Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 23 September 2026

09:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09:09

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09:14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

09:19

Kia ora, Mr Speaker, and may I compliment you on your very nice green tie.

Thank you—just for you, buddy, just for you.

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

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

We do support this legislation, and most of the things have been said, so I won’t say a lot. It gets everything from biosecurity to commodity levies to restrictions on some imported items, and adjustment to alcohol, tobacco, excise duty, road-user charges—the list goes on. The one I wanted to mention was around the biosecurity—biosecurity levies, imported goods, and commercial vessels etc. I was actually in Wellington International Airport recently, and got to see behind the scenes, to see the work that’s done there—everyone from customs, through to baggage handling, through to air-traffic control. I got to get an insight into biosecurity, and just the importance of biosecurity to our nation.

We are a small island at the bottom of the Pacific, and the gift that we have is our humongous moat around New Zealand. It protects us but is also a huge risk. We need to make sure that we are getting our protections at our borders right. It is only one mistake, or one lapse, or maybe one lack of funding to be able to provide the right border security, and the invasive species will get in, and we’ve seen those expressions time and time again over the years. This, to me, is a really important part of this legislation, around ensuring that those pests and diseases stay out of New Zealand, because we are lucky to be in the country we are and to have the natural beauty, and in natural species, etc., etc. Being at Wellington International Airport, seeing the staff and how diligent they were, seeing the work they do, not only at the airport but then to the port, etc.

Labour does support this. It is, as Ricardo Menéndez March said, it’s hard on the last sitting day, having to get it through as quick as possible, but we do need to do it, to make sure that secondary legislation is confirmed before the House rises for the election. The Labour Party supports this legislation.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

09:22

on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4) be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I present a legislative statement on the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

09:23

I move, That the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

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

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

I acknowledge and extend a warm welcome to the members of Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, who are in the public gallery or joining us online, and have shown extreme patience at this 11th hour of the parliamentary term whilst we progress secondary legislation this morning.

This current moment marks a significant step and milestone on the respective settlement journeys of the imi of Moriori, and the iwi of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. More than six years ago—mid-February 2020—the Crown and Moriori signed a deed of settlement for their claims under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. On 17 August 2026, on a beautiful day in Wharekauri, the Crown signed a deed of settlement with Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. Both these deeds recorded the Crown’s commitments to provide shared redress to Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. The Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Deed and Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill deliver on those respective commitments.

On 16 September 2026, the Crown and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, some of whom are here today, signed the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Deed, and I acknowledge Moriori have not signed the deed at this time, but may in due course. I wish to acknowledge both the imi and the iwi for your commitments reaching this milestone; it has not been an easy journey to reach the point where we are today, and dare I say there will be some challenges ahead as well.

I want to acknowledge the work of lead negotiators, Harioa Daymond, your kuia, and Tom McClurg from Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, and Maui Solomon for the imi of Moriori. They’ve worked many, many years, tirelessly alongside others, to reach this point in time.

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

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

I also wanted to acknowledge the trustees of the respective organisations: the Moriori Imi Settlement Trust—Thomas Lanauze, Kushla Allen, Chas Taurima, Billy King, and Hayden Preece—and the trustees of the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Iwi Trust: Melodie Eruera-Fraser, Monique Croon, Deena Whaitiri, Di Grennell, Megan Lanauze-King, John Preece, and Paula Page. There are no doubt others who have been an integral part to enabling us all to reach this moment.

The various generations and whakatupuranga of the imi of Moriori and iwi of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri who have maintained your identities and languages—both ta rē and te reo—and often have had intermarriage and cross-pollination across the imi and iwi. Today’s reading is intended to acknowledge these groups, and the deep and enduring connections of Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri—to your henu, your whenua, your ūkaipō.

It’s also an opportunity to acknowledge the grievances, and the mamae, and the long-standing concerns carried by uri of both groups as a result of the Crown’s breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Treaty of Waitangi. I’ll also acknowledge the Crown officials, some of you who are here today, some of whom are probably at Copperfield’s—officials, advisers, and all those who have worked in good faith throughout the negotiations that have led to the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Deed.

This bill, before the House today, differs from many of the settlement bills that have come before it. It’s bespoke and unique in nature. This bill does give effect to matters, but does not settle long-standing historical claims, or “herstorical” claims, or recount the interactions between Moriori, Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, and the Crown. Those matters are dealt with in the respective deeds of settlements, with the imi and with the iwi, and the settlement legislation that has arisen through those kōrero. Instead, this bill gives effect to the shared redress between these people and others, the iwi and the imi, on Rēkohu Wharekauri, through arrangements for the vesting and management of areas of cultural, spiritual, and ecological, environmental, taio, importance. It establishes a framework for the ongoing recognition and stewardship, kaitiakitanga, of those places.

The bill vests four cultural redress properties, at Tikitiki Hill Conservation Area, in the trustees of the Moriori Imi Settlement Trust, and in the trustee of Te Korowai o Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Trust. It also vests in those entities—Te Whanga Lagoon, and five adjoining areas, sites to be administered by the Te Whanga Lagoon management board, which will be constituted by representatives of Moriori, Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, the Chatham Islands Council, and the Director-General of Te Papa Atawhai, the Department of Conservation. That board will act as a guardian, with a focus on protecting and enhancing the cultural, spiritual, ecological, and environmental values of the lagoon. The bill establishes a permanent joint planning committee of the Chatham Islands Council, and members of that committee include councillors as well as appointees representing both the imi of Moriori and the iwi of Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. It provides for the Moriori Imi Settlement Trust to nominate a member of the Chatham Islands Conservation Board, and an equivalent provision will be enabled through the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri settlement legislation. The bill provides commercial redress, through an opportunity for the Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri governance entities to jointly purchase, and lease back to the Crown, the whenua at Kaingaroa School.

Finally, it restores a number of traditional names of various areas across Rēkohu Wharekauri, and the motu tautoko that includes Chatham Island, and the wider Chatham Islands, which will be officially recognised under ta rē Moriori, te reo Māori, and English-language names. This bill reflects the relationships between the Crown and Moriori, and the Crown and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. It also gives effect to redress that acknowledges the significance of Rēkohu Wharekauri, and the enduring connections that both groups hold with it.

