this year around the approach that we’re taking. Everything that I said in that speech stands in relation to the process, and once we have more to say, we will have more to say in relation to that.

In relation to the question about a bipartisan energy strategy, well, the reality is that we could have a bipartisan energy policy in this country if Labour and the Greens didn’t come to this House and constantly talk down our oil and gas sector, which is critical to the future of this country. It is critical to ensuring that we can keep the lights on and that we have back-up energy when the wind is not blowing, the sun is not shining, and we have a dry year. Those members are responsible wholly for destroying energy security in this country. We are trying to fix it, and until we actually have a sensible Labour Party, like Helen Clark’s Government—they would never have done that. They backed oil and gas. Helen Clark’s Government backed oil and gas, but Jacinda Ardern’s Government didn’t, and that’s the difference. With Helen Clark’s Government, that Government knew what was needed for the future of our energy needs in this country.

Oh, bring back “Auntie”!

I say “No thanks.” to that, Mr Brewer.

But in relation to the Electricity Authority, there is a number of workstreams under way, including the competition task force with the Commerce Commission, which is looking at the level playing field. There are the non-discrimination obligations which have been included, which are critically important to levelling the playing field between the big four and the small generators and retailers, and that’s a critical step towards having a level playing field. There’s the new power comparison and switching website Billy, which is making a big difference for consumers, and we encourage people to use it. Electricity retailers now must also offer time-of-use pricing to their customers—that’s really important—and also the Electricity Authority is now requiring the electricity companies to tell their customers every year whether they’re on the most affordable plan and it is also stopping them from being able to bill for backdating more than six months. Those are all important reforms.

Of course, the work is also under way around the open electricity consumer data right, and that is critically important to the next step so that we give power back to the people so that they can make choices, using the information from their bill, so that they can be on the most affordable plan. There is a range of things under way to improve affordability, and of course there’s more work to do.

17:03

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just remind the Minister of Energy that he didn’t address funding for Warmer Kiwi Homes. Of course, we have not seen any new and additional funding go into that scheme since Budget 2023. Budgets since then have only cut the funding for Warmer Kiwi Homes. We’re currently due for that scheme to run out of funding in June of next year, and so we talked at the select committee about what assurances the Minister could give that there is a plan for a continuation of Warmer Kiwi Homes post this funding that was put in place by the Labour Government in 2023, given that we have only seen cuts. Indeed, we saw an additional cut to Warmer Kiwi Homes. Part of the reprioritisation package that was in this year’s Budget for energy saw further money going out of Warmer Kiwi Homes, and so I ask whether the Minister will give an assurance on that.

I’d also like the Minister to clarify to the committee whether or not the Crown will be providing an underwrite to the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal, or to say what he sees is the Crown’s role in the procurement process of the LNG terminal.

17:04

Thank you, Madam Chair. Given the Minister of Energy’s comments about the non-discrimination clauses, we’ll return there. I want to ask him, given that he seems to accept the structural advantage that exists with the gentailers, why does he believe that the behavioural non-discrimination rule is sufficient, what evidence does he have at the moment that that non-discrimination obligation is working, and when might he make an assessment of whether he needs to take further action if it is not, in fact, working?

17:05

Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the questions we sought clarification from the Minister of Energy at the select committee was around the community renewable energy—so, solar power for schools. We know that this works, we know that it’s an excellent resource for schools, and we also know that it helps young people take those conversations home to their families, and some political parties have an excellent policy in the solar space, with Labour being one of them. So it’s an excellent opportunity for those conversations to happen but also for young people to talk about the potential for solar energy, which helps to lower power bills. Does the Minister have plans to continue to support the solar power for schools programme? He mentioned in one of his earlier answers about giving power back to the people, and this literally does that.

17:06

To follow on from my questions—which are short, and I invite the Minister to answer them in a brief way—how much of the operating component of the $42.543 million in his appropriations for the Electricity Authority is being spent on monitoring compliance with his new non-discrimination obligations, and how will the authority establish whether Contact, Genesis, Mercury, and Meridian are offering genuinely equivalent hedge terms?

To follow on with that line of questions, when will the Minister know whether these changes—which in his Government’s own press release were described as a structural change for the market—will actually have the effect of lowering prices? Will he investigate this, or will it be another compliance review that takes more time before New Zealanders see their prices coming down?

17:07

I’d just like to remind the Minister of Energy that the committee is still waiting to hear from the Minister what advice he has received so that he can reassure New Zealanders that they aren’t just going to see the costs of liquefied natural gas (LNG) being passed on to their households, given that we’ve now seen the advice that his Government was trying to withhold that shows that LNG is not necessarily going to lower the cost of either electricity or gas, and in a number of scenarios it will indeed increase the costs to New Zealand households and businesses. But I’d also like to know some more information and to get an update on the $450 million reserve that was in the Budget—the temporary targeted support for fuel security that sat in the Budget as a contingency—to know if there have been any drawdowns or if there are any planned drawdowns on that $450 million contingency fund, and, if there are, what specific criteria are going to be used to assess whether or not money and projects will be drawn down from that fund.

17:08

I thank members for their questions. In relation to the question around the non-discrimination obligations, the Electricity Authority will, obviously, be receiving data and will be monitoring that and providing advice to me in relation to the effectiveness of those obligations. My clear expectation of both the Commerce Commission and the Electricity Authority is that more work will need to be done because we need to make sure that these level playing field obligations deliver what they are there for.

In relation to solar, we announced in the Budget funding for Solar in Schools. We’ve delivered that. There is now a significant number of schools—500 schools—receiving Solar in Schools. It’s going to make a big difference.

There is also a significant amount of work under way. We’ve removed building consents for rooftop solar and we’ve expanded household solar’s export limits—we’ve doubled it from 5 kilowatts to 10 kilowatts. There is a requirement for providers to provide rebates for exports to the grid at peak times. We’ve launched the Solar on Farms initiative, and work is under way on plug-in solar, which is going to make a big difference, as well. There’s a huge amount happening in that space.

In relation to liquefied natural gas, ultimately the work that’s under way is designed to improve our energy security and affordability. By removing the baked-in cost which goes into electricity of a dry-year risk, we will significantly improve outcomes for consumers. On driving affordability, we’ve already seen a 35 percent reduction in wholesale prices since we made the announcement earlier this year. Our plan is working.

17:10

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister for Energy was just talking about the work that’s happening around the level playing field. We still haven’t seen the evidence coming out in terms of what impact that strand of work will have on pricing. But I do note that the Minister just released last week a discussion document around the large amount that we need invested in our lines companies over the coming years and how it is that we need to ensure that’s delivering value for New Zealanders and how it’s going to be paid for.

One of the things I was surprised to see, or not see, from the Minister in that document was more of an obligation on lines companies to have to quantify why they would not be looking to non-network solutions, to have to look at what was delivering way of making sure we had a secure electricity system with the least cost from a distribution network perspective. Did he consider and did he get advice on whether or not there should be a requirement on the lines companies to consider non-network solutions such as battery, solar, and things that, ultimately, will lead to lower power bills?

In terms of the advice the Minister has received around putting together that piece of work, what advice has he received about when New Zealanders would expect to see savings turn up in their power bills from the package of alternatives that he’s put there? I’ve had a lot of feedback that a lot of people see this as a reasonably watered down version of what the Government could do, are questioning when benefits will flow to them, and, really, are saying they cannot afford three more years of what this Government is delivering.

17:12

Thank you. We just heard from the Minister for Energy that liquefied natural gas (LNG) is critical to our national energy strategy. What evidence can the Minister provide to back up this statement, given that we haven’t heard that from any other expertise? I’m really interested to hear the expert opinion that the Minister has that would back up that statement, that it is critical to our national energy security, because we’ve heard from Concept Consulting, we’ve heard from the Sapere report, we’ve heard from the Frontier report, and we’ve heard from the OECD that reliance on volatile international prices of LNG will make us tied to expensive fossil fuels when we have home-grown energy available to us right here, right now, and this Government has rejected those options. What evidence has the Minister got in to back up that statement?

17:13

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, my question is probably to both the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Resources, because one of the things that’s sitting here behind the price of the energy that we’ve had is that it went up spectacularly when the oil and gas ban came on, and so I’m really interested in what the trends are looking like. I also wanted to note that gas is important. I chair the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, so while the Minister goes and speaks to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, we do have all of the energy companies in front of us as well, and they’ve been quite clear that the most important use of gas is not for electricity but for actual gas consumers.

I’d be really interested too to hear some comments on the impact of the lack of gas on those businesses which rely on gas, and also on the roughly 1 million Kiwi households which also use gas. We’ve been told that the cost of converting those will be something like $10,000 to $13,000 each, which will be a total of $10 billion to $13 billion across all of those households if they have to convert. Then you’ve got the likes of the Methanexes, the Ballances, you’ve got Glenbrook Steel Mill, and you’ve got a lot of horticulture, which all rely on that gas, so I’d be really interested in what we can do to try and make sure that they actually have a supply going forward, the opportunities that there might be to be able to find more gas, whether that’s onshore, whether that’s biogas, whether it’s offshore, whatever it might be, I’m really interested in that exploration. Then I’d like to come back also with some questions around direct mining as well, because this is energy and resources that we’re talking about here.

17:14

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to make a contribution. If I can just set the scene. Technically, it is correct that when Jacinda Ardern misled Winston Peters and made that woeful decision and allowed Cabinet processes to be circumvented, it had the effect of chilling investment.

Now, it is administratively correct to say that certain entitlements were left in place. However, it took many weeks later before the Cabinet processes were tidied up. Sadly, the chilling effect of that nuclear moment meant that, throughout the world, the message went that the oil and gas industry under the Ardern regime had no future in New Zealand. Now, that probably wasn’t the intention. I want to be at least fair to the Opposition spokesperson. I don’t think, at the time, they were wanting to extinguish the New Zealand economy, and they certainly weren’t endeavouring to destroy the Taranaki economy. But I have to say, I look no further than the member behind me who shows us photos on a regular basis of empty shop fronts, of houses virtually boarded up as men and women leave because the oil and gas industry, sadly, was closed down when investment was scared away.

It’s important that Kiwis bear in mind that, after this Government reversed that scandalous ban, it has taken time for a level of confidence and optimism to be reinjected into the economy. I have to acknowledge Simeon Brown for doing a tremendous job in seeking a solution to make up for the gap. In good time, the full details of that solution under his leadership will be revealed. However, the $200 million fund, if I can respond to my colleague’s response, is an attempt to make up to the fact that we have dropped down perilously low to petajoule production hovering around 80-85. Now, matters might improve in the event that the owners of Methanex do decide to move on, but that’s a commercial decision.

This is not a Government that wants to chase any more investors out of New Zealand, as happened under the Ardern regime. What this Government wants to do with oil and gas is, actually, to skilfully use the $200 million as a way of derisking, and decisions are imminent—decisions are imminent—and it also wants to ensure that there’s a transition, and where there is a gap, we’ll wait to hear on those details. But under no circumstances whatsoever should any firm fear that we don’t have their back, which is why Nicola Willis, in the Budget, announced up to a billion dollars’ worth of an underwrite to enable firms to transition in the event they have the capacity, with access to bank debt, to move on from their reliance on gas to other forms of energy. But it will take time. But know this from me, New Zealanders: it was Jacinda Ardern and Megan Woods who destroyed our sovereign reputation when they misled Winston Peters, did not follow Cabinet process, and condemned Taranaki to penury.

17:19

Point of order. I’m really surprised that the Minister for Resources had not one but two attempts to mislead this House by using the word “mislead” in an inappropriate way, and he should know better, and quite frankly, he needs to be pulled up on that.

I’ll take it under advisement. Thank you. Scott Willis.

Steve Abel.

Sorry—Steve Abel. My apologies.

17:20

That’s all right—we sit beside each other. Regarding the point just made by the Minister: in the context of his proposition that the doors are closing in Taranaki, what is his explanation for the doors closing in Dunedin, and the shopfronts closing in Wellington, and the pea-growers in the Hawke’s Bay, and all of the deindustrialisation across this country that’s happened under his watch? Are you blaming that on the actions of a Government all those years ago?

Yes.

It’s good to hear that response, because that shows just how deluded this Government is. My question for the Minister is this: given that the biggest and most powerful oil and gas explorers in the world came and searched and found nothing and left before the 2018 ban came into place, and given that our gas reserves were diminishing since 2007, how better could that $200 million Gas Security Fund have been spent? The Minister just alluded to the bank debt to assist industry in moving away from its current gas dependency. What evaluations did the Minister take and what consideration did he give to investing in solar, biogas, biomass, wind, and battery energy systems that actually take us away from the dependence on that finite resource of fossil gas, which many companies have come and looked for and not been able to find?

That’s the first question: when he evaluated that public expenditure on the forlorn hope of trying to find some more gas, what consideration did he give to the other, more effective ways that money could be spent on cheaper forms of energy and abundant forms of energy that are indigenous and locally owned with which we could be powering our system and our economy. My second question is: does he genuinely believe that the most expensive form of fossil fuel available, liquefied natural gas (LNG), is going to solve the energy cost problem of industry across this country? We are now going to be a price-taker in terms of the cost of that very expensive form of—

Diesel’s more expensive.

I can assure you, LNG is more expensive than diesel, my friend.

17:22

That contribution does deserve a response with my characteristic temperateness. The conceit which informs this predictable attack on fossil fuels—that if international or domestic investors are inclined to come to New Zealand, use our geological reservoirs of information, use their own capital, somehow their willingness to exploit our resources and manage a risk is something that we as politicians, or they on the left side, have declared is morally unacceptable in the New Zealand economy. They have no mandate to make that decision.

Kiwis should celebrate the fact that if anyone wants to come to our country, boost the supply of energy and boost the availability of energy, they are entitled to do that, providing they’re obeying the law. But, no, that side of the House wants to change the law and condemn New Zealand to a pipe dream—some kind of Camelot existence; some kind of lotus-land economic reality that, somehow, we’re going to be lotus-eaters; that we can have a secure energy system sans coal, sans gas, reliant totally on wind and solar. Nowhere in the world does that work.

What is going to happen to the firms that are marooned and reliant on gas? Nothing. They have no future. It is absurd to suggest that Kiwis can possibly trust the view that is denouncing the arrival of either Asian capital, Australian capital, or anyone who’s willing to take a risk and work with our Government to open up potential bonanza, El Dorado levels of wealth that lie in the ocean. I say, bring it on.

Now, on the question of the $200 million Gas Security Fund; The Gas Security fund was designed to de-risk the availability and accelerate the delivery of those known fields that with a bit of a helping hand, they can contribute at the margin to what is proving to be a worsening situation—as I said, about 85 petajoules and declining. It is money well spent.

I know—I can predict what’s going to be said: the Supreme Court. Sadly, I’m unable to explain to you what I really think about the Supreme Court. However, that was dealt to partly by my colleague Mr Goldsmith. But the Supreme Court did lay a certain level of obligations on politicians to go through a process in allocating pūtea, allocating capital, to boost our oil and gas. That fund is designed for gas—that fund is not designed for sun or wind—and that gas is absolutely necessary to make up for a time, as Simeon Brown has said, when neither of those resources are available. I mean, it’s extraordinary that I’m even having to explain this yet again. Naturally, there are certain people who don’t care for the sound of my voice—I’m not one of them.

17:27

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question actually is for the Minister for Resources. When the Minister for Resources came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we asked him about whether he was doing any work to have royalties raised for mining companies to pay more for the work that they do in New Zealand. The Minister certainly has made quite a big deal about saying that he wanted a review into this. We know that New Zealand sits at the lower end internationally of the royalties that they do pay—certainly far lower than jurisdictions that the Minister often likes to point to as nirvana, like Western Australia and Queensland; certainly, much lower than that.

There has been a recent Deloitte report that shows that, actually, raising royalties over a number of years—out to 2060, I think, from memory—could actually deliver something like $758 million additionally to New Zealand and the New Zealand economy, and for New Zealanders, given that we largely have global, multinational mining companies working here. Has the Minister revisited the answer that he gave in the select committee that he had given up doing any work on raising royalties and wasn’t going to pursue any work to protect the New Zealand taxpayer and make sure that New Zealanders were receiving their fair share?

17:28

Kiwis, please, bear in mind that 80c in every dollar, we are advised, stays in our economy from those activities associated with mining. Of course, the other side of the House never count the contribution that the mining sector makes to GST, PAYE, corporate tax, ACC, and a whole variety of other levies that enterprises meet in order to remain compliant.

They never talk about the high-paying jobs; they never talk about the contributions that those firms make to the West Coast; they never talk about the engineers, the digger drivers, the geologists, the students, and God forbid the ecologists. No, they never talk about the fact of $13 million to $15 million paid by enterprises associated with mining just to go through the fast-track. But, wait—wait, mining industry: that bill is going to go down when I get back into Parliament and to this role on this side of the House after the election. That’s ridiculously expensive, but that’s another matter.

Let me come back to the business of royalties. If you are a miner in New Zealand, or if you are an investor in New Zealand, it is reasonable that your enterprise which you entered into should proceed on a basis of certainty. Now, there are two ways of looking at this. Royalties could be conceived as an ordinary part of taxation—I know that side of the House, according to Simeon Brown, are incontinent with their desire to put up taxes; that’s a debate, and he’s an expert on those matters in terms of studying their desire to put up taxes—or you could say that a royalty is a specific levy. I’ll leave that debate to people who enjoy talking about Crown revenue.

But the fact of the matter is that if you arbitrarily interfere and indiscriminately change the impost imposed on the mining sector, you can very well destroy industry. Look what has happened in Queensland. This very day, the coal mining industry in Australia, Queensland is knocking on the door of the Queensland Parliament seeking relief as a consequence of the arbitrary imposition of disproportionately high levies changed with the swipe of a pen overnight, freezing investment, chilling investment, and destroying jobs. We are not going to destroy jobs in the mining sector. We are going to massively expand the mining sector.

In fact, today, I was in Rotorua. I gave a memorable speech to the mining conference in Rotorua. Rather incongruous that it should be in Rotorua, but I’ll overlook that geographical incongruity. I promised them that the information that Cabinet asked me to release, that Cabinet mandated me to undertake, which was the Deloitte’s neutral platform of information comparing the royalties with the rest of the world—we compare favourably with the rest of the world because we want to incentivise investment. We want to turn our country into a magnet for investment. We want to encourage the growth of mining, because most of the Department of Conservation (DOC) land is overrun with weasels and rats, and it’s not even DOC land anyway. That’s going to be a key part of my campaign. Stewardship land is not DOC land. It should be opened up, possibly tomorrow, or certainly on 9, 10, 11, or 12 November for massive extractive activity. Those people will enjoy hunting, more tourism, more development. I mean, I’m just getting started.

17:33

Thank you, Madam Chair. That was a memorable contribution from the Minister for Resources, and from that, he also alluded to being in Rotorua for a miner’s conference. It’s an interesting place, the central plateau; it’s got huge geothermal resources not very far below the surface. However, I have, in my travels, met with a few people in the geothermal space—a few companies, exploration companies, people who are generating energy out of that—and I’ve heard that there’s been quite a rise in the cost of putting borewells down because of the jobs that left this country after the exploration ban was put in place for oil and gas. So, Minister, I would just like to ask you, how do you expect to keep the level of skilled and employee talent intact as we grow mining, and while we grow exploration, when we have struggled so far to maintain that after so many skilled employees and talent left New Zealand after that obscene ban on oil and gas exploration?

17:34

Look, I don’t mind admitting that no one’s career is devoid of imperfections, and there may have been one or three appearances in an earlier phase of my career with kabuki-faced expressions, but we’ll overlook those rather bleak episodes. I stand by what I said. There was a level of poor disclosure to my leader Winston Peters back there in 2018, and a forensic analysis will show a gross betrayal of full disclosure to my leader, but I’ll leave that matter in the past because I don’t want to continually rake over bleak accounts—bleak accounts—of political history.

I want us to look to the future and remind everyone that geothermal energy also has a host of mineral properties, and we have, from time to time—actually, in fact, I have to acknowledge Grant Robertson, and I’m likely to attract a few baleful glances by doing that, and David Parker; they did support me in giving pūtea towards some entrepreneurs to extract silica out in the Reporoa area—

Yeah, they’ve got gold in there too.

—yes, out of the geothermal resource, but the point remains that if we don’t keep a certain level of quality workmanship and quality human capital, it will drift to Australia and other places. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing because families have to earn a living, but we have learnt with the supercritical, and I have to acknowledge Megan Woods—she did start the project and I carried on with an allocation. Some people have criticised whether or not it was a worthy thing to do to carry on and allocate pūtea to what could be seen as a moonbeam shot, but surely all Governments should be willing to take a punt if it has a transformational effect in terms of energy and the level of human capital, technology, and skill required to go five to six kilometres in the earth. The skills are transferable from using oil and gas experience.

Sadly, it’s very, very much in short supply because those men and women have drifted overseas. I’m confident, however, in the event we have an opportunity to govern again and the billion-dollar fund, should it survive post-election negotiations, can be made available to boost the reservoir of information, de-risk investment, and really turbocharge the opportunities for men and women to recommit themselves to the extractive sector. It’s a brilliant and bright future because it’s posited upon us boosting our economic sovereignty and moving away from this lotus-eating false reality that somehow New Zealand, exclusively, is going to save the planet. Spare me that religious falsehood.

17:37

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister for Resources: following New Zealand’s commitment to the International Energy Agency Ministerial Declaration of Critical Minerals, how will the Budget appropriated for financial year 2026-27 be used to fast track the mapping and assessment of our domestic strategic mineral deposits?

Minister for Resources, just to let you know that you’ve just got under five minutes remaining.

17:38

That will enable me to be succinct and concise. Can I respond in two ways? You have raised the importance of critical minerals. I have already referred to the fact that officials have been working with American officials as to whether there’s scope for our nation, through our Government, to form a pact with the United States of America’s Government—that remains to be seen. However, that negotiating process is still under way.

I have also spoken to you, as a Parliament in question time, about the critical mineral strategy and the list of incredibly important minerals that have the potential to boost our capacity, to join the global supply lines, and we are also dedicating additional money, which should not come as a surprise, through the recalibration of funds in the newly established science bodies. But it will require a change in culture and attitude.

The conservation estate should not exclusively be seen as some type of fairytale wilderness area that can never be opened up for development, for hunting, for tourism, and a variety of other economic purposes.

We must support Tama Potaka and the modest changes, the modest improvements, that man is seeking to develop. Amongst that is the potential of the minerals and the mining.

Now, there is a modest footprint that is left. Look no further, Mr Court, than Wharekirauponga a tiny little dot on the landscape of Coromandel—on the right side of the Dixie line. It is not on the side that excites Ms Delahunty; it is on the side where the frogs can be moved, where the moths can fly away, where the Māoris can get jobs, and the Matua can mount a helicopter and survey the mining estate which is rich with potential.

17:40

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll be straight to the point. My question is to the Minister for Energy. If the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal fails to take off—if we fail to have a solution to the critical energy crisis we are facing, Minister—would the Minister consider the development of a new, publicly owned entity to secure our energy security, to ensure we have a dry-year solution that does not rely on ministerial oversight, ministerial decisions, or Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment professionalism, but would have the expertise to choose the lowest cost, best solution for our firming problem? We could call such an entity “Kiwipower”, for example. Would the Minister get behind such an idea to make that happen to ensure we have security of supply when we hit the dry-year challenge, and will the Minister back this idea? Thank you.

17:42

I appreciate the member’s pitch. The answer to the question is that Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) went through a very rigorous process considering all of the options in relation to the dry-year risk, and the liquefied natural gas (LNG) importation terminal came out as the preferred option, as the member knows, and the papers are all online. MBIE looked at a range of different options including diesel, pumped hydro, demand response, battery technology, biomass, rooftop solar—they looked at a range of different options and considered that LNG would be able to be delivered the fastest and also provide the most cost-effective option to be able to manage the dry-year risk that New Zealand is facing and for those benefits to be passed on to consumer.

The good news is, since we made that announcement earlier this year, and because of the significant increased generation that’s coming online through fast-track and other decisions this Government is making, we’ve seen a significant reduction in wholesale electricity prices this year, which is good news. There’ still more work to do.

17:43

Thank you, Madam Chair. Listen, I know the Minister for Resources is glorious in his effusive rhetoric and his coal-blustering hyperbole, but I wonder if he’s prepared to give up harassing rare endemic frogs for a moment—

They’re not rare, they’re everywhere.

—to answer a more serious question. They’re actually not everywhere; they’re in a very narrow number of places in the Waikato. All of the Archey’s frogs in the universe exist only in the Waikato.

This is a serious question I’d like the Minister to respond to. In terms of the certainty of energy costs for industry, we have had a rude awakening with the unilateral attack by the United States on Iran, which led to ongoing troubles with access to fuel and an extraordinary spike in the cost of fuel globally. The whole world has worn the consequences of that orange madman in the White House, and businesses in this country have—the cost of diesel, the cost of petrol, the cost of fuel on the whole. How, Minister, with our projections of what future fuel security looks like—fossil fuel security—in the global context, does he give industry certainty of the costs of energy when we are now moving from an indigenous gas supply, as it runs out, to an imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply where we are a price-taker, and we are therefore subject to the fluctuations of that price, whatever is happening in the international energy market?

That is exactly why—would it not be wiser and give greater security for that same money to be being invested in local biogas, for example, which is the same molecule and can go in the same pipes? Yes, it’s starting from a low base—we’ve got to grow it up—but we can be using the remainder of our reserves for industry now, rather than invest in a very uncertain, expensive form of gas, LNG, and be investing in local options of renewable energy, which have unlimited supply.

17:45

I thank the member for his question. We’ve had a number of questions in this House regarding the liquefied natural gas (LNG) debate about “What about this option?” or “What about that option?”. Well, we looked at all the options. We also looked at that option, and, of course, biogas is not of sufficient scale to be able to actually meet the need.

What the Green Party and Labour don’t seem to understand is that on average, we get a dry year about every four years, which means we don’t have the luxury of waiting till 2039 for a big lake at the bottom of the South Island, which was the former Minister for Energy’s solution, and we don’t have the time to wait for biogas to become of sufficient scale—

6 terawatts.

—6 terawatts is what Minister Jones is saying—and biomass we’d need to burn through Huntly, and Huntly has limited capacity of how much it can actually deliver in terms of energy needs. That would simply replace what’s being used for coal; it doesn’t actually fix the rest of the dry-year problem, which is what we need gas for, which is why LNG has become the preferred option.

Now, in terms of the price volatility, that is of course an issue that has been looked at—something which I examined very closely on becoming the Minister for Energy again following the war in Iran. But the reality is that the International Energy Agency is saying that the amount of LNG gas coming on board over the next few years is going to well outweigh what has been lost through the Strait of Hormuz, and of course, at the moment, we’re reliant on coal from one particular country. LNG would actually diversify those supply chains across different parts of the world. There are a number of reasons why the Government has made the decision. The problem with the Opposition is they don’t have a plan; they don’t have a solution; they’re simply complaining when we’re actually getting on and fixing the mess they left behind.

17:47

Thank you, Madam Chair. A question for the Minister for Energy: given that there are reports that Huntly’s 400-megawatt gas generator is currently offline because that gas has been instead allocated to Ballance to make fertiliser—

Food—food.

—that’s right, absolutely vital for food—how important is it that we have liquefied natural gas, not just for electricity generation, but so that the residual gas in the market can support industry?

17:48

We’re going through a procurement process, and as I outlined in my speech to the Auckland Business Chamber in relation to that decision, ultimately, we need to make sure we’ve got the backup energy first and foremost for our electricity. The funding model which we’re working through and considering is about also how do you fairly ensure that those other parties who may wish to access the gas pay their fair share?