My hope, and certainly the hope of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Paul Goldsmith who sends his aroha and apology today, and the redress that it provides will support the aspirations of both groups, strengthen their respective relationships with the Crown, and with the kāwanatanga, and contribute to the long-term wellbeing of people and place, communities and whenua and wahi tīpuna, of ancestors and tīpuna of their respective iwi.

I consider that this bill should proceed without delay to the Māori Affairs Committee, and under the wise stewardship of the illustrious members of the Māori Affairs Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

Ko te pātai kia whakaaetia te mōtini. [The question is that the motion be agreed to.]

09:30

Tēnā koe, e te Mangai o te Whare.

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

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

I think, as far as I can remember, this is the first bill where there is redress between two different groups contained in one piece of legislation. I may be wrong, but it’s quite unique in that sense, and it reflects the complex history that this bill represents. It is an important step in recognising the history of Wharekauri and giving effect to the shared redress between both Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, as well as the Crown.

At its heart, this legislation is about acknowledging history, recognising that there are enduring relationships there to whenua and to taonga, and creating practical arrangements that will enable tangata whenua to participate in decisions that have deep cultural significance to them, both environmental and historical. It provides for shared ownership and management of those places, including Te Whanga Lagoon and Tikitiki Hill Conservation Area, and it establishes structures that bring together Moriori, Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri, and local government in conservation agencies to protect these places for future generations.

Labour supports these measures because Treaty settlements and associated redress are more than just acknowledging those past grievances; it’s also about creating a meaningful framework in which to move forward. That is what the Treaty of Waitangi should be providing us, that framework not only for us but for future generations to enable us to work together between iwi and the Crown, but also to provide tino rangatiratanga, to provide certainty, to provide clear connection for iwi and those places that are so meaningful for you and for future generations going forward.

The Waitangi Tribunal’s landmark Rēkohu report documented the devastating consequences of invasion, dispossession, enslavement, and Crown action that left lasting scars on generations of Moriori. It also examined the experience and the claims of Ngāti Mutunga, whose own history was shaped by displacement, conflict, and Crown decision making. While no piece of legislation can undo history, Parliament has a clear obligation to recognise, in honesty, and support processes that allow communities to move forward with dignity and with mutual respect. That is why the shared redress of this bill is so significant.

This bill reflects an agreement reached by Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri themselves about how particular sites and resources should also be managed as well as protected. It reflects a commitment to cooperation, a shared stewardship, and respect for cultural values that both of those groups hold in these places. The establishment of the Te Whanga Lagoon Management Board is a particularly important aspect on this legislation that we’re considering today. It is one of the defining natural features of Rēkohu. The board’s role as a guardian and steward recognises not only the environmental importance of the lagoon but also its cultural and spiritual significance.

Likewise is the establishment of the Joint Planning Committee that ensures Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri have a permanent voice in planning and resource management. How important that is to have your voice included in the future planning of that resource and how it has looked after. That is consistent with the modern understanding of partnership and participation that is enshrined within Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It recognises that decisions affecting whenua, decisions affecting natural resources and cultural heritage, are stronger when tangata whenua are genuinely involved. Recent events concerning the ancient waka discovery under Rēkohu have reminded New Zealanders of the extraordinary cultural and historical significance of your islands. They are a huge part of our history and so important to have today.

I would like to conclude by saying that this is a really unique piece of legislation. I commend all of you for being here and making the effort. It’s been a privilege to be able to meet some of you. From the depths of my heart, I genuinely hope this framework provides a strong basis for you to move forward in your area and have pride, confidence, and tino rangatiratanga on your whenua. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

09:35

Kia ora koutou. Those of you from Moriori and from Mutunga o Wharekauri back in the gallery, mōrena. This bill is not without its challenges. I’ve been reading the background on it, and I think it would be remiss of us to not acknowledge those challenges, and that Moriori have concerns around the settlement implications with Wharekauri and questions of tino rangatiratanga. These are tensions that must be acknowledged and must be recognised.

I sit on the Māori Affairs Committee with most of my colleagues who are in the Chamber today. We grapple with overlaps in iwi interests in different properties and lands all the time, most recently Ngāti Ruapani mai Waikaremoana where there’s well-understood overlaps in similar pieces of land with different iwi and hapū. The relationships between those iwi and the historic tensions—I will give examples, without speaking to your specific example, of the East Coast where some were deemed as loyalists by the Crown and some were deemed as rebels, and those two groups ended up in conflict with each other.

I think it’s very important that we make clear in this House that the Crown’s purpose with these settlements is to acknowledge the harm the Crown has done to iwi. The challenge that we face in making settlements and redress is to make sure we don’t cause further harm by committing further failings against Te Tiriti and further failings of obligation to iwi. We are well aware that, in the conventional settlement process, they’re often very divisive—the settlement processes—because of the structure that the Crown and the red book that the Crown imposes on iwi and requires iwi to meet to achieve a settlement. These things must be said and spoken. These truths must be acknowledged, and that is what I intend to do today.

I want to reflect on the nature of colonisation. There’s a gentleman called Mazin Qumsiyeh, who is an academic from Bethlehem in Palestine, and he came and he gave a very dispassionate explanation of the different courses of colonisation. One is assimilation, disposition, and genocide, and destruction of an indigenous people by the coloniser; the other is ejection by the indigenous people of the coloniser. That doesn’t happen very often. It happened in Algeria; the Algerians kicked out the French after 100 and something years of colonisation. The Indians kicked out the British. It does happen, but not very often.

The other one, the third option, is reconciliation and redress between the coloniser and those who were colonised, and that must be based on a principle of genuine mutual respect and coexistence. That is what we are seeking to do, I believe, in Aotearoa New Zealand: to properly reconcile and redress for the harms caused by the Crown to iwi. The complexities of the relationships contained in this bill are part of a story of how we make amends for harms done in the past, and how we make good for the future; that we may live in peace and mutual coexistence, in a way that everybody thrives, and the dignity, autonomy, and rangatiratanga of the indigenous people is upheld by the Crown. Kia ora koutou.

09:41

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT party to speak in favour of this piece of legislation. The quote that Steve Abel just gave on the complexities of human relationships is nowhere more stark than in the need for legislation such as this.

The complexities of relationship between iwi and imi and the Crown have been seen in 2018, when we had a historical account, apology, and acknowledgment; and last night we did the first reading of the Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri Claims Settlement Bill. Those are dealing with the complexities of the relationship between the Crown and imi and iwi.