The reality is, if we want to have an industrial base in New Zealand, if we want to have an electricity system where we’ve dealt with the dry-year risk, we need thermal backup generation in order to do that. With rapidly dwindling supply of gas here in New Zealand and the gap currently being filled by a coal stockpile filling half of it and gas needed for the other half, we need another option. That’s why the officials have advised that liquefied natural gas is the preferred option; that is why we’re pursuing it; it is critically important for the future of this country, and I am not going to do what the previous Minister for Energy Megan Woods did, which was leave the country high and dry and crash the oil and gas sector, which ultimately led to massive deindustrialisation and high energy prices in New Zealand. We are fixing the mess left behind by Labour.

17:49

Simple question: due to the closure of—

Can I just inform the member there is one minute and 57 seconds remaining.

Yeah, no problem. Due to the closure of Marsden Point, has that affected our vulnerability as a nation and, supplementary to that, our exposure to the vicissitudes of the International Energy Agency?

17:50

I can assure you, that scandalous, woeful, dangerous decision when Marsden Point was closed down with the approval of Megan Woods—not only did our Government need to ride to the rescue and spend up to $20 million re-establishing a tank to create a 100-litre buffer of diesel that she left empty; we have saved the New Zealand fuel resilience as a consequence of the closure of Marsden Point. It would never have happened if the matua and the rangatira Winston Peters had not been tossed out as a consequence of an inordinately negative campaign run and lies that were told at the time about Marsden Point. Marsden Point, sadly, no longer can fulfil its full potential, but we have rescued it by re-establishing a tank that was left bereft as a consequence of Megan’s failure to effect economic security.

17:51

Thank you. To the Minister of Energy; it’s wonderful to have you in the chair, because I’ll get a chance to ask you this question. New Zealand’s building out energy generation all over the country, but we’ve got to connect that up, and so, getting lines—how do we make sure that lines are being built in the right place and are not being overbuilt to transport energy around the country?

17:52

I thank the member for the question. Ultimately, Transpower has a long-term plan, but, also, they have to get approval from the Commerce Commission (ComCom) for their investments. The Commerce Commission scrutinises their plans to make sure that it’s proportionate and that it’s meeting the needs that New Zealanders have—because, ultimately, all of those charges end up on people’s bills, and so the ComCom has a very important role in doing that. In terms of the discussion document we released last week, particularly around distribution companies, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure that they are focused on affordability, and that’s what the discussion document is out for. I look forward to people’s feedback.

Can I just consult with the Opposition members. If there are no more questions, it’s likely to collapse the Estimates debate, so, technically, I need 30 seconds more before we can report progress on today.

Point of order. Can I just seek some clarification on that, Madam Chair, because this debate started at 4.45 p.m., which is now several minutes over the hour.

Correct, yeah.

That is correct?

Correct.

So you still need about another 30 seconds?

I need seven.

OK, thank you.

17:54

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just as this debate comes to a close, I think it’s important that New Zealanders reflect on the fact that what we’ve seen here is two Ministers that have come down to this House and misled the New Zealand public—they’ve misled the New Zealand public and they’ve withheld advice. They’ve misled the New Zealand public—

Point of order. You clearly can’t use language like that in this Chamber.

Speaking to the point of order—“misled” has been a phrase that has been used throughout this debate. I’m only reflecting language that Government Ministers have used during the course of this debate.

I do agree with you, but at the time there was quite a bit of to and fro in that interchange. I would just ask members to keep it parliamentary.

Indeed. Professional—professional!

That’s not helping, Mr Jones.

We’ve had Ministers come down here and we have had them mislead the New Zealand public—we’ve had them mislead the New Zealand public and not release information, and this is going to lead to New Zealanders paying more for their electricity and for the energy. We’ve had a Minister that continually comes down here and misleads the public about Marsden Point. This was after he went to Marsden Point—went around the country proclaiming he was going to reopen it. He didn’t; he’s failed. So what does he do? He comes here and he makes things up in this House. That Minister needs to actually show the New Zealand—

Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Could the member elaborate on how this so-called member has made things up? The member would love to hear that story.

That’s not a point of order, Mr Jones. No.

That’s not a point of order. I believe we’re at time now. That’s 30 seconds.

Yes. Thank you very much.

17:56

I move, That the committee report progress on this bill.

That’s a very good idea, Mr MacLeod.

Motion agreed to.

Progress to be reported.

Mr Speaker, the committee has further considered the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill and reports that it has made progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended for the dinner break and will resume at 7.30 p.m.

19:30

I move, That urgency be accorded the committee stage of the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill, and the remaining stages of the Emergency Management Bill (No 2), the Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill, and the Serious Fraud Office Amendment Bill.

Today we accord urgency for one main reason: to progress the committee of the whole House stages of the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. These are among the most ambitious changes this Government will make this term and we expect a fulsome and mature debate on the legislation before the House. Urgency is therefore being used predominantly to allow these bills to have their committee stages completed in one sitting, as opposed to being broken up over many days or weeks.

We have also included three other bills in the urgency motion—bills which have been to select committee and reported back to the House. These bills are Government priorities to pass before Parliament dissolves, and with only four sitting weeks left in the Parliamentary year, they are being included in the urgency motion to make the most of the time that we have available. The Social Security (Jobseeker Support and Accommodation Supplement) Amendment Bill, in particular, has a commencement date of 2 November 2026, so it does need to be finished before the end of this term.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Planning Bill, the Natural Environment Bill, and the Emergency Management Bill (No 2).

19:34

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for clarifying that Part 1 includes Schedule 1 and Schedule 12. We’ve had a very large Government Amendment Paper, which covers off the whole bill, and in this case I’m going to go through that—that is Amendment Paper 709. When I’m referring to numbers, that’s what I’m planning to do; other people may, of course, do something different. I note that the Minister also has a different Amendment Paper that I’m calling the “small Amendment Paper”, which relates to setting up a statutory office and also makes some changes around Plan Change 1 in the Waikato and Plan Change 2 in the Manawatū. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm if we’re expecting other Amendment Papers other than those two—he’s shaking his head, OK.

Of course, we have many published Amendment Papers, as do the Greens, and we’ve also got some amendments that will be tabled shortly, as well. Given the vastness of this legislation, they are not an abundance—I don’t think we’d call it an abundance of amendments, but there are certainly some.

It’s a competitive market in Amendment Papers.

That’s right.

And on that note, we would be very happy as Chairs if clauses and Amendment Paper numbers were referred to, because we’re not sure what’s on what page all the time. If you could just refer to it, that would be great. Thank you.

I will certainly do my best, Madam Chair, and do feel free to remind me, though, if I slip into some excitement about a provision and forget to tell you where to find it. But, as I say, I’m looking at this Amendment Paper 709, which is the whole bill reproduced.

Part 1 includes the definitions, it includes the purpose clause, it includes the Treaty clause, and then it includes some new amendments that the Minister has made. How I would like to deal with this is to go through clause by clause and then move on to Schedule 1 and then, if people have issues on Schedule 12, to go to Schedule 12.

Yeah—part by part is good.

On that, if we start on the interpretation—and I will look for some guidance here, because “designation”, in the interpretation, “has the meaning given in clause 3 of Schedule 5”, and that is not in Part 1—Schedule 5—but the reference is to Schedule 5. I would ask for some guidance on where the Chair would like that debate on the definition of “designation” to happen.

I’ll just take some advice on that. We do understand from our briefings that there is crossover between the two bills, so we’re not going to be strictly saying one is different to the other, but I’ll just take advice on that.

Thank you. This is within the same bill, anyway.

Yeah.

Thank you. I’ll move on, then.

It’s in Part 1, so that’s fine.

Fine to talk about the definition of “designation”. As I was saying, this is in clause 3 of Schedule 5, and whilst I don’t think it’s an amendment that the Minister has made, it appears to be a very wide definition. I’m wondering if the Minister can speak to the breadth of that definition and the importance of the definition, because “designations” pop up all the way through the legislation. Designations are an old and important tool to identify where a piece of infrastructure is intended to be. Most people would consider infrastructure to be things like roads or pipes, but the feeling is that this definition of “designation” is now very wide, so some commentary on that would be useful.

If I move on to “infrastructure”, I have an Amendment Paper, and my Amendment Paper is 695—it’s a published Amendment Paper—and this is about the functioning of the economy being in that definition. This is an important point because it relates to the designations that I was just talking about—designations are generally for infrastructure—and a lot of these bills rely on infrastructure. My question, if I can just go for a little bit longer, is that (a) the definition of “infrastructure” has an inclusion of the functioning of the economy. That seems to be importing quite a different criteria from what infrastructure and designations have traditionally been for—public work that local government is in charge of, and that is why they’ve got the special treatment of being able to get designations.

If you have these wider definitions, then that is going to undermine what previously has been thought of as public infrastructure. If the Minister can comment on that and why that’s happening and whether or not I should be worried.

19:40

Madam Chair, thank you very much. I thank the member for her questions. Just as a prefatory remark, the Government has withdrawn one of the smaller Amendment Papers in relation to competitive land markets and has tabled a new Amendment Paper.

So it’s a new one?

It’s a new one in relation to Plan Change 1 and 2 and the statutory urban land market officer. It’s just been tabled in the last 20 minutes.

Does that include the plan changes as well?

Yes. Yes it does; they’re all grouped up together. But the urban land market officers had some refinements in the last few hours, which I think will meet with the member’s approval.

OK. Why don’t you do more of that? More of that.

Let’s wait and see—let’s wait and see. We’re starting as we hopefully mean to go on.

In relation to designation, I’m advised that the definition is functionally the same as under the Resource Management Act, so that member’s claim that it’s a broader definition is not really correct.

In relation to infrastructure, I was struggling a little bit to get at what the member was referring to. It’s defined in clause 3, as the member is aware, and it’s all there in black and white: it’s a physical structure; it performs a public function, necessary to support one or more of the following; the functioning of the economy. But of course, infrastructure can be privately provided. Ownership is, frankly, neither here nor there. We have private infrastructure all over the country and we are likely to continue to do that. The key is whether or not infrastructure meets the definition laid out in clause 3.

Madam Chair.

Point of order, Madam Chair.

Arena Williams.

Point of order, Madam Chair.

Oh, sorry. Point of order, the Hon Damien O'Connor.

19:42

Sorry. Look, I’m just not sure the sound system is working. I don’t want to accuse the Minister of mumbling, but it’s really hard to hear him from here. I appreciate I’m hard of hearing. I’m not sure that they’re coming through the speakers here in the seats.

OK. We’ll make sure this is lined up and we’ll just get someone to check the sound system. But in the meantime, if you can’t hear something, let us know. Arena Williams.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s helpful clarification about his new Amendment Paper (AP) 709, just for ease of reference in this debate, can I ask him what parts of new 709 amend Part 1 of his proposed bill, so that we’re just clear. Most of the amendments to the old 709—this is the new 709—were to Part 5, and so we are prepared to debate them then. But I’m just clarifying with him whether there is anything unexpected that we need to cover off in this part.

To the first substantive question for the Minister—I’m on page 19; we’re still in section 3, the definitions section—I want to ask him about his narrowing of the new definition of “built environment” in this bill. The deletion of the word “includes” and insertion of “means all or any” seems to make that definition more prescriptive and also narrower. The built environment question is important because it’s one of the two halves of the conceptual architecture of the Planning Bill, so I’m asking him here whether, firstly, it is his intention for (a) to (e) under that definition to be the exhaustive list of what “built environment” means, or whether it’s also meant to have a natural reading. Then, if it is an exhaustive list—and not “built environment” in the meaning of what we would usually mean by “built environment”—has he intended to exclude commercial buildings, houses, schools, hospitals, stadiums? Why does this definition not include buildings?

These definitions are the sorts of characteristic definitions that the Resource Management Act (RMA) used to give effect to some of those things like amenity values and characteristics of a neighbourhood under the old system. I can understand why his definition doesn’t include those things, but it doesn’t now seem to make sense for on where that term is used in the rest of the Planning Bill if it excludes those things, which are things that are made by people in the environment.

I also want to ask: the old RMA sort of equivalent definition included a specific mention of public spaces that are not green spaces. He hasn’t defined green spaces in the same way as the old system. Again, I can appreciate why he has done that, but then how do you read in to these rules public spaces like town squares, civic plazas, streetscapes; reading closer to things like neighbourhood values and characteristics of a particular urban space? But there are also physical things which seem to be left out of this definition as it is now.

Those first questions are about the conceptual nature of the definition. How are we meant to read it? Then did he mean to exclude those things which are included in the natural meaning of the word?

I also want to then turn to page 21 at the top—we’re at decommissioning. New AP 709, I assume, still—sorry, I’m talking about 709, which is the big one. This creates a new offshore renewable energy (ORE) regime specifically for decommissioning rather than creating a general concept of decommissioning. It’s important to distinguish those things because there are also special powers within this bill that distinguish that sort of function from other ORE generation activities. For example, elsewhere in the bill there are provisions that say that a planning consent can be cancelled for generation of infrastructure, but decommissioning can’t be cancelled. So it makes sense to have those two regimes—that’s not the question. The question is: why is there not an equivalent regime for decommissioning other sorts of infrastructure? Reading through the definitions, that is also something which seems to have a special statutory power: waste facilities, quarries, mines, landfills, Huntly. Why is there not that specific power in the planning regime now, where decommissioning of that sort of assets hasn’t been provided for as well?

The honourable Minister. I understand the sound system’s working. I think it was the direction of the microphone, but give me the thumbs up.

19:47

It might have been me. I was muttering away. My apologies for that.

Just to deal with a few of these issues. In relation to the member’s first question around the—let’s just call it the competitive land markets Amendment Paper (AP)—

Yeah, OK. Good.

Cool—CULM, which is a tabled amendment. The member asked: does it affect Part 1? We’re just checking that. I think there might be a minor change there, but it’s largely later in the bill. But in the interests of debate and transparency and having a good heave-ho at it, I wanted to Table it as soon as possible.

Built environment: again, I was struggling a bit to understand where the member was going with this when it doesn’t exclude stadiums—stadiums are structures—it doesn’t exclude many of the things she said. I mean, it’s “all or any of the following: (a) people and communities: (b) land and the identified values and characteristics: (c) structures: (d) infrastructure: (e) the surface of water”. Of course, you take an ordinary statutory interpretation approach to all of the interpretative provisions, as you do in all legislation. Nothing really turns on that.

It doesn’t seem to say buildings.

It does; it says “structures”. Buildings are structures.

Well—

Well, they are. Look, sorry, but they are.

Helpful to have it on the Hansard.

It’s on the record.

OK. Well, if the Planning Bill fails on that one, then I’ll cop to that, but I’m not sure it’s going to fail.

Public and green spaces: I suspect we’re going to have a bit of debate about this. There’s nothing to stop the councils and those who do these sorts of things, from public realm improvements, from reserves, from parks, from public squares—nothing to stop that. The suggestion that there are prohibitions on that are wrong.

Decommissioning: again, I was not 100 percent sure where the member was going. The definition listed in the bill is an update, essentially, because when the bill was first drafted, we had the Offshore Renewable Energy Act 2026 pass, which now has passed, so it’s a cross-reference back to that in relation to the ORE generation infrastructure activities, or “ore”—but it’s the opposite of ore because it’s offshore renewable energy. But, you know, I found that amusing late last night.

19:50

I’m happy for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to explain his “ore” joke some more.

Iron ore.

Oh, got it, thank you—thanks, thanks. Going back to the definition of infrastructure, where the Minister said that ownership is neither here or there, the point of my Amendment Paper 695 is to delete clause 3(a)(ii)(A), “the functioning of the economy”, because at the moment, how infrastructure is defined, it says, “is necessary to support any 1 or more of the following:”. One could simply be the functioning of the economy, so, presumably, a retail shop could therefore be defined as infrastructure. It means “a physical structure, facility, or network that—(i) performs a public function; or”—and this “or” is important, talking about “or”s—“is necessary to … (A) the functioning of the economy”. That seems to be an incredibly wide definition of infrastructure. Even if the Minister thinks that ownership is here nor there, it does seem to be opening infrastructure up to, say, shops.

Now, I’ve got two more points I’d like to raise in this contribution. One is that I should shortly have on the Table an amendment for “well-functioning urban environment” that goes to the point the Minister was just making about the importance of public space and that it’s very clear that councils are able to plan for it. This is particularly important when so much of this legislation is about, as the Government says, the enjoyment of private property rights—so, enabling people to build out almost all of their land, which means that there’s going to be more need for the green space that is often provided for on people’s private properties to be in public space.

Also, we’re worried, with settings and commentary around rates caps and those things, what is going to happen to this public sphere? How will it be funded? Does the Minister consider that there needs to be other tools to provide for that, particularly when we’re talking about intensification of areas, which, you know, I think is a good thing to be doing.

Then my third question for the Minister on these definitions is—and I know he’s already talked on the decommissioning and the offshore renewable energy, but are there any policy changes in the other changes that he’s made in his Amendment Paper—so not what went to select committee—except for, of course, the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, which is, obviously, a very big policy change, but I think we’ll want to speak on that in a more substantive provision.

The three questions are: aside from the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, does his Amendment Paper include policy changes to the definitions? Will he consider my “well-functioning urban environment” definition, that is more specific around the importance of public space and planning for place? And would he also consider my Amendment Paper 695, that removes the functioning of the economy from being one thing that can in itself define a physical structure as infrastructure?

19:54

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m at page 25, at iwi participation agreement. This definition is another question, really, about plain language phrase that the Amendment Paper seeks to define. So, first question is: what are we intending to do here by defining an iwi participation agreement? The answer isn’t as simple as, you know, an iwi participation agreement, on its normal reading, has to be something which is the sort of agreement which is entered into through proposed new clause 198A, because there are plenty of times where those words mean an agreement which is entered into by a local authority and an iwi organisation. For instance, agreements between Auckland’s Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) and the iwi who appoint the members of the IMSB, or arrangements between the governance entity that manages the Ōrākei lands at Takaparawhā between local body and iwi representatives, and how they are appointed. Those are iwi participation agreements which exist between local authorities and the iwi, and they also involve an exercise of public power that is being exercised by the local authority. Then there are other sorts of iwi participation arrangements which will not involve the exercise of that sort of public power but will still exist between a local authority and an iwi.

The question is: firstly, are those iwi participation agreements that exist now more like the written documents which I think the Minister responsible for RMA Reform is envisioning under 198A—are they extinguished because they haven’t been entered into under the new process of 198A? Or, if you have been through a process which is similar to the process described in 198A, do they now exist, and is there sort of a savings provision between those arrangements that exist that are written down on paper and the new ones?

Second question is around those sorts of arrangements—the Ōrākei lands arrangements are a good example. They are not saved by his transitional arrangements in the statutory acknowledgments set out in Schedule 12. That statutory body is a creature of—it’s acknowledged in the settlement of the Tāmaki iwi that was made in 2020; that body has iwi participation arrangements and agreements that make it able to constitute itself. So those will continue to exist because they’re a creature of other legislation, but are councils sort of needing to formalise those arrangements again under this new regime, and why aren’t they saved by Schedule 12 if they don’t have to do that?

I also want to ask him particularly about things like right of first refusal land acquisitions: those do need documented iwi participation agreements because they are commercial arrangements about how iwi will participate in a council disposing of land where that land has a right of first refusal that has been granted in the past, either by a council or by the Crown. So do councils need to re-enter into those arrangements, or do they exist outside of the statutory meaning of an iwi participation agreement in this law? Those agreements are commercially valuable to iwi; they have a value. So are we now seeking to renegotiate the way that iwi participate in those, and how does the Minister sort of conceptualise—like, what is this provision trying to do if it doesn’t have any effect on those arrangements as they exist?

19:58

The member has spent four minutes answering her own question. “Iwi participation agreements” means an agreement entered in accordance with proposed new clauses 198A to C. They’re not iwi participation agreements as defined by the Planning Bill. They are other types of agreements, but they are not iwi participation agreements as laid out in this bill. The member just has to read the bill. There’s a whole schema laid out in new clauses 198A to C, which her colleague said we were going to get into later, but, you know, there’s a schema there around what they look like and what they are allowed to include. They are, essentially, the replacement for the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements that we have decided we should not continue with. So, right of first refusal (RFR), separate agreements that councils have got—you know, it’s all fine. It’s not relevant to this bill because they are separate creations; they are separate vehicles, mechanisms—whatever. So that deals with both those two issues, including the RFR acquisition issue.

In relation to Rachel Brooking’s points, look, I’m comfortable with the definition of infrastructure as it’s laid out. Of course, there is the ability through national policy direction and national standards to be more specific. That, I think, is an important point to bear in mind is that the bill is the bill, which will hopefully become an Act—the way the scheme is designed is national policy direction, of which we’ve published the first illustrative draft today—and I’d encourage members to have a look at this very coherent but yet comprehensive document that lays out direct—

Informercial.

What’s that?

Informercial.

Well, OK. Anway, the national policy direction, which some people out there have been surprised to discover we already have under the Resource Management Act (RMA)—a national policy statement on renewal energy, for example, urban development, which members will be very familiar with. But it’s an attempt to bring much more coherency and structure to how we do national direction. So, of course, that will flesh out some of the stuff that’s in the bills. I suspect that will be a recurrent theme going through the debates over the next few hours.

In relation to public space, look, I don’t have a huge amount more to say then what I’ve already said, which is I’m a believer in public spaces. I think they are important. The bills do not distract away from the idea of public spaces, the public realm, parks and reserves, and placemaking by councils.

They don’t focus on them either.

What’s that?

They don’t focus on them either.

Well, to be honest, that response and the sort of exchange, I think, neatly illustrates maybe one of the divides, which is the bill can’t do everything—that’s the whole point. The RMA sought to do literally everything and provide a statutory authority and directives here, there, and everywhere. That was actually part of the issue. So, yes, the legislation doesn’t say a lot about public spaces, but that’s not to say that public spaces aren’t important. Legislation does not have to speak to every element of every aspect of society—that’s potentially one of the dividing lines between us.

In relation to her very good question around policy changes in Amendment Paper 709, through the interpretation stuff, the answer is no. There are some minor tweaks and stuff like that, but not much.

20:02

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask the Minister some questions from the amendments tabled by my colleague Tamatha Paul around clause 3, looking at the iwi participation agreements that are to be developed. In her amendment, tabled at about 5 o’clock this afternoon, around clause 3, we’ve got “after subclause (b) to insert (c) to include hapū”. So for iwi Māori operating in the Resource Management Act (RMA) over a number of years, the voice of hapū marae have actually been those that have tangibly been doing a lot of the work in the RMA for a number of years. With the ability for us to add hapū in specifically, could provide the space for hapū groupings to come through and strengthen their relationship in a formal way to provide that mechanism to initiate those participation mechanisms with local council.

This would be a win because even under Mana Whakahono ā Rohe it was very iwi focused. In this legislation, we’re still very iwi focused again. So as a tono to the Minister, how can we provide space for hapū who are at place, who have that close relationship to whenua, to moana, to taonga, to be able to initiate those participation agreements and mechanisms through this bill and with local government into the future? That’s one pātai.

Then, the following amendment from Tamatha Paul, again under clause 3—same area. So we’ve done: insert (c) for hapū. I’d like to also recommend that we could look at the way that we could increase or enhance the way that we can define what a Māori person is in Aotearoa New Zealand and provide that additional definition. So in the amendment provided, subclause (c), under qualifying resident (d) “insert the definition does apply to a Māori person or entity as defined by section 2 of the Maori Community Development Act”. So in clause 3, after the heading of mana whenua, if we were to insert what Māori means—a person of the Māori race of New Zealand—could include also the descendants of. This could provide a helpful clarity in the bill in terms of the distinction between a qualifying resident and a distinction with tangata whenua or iwi Māori.

So those are a couple of tono from me. Knowing that hapū have that very close relationship and have working knowledge of the RMA of the past and they still currently have their hands on the steering wheel, but have nothing in statute to formalise that participation and the way that they can formalise their arrangements with local authorities. And then ensuring that we’re clear as to the distinction between Māori and the qualifying resident. Kia ora.

20:06

Thank you, Madam Chair and Minister. I just have a question around clause 7(1)(a) and clause 7(1)(b). I found that quite interesting that the “Act does not apply to any of the following: (a) warships of any State other than New Zealand: [and] (b) aircraft of the defence forces of any State other than New Zealand:”. One thing that this House knows very well is that Kiwis take a keen interest in what warships from visiting forces actually have on board. When I think of a warship as I know it, they’ve got the electromagnetic spectrum, and if one is alongside and that spectrum management isn’t sorted, then it can shut down a whole cellular network. It also has things like HE for high-explosive munitions aboard, and large quantities of fuel, which is quite a concern for Kiwis. I was just wondering what your thoughts were around that, particularly if you could explain what environmental risks that you see could arise from exempting foreign Government ships and military aircraft from this legislation.

20:07

Thank you. Well, let’s deal with the last question first. It’s a direct carry over from the Resource Management Act 1991—no changes there. I think it is what it is—it’s sensible.

In relation to the question from the Green member earlier, there is no definition of hapū authorities. The bill includes requirements for consultation with iwi authorities on national instruments and plans; iwi authority being defined as the authority that represents an iwi and it is recognised by that iwi as having authority to do so. I’m also not supportive of Ms Paul’s amendment. We believe that there is adequate participation provided for for Māori through the clauses in their interpretation clause, in the clause that we’re talking about, and the other forgoing provisions.

20:08

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just coming back to the definitions, we had a substantive Amendment Paper from the Minister, 709, drop not too long ago, so I just have a series of questions that affect both clause 3 and clause 6. I just was wondering why significant non-compliance as a definition—this is on page 30 of the Amendment Paper—has been deleted in the Minister’s Amendment Paper. Then there were some amendments made by the select committee to that definition, but now it’s just been totally deleted.

Clause 6(5) through to (12), which have a lot of detail around enforcement orders, infringement notices, offences under the Act, all of that’s been deleted. I’m just wondering if the Minister can tell us, has that been moved to a different part of the bills?

What clauses are you talking about?

Clause 3, the definition of significant non-compliance on page 30—it’s at the very bottom of the page. This is on the Amendment Paper 709. Then clause 6(5) through (12), and that’s on pages 35 and 36 of the Minister’s Amendment Paper 709. I can keep going with questions.

I guess I’ll just use the rest of this call to reiterate concerns around the definition of “infrastructure” and whether, in the context of planning rules, infrastructure should be somewhat limited to something that is performing a public function. That would be, under the definition of infrastructure on page 24, Amendment Paper 709, under clause 3, definition of infrastructure, subclause (a), paragraph (i), having “performs a public function;” and “is necessary to support any 1 or more of the following:” would make sense. Because in the context in which we’re talking about infrastructure, it’s almost always in the context of it having some sort of wider public function, not a strictly private function.

That’s the context in which we would have designations and planning rules and try to accommodate infrastructure, right? As if it’s serving some sort of more broad function than just one for a private landowner. I’m just curious why we wouldn’t have an “and” in that definition and in subclause (b) under infrastructure—same situation. Just, you know, whether it’s a natural feature or a physical structure or a facility or a network, it would perform a public or semi-public function “and” is necessary for, one of the other, (A), (B), (C), or (D).

20:11

Very briefly, we’ve kind of canvassed the infrastructure debate and I’m comfortable with the definition that is in the bill.

In relation to the member’s previous question, I’m advised that “significant non-compliance” is contextual and best defined using a dictionary definition of “significance” applied to the context relevant to the non-compliance. In plain English, that means it’s very hard to define through a bill what significant non-compliance is. I mean, you either comply or you don’t comply, and then it’s either significant or it isn’t, and we’re just relying on the ordinary construction of that to apply when it comes to non-compliance and a judgment as to whether or not that is significant or not. So essentially not defining it in the bill, so it’s a drafting thing that decided.