Here is a complication in the relationship, and I hope, in the same way Steve Abel has mentioned, that we are doing this in a way that isn’t unhelpful. It’s going to go through the select committee. I’m not a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, but I can see this is going to take a lot of working out and understanding; and making sure that, as Government so often does when it tries to help, it doesn’t makes it worse. I really do hope that the process that we’ll go through will make sure everybody who is trying to overcome the complexities of human relationships finds in this legislation the path to do so, for some of the most beautiful, productive, and important cultural, economic, and environmental places in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

09:42

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

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

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill. I’d like to begin my contribution by acknowledging the Minister who spoke first to this piece of legislation, the Hon Tama Potaka, and acknowledging that this, in his words, is a “bespoke” and “unique in nature” piece of legislation. We’ve heard that through some of the contributions we’ve had so far.

Yes, as humans we are a little complex in nature, and our relationships with ourselves and each other can at times demonstrate complexity in the way in which we interact with each other, and the way in which we have interacted with each other in the past. But that sets a foundation for building a new way of interacting into the future. Treaty settlement bills and redress bills enable us to reset our relationships, with ourselves, with our whānau, and with our wider communities in all their shapes and forms.

I believe these types of pieces of legislation enable us to move forward together as a people and as a society. The society on the Chatham’s, this idyllic setting to the east of the South Island, is a mere 500 kilometres or so away Wellington, but also a lifetime away from Wellington, which is not such a bad thing.

My colleague the Hon Shane Jones obviously has a deep connection with the Chathams. As the regional development Minister and fisheries Minister, he has focused heavily on the Chatham Islands through infrastructure funding, shipping, and transport support in fisheries management decisions. And it is his hope, through the course of this Parliament, that he’s been able to strengthen the bonds between the Chathams and Wellington.

And, of course, we heard last night in the Treaty settlement bill for Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri about the trip that many went on last year on the Air Force Hercules, which I was actually meant to be on myself. However, because there was a desire to take the Rātana band, some of us got left behind on the mainland. But it was a great trip, and the stories that have come back from that are legendary in nature.

Today does mark a significant step forward as we come together to discuss the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill. This piece of legislation is born out of patience, enduring commitment, and the shared vision of two distinct iwi: Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. It’s important to be clear about what this legislation represents. The bill gives legal effect to the key elements of the shared redress deed. And at the heart of this legislation is the recognition of shared connection to the whenua, to the awa, the moana, and identity. It is a collective effort designed specifically to acknowledge shared redress. Their areas of interest are completely overlapped, and that’s where that complexity comes in, and has been noted already, the Māori Affairs Committee with have some work to do, to panel beat it all into shape, so that everybody is satisfied with how the bill makes its landing—the final shape of it.

I will conclude that I am pleased—though I haven’t yet been able to get to the Chathams—I do have the mug. In fact, there are cupboards full of them all throughout the Parliament, probably the most generously given mug that Parliamentarians receive, particularly when we arrive in this House.

On that note, I wish everybody well as we honour the past, provide certainty for the present, and build a sustainable future and foundation for Rēkohu Wharekauri. I commend this bill to the House.

09:47

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I’m very pleased to stand for this first reading for the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill. I couldn’t help but chuckle a little bit when the previous speaker spoke about Shane Jones travelling over there, and I do wonder whether he’s actually one of the present day’s largest traders that goes to Wharekauri Rēkohu. He brings across plenty of his kumara from up the Far North there, in exchange for the wonderful kai that, of course, the islands are very famous for.

This redress bill is appropriate. It’s an opportunity for a new beginning. It will be interesting, as my colleague Steve Abel said, with the select committee opening up for submissions later on today. Hence, we’re wanting to get this done; let’s get this done expeditiously so we can start the process off. And, of course, with those submission processes, we do get lots of communications from different lenses, from all different sides of the debate itself. We hope that this redress is indeed what that word actually says: it is a redress.

I do want to thank the work of all those that have been involved with getting this particular bill to this stage here. I’m sure many of them are in the gallery today, as well as our officials from Te Tari Whakatau. They have a very important job themselves, in making sure that this is indeed a satisfactory process, and one that doesn’t cause further aggravation to what the Crown has historically done and what we’re trying to fix here. I acknowledge the work of the office and the work that they do.

So this bill here has a number of things. I think one of the interesting parts is Rēkohu, the name. It’s not, perhaps, so familiar to a number of people, being the Moriori name. I’m from Ngāti Mutunga, as I mentioned last night, and I’m very familiar with Wharekauri. I’ve got to wonder where the kauri came from, because on my visit recently I didn’t see too many kauri or trees around there, so it would be interesting to learn that story. But Rēkohu: I understand the meaning of that is “the mist before the sun”—another beautiful word, a beautiful name for the islands, and of course, part of this redress is looking at including the Māori and Moriori names within the certain landscapes over in the island there.

But without any further delay, I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

09:50

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

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

I just wanted to acknowledge the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee. He’s done, surprisingly, a really good job in the last year! Yes, they’re full of surprises, this National Party, sometimes! Obviously, he’s one of your relations; I want to mihi him. To Greg Fleming, who, no doubt, will have a kōrero, our Māori-speaking Pākehā member, I want to mihi to him for his tautoko. It has been a good committee—a really good committee—very bipartisan. To our deputy chair, too—I want to mihi to her for her contribution. Oh, there’s my mate Georgie at the back there, too. I’d mihi to the Māori Party too, but they’re having the day off today!

Like most days.

They’re having the day off today. It’s been a really good time, traversing these types of kaupapa—challenging for the committee, as it is challenging for whanaunga up there in the gallery.

I do think these types of kaupapa are real challenges for politicians and our communities and whānau to traverse: how we whakakotahi for this kaupapa; how we address this. This a unique settlement in terms of what happened to Moriori and, also, where the kaupapa conquest comes in. Those are the sorts of things that the courts traverse: how you apply that kaupapa conquest in terms of a people who were going about their own business for 400 years, until our chairman’s relations turned up and took over. Then they—and I should say “we”, too, because I am Ngāti Mutunga too. Their rights were breached by the Crown. So we as a Government, or whoever the Government is, have to get our heads around that, because there is no doubt that our people—first of all, Moriori, and then our Taranaki people—had their rights breached. The Crown breached those rights, so we don’t want to get into this—so it’s really hard. And then, of course, everybody marries each other, right? Everybody is relations in the end. We’re all whanaunga in the end anyway.

We have to understand, though, as Steve Abel talks about, who is the major fault here: who is the coloniser, who is running the divide-and-rule strategy, who is splitting the indigenous people? We have to get our act together so that our families and our young people can benefit, because the reality is that, whether it’s Moriori or Māori, we’re living off the smell of an oily rag, and it’s the Crown that keeps getting away with murder, because it is the Crown that has robbed Māori of the opportunity in terms of great potential, in terms of economic development, in terms of developing our reo, whether that’s Moriori reo or Ngāti Mutunga reo. It’s always the Crown at fault, and if we can focus on that area, we will see the benefits of these sorts of initiatives and kaupapa. I just want to say to all our whanaunga, all our people who have come here today, that this is a special bill, the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill, and it must be traversed in a bipartisan way, because of the problems that we have, in terms of overlapping claims, which is a constant problem for Governments, a constant problem, and people are missing out. If we focus on who has the pūtea, who has the resources, who has the chance to support our whānau, I think we will have a better result in the end.

The main thing is that we must whakakotahi for the kaupapa and focus on the Crown, focus on the Government, and get over what happened over the previous 400 years. I just want to make those points, congratulate everyone, and wish us all luck as we traverse this over the next few years. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

09:55

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I too really love that tie that you’re wearing. The chakra is green. I rise in support of the first reading of this bill. As we’ve heard from colleagues across the House, it is a bespoke bill; it is unique, it’s tailor-made, if we say it that way, and it needs to be, because we are dealing with a beautifully unique set of circumstances. I am really glad that this bill has been drafted in order to tackle the issues that are going to arise.

When we speak about overlapping interests and overlapping claims, when I was blessed to be placed on to the Māori Affairs Committee after being voted in, the first settlement bill that we dealt with was the Whakatōhea bill. I remember that was very emotionally taxing on myself and some of my colleagues. It was the first time I had been able to observe the whole issues arising from what people feel are overlapping interests. I am really glad that this bill has been drafted. I’ll be watching it from afar if I’m not blessed to be on the Māori Affairs Committee again, and I commend it to the House.

09:56

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa. Nau mai, haere mai ki Pāremata.

It’s an honour to rise on behalf of the Labour Party to speak in support of the Rēkohu Wharekauri Shared Redress Bill. It has been a really interesting journey, learning about the shared whakapapa, from both my readings but also from discussions with my colleagues. I was fortunate to grab the Hon Willie Jackson for a few minutes this morning to get his reckons on it as whanaunga. The history is such a complicated one. I think one of the parts of this that really stuck out for me was that I remember learning about Moriori at primary school, but that story that was told was so inaccurate and didn’t address or speak to the people of Moriori in an accurate way. We know we have such a long history in this country of telling the wrong story about Māori and telling the wrong story about colonisation and what happened in New Zealand when the Europeans arrived.

It is a real pleasure and of great importance, but also comes with some sadness, that we are putting into our history books some correct information about what happened for Moriori and Māori during colonisation, and I think it’s important, because we need to set the record straight. I hope every single child in our primary schools is not learning the same stories, the completely made-up stories, that I learnt in primary school, and instead are learning the accurate information about the harm done by the Crown to so many Māori, including your two iwi. The sadness comes because of how many kids, tamariki like me, 30 years ago in primary school—the inaccuracy, and I hope that every 40-year-old is relearning, like I am, what actually happened and knowing the deep racial implications that colonisation had on everyone in New Zealand, especially tangata whenua.

I really want to acknowledge both the Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri for your time, for coming and making the effort to come to the House today.

As other speakers have spoken to, this redress bill is unique. The Hon Ginny Andersen said it’s the first time she thinks that we’ve had a bill of this nature. The compromise, the ability to work together, the ability to move forward, I think, is highly commendable to everybody who has been a part of this process. A lot of that mahi has happened over many, many years, and so I commend all of that journey that would have been painful and challenging but, also, one that looks to the future, and a future for two iwi who have such deep connections to whenua. I hope that, moving forward, those connections to your whenua, to your tikanga, to your reo, are only enhanced for your whānau as we move forward in New Zealand.

There’s been a huge question around tino rangatiratanga, both to do with this redress bill and the two iwi concerned but, also, in New Zealand as a whole, for many, many years. I hope that this is one tiny step in the direction of tino rangatiratanga for whānau and iwi.

It’s really fascinating to read more about this history. I feel incredibly privileged to learn more. Congratulations on getting to this point, for Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga o Wharekauri. I commend this bill to the House.

Greg Fleming.

10:01

Pai rawa atu tō neketai.

[Your necktie is awesome.]

Oh, mihi mai—mihi mai [thank you—thank you].

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

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

Ko te pātai kia whakaaetia te mōtini.

[The question is that the motion be agreed to.]

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

10:04

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

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

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

Waiata

Tēnā koutou. OK. Kei te haere tonu te tereina—the train’s going to keep on going.

10:08

I present a legislative statement on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It is a pleasure to bring this bill to its final stage today. I want to start by thanking members of the House, the submitters, and the officials that worked on getting the bill here. At its heart, this bill is about making sure our regulatory system keeps pace with current practices while retaining its robustness.

The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act is approaching 30 years old. The science has moved on since it was written. Our trading partners and regulators have moved on. The practice of assessing these products has moved on. The law has not kept up.

This bill is a core part of delivering on the promise of the Ministry for Regulation’s review into agricultural and horticultural products. That review found what farmers and growers had been saying for years: that while the system of approvals is generally effective at protecting against risk for things like trade and food safety, it had become cumbersome to navigate and approval times had stretched, to the point that companies are questioning the value in registering new agricultural products in New Zealand. That means that somewhere in Europe today, there is a product on a shelf that could help a New Zealand farmer treat a sick animal or help a grower protect a crop with less chemistry and lower application rates. It has been assessed, it has been used safely, and it is not available here.