20:12

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to make the first of a few interventions on the question of competitive urban land markets, which is one of the features of this bill. There are many things in this bill and its companion that Labour does not support—and I think members will know we’ll be voting against the bill, but the provisions—

Could you please point me to the page that you’re on?

Yeah. I’m going to be speaking to Part 1, clauses 2 and 3.

Thank you.

But the provisions on competitive land markets are ones that we do support. I just want to note that I think the cross-party consensus around competitive land markets, and how essential they are to housing affordability, to the productivity of our cities, is a real bright spot in this policy area of housing and of our cities over recent years.

In relation to Part 1, clause 2, I just really want to question in fact the decision that has been made to allow commencement of these provisions to happen, triggered by some future executive decision. I’d be interested to hear from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform why that has been chosen. I worry that some future colleague who is the Minister who may not be committed to this particular area of work would have the option open to them just to let it sit indefinitely. That’s not something that we would like to see, so why does it—

We’re just checking: clause 2 is the preliminary clause—

Yeah.

So we’re actually on Part 1. We’re not—

Oh, I beg your pardon. I was speaking to—OK. All right, I shall leave it then. I’ll come back to it.

20:14

Thank you. [Interruption] He was saying a nice theme there.

I was trying to find it.

The purpose—I’m moving on now to clause 4. I’ve finished with the definitions, and this normally would be in a very important clause in the legislation, but here it’s surprisingly not. It’s: “The purpose of this Act is to provide for the enjoyment of land by establishing a framework for planning and regulating the use and development of land.”

It is clearly the intention of this Government to be a totally enabling Act, and “enjoyment of land” is an interesting turn of phrase—that’s probably new to New Zealand legislation. But I have an Amendment Paper, and that is Amendment Paper 693, and that is to amend the purpose and that is to be: “The purpose of this Act is to enable development, high-quality infrastructure, and primary sector growth within the environmental protections provided for by the Natural Environment Act 2025.”

I’m wondering if the Minister responsible for RMA Reform could comment on my proposed amendment and why it is that his legislation doesn’t do that knitting together, that integration. I know Simon Court has made statements before that he is opposed to the integration and that these bills represent the end of integrated management in New Zealand. Would the Minister consider an amendment to the purpose clause to reference those environmental protections that are supposedly found in his Natural Environment Bill? That is my question on the purpose clause.

20:16

Madam Chair, thank you. The purpose of the bill is an important provision. The purpose clause is a descriptive clause of what the bill does, and it does not have a decision-making role throughout the system. That is provided through the specific provisions based on the funnel approach, which members—certainly members who have sat on the Environment Committee—will be familiar with. We start with goals, then you move to national policy direction, then down through standards, down through spatial plans and land use plans, down to individual consenting level. One of the central aims of the legislation is to avoid the endless re-litigation about what the purpose of the Planning Bill or the Natural Environment Bill purposes are.

The Resource Management Act (RMA) has produced a situation where everybody has to cite the purpose clause of the RMA and we end up with endless debates about what “sustainable management” means. The purpose clause of this legislation is a descriptive clause. It does not have a role in decision making through the system. Instead, we do that through the specific provisions based on the funnel approach.

The member makes a comment about the enjoyment of land being a change, and that’s deliberate. Central government policy—certainly of this Government—is to elevate property rights in the system. The member might notice that there is not a broad reference to property rights in the legislation. The way we have decided to emphasise that is by talking about—or at least focusing on—the enjoyment of land, which means being able to have the freedom to use land and not be unreasonably affected by other land uses.

20:18

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to jump possibly slightly ahead—but noting that I’m sure colleagues have still got questions on other clauses—but this is just in relation to my portfolio of oceans and fisheries. It’s Part 1, page 41 of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s Amendment Paper 709, and we’re looking at clause 10B, “Rules that control fishing”. I just want to turn first to 10B(1), which states that “No instrument made under this Act may include a rule that controls fishing within the coastal marine area.” I’m quite interested in this quite specific clause on the back of conversations around the Fisheries Amendment Bill, which has been stalled. There has been significant discussion around biodiversity impacts around fishing rules, around quota, but also around where fishing can occur—so not just the numbers, but which parts of the various parts of the system.

I understand that under the Resource Management Act, regional councils do have the role to be able to restrict fishing within the coastal marine area on very narrow grounds. Those narrow grounds are around maintaining indigenous biodiversity. This clause looks to be far more permissive than what is currently within the rules. It has been quite a hot topic of conversation. In fact, it’s a pretty hot topic of conversation at the moment, when you think about what’s happening with whitebait down the Waimakariri.

And so, I’m interested in understanding from the Minister—because the challenge we’ve got is this piece hasn’t gone through select committee, and so as the spokesperson, I don’t get the opportunity, through colleagues who sit on the Environment Committee, to ask these questions further around exactly why this has been done. Has there been lobbying from people in order to include this so that, essentially, no restrictions can be applied by a regional council? At the moment, they can apply a restriction, but it is very narrow. That’s appropriate, because we often look at—and this has been a really important discussion as part of the Fisheries Amendment Bill, which colleagues from the National Party have actually participated in in a really useful way: it’s not just around stock A, and how stock A and stock B might interact with each other; it’s actually the entire biodiversity of how fisheries stock interact with the sea floor—the kelp, the other creatures and critters that are in that part of the coastal marine environment. So I’m really interested—this is a very hot topic of conversation.

If you look further at new clause 10B(2), it appears, just on my reading—and, again, this is the challenge of not being able to interrogate this at select committee. My reading looks like this mostly interacts with the Fisheries Act—well, not so much with the Fisheries Act, but with other Acts that provide customary fishing. I’d just be interested in the Minister’s response on that. Then, the definition in new clause 10B(3) gives, essentially, a definition of what the instrument is. The reason I’ve asked about this is when we talk about regional spatial plans and draft regional spatial plans, I assume that those are the types of spatial plans that a regional council would be putting in place that would make these types of applications.

I’m certainly interested in new clause 10B(1), as it looks more permissive than what regional councils can currently do. That is of concern to me as spokesperson, particularly in the context of the conversations we’ve been having around the Fisheries Act and the need for us to maintain a, what we call, an ecosystem approach within that Act. That’s been a matter of controversy. There are a lot of examples that are out there in the public domain, and, I think, a better understanding now across the House of how fisheries operate with us in these environments—that it isn’t just a straightforward, “Look at how much fish you have and how much you take away and how much you’re left with.” It’s actually about how everything within the ocean environment interacts with each other—and, of course, how land and water use and the land-based environment impacts on what’s happening in the coastal environment.

I’m interested in the Minister’s comments on the reason for new clause 10B(2) being introduced, but, most specifically, I would like a robust—

We’ve got the question. He’s actually just waiting to answer your question.

20:23

Let me just firstly deal with Julie Anne Genter’s question from—I don’t know—20 minutes or so ago in relation to clause 6(5) to (12) on Amendment Paper 709. I’m advised that that has actually moved, rather than being deleted, to clause 27(1)(a). So there you go.

Righty-o. On the fisheries: we’ve made a decision, which was reflected in the bill—or it’s the Amendment Paper now—but councils will no longer be able to make planning rules that control fishing in the coastal marine area. Basically, we’re trying to reduce the regulatory overlap with the Fisheries Act. What we’ve been seeing is the Resource Management Act (RMA) kind of creeping into the fisheries space and the Government’s view is that, essentially, the Fisheries Act should deal with fisheries, and the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill—hopefully, Acts—will deal with the environmental effects, will deal with everything else. And so, under the changes made by the Government Amendment Paper, councils will no longer be able to make planning rules that control fishing in the coastal marine area.

There are existing RMA fishing controls that have been made to protect values in the coastal marine area, such as biodiversity and natural character. Natural character is now being dealt with through the Planning Bill, and so the Planning Bill needs to clarify that rules that control fishing are excluded, in addition to being excluded under the Natural Environment Bill. Current council fishing controls in Northland, Bay of Plenty, and Marlborough will remain in place during the transition period until the new system comes online—estimated for 2030—as part of their respective RMA plans. Existing RMA plan-change processes involving proposed fishing controls and plans that are not subject to plan stop will also continue to progress during the transition period.

The Government’s decision does not remove the requirement to manage the environmental effects of fishing. The Government’s view is that these controls should be considered through fisheries legislation and other marine protection frameworks, rather than through council planning rules. For example, the purpose of the Fisheries Act includes providing for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. So, basically, we’re just seeking to roll the fisheries into the Fisheries Act.

20:25

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a real pleasure to be able to be part of sparking off this assessment of bills which hold such serious implications for the entire country and for our future. I want to particularly start with questioning the Minister about the purpose statement of the Planning Bill, because what was absolutely clear from the information and the advice that we were provided with at the Environment Committee was that the descriptions of the purpose clauses across both bills, but particularly this planning one, is that it is a purpose clause with no purpose.

I think the thing that I really want to understand with the assessment of this and where the Government has actually got to in deciding to retain where they are with the purpose clause of the Planning Bill, is why it was not considered that, for example, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment specifically put in front of us—and I’m sure it has made its way to the Minister—very clear suggestions for how these bills, particularly this Planning Bill, could actually provide clarity and direction and have a purpose with a purpose.

We currently have that the purpose of this Act is “to provide for the enjoyment of land by establishing a framework for planning and regulating the use and development of land”. Now, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment raises the question, as did many submitters across the committee stage, of whose enjoyment and for what purposes. As the Government insists that this is going to be practical and pragmatic and this is going to provide certainty in all these things, the enjoyment of land is not one that many people anticipate is something that provides that certainty. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has suggested the purpose of this Act is “to enable development, high-quality infrastructure, and primary-sector growth within the environmental protections provided for by the Natural Environment Act”. Now, that would actually spawn integration. It would actually spawn direction.

Why has the Minister changed so many things about the bills in these last-minute amendments and not gone to the primary purposes that would actually offer some direction, some workability? I’d really like to hear that, because I think it’s such a critical area where these bills have gone wrong.

20:29

I’ve spent about three to four minutes on this a couple of times now. We’re deliberately having a descriptive purpose clause that does not—I mean, the member says we might as well not even have one. I mean, that’d be great, to be honest, but the whole point is to not end up with endless debate in the courts and councils and through individual consent applications around what the purpose of the planning bill is, but if that ends up happening, we’ll have failed. We’re trying to get away from that, and so it’s a descriptive clause that does the bare minimum. It does what it says on the tin: provides for the enjoyment of land, establishes a framework. Essentially, another way of putting it is that it’s a framework clause. It basically says, “There’s a framework for that. See the rest of the Act or the bill, see the national policy direction, see the national standards for planning and regulating the use of planning.”

The member makes a claim that she doesn’t know anyone who anticipates the enjoyment of land as something that people might want to do—well, respectfully, that might be her perspective.

So what does it mean?

Respectfully, the idea of property rights, I would argue, is fundamental to a modern market-based economy and the utilisation of land is an important thing.

The member says, “Why did I not listen to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment?”. Well, I’ve got huge respect for the Rt Hon Simon Upton, but he is not the oracle. The fact that he has been involved in the Resource Management Act (RMA) for 30 years and is the author of the modern RMA means that he knows a lot about it, but it does not mean that he is an oracle. Ministers and the Government are entitled to disagree with him. I agree with him on many things, but his suggested purpose clause is, essentially, just a modern-day version of the RMA purpose clause, which is partly why we are in this mess. We are deliberately taking a different approach and we stand by that.

20:31

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. For all of those people who are tuned in tonight looking for a reform of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and refinement, I’d just like them to look at this pile of paper here, which is what this Government is trying to pass. In referring to Part 1 here, I’d like to point to—well, the Minister was trying to explain his way out of why he should utilise the term “enjoyment”. If ever there’s a “woke” terminology, it’s “enjoyment”, and I’m absolutely flabbergasted as someone who has been a farmer and someone who actually loves the land and really wants to have a bit.

If the Minister, as he explained, was setting a framework, and if it was, as he said, to protect property rights, then why not put it in the purpose? Why not state it here if the objective of the Government is to protect property rights? There’s not just individual property rights; there’s public property rights and there are wider property rights. My question to him is: please explain more about “enjoyment”, because I know people who have land and their enjoyment of the land is digging it up. I know people who own land and their enjoyment of the land is grazing animals on it. I know people who own land and enjoyment is planting trees.

There are many, many ways of enjoying land, but what the Minister has said is that the primary objective or the purpose is not to allow all those things, because I can tell you what—the member over there will understand: if he’s a farmer and the person next door starts planting trees, he’d be the first one to jump up and down and object. He’ll say, “My property rights are being impacted by my neighbour.” If the Minister is trying to set up a framework, then make it clear. If indeed, as the clause says, “by establishing a framework for planning and regulating the use and development of land.”—for who? Is it for the person who owns the land now or the person who might own the land in the future? Is it for the individual or is it for society? Very, very vague. The people in this country who thought there was going to be an improvement to the RMA—I’m sorry, but they’re sadly being misled.

This is the paperwork for the Minister in the Government’s new RMA reforms—ridiculous. I’m not a lawyer, thank God—there are plenty of them here in the House—but this is going to be a wonderful, wonderful circus and celebration. If the purpose of the bill is so “woke” and so vague and sets up a framework, imagine the opportunities for legal debate and disputes when this passes through.

You don’t need to be a lawyer to think that.

You don’t, indeed. Even someone like myself, who just wants to enjoy my land—well, the way I’ll enjoy the land is probably grazing, planting a few trees, but, as I say, I’ve got plenty of mates who want to dig it up. Digging it up now—will that enable the enjoyment of the land by future generations? Probably not. This is such a “woke” and weird purpose clause, I don’t know what planet the Minister is on. If he genuinely thinks that this is going to provide more clarity for people who are lucky enough to own land and own property, he’s dreaming.

The question to the Minister, once again, is: how can he ensure that enjoyment of the land will be enduring, or is it indeed his and the Government’s objective that the enjoyment of the land is only for the people who own that land now, and not into the future?