As a response, one of the central things that this bill does is strengthen the framework to build on assessments done overseas. Where a trusted overseas regulator has already done robust work on a product, our assessment will rely on that work rather than repeat it. What we will not do is skip the questions that are ours alone to ask. New Zealand’s specific risks will still be assessed and managed appropriately. So let me be very clear: we are not cutting corners, we are cutting duplication.

Here is what that means on the ground. For a dairy farmer: access to a new animal treatment in a sensible time frame, instead of waiting for years for a product that has already been thoroughly assessed and safely used overseas. For a grower: quicker to access to crop protection that is more targeted, needs lower application rates, or replaces older chemistry. For the people who make these products: less time filling in forms for an answer another regulator has already given, and more time and money going into the next product. The principle is simple: if the product is safe, if it is effective, and if it meets New Zealand requirements, we should not be making people jump through hoops for the sake of the hoops.

My colleague acknowledged the select committee at second reading, and I’d like to do so again today. This was a technical bill, and I thank the Primary Production Committee for the collegial way it conducted its review. The changes the committee made struck the right balance between flexibility and standardisation of notification, and it sharpened how we can use trusted overseas science without loosening New Zealand standards. These are practical improvements to transparency, certainty, and fairness, and they came from people outside this building telling us how the thing would actually work.

It is important that implementation is done well. That is why there is a two-year commencement period, unless the implementation before this date. It should absolutely be a priority for the Government to pursue the additional measures that are required for full implementation at pace, including new regulations covering the set-up, accelerated exemptions pathway, and processing time frames. I’ve also directed my officials to prepare operational guidelines that show how overseas assessments will be incorporated and will speed up the process. The two-year commencement provides a buffer, but it should not take that long.

I’ve spent most of my working lifer on a dairy farm. I know what it is to look at a sick animal or a paddock infested with weeds and be told the better option is not registered here. It is not a theoretical frustration; it is the sort of thing that makes good people lose faith in the system that is meant to be serving them.

This Government has been clear that regulation should be proportionate, practical, and focused on outcomes. It should guard what matters and leave alone what does not need guarding. That’s what this bills does. It keeps our standards where they belong, which is high, and it gets good products into the hands of the people who use them every day sooner. What it doesn’t do—as some people have asserted—is change, in any way, how genetically modified organisms are regulated under New Zealand law. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, known as HSNO, provides the framework by which new organisms, such as GE, GM organisms, are permitted or not permitted in New Zealand; not the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Act. Section 21(5)(b) of the Act is clear that no product containing a new organism can be approved for use until it is first approved under the HSNO Act. This bill does nothing to alter that arrangement.

This bill is a proportional response to a real problem. It will boost farm productivity by enabling to access to better management while properly managing risk. This will, undoubtedly, help unlock rural New Zealand’s potential. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is the motion be agreed to.

10:14

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to rise and take on call in this, the third reading of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. But before I do move on to that bill, I just want to wish all colleagues around the House a very happy last day here in Parliament, and wish everyone well on the campaign trail—make sure you take time for your family and good eating and exercise, and remember to play the ball and not the player. That’s my one piece of advice I want to leave you all with today.

We’re here in the House, on the last sitting day, in the third reading of this piece of legislation, and I want to acknowledge my colleagues on the Primary Production Committee, and, as the Minister mentioned, we worked together in a really collegial way, and that is one of things that I have loved about my whole time in Parliament, actually. When I’ve been a part of the Primary Production Committee, we do work in a really collegial way, because, as a select committee, we recognise that whilst there will be times we disagree, we need to make decision based on what is, ultimately, going to be best for our primary producers, farmers, and growers out there, but also ensuring that we do need to make sure that we keep our environmental protections in place, and things like that. I do believe that over the years of my time here in Parliament, we have managed to work really well as a select committee.

It’s an interesting process, this bill, and we do continue to support it at this third reading—I just wanted to make that clear. We do have concerns, still, about the fact that it was a shortened process. We have some concerns also around the consultation that was undertaken being a targeted consultation process. And so I do worry that, perhaps, we didn’t hear from as many people or that other people may have wished to be consulted as part of this process. I worry that in doing that, given that our primary production, our farmers and growers are a huge part, if not the biggest part of our economy here, that if we have rushed and accidentally missed something, which I’m hoping we haven’t—I would hate to think there could be unintended consequences as a result of that.

I completely understand the purpose of this piece of legislation because we’ve heard for many, many years, actually, about the frustration from our farmers and growers about the inability for them to have access to some of the things that are available currently overseas. I mentioned in my second reading speech that some of the products and things that are available overseas are, perhaps, often more environmentally friendly or more effective than what we have available here. So I completely understand the reasoning for this piece of legislation. An example of one of the hold-ups that the country has been facing, or our growers have been facing, has been an insecticide—the one the I mentioned, actually, for mealy bugs and grapes. An example of that was that, as at November 2025, it had been sitting in the approval system since 2019. That simply isn’t good enough. Our farmers and growers need access to products in a really timely manner so that they can also remain competitive. We need to have these products in a timely manner because if something that we’re using here somehow should hinder or impact our ability to sell our goods overseas—because we are an export nation—we need to make sure that we are keeping up with the most up-to-date veterinary medicines and agricultural compounds.

We did hear some concerns from submitters. They were concerned about the overseas regulators and taking into account those throughout the process. And, again, I want to give assurance to people who have those concerns that whilst the director-general must take into account—I think that was the new wording that we decided on—what overseas regulators have done and found, there must also be the consideration taken into our individual flora and fauna here in New Zealand. So just because something has been approved overseas does not mean it’s automatically going to be approved here without the appropriate measures and things taken into consideration.

It was really interesting that, when Government parties were wanting to put amendments forward, suddenly they were withdrawn. It does make me wonder if there is some concern, even within Government parties, about some of the pieces of this legislation as it’s gone through the process. But I guess we’ll never know since they were withdrawn.

We still have some concerns also with regard to some parts of it, where—actually, my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking was hopeful that her amendments might have been accepted and that they would have been able to take more account of environmental risk, and it does seem that, in some parts, that hasn’t happened. That is still a concern because, given that we’re a trading nation, we do need to consider environmental risks for everything—and I can hear the Minister muttering over there at me, and I’m sure he’ll tell me what he thinks.

I was saying that’s what HSNO does.