20:36

I thank the Labour list MP based in West Coast—or maybe’s Otago, or wherever it is these days—for his weird, weird statements. First time I’ve ever been called “woke”—so there you go. First time I’ve ever heard the word “enjoyment” as “woke”.

I think this issue’s been well canvassed. I’ve said about three or four times now how we are approaching the purpose clause. The member complains about the length of the bill; he may be interested to know that from, I think it’s page 517 onwards, they are consequential amendments to other legislation that will fall away once the bill passes and won’t become part of the final Act, so if that makes him feel better, that’s good—although, based on that last rant, I suspect not.

What page? 500?

Something like that. There’s the back end of it—it’s all the consequentials; the member can look it up. I’d also encourage him to look up the national policy direction, which he clearly is unaware of. In fact, it’s really clear from his comments around not being a lawyer that he also doesn’t understand how even the Resource Management Act (RMA) works. Anyway, I’ve said enough around the purpose clause.

20:37

Thank you, Madam Chair. Very briefly on this purpose clause and the Minister’s comments—

And we will make it brief, because the Minister’s actually answered purpose a few times.

I know, but he has not answered the question that I’m about to ask, which is: he has referred to the court cases taken under the Resource Management Act (RMA), which have deciphered what the purpose of the RMA is; is he saying that there will be no such court cases about this purpose statement, particularly with regard to this novel term “enjoyment” that we’ve just heard a contribution about? I’ll leave it there—[Members stand to seek call]—on that point. I want to now move on to a different clause.

All your colleagues were standing up!

I just really support her!

I would like to move on to clause 8, which is the Treaty of Waitangi clause. What we have here is a big change from the RMA in terms of the RMA having a general Treaty clause, also at section 8, and this one does not. I have Amendment Paper 690, which is to add in, at clause 8, after the heading, “(1) All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi.” I would like the Minister to consider that, and he may also want to comment on an issue that I’m going to raise in the subsequent clauses about how this legislation goes backwards for Māori compared with the Resource Management Act—not compared with the Labour legislation that we did last term with the Greens, but how it compares with the RMA, and then that goes to the equivalence.

But I’ll leave the contribution there on: will he consider having a general Treaty clause as this legislation has had, and does he accept that the removal of both a general Treaty clause but also the equivalent of section 6E from the RMA, plus all his changes that he’s about to make to Mana Whakahono ā Rohe, plus there being no environmental limits—but we’ll get to that in the next bill—means that it’s very difficult to determine equivalence.

20:39

Very, very briefly, whether or not there are court cases is not an issue for me. I suspect there’ll be some, but I’m not intending to make a forecast in relation to that.

Oh, but you commented on it in the other speech.

Oh well, not this time.

In relation to the Treaty of Waitangi, clause 8 has been very carefully drafted. It’s a descriptive Treaty clause that lists the specific provisions that recognises the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty in the Planning Bill. You may notice it is not a generic Treaty provision, à la Treaty principles provisions. It’s quite a specific descriptive Treaty clause and it lays out that to recognise the Crown’s responsibilities in relation to the Treaty, there is a Māori interests goal, which we’ll get to in Part 2. There is Māori participation in the development of national instruments, regional spatial plans, and land use plans—that’s important—and identification and protection of sites of significance to Māori and waahi tapu water bodies, sites in or on the coastal marine area, and the development and protection of identified Māori land.

We’ve gone through quite a careful process around this. It’s my view—and I accept that members will have a differing view—as I said, in my role as Attorney-General about a month or so ago to the Law Association, that Parliament needs to be more deliberate and specific about what we mean by giving effect to the Treaty. What obligations and duties are we seeking to impose on decision makers and how do we expect the system to function. My view is that a reluctance to actually do the thinking about these issues has led us to a shortcut, which is just Treaty principles—just “Oh, give effect to the Treaty.” or “Give effect to Treaty principles.”—

That’s not section 6(e)—that’s not Mana Whakahono ā Rohe.

Well, you asked about a Treaty clause, and I’m just giving you my general contextual views.

The harder job is to do what we’ve done, which is figure out exactly how the system should work for everyone, including Māori. Do I think the system should provide a vehicle for iwi to participate in regional spatial plans? Well, yes, I do. Do I think there should be a vehicle for the identification of ancient burial grounds or historic pā sites or sites of particular significance for whatever cultural reason to our tangata whenua? The answer is yes. The system we have designed will make that clear and provide for that to happen. So we’ve gone through quite a careful delineation exercise around that. I appreciate that members opposite will have a different view, but I think we have done a pretty good job of clarifying all of that and laying that out in quite some detail, both through the bill, but, also, if the member picks up and reads the national policy direction planning system document, you will see a range of things that flesh that out in a bit further details. Then there are standards to come as well—so national standards to come around some of that stuff as well.

20:43

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. On the Treaty of Waitangi section that has just been referred to and the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s been speaking to: Minister, regarding the very specific point around national instruments and creation of those, the process for making a national instrument—we’re on page 37 of Amendment Paper 709—in the earlier iteration of the bill, I’m not sure when, I can tell from the reported-back bill from the Environment Committee, clause 8(b), the original wording said it would require the Minister to consult with iwi authorities on a draft or summary of a proposed national instrument. In this Amendment Paper, that has become “seek comment”. It strikes us that that is the weakest and most meaningless requirement or imposition on the Minister. It’s not “consult”, it’s not “take into account”, it’s far from “give effect to Te Tiriti”; it is simply “seek comment”. Can you explain to us how such an insipid and weak imposition on the Minister as “seek comment” can in any way give effect to a meaningful relationship between Māori and the Crown, let alone give effect to our founding agreement?

Secondly, in paragraph (c) of that same clause 8, in relation to spatial plans, also in the earlier iteration of the bill reported back to the House, remained an expectation that the spatial plan committee of the region prepare and change their regional spatial plan in accordance with any applicable iwi participation legislation, any agreement under that legislation, and any Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. Obviously, in this Amendment Paper, Mana Whakahono ā Rohe has been struck out. Can you additionally explain, Minister, how it is possible or beneficial for these long-term relationship arrangements between a regional council and a local iwi to strike them out and require them to be renegotiated? I understand from your commentary in the media on this that the argument is that we’ve got a new planning regime and we need to start from scratch on those things. Surely there’s a version of how the Minister accommodates the change in the planning regime that doesn’t wipe out those arrangements and those agreements, which are yet another example of a Government that has consistently undermined and undone the health of that relationship between the Crown and Māori and between regional councils and Māori.

It’s like a snake slithering in the grass in terms of the ability of iwi to have some sense of constancy and certainty in the mechanism or the means by which they achieve fulfilment of their desires for self-determination or tino rangatiratanga if the Crown is being this slithering object, changing the rules, removing agreements that have been made and striking them out. Can he give us some indication of why you have taken that choice and what other options he considered in how to manage those existing agreements, which it seems—and we have heard from councils—no one was asking to be got rid of, except the Taxpayers’ Union or the “Race Baiters’ Unions” as I know them.

20:48

Thank you, Mr Chair. Going back to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s answer about clause 8, he said the harder job is to specify the details rather than to have a general clause. With that in mind, and also with section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act not being replicated here, and Mana Whakahono ā Rohe going, how can he explain the equivalence clauses in clauses 9 and 10? How can there be equivalence is my question. Then, while I see the Minister’s interested in this issue, can he also go through Part 1—these clauses in the main part; there’s not very many of them left, but a lot of them are new or there have been changes. So can he explain to us the policy changes that appear in front of us in the tracked-change version?

In relation to what?

In relation to all of these clauses from 8 to the end of Part 1. You’ve already discussed the fisheries one—so 10(a).

20:49

Oh, right. Well, I can take a brief call. I mean, Steve Abel’s speech was a long-winded lament for the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements. The reason we got rid of them is they’re not scoped to the new system. The iwi participation agreements that are in this bill will be tightly focused on their role and some of the roles that I’ve just talked about—for example, identification of sites of significance, participation in national instruments, and things like that. The member can see that for himself. That’s not to say that there aren’t pre-existing relationships—and, actually, there were only eight of them until the Government decided to change the planning system, at which point there was an explosion in interest, and maybe we should have seen that one coming. But we didn’t, and so that’s on me, I suppose.

The member Rachel Brooking made a point around clauses 9 and 10, and we’ve spent quite a bit of time in relation to these provisions. The issue of equivalent effect of Treaty settlements is distinct from broader obligations to provide for Māori participation, as I think the member knows, and the member made a point around the deletion of section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act (RMA), and—I mean, the point is that in clause 9, and then clause 10, it’s there in black and white, which is that it is an arrangement which operates with the same or equivalent effect to the greatest extent possible under this bill and the Natural Environment Bill. That’s an interpretation, and I accept that, but it’s a clear indication of Parliament’s intent for the Crown to uphold its end of the bargain when it comes to Treaty settlements.

New clause 10A on Amendment Paper 709 is Te Ture Whaimana, where we have agreed with the river iwi, with Te Ture Whaimana being the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato and Waipā rivers and activities within their catchments. That’s part of the Treaty settlement and the Waikato River Act of 2008, I think it is—or it might be 2010, sorry—and the related arrangements there. We’ve reached agreement with Tainui to port that specifically into the Planning Bill, with their agreement, and there’s been some agreement over what the words are.

One of the Government’s core objectives in designing this legislation was to not undermine settlements and to not breach the Crown’s settlement obligations reached in good faith that have been legislated for over many years. Now, the member will appreciate that she and her Government of the day faced the same challenge because many of the settlements were signed under the Resource Management Act. There is a view—it’s not a view that I share, but there is a view—that, because of that, the RMA must remain stuck in formaldehyde for ever and that because we signed it under the RMA—

Who thinks that?

There are people who say that.

We don’t.

Well, that’s good, but I’m just saying that there are some people who say that. But that can’t be true as a proposition of law, and it also can’t be true as a general principle.

The next question after that is: well, how on earth do you change the underlying planning legislation but also give effect to settlements at the same time? The answer is clauses 9 and 10 and the subsequent provisions in the Planning Bill—you know, I think it does the job. Other members may have a different view, but I think it’s good, and there’s still a long way to go on some of this stuff.

20:53

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a little question on that, and then I just want to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform—thank you for the explanation of where new clause 10A came from. He said there had been some negotiations with Tainui—the settled iwi—and that the words came from those negotiations. Given there are many other settlements, has the Minister been through those same conversations about other settlements, and can we expect that, before we end our committee stage on this bill, there will be more amendments to do what has been done for Tainui to the other settlement groups?

The river iwi.

You’re quite right: all of the river iwi. My apologies.

20:54

Hello. Thank you—awesome. We heard from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about how some agreements should be locked in formaldehyde and upheld. I think, when Māori sign Treaty settlements, they think those are full and final and binding on all parties. But what we saw in submissions—and we’re referring to clause 10—was that, largely, the majority of Māori opposed what was being sought in the clauses, because it diluted and practically weakened or undermined their settlements. I’m trying to understand whereby there is a bit of iwi input, seeking their comment.

The main concerns coming through from iwi submitters was that the post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs) had said in submissions that they sought to remove the wording “to the greatest extent possible” in clause 10 and considered the implementation of the new system should not begin until agreements are reached with PSGEs on how their settlement redress would be given equivalent effect. In hearing that, we’ve got an amendment that takes into consideration Tainui’s interests in the settlement in relation to Te Ture Whaimana and Waikato River—just noting that there’s Tuwharetoa, there’s Ngāti Raukawa, there’s Te Arawa; all those other iwi. I’m keen to understand how the Minister spoke with the other iwi of interest with Waikato River and Waipā River to get their agreement for that amendment—so tautoko. I would love to hear that. If we’re saying that we can reach agreements and come up with amendments, as my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has already shared, for one particular piece of redress, at what point are the other PSGEs, who have reached settlement, who are active participants in the previous RMA iterations, now moving forward into the new system? How are they going to see an equivalent of effect being given to their settlements?

Now, local government, including Taituarā, Hawke’s Bay, Napier, Upper Hutt City Council, all expressed concerns about clause 10 giving inappropriate delegations to council: the responsibility then to determine what the “same or equivalent effect” requirement is on the given settlement. They’re an administration function of the system, and they argued that the understanding of how settlements are given effect to is between the Crown and iwi Māori; it’s not for councils to relitigate what a settlement is and how it applies in their rohe. PSGEs had vast—vast—deep concerns about clause 10. They even raised the fact that there is a disproportionate burden on them to work to support the transition of their settlement redress into the new system, into this whole new framework. Is there going to be any resource to support that—the building blocks of it? I raise that because I have a well-formed understanding of the issues around Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. The legislation was provided, but the resource was not. Legislation was there, iwi groupings entered into the Mana Whakahono, but there wasn’t a dollar to be seen to support iwi participation and capacity to give effect to the opportunity of what Mana Whakahono is. As we move into this new system, which apparently we’ve got to go contort and we’ve got to find a way to fit into the way that the system is going to speak to us or give us some type of consideration, is there going to be a dollar available in resourcing for iwi Māori in this space?

These are some initial questions, because I would like to go in and understand further, around Te Ture Whaimana, how Ngāti Raukawa, how Te Arawa, how Ngāti Tuwharetoa were all consulted in the way that you’ve reached your amendment.

20:59

I think it would be fair to say that upholding settlements has been a key policy decision underlying these reforms, especially part of the coalition agreements that formed the Government, so we’ve worked really hard to try to land a position that upholds the settlements. The member can see that reflected in the bills. There have been discussions that have taken place with PSGEs across the country on how to do this. I wouldn’t claim that I have done that personally always, but I have met with many. Staff from the former Ministry for the Environment, the now Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport, have done that and will continue to do that.

Ms Brooking asked before around the river iwi, and I can tell her, for the committee’s edification, there are also agreements that have been reached with Ngā hapū o Ngāti Porou; the Whanganui River and Ngāti Rangi. They are included in the bills in a similar way to Te Ture Whaimana, and they are included in the consequentials rather than upfront in clause 10A. Clause 9 applies once the bill passes—clause 9 applies to the Crown in relation to other settlement redress and other arrangements. I worked hard on it. I appreciate not all members will agree with it, but I think it’s a good landing pad to move forward as a country.