Oh yeah, well—OK, I take your point. The other interesting part about this piece of legislation is that we haven’t the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act come through. I find that quite intriguing in that we looked at both of these pieces of legislation alongside each other in the select committee—

We tried to have them as one bill, but you wouldn’t let us.

—and yet this is the only one that has come out. I find that quite intriguing, and I’ll look forward to my colleague Suze Redmayne’s contribution because I think she has some things to say over there.

Short and sweet, like her.

Oh, yes, and I don’t disagree with you, actually. She’s a lovely person to be on the select committee with.

So Suze is not short?

Well, no, she’s not, actually—no, she’s not.

Anyway, one of the beauties of having it go through a select committee process, which is an appropriate thing that Governments should do—using the select committee process—is the opportunity for our Regulations Review Committee to also look at pieces of legislation, as well as our submitters, who can bring forward things that perhaps may have been missed. One of the things that was missed and that is actually very important—but we have since corrected it, obviously, for this since it came out of the select committee process—was that the Regulations Review Committee picked up the fact that if something has been declined or exempted by the director-general, they didn’t have to necessarily say why or have it out there in the public arena as to why. I think it’s important that we’ve made the change in this legislation that it does have to be notified or put out there publicly as to why something might have been rejected, because I also think it gives New Zealanders confidence that things have been looked at in a proper manner and assessed as to the suitability for something being here in New Zealand or not.

Ultimately, this will allow our farmers and growers to have access to the agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines that they need in a timely manner. It should give confidence to people overseas. I know the Minister mentioned that it is about people being concerned about looking to invest here in New Zealand and bringing their products here, and we know that some have looked to leave the country, as well, because it’s been such a difficult process.

We do support this piece of legislation. It will mean farmers and growers have access to the products that they need to remain competitive, to continue to have good animal welfare, and to continue to farm in more sustainable ways as different products are made available. I commend this bill to the House.

10:23

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Boy, these are dense pieces of legislation here. The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, as we came to understand through the process—and I acknowledge my colleague here mentioning that fact—has a high degree of interaction between the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act). One thing that struck us—or that struck me at least, and perhaps others on the Primary Production Committee—was that there is potential merit in combining these two Acts at some point because there is so much overlap.

One of the anomalies that was drawn out through the debate in the committee of the whole House is that the environmental risks of hazardous chemicals and substances are managed through the HSNO Act, as the Minister for Food Safety has just pointed out, but the residue issues with those chemicals where they’re applied in agriculture are managed through the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act (ACVM Act). The interaction between those two Acts adds a level of complexity.

Similarly, on the question of genetically modified organisms, you can end up with a genetically modified organism being managed through the ACVM Act if—as the Minister also pointed out—it is first passed through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act because it’s captured as a new organism. Or is it captured as a new organism, because part of the debate which we’re intimately involved with in this Chamber and in this term of Government, in particular, because we’ve dealt with the gene tech bill, which did not make it back to the House for a second reading—part of the challenge we’re grappling with is definitions of what are genetically modified organisms.

We may already have an instance where something has been deemed to not be a genetically modified organism by the regulator through a process at the Environment Protection Authority and it has been released in a field trial—I’m talking about a compound that’s a potential solution to varroa mite—and there’s debate as to whether it was correct to define this double-stranded RNA compound as not being genetically modified, or not involving the potential release of a genetically modified organism that could convey heritable material. The courts found that it was an appropriate approval, but there is still contention and question around that.

All of this combines with the adding in of veterinary medicines. There are hazardous substances and new organisms, agricultural compounds—and, just for clarity, “compounds” means pesticides and herbicides, which is a far more familiar term, I think, to most people for what we’re talking about in practical terms—but also we’ve got veterinary medicines. Now, that is a much less contentious question, and going to the purpose of the bill in trying to ease the regulatory pathway for access to veterinary medicines, we support that. That is not contentious because, just like with human medicines, the processes in international jurisdictions around evaluating where it is appropriate and where a veterinary medicine is safe are very rigorous. Just as a paracetamol has an effect on a Homo sapiens in Denmark, it’s going to have the same effect on a Homo sapiens in New Zealand, and so you don’t need a separate regulatory regime for a human medicine; neither do you need a separate regulatory regime for a veterinary medicine, because we know that if it works on a horse in Sweden, it’s going to work on a horse in New Zealand.

Now, that’s why I actually think that one of the more useful solutions to the complexity of what’s being combined in these bills would be to separate out veterinary medicines because they are less contentious. What should have been done with the gene tech bill—which is part of this trio of legislation that occupies this space—is that it should have been separated into medicines and contained use versus environmental release. Had the bill been split into those two parts, it would have been much easier to deal with because the medicines bit is not contentious. Likewise, the veterinary medicines bit of this bill is not the contentious one.

But, on balance, our concerns around the loss of regulatory sovereignty around those agrichemicals is the reason that we’re not supporting this bill at the third reading. It’s because those pesticides and herbicides that are also regulated by this bill, as well as the HSNO Act, include pesticides and herbicides that are potentially novel and toxic. The worst effects of them—as is often the case with synthetic chemicals created by humans and laboratories over the last hundred years—are not understood or known until some years down the track or some decades down the track.

That’s why the precautionary principle and the precautionary approach is vitally important in regard to agricultural chemicals and compounds. We have, in the history of modern industrial agriculture, a pretty terrible track record of using some very damaging and destructive chemicals created by chemical companies—that they make a lot of money out of—and they serve a very simple, blunt, and effective purpose of killing things that we don’t like in the agricultural production monoculture, usually; killing the particular bugs we don’t like, killing the particular plants we don’t like. Now, the long-term effects of that on an ecosystem level are where we have a 2 percent decline in global insect population year on year. That is a catastrophic problem for us ecologically. The loss of bee populations globally is a major problem for agriculture and food production in general, let alone for ecology. One of the obvious causes of that is neonicotinoid chemicals. They have been used in the agricultural sector to kill the bugs that we don’t like but have had a knock-on effect on the bugs that we do like.

Similarly, we have to be wary and pay close attention to which companies are keen on deregulation of these chemicals. I just want to remind everybody that some of the companies that pushed hard for this deregulation of agricultural compounds—which are pesticides and herbicides—include BASF, one of the world’s biggest agrichemical manufacturers; Bayer, the company that bought out Monsanto, who invented glyphosate and who invented a number of highly toxic chemicals, some of which are now prohibited in other jurisdictions; Syngenta, who produce atrazine, a chemical banned in 40 countries around the world but not banned in New Zealand. It should be banned in New Zealand. We have to heed who is pushing for this deregulation of these chemicals. Whose agenda does it serve, and should we forfeit our regulatory sovereignty in terms of the management of those chemicals, and should we be so willing to accept an overseas jurisdiction that might be under the influence of the lobby of those massive agrichemical companies to get a lighter-touch approach at the regulatory level?

For those reasons, we stick on the side of a precautionary approach, notwithstanding that there will be some new chemicals and substances and biologicals that will be useful and will help us move away from more toxic chemicals. On balance, we do not believe that this amendment meets the right balance. We think it is too great a liberalisation, particularly in regard to those agrichemicals, those pesticides, and those herbicides, and so we won’t be supporting this bill at this reading.

10:33

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and speak on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill on the last day of the 54th Parliament. Look, I just wanted to thank the Primary Production Committee for the work that they did, and the officials and all of the advice that they gave us. We certainly did harass them a bit around certain issues.

I just want to reiterate that, in our report, we noted that the bill does not amend the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act or alter New Zealand’s regulatory settings in relation to GMOs or GEs. It’s in our report. We had no differing views that were proposed by any party for the committee report. Originally, we were going to report back mid-September, but the committee agreed unanimously to report back in late August.

We are not losing regulatory sovereignty. That is the whole process that will be enabled by this new bill, taking into account overseas jurisdictions and their assessment of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines. It doesn’t mean we rubber-stamp it. There are processes involved to make sure that they are acceptable for New Zealand conditions.

This bill is a real step forward for farmers who have been asking for changes in this space for quite some time. A number of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines that are available offshore are not available here. In many cases, these agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines have less of an impact on the environment and are certainly more effective in what they’re being used for.

I would just also like to note that we’ve actually lost a bit of scientific capability as well with the current system. We’ve lost one of our research labs that’s associated with one of the big companies and has shut up shop and moved to Australia, and that’s certainly restricted the number of opportunities for scientists and researchers here in New Zealand. This, hopefully, will help in bringing back some of that research and development of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines here onshore.

Finally, I’d like to close with, I guess, a shout-out to glyphosate, in particular, as one of the best and most useful inventions of the 20th century. It’s been an incredible chemical that has changed the way people farm. It has certainly been environmentally enabling, because, instead of tilling the soil, it’s allowed low-tillage or no-tillage systems to evolve. With that—

Tell the bees that.

It’s a great chemical, Steve Abel, and I think—

You wait to see how much you can grow when you’ve got no bees.

It’s a great, great chemical. Anyway, I commend this bill to the House.

10:38

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. New Zealand prides itself for having the best farmers and growers in the world, but they do need world-class tools, or competitive world-class tools, to be able to maintain that status. What we heard coming into Government was the enormous frustration by those involved in the sector, from both the companies and the farmers, of the ability to get new chemicals tested and regulated in this country. We did hear an example from the Hon Jo Luxton in her presentation about a six-year wait.

By international standards, even though we’re a great primary producer, we are, essentially, a small market, and we were perceived to be closed for business, and that was having real-world consequences: the closure of Bayers’s research facility in Hawke’s Bay; they shut up shop and moved to Australia as Miles Anderson has pointed out. The system was just not working for anyone and the length of time for the approvals was chilling investment, because it was narrowing the window of opportunity for a patent to be effected before an agricultural compound or veterinary medicine was to become generic. So it definitely was having a chilling effect. We do need to sort this out.

The main part of this bill is it gives effect for the ability of work done by trusted overseas regulators to be taken more fully into account by our team in the Environmental Protection Authority, as we’re not starting from scratch every time we get a new chemical or agrichemical veterinary medicine; we are able to take more fully into account work done by trusted overseas regulators. That does not mean that it’s an open door—there’s still New Zealand context to be taken into account—but we should be able to save a lot of time and effort and duplication through this new system.

We have put a lot of effort into making sure that this is robust and being satisfied with that. The stakes are very high. We had the dicyandiamide incident, where treatment of urea fertiliser—traces were found in the milk, which caused havoc, particularly in China; of course, milk powder and the like for infants. That was extremely detrimental to our reputation as a trading nation with really high-quality, safe food. The stakes are really high here, so we do have to have a system that is robust and will protect us from those sorts of outcomes, which can have a devastating impact on our reputation internationally.

The Hon Jo Luxton also referenced a series of amendments that came through at one point in this process under my name. The reason for that was that there was a late flurry where there was some Official Information Act information that was released showing that there had been some trials of a double-stranded RNA that, at face value, would breach the GMO-free rules. We were scrambling around to understand exactly what that means, how that got through the system, and how this particular piece of legislation as drafted would handle that—bearing in mind it’s gone through the previous, or the existing, policy framework and regulatory framework.

I would thank the Minister and his officials for indulging us, walking us through what had happened in terms of that being a treatment for varroa mites and their impact on bees, and that that is a contained experiment that has gone through the existing Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act. But I agree with the contribution from Steve Abel that, as the next Parliament looks at the HSNO Act and continues to grapple with where we land on GMO, we must make sure those definitions are clear. To me, as a layperson, double-stranded RNA is a modified organism, and how that got through our system to the point where it is—I think there are very real questions about that. I guess, the issue here is that that lies within the HSNO Act and how that is informed by the Gene Technology Bill that’s also been before the Parliament and goes through the next Parliament. So that’s the background of where that went. We’ve taken this issue very, very seriously. We wanted absolute assurance that we were not opening up a back-door pathway to GMO.

This is fiendishly complex, and those three bills—this bill, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) Act Amendment Bill, the HSNO Bill, and the Gene Technology Bill—are all linked. They’re probably being slightly done out of sequence here, actually, but it was important that we get this through before the election, because of this: that pipeline of products that we’re not getting access to. We needed to speed that up. With the other parts, we’ve got time to take more time and get that absolutely right. It’s going to be critical for the future of our agriculture and primary sectors. But it is fiendishly complex.