21:00

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Just a query about the definitions in clause 3. There’s no definition anywhere in the bill that I can see or in Amendment Paper 709 that we received at 7.30 this evening of “competitive urban land markets”. I just am curious, given this is a relatively new area of work, why that decision was made. There is a very good definition that I’m sure the Minister responsible for RMA Reform will be familiar with. Competitive urban land markets means a market in which the supply of land responds to demand such that land prices at both the margin of urban expansion and of urban intensification do not persistently or materially exceed the total of the current market price of the land plus the costs to deploy that land in the higher-value use. Very good working definition, but it doesn’t appear anywhere on the bill or the Minister’s Amendment Paper, and I’m curious as to why.

21:02

I thank the member for his contribution; shoutout to the competitive urban land market legends watching the committee, and the urban nerds who helped us craft this bipartisan consensus on the idea that competitive land markets are fundamental to productivity growth and prosperity, and I thank the member for his contribution towards that over many years.

I have a great degree of sympathy for his position that the definition should be enshrined in primary legislation. We ran into some difficulty around it.

Overridden by officials.

Well, not because it’s not impossible to define it, but syncing it up with the way in which it would work in the legislation presented some challenges. My personal view—I can’t believe I’m saying this, given we haven’t even passed these bills—is it would be good to come back to, to have it enshrined in legislation.

It will be defined and given greater clarity through national policy direction and national standards, and I encourage the member to have a look at New Zealand’s new planning system which provides an extensive array of directives to enable competitive land market spatial plans, abundant development opportunities—[drops papers] excuse me, my apologies; it will teach me to bring down a stapled copy—and I’m sure we’ll get into that later on, but I encourage the member to have a look at it. We had a good look at it, and it’s difficult legally but I reckon we can get there in the end.

21:03

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just had a quick question of clarification from the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, particularly around Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. Was he saying, you know—because it was a shock to everyone, particularly those of us on the Environment Committee where we had been, in good faith, supporting and moving through the retention of Mana Whakahono ā Rohe and then just suddenly, within hours, it being removed. Was the Minister saying just earlier that it was the sites of significance for Māori and the—was he implying that there would be a barrier to moving those over into the new system as to the reason as to why they were getting rid of it?

No, the opposite.

It would be great if the Minister could clarify.

21:04

No, the opposite. I’ll say the opposite. I mean, I think those things are important and they should be part of the new planning system. In fact, they are part of the new planning system. The issue with the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement is—I mean, I’d encourage the member to actually go and read them.

Yeah.

Well, OK. Good on you. Most people haven’t. They are extensively layered documents, creating endless obligations for everyone in the system—all sorts of things that are just simply not part of the new system. People kind of neglected that, I think, when they were going and arranging them and debating them and having endless discussions around them. All of that stuff was going to fall out of the new system anyway because they were only ever going to be relevant to the extent that they were possible in the new system anyway. We just thought, “Look better to make a clean break of it. Have these iwi participation agreements.” It’s not to say that those relationships aren’t important. It’s not to say that Sites and Areas of Significance to Māori aren’t important. They are important. I think the member may have confused me or maybe it’s late and maybe I confused her and others.

The opposite is the case of what she was saying. They are important and there should be an ability for the system to recognise those relationships—the appropriate places, the iwi participation agreements—in the new system because they’re in the new system rather than the old. Look, I accept there’s a bit of friction as we get through this because it’s a bit like the plan stop process where you’ve got one old system, you’ve moving to a new system; there’s stuff in the middle, there are a bunch of plan changes that are kind of in the middle, which, what do you do with them? We’re sort of muddling our way through there. I’ve allowed some to go ahead; I’ve said no to some others. There’s no perfect solution to any of this stuff.

You said no to the ones that are about water pollution.

What’s that?

You’ve said no to the ones about water pollution.

No, that’s not true—no, that’s not correct. It’s all on the Ministry for the Environment or Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport website; that’s not correct, but, I mean, I’m not going to lie to the committee. They’re difficult decisions. They’re finely balanced judgement calls, but at some level, you have to say, “Well, the old is ending and the new is beginning.”

In 2030.

Well, no. Firstly, some things come into effect immediately or nearly immediately. Then there’s transitional national rules, then there’s a national policy direction. The transition starts the moment the bills end; the transition is already under way. Without doing a Fitzgerald v Muldoon on you, people are gearing up for the transition, and rightly so. The new digital system is under construction right now, and not really part of the legislation and probably not worth going into but it’s really exciting—really exciting—what we can do with the new digital tools, federated data; big investment from the Crown into creating that new digital-first e-plan - enabled planning system. We’re going to have—to Mr Twyford’s point before around competitive land markets—much richer data around land efficiency indicators, around consents, around housing and business development capacity which we won’t have to go out and argue with councils for for six months to get the data. We’ll be able to see the data in real time. It’s going to be exciting. It’s a Government IT project, though, so, you know, we’ve got—it’s quite a bit of work to do. I say that with full respect for the team working on it; it’s going well so far. But we’ve got to keep our eye on the ball.

Anyway, that’s a roundabout way of saying—I’ve forgotten where I started, but I’m done. I’m done.

21:08

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just going back to a discussion that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and the Hon Phil Twyford were having about the absence of an amendment for competitive urban land markets or competitive land markets. Perhaps the Minister would like Phil Twyford to draft an Amendment Paper? Is that something that the Minister would be interested in because we could do it now, I’m sure.

Yeah.

Yes? Phil says yes. Just waiting for a nod from the Minister. Not happening.

I’m going to move now to Schedule 1 and so this is some many, many pages on and I have a range of questions on it. Again, I’m going to ask the Minister—and he’s probably going to get sick of me asking this with various different parts of the bill—where he’s made changes since it’s been reported back from the Environment Committee, I think it is very useful for him and efficient, even—he likes to talk about efficiencies—to explain if there are policy changes or if the changes are merely things are being moved around. That’s totally understandable in a bill of this size.

So the first one there would be the identification of initial national standards—if the Minister wants to comment on that, that would be useful. I can hold that thought and move on to clause 12—there are a whole lot of 12s with big letters—which is under the subheading “Applications for consents and notices of requirement during transition period”. I have Amendment Paper 742, and that would insert a new clause 12G to say that Auckland’s Plan Change 120 continues and must be determined under the Resource Management Act. I have another similar amendment which comes up in a different part, but perhaps the Minister would like to take the opportunity to talk about that Amendment Paper and that suggestion, and go on to the discussion that we just had about the difficulties of deciding what continues under the current system and what is not worth continuing under the new system which is going to come in in 2030. That would be an interesting discussion to have, or we can have it later when my other amendment comes up.

Then, of course, if we keep going through the schedule, there are some underlines on clause 14A, which is about arrangements for subdivision consents and reclamation consents, and at clause 14B about cross-leases. There are some other changes as we go through, particularly around certificates of compliance and existing-use certificates. I don’t know if those are policy changes or not. Mana Whakahono ā Rohe will come up in other parts as well, and I understand that that is a policy difference.

There is a new clause, clause 25AA, which is about the meaning of Resource Management Act terms and expressions in continued secondary legislation. That seems to be just a simple rollover clause that maybe we hadn’t thought of before when looking at the legislation—if the Minister can confirm that.

Then I do want to go to clause 36, and this is on page 274, and that is that the application of clause 4.1(2) of the national policy statement for highly productive land 2022 is disapplied, and if the Minister could explain why it is that it’s going to be disapplied and what impact that will have on the protection of highly productive land, and, in fact, on New Zealand’s food security, that would be useful too. I note again that there is a new clause 39, and underlined is emergency works under the Resource Management Act. I thought I had another thing here but those are my questions on Schedule 1, Mr Chair.

21:13

I’ll deal with a few of those and come back on a couple maybe, if there’s time. Clause 39 is a provision related to emergency works authorised by the Resource Management Act (RMA). There’s no policy change there. Likewise, there is no policy change in relation to, I think it was, clause 25AA. Generally, the schedules do not contain significant policy changes. Plan Change 120: her Amendment Paper is unnecessary. I’m advised that it carries on under the RMA—a very important plan change to get right for Auckland’s future.

Indeed.

Indeed. In relation to the highly productive land (HPL), which is clause 36 of the schedule, I will come back on that. The point is, I think, that currently there’s a requirement for regional councils to map HPL until 31 December 2027, which is actually not that far away, and it’s suspended until the specified transition date, and I’ll come back to you about that one. Thank you.

21:14

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a general question in relation to Schedule 1. I think that through Amendment Paper 709 he repeals the Resource Management Act (RMA), whereas his Planning Bill before that did not. So I’m just asking him what the status of those instruments, which are creatures of the RMA, is for the purposes of the transitional provisions because they also reference the RMA.

I want to ask him specifically, first, about the fact that there are difficult decisions and some of these get dropped along the way—about consents that exist within the system because they’re given effect by the old law, and now in this period where we are transitioning the effect of those. So I want to ask him which transitional provisions saves the Auckland consents that he and I had discussed in a committee stage previous to this one where he said he would be sorting it out in this bill. There are developers in Auckland who had their consents, effectively, made inactive by legislative changes previous to this, so I assume that one of these changes saves those developers. They’re small and there’s not a large number of them but they are mum and dad developers for whom these decisions are big and valuable.

I also want to ask him about clause 21 on page 264 of Schedule 1. As I understand it, he said that iwi participation agreements in this legislation are only defined for the purposes of the legislation and that Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements in this schedule, all of them that exist or are at the stage of almost existing, no longer have legal effect. But what I understood from his answer is that he would anticipate that those could be called contracts for services—services provision agreements, memoranda of understanding (MOU)—and that they would still be enforceable arrangements but not for the purposes of his bill. Is that right, Minister? Have you extinguished Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements but do you anticipate that those agreements might have some other name that is not aMana Whakahono ā Rohe agreement but is in fact an MOU, which is the old system, and they would deal with any number of things that a local authority is perfectly capable of entering into an arrangement about?

He’s answered this.

No, he hasn’t. I think that’s what he said—that they will continue to exist; they’ll just have a different name.

That’s right.

OK. Well, if they will, then, continue to have a different name, why have we gone to all the heat and light of saying that they will no longer continue to exercise public power in that way? This provision seems to cease to give them any legal effect, in which case that wouldn’t be true. So it would also be helpful if he gave us an idea about why, then, there are provisions for transitioning these sorts of arrangements over to iwi participation agreements, which are meant to be the new in-scope creature of the legislation.

21:18

Clause 6, which one of the members asked about, is an empowering provision for initial national standards. It allows new system standards to apply under the Resource Management Act with constraints. Previously, there was a defined term, but this is an empowering provision.

In relation to clause 36, which I said I’d come back to, basically the intent of this is to stop councils wasting resources in the resource management system. A new system standard will replace clause 36 in the schedule in relation to highly productive land, and I have good news for the Hon Phil Twyford. I had neglected to point out, largely because I forgot, that competitive urban land markets are defined in the national policy direction that we have issued today—which is defined as—

He’s a happy man.

He is a happy man. It is defined as a market in which there is abundant supply of developable land suitable for different uses such that land prices do not materially and persistently reflect premiums caused by constraints on land use.

Close.

It’s close. We could have a debate about it, and you’d probably win. We can have an argument about it—it’s an illustrative draft so I look forward to many discussions with likeminded folk over the exact, precise terminology of what a competitive land market is, but there is a working definition in the national policy direction. I’m advised that that is the appropriate place to put the definition, because that puts the flesh on the bones, so to speak, of the bills. We could have a debate about that. There might be a case for it in the legislation. Potentially, we could come back to that. So that’s good news. That’s made my night.

In relation to the existing-use rights certificates that, I think, Rachel Brooking asked about, that is all clarificatory and there are no substantive changes there.

21:20

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendments to clause 3 in Amendment Paper 709 set out on Amendment Paper 751 be agreed to.

The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 3 in Amendment Paper 709 inserting a definition of “Mana Whakahono ā Rohe” be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 709 be agreed to.

The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to the definition of “infrastructure” in clause 3 set out on Amendment Paper 695 be agreed to.

Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 3 inserting new paragraph (c) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 3 amending the definition of qualifying resident in defining Māori is out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee of the whole House.

The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking’s tabled amendment to clause 3 inserting a definition of well-functioning urban area be agreed to.

The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment replacing clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 693 be agreed to.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 4 be agreed to.

The question is that Hon Rachel Brooking’s amendment to clause 8 set out on Amendment Paper 690 be agreed to.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment to clause 8 inserting (8f) be agreed to.

Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to clauses 3 and 9 set out on Amendment Paper 733 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee of the whole House.

The question is that Hūhana Lyndon’s amendment to clause 10 set out on Amendment Paper 733 be agreed to.

21:31

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a very substantive part of the bill when it’s called “Foundations”. I don’t think it includes any schedules, but it does include a lot of important clauses. The first of these is clause 11, which is “Goals”. A lot of the architecture and framework of these pieces of legislation go to those goals. They don’t have a hierarchy, they’re going to be in conflict with each other, and they’re very development-focused in this bill.

As we work our way through this part, we can get to the issue of the resolution of conflicts that the Minister cites. But starting on goals, I have an Amendment Paper, 694, which would replace clause 11 with some of the same goals but also different goals. Some of these goals are talking about, in my new clause 11(1)(b), supporting and enabling economic growth “alongside environmental protections, restoration, and enhancement of the natural environment:”, and also (c): “to create well-functioning urban and rural areas that are responsive to the diverse and changing needs of people in their communities in a way that promotes—(i) the use and development of land for a variety of activities, including for housing, business use, and primary production; and (ii) development capacity, in relation to housing and business land, being available well ahead of expected demand; and (iii) adaptable and resilient urban forms that provide access for people and their communities to and between social, economic, recreational, and cultural opportunities while protecting productive soils:”. That is important.

Another change would be at 11(1)(i), which is to provide for Māori interest, and to replace that with the equivalent of section 6(e) in the Resource Management Act, and to also include a climate change goal in paragraph (e) of my Amendment Paper, which states, “to assist New Zealand to meet the target set under section 5Q of the Climate Change Response Act 2002 through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the removal of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere:”.

I think these would be great changes to the goals, in order to have a piece of legislation that does better for all of us. So I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that, and then I have another amendment in that Amendment Paper, which would be to insert a new clause 11(3), which is, basically, that if there is a conflict between the goals, then you go to the purpose of the Act. My version of the purpose of the Act that we discussed in the other part was a bit more fulsome than the Minister’s in terms of the fact that it talked about integrated management. So I was wondering if the Minister would like to comment on my great recommendations for improvement to the “Goals” clause, to do better for all of us.

21:35

The short answer, without being disrespectful or rude, and I’m sure the member’s put a lot of effort into them, is that we also have, equally, put a lot of effort into the goals of the Planning Bill, which members can see at clause 11, and we’ve literally thought very carefully about every single word and the provisions there. We think we’ve got the balance right. The goals are at the heart of the new system, and we’re not intending to make any changes.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have no doubt that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform won’t be interested in my tabled amendments amending clause 11, but I do want to speak to them and ensure that they are sufficiently on the Hansard, because I think this really comes to the heart of the missed opportunity to create an enduring and bipartisan approach to planning and environmental protection.

While Government parties may have thought carefully about the wording in the goals, it’s pretty clear that it is not wording that I think captures the broader interests of New Zealanders in our urban planning system, which is not simply to ensure that land use doesn’t unreasonably affect others. So my first tabled amendments would change the first paragraph (a) of subclause 11(1), to state, “to ensure that land use supports sustainable, livable, and affordable human settlements while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

I’m totally open to the purpose changes that the Hon Rachel Brooking put in the first part, and also the alternative wording to take into account climate change. But there’s no question that fundamentally creating towns and cities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions is part of the solution to climate change. If we don’t have that as a goal of this bill, then there’s not going to be the ability to do that important planning that would reduce the emissions from people living their everyday lives.

A whole lot of the emissions that are making climate change worse and then flooding our communities or creating unbearable heat in the northern hemisphere during their summer—our winter—are affecting the ability for us to produce food affordably, and can be seen in the fact that our planning rules and planning approach basically maximised greenhouse gas emissions, because it makes it so that people have to drive around and use excessive amounts of fossil fuels to get from point A to point B, which, by the way, is a horrible waste of time, a drain on our productivity, and a huge cost to individuals. So here is a total missed opportunity to do something that would get better outcomes.

For paragraph (b), I, of course, as a Green MP, don’t think economic growth for the sake of it is worthwhile. Economic growth, just GDP growth, could mean a whole lot more costs and a whole lot more misery for a lot of humans. What we do want is to support and enable quality of life, affordable housing in transport, and density and diversity of land use within urban areas. I think the Minister might agree with that last bit. So that is my alternative clause 11(1)(b), which makes it more about what the actual point of the economic growth is in the Minister’s mind, which is actually improving the quality of life for people. That should be the goal, not economic growth for the sake of it, which could come at the expense of wellbeing for a whole lot of people, and indeed does, at the moment, in places like the United States.

In clause 11(1)(c), after “rural areas”, I suggest simply inserting “within environmental limits”, because I think that is important that we recognise that well-functioning urban and rural areas do have to be within environmental limits, because everything we do as humans is reliant on a planet that has life on it, that has clean water, that has clean air, that has healthy soil, that’s able to produce food, that has a stable climate. Clause 11(1)(d), after “business use”—again, just adding something to the end of this: currently, it says “to enable competitive urban land markets by making land available to create abundant development opportunities for residential and business use”. I insert, following “business use”, “while protecting the health and diversity of natural ecosystems.” I just think that point has to be made so clear in 2026, in the second quarter of the 21st century, where we’re seeing catastrophic loss of species and increasing severe weather events that are affecting the ability of people to live. We will not have a thriving future if we don’t start living within environmental limits and looking after the health of ecosystems.

Clause 11(1)(e): before “infrastructure”, I suggest inserting the word “sustainable”. I think sustainability has a pretty well understood meaning, in terms of both fiscal and environmental sustainability. We also had suggestions—[Time expired] Mr Chair, if you don’t mind, I’d like to continue to finish summarising my amendments to clause 11.

The Hon Julie Anne Genter.

Thank you, Mr Chair. There was quite a proposal from, I think it was, The Aotearoa Circle—I think it was them. There was a group that did a big splash about natural infrastructure, or green infrastructure—

It was them.

It was The Aotearoa Circle—sorry, it’s kind of late. They were suggesting explicitly defining natural infrastructure and green infrastructure. There’s just this huge opportunity to recognise natural ecosystems as part of our infrastructure, and they can do somethings better than we can. For example, kelp forests are possibly more effective than seawalls at preventing encroachment of rising seas and tides, and kelp forests have all these other fantastic benefits. For most of the 20th century, I’d say—maybe it goes back as far as the Industrial Revolution, but especially in the 20th century—civil engineering, for all its wonders, undervalued the impact of natural ecosystems and the possibility of working with ecosystems rather than working against them.

Anyway, we could have “natural infrastructure” instead of “sustainable infrastructure” or “green infrastructure”. It would be helpful, I think, to add that to the definitions or to recognise it explicitly in our planning laws. I was at the World Green Infrastructure Congress speaking two years ago in Auckland. It was a massive world conference where experts from all over the world came to our country and we’re speaking about the role of green infrastructure in lowering costs and getting better outcomes for air quality, biodiversity, water management, and climate control in cities. That concept seems to be entirely missing from this. Admittedly, the Government could put it in the national direction—

It is.

I look forward to seeing it in national direction—fantastic. I haven’t had a chance to read it, because I’ve been reading the amendment Bill.

I’ve just got one more, Minister, which is on clause 11: after clause 11(1)(g), inserting a new paragraph (ga). This is, again, an alternative to what the Hon Rachel Brooking suggested, which was an explicit goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change. It seems a sensible thing.

21:43

Happy days for the Hon Julie Anne Genter. Infrastructure, which we just covered in Part 1, “(a) means a physical structure, facility, or network”—blah, blah, blah—“(b) includes a natural feature that is modified in order to—(i) perform a public function; … (c) includes a physical facility …”. I think the member’s points around natural features and green infrastructure and ecosystems are included within the definitions of what she is talking about. So I agree with you.

It’s not in the goals.

It’s not in the goals, because it doesn’t need to be, because the word “infrastructure” is in clause 11(1)(3): “to enable infrastructure …”. Then you look at what infrastructure means and you look at the definition. This is basic statutory construction. Infrastructure includes the things I’ve just talked about. There is no need—in fact, arguably, it is more confusing—to add prefatory phrases in front of key terms, because then the lawyers will say, “Well, but infrastructure is already defined in clause 3 and you’ve added something else to it, so now we’re in a confusion.” We don’t need to do that. That would actually be bad drafting. It’s included. Every word matters. To quote the great matua of the House, Mr Peters, “words matter”, and that is true.

The great rangatira.

The great rangatira; that’s right. I agree with you about green infrastructure: it’s important, it’s useful, it’s necessary. I don’t think adding the word “sustainable” adds anything to it, frankly. Likewise, the same critique can be made of the idea of adding the phrase “within environmental limits” into the goals. We actually thought about that; some members made a good point. There is a whole separate regime in the Natural Environment Bill in particular around limits. Given you’ve got that environmental limits regime in the bill, you don’t need to repeat it in the goals.

Clause 11(1)(d): I’ve dealt with the point around ecosystems. Climate change: just to lay on the table the Government’s position, we have a whole separate regime to deal with the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.

How’s it going?

I can hear the cries already: “The emissions trading scheme is ineffective.”, “It’s not perfect.”—blah, blah, blah.

But it’s after the planning happens, so it’s not an effective price signal.

The Government’s view is that the appropriate place to deal with the negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions is not the environmental system or the planning system; it is the Climate Change Response Act. The positive effects of things like renewable infrastructure, renewable energy infrastructure, for example, are included in the system, but the negative effects of greenhouse gas emissions are not. I accept that members have a different view around that; it is a legitimate debate about public policy around that. The Government’s position is the one that I have laid out. Natural hazards is important as well, which includes things like floods, erosion, and other areas. The effects of that should be dealt with through the planning system, but climate change emissions reduction is not included in this system.

21:46

Thank you, Mr Chair. One further Amendment Paper that I had on the goals: if in the unfortunate event that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform doesn’t agree with my Amendment Paper 694, how about including, at clause 11(1)(d), after “competitive”, “and efficient urban land markets”? There’s just a little Amendment Paper there, No. 743, that the Minister might want to consider. Then I’ll move on.

Clause 12 is the relationship between key instruments in decision making. At subclause (2), it says “Each key instrument (other than the national policy direction)—(a) must implement the instrument listed directly above it; and (b) must implement an instrument higher up the list if required by that instrument.” It’s just a very small question here to the Minister: does he read that as, essentially, codifying King Salmon? Is that why we’re putting in clause 12 there.

I’ve also got a very different amendment from the ones I was talking about before. This is Amendment Paper 707, and it’s an inclusion at subclause (3). We’re still on clause 12, which is “Relationship between key instruments in decision-making”. At subclause (3), it says, “A person exercising or performing a function, duty, or power under this Act in relation to a matter” must consider various things. I’ve got an insertion there, which is a paragraph (d), “must consider the polluter pays principle.” I think this would be an excellent thing to give some comfort that the Government isn’t, in fact, doing what I suspect they’re doing and just opening up our whole economy for polluters to pollute some more and for the public to pick up the price tag.

21:49

Nice try! No, we won’t be agreeing to that. It depends what you mean by “polluter pays”, of course, which would be the great challenge there.

We could define it.

Oh, well, I look forward to that! In relation to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s substantive question around King Salmon—there’s a lot in King Salmon, but in relation to the point she was making—I’m going to give a tentative yes to that intention. Codification, I think, is probably not correct. New Zealand law doesn’t really codify things. We have laws or we don’t, but it certainly lays out a statutory schema of, as I understand it—she’d know more about it than I would—the King Salmon decision from 2006, I think.

A long time ago.

A long time ago, back when you were a young whippersnapper lawyer in Dunedin and I was not an MP.

21:50

Thank you, Mr Chair. A quick question for the Minister about the “Goals” section, clause 11 in Subpart 1, read in light of the Treaty principles. The question is, should this provision be read in light of what the Resource Management Act (RMA) was before? Is this taking that away, and the courts are meant to interpret the removal of an express provision for giving effect to kaitiakitanga that you can’t sort of read in to providing for Māori interests?

The Minister will know that, so far, the duties and the powers he’s removed from the goals section where he’s striking through “all persons exercising or performing functions or powers under this Act”—previously, that probably would have brought in any sort of, say, consultation or the ability for local authorities to include iwi or Māori representatives within their decision-making processes that weren’t given effect to just buy planning instruments. But now we’re limited to just those documents, and though there’s a goal to provide for certain Māori interests within those, they’re not the full suite of what the courts have interpreted over the years as being the rights and duties that iwi Māori have to participate in local government decision making.

I’m not asking for a return to the recognition of kaitiakitanga here—I know why he’s gotten rid of that—but there are things here which seem to be missed out, and things which many in this House would see is reasonable to include iwi Māori in. Those are things like the protection of the pōhutakawa trees at Judges Bay, which were an issue of significance in Auckland’s local politics for some years when the Erebus memorial was being proposed in the Parnell Rose Gardens, for instance, that is not within the definitions of something like a wāhi tapu—those were the trees themselves.

The question here is around, well, do the principles still apply? Does the series of cases, starting with the lands case, being developed by the Huakina case, then Wellington Airport’s consultation case, which set out over a long period of time that the RMA wasn’t the basis for those consultation rights, but Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles were—are they meant to be updated by what he’s doing here, or do they exist in tandem and it’s for the courts to decide whether those consultation rights still exist? And when are you meant to then apply the goals if they only apply to those instruments, but there are other powers, like the duty to act honourably, the duty to act in good faith, the duty of active protection, and the duty to consult?

21:52

Well, there’s quite a lot in that—a real tour de force through the last 30 years of Treaty jurisprudence.

Very brief—very brief.

Very quick. Also, I’m advised that the King Salmon case was 2014, so I don’t know where 2006 came from.

Oh, OK. I wasn’t young—I wasn’t young.

You were a little bit younger. Anyway, I got that wrong, too, so no doubt Gary Taylor is going to send me an angry text message about my lack of knowledge.

So quite a quick tour, without presupposing where councils may get to—I mean, the member will be more familiar with Judges Bay than I am. The sites of significance to Māori is not—subparagraph (i)(ii) in clause 11, “including wāhi tapu, water bodies, or sites in or on the coastal marine area”; that’s just a kind of gloss on that. It’s not limiting to that, so it doesn’t have to be wāhi tapu. There will potentially be national direction in relation to how those are defined—look, I think there needs to be an evidential threshold. It can’t just be a self-defined, you know, “Whatever you want.” So there may well be national directional standards around evidential thresholds and things like that. The member will know more about Judges Bay and other areas in Auckland, in particular, where there’s obviously a range of sites, including here in Wellington, as well. I’m not going to get too far into that. That will be provided for through planning.

I just want to repeat what I said before, which is that the intention of what the Government is trying to do here is lay out, to some exhaustive detail, a statutory scheme that, as much as possible, addresses what the role of Māori interests in the system are. You can see that through participation in national instruments, spatial plans, land-use plans—there’s a range of other things throughout the Act. I’m not going to make a comment on some of the other things the member mentioned in her remarks, but I think we’ve done a good job at providing for laying out what those interests are and how they’ll be given effect to. And then, of course, national direction will do a lot of the fleshing out of that through the national policy direction and then the standards.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The house will resume at 9.00 a.m. tomorrow. Everyone have a good night.