I will thank Miles Anderson and the Primary Production Committee for the work they’ve done on this, and the Minister and his team for shepherding the new bill forward. We now have, hopefully, the ACVM rules and regulations that allow much more effective and less toxic chemicals to work through our regulatory system. I mean, ironically, some of the stuff Steve Abel was talking about, some of these really toxic agrichemicals that have been used in our past—we actually have pretty rose-coloured glasses about our past and farming systems and our ecological and environmental record, because we used some horrific chemicals back in the day. This bill will allow us to get access to some much less impactful chemicals, treatments, and tools for our farmers and growers. New Zealand First supports this bill. Thank you.

This is a split call.

10:46

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Firstly, it’s quite incredible to hear the Government member and their shout-out to glyphosate, particularly at a time where we know that Monsanto, which is now Bayer, has been forced to pay literally billions of dollars in payouts to farmers, sprayers, and users because of the severe health impacts when it comes to glyphosate use. That’s the human health aspects, not to mention the environmental impacts, particularly on what we know is the true backbone of our economy and, actually, our entire world, and that is bees. Glyphosate has huge impacts when it comes to the environment and insects like these, and there are actually very valid ways to farm without these chemicals that are actually highly profitable. I just want to note that first.

I want to say, as well, that initially the Green Party did support the intention of this bill. That this generally streamlined approval of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines by streamlining the existing regulatory requirements is not necessarily a concern in itself, and particularly those veteriny—those veterinary, I should say; it’s a very hard word to say at the end of a long week—medicines. It is uncontroversial.

What is a concern is that while there can be value in improving these regulatory processes, this should not be achieved by relaxing very necessary precaution and safeguards, particularly when it comes to the safeguarding of the health of our people and our environment and our animals. I mean, there are really clear lines where caution and adequate information and evidence that is fit for purpose for New Zealand is actually required. When it comes to the health of our people, the health of our animals, and the health of our environment, we absolutely draw that line, because this bill ultimately goes beyond simply improving efficiencies. It was really at the select committee process and, also, now at committee of the whole House where really clear Amendment Papers were put forward by my colleague Steve Abel and others on this side of the House, which just would have provided some greater clarity and certainty about those safeguards. Unfortunately, the fact that those were not picked up or adopted by the Government only then strengthens our concerns around this bill.

I want to pick up, too—and I want to acknowledge the first reading of the bill that was just passed, with Rēkohu Wharekauri whānau who were in the gallery just now.

We are very concerned about Māori participation and Te Tiriti o Waitangi when it comes to this bill. There is an absence of meaningful requirements for Māori participation. That’s a significant concern for us.

We find it really hard to be in the Chamber consistently for these settlement bills where the Government are saying one thing, and then, in so many of their actions, they are taking away the rights and the obligations that the Crown holds under Te Tiriti when it comes to iwi Māori participation. For example, particularly with this bill, there is no requirement for the director-general to actually consult with iwi Māori before approving agricultural chemical products that could considerably impact te taiao—environment—and also, as we’ve covered, human health.

We’re really concerned about this specifically because environmental impacts can have severe consequences when it comes to taonga, to whenua, to waterways, and to Māori communities. We think there is absolutely a place for Māori knowledge, for mātauranga, and for expertise in this. It’s completely absent. We’re really concerned about the safeguards, and we oppose this bill.

10:51

As the member for Whanganui, including South Taranaki and Stratford, and soon including the Ruapehu, too, I’m proud of our Government’s record in backing our farmers and our primary producers. Passing the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill is another example of this. It improves farmer’s, grower, and business access to agricultural and horticultural products while maintaining strong protections for public health, food safety, biosecurity, environmental outcome, and our international trade. Therefore, I commend it to the House.

10:52

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill at its third and final reading. And, yes, it is a bit of a challenging word to pronounce.

I want to begin this contribution just by—I was very interested to listen to the contribution from the New Zealand First Associate Minister, because last week, this was one of two bills where we saw what was the three governing parties in a little bit of disarray, where New Zealand First were popping up amendments on Government bills, and this was one of those.

It was quite intriguing that the amendments appeared on the Table and then subsequently disappeared from the Table. I’ll come to that a little bit later, because Labour did have a solution that was subsequently not agreed to by New Zealand First at committee of the whole House stage, which could have helped to allay some of the concerns that our colleague Mark Patterson has mentioned previously and also from the Green Party. So I’ll come to that soon.

We do support this bill. The reason we support this bill: it is as an important tool for regulating agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines—there’s that word again—and it is important that we have a process that is straight forward, that’s rigorous, that’s easy for people to participate in, but that does protect people and that does protect our environment. That’s what this bill’s approach is, is to ensure that that happens.

What this bill does is it amends the existing Act; it doesn’t create a new Act. But one of the fundamental things that it changes, where we have had a lot of debate in the last few days, is that, in addition to the main regulatory process—a permanent regulatory process for compounds and medicines—there has been a change to what was once called “provisional registration”, which is now going to be called a “consent”. So I’ll come shortly to some of the things that the Labour Party believes could have been amended—I’m sure my colleague Rachel Brooking will have more to say on this in her contribution—to add some more guardrails around that particular process. But I do want to just, I guess, put on record some of the things that we understand around that what is now called a consent process.

The first thing is that a consent doesn’t automatically then lead to a full registration. So just because a product has been granted a consent, it does not mean that there will then follow an automatic registration process. That’s one of the concerns that has sometimes been asked. OK, so if a product gets a consent for a short period of time in order to—mostly it would be to undertake some research in a defined way and in a defined area—would that automatically lead to research?

Discussions with officials have been helpful in assuring us, as elected members, that actually what occurs with that consent, with that shortened consent time is an opportunity to undertake research, to actually test out—to test out—whether that compound is going to be able to be used safely in New Zealand. That research that comes from that consenting process can then be used to determine whether the full registration application is robust. So just to note that there’s no guarantee that a product would be fully registered later; it would still need to meet all of the requirements for a full registration.

I just want to touch on some of the other concerns that have come up and some of our proposals, as the Labour Party, via my colleague Rachel Brooking, that would have added some more guardrails. The first was that a consent, we believe, could have a maximum duration of less than five years. One of the concerns is that a consent could go on and on indefinitely—so, essentially, have an effect of having a full registration, even if it is limited in terms of where it’s able to operate and how it’s able to operate, it could still have an indefinite consenting time frame. That adds risk to the use of that particular product. So it was a pragmatic suggestion, and we’re surprised that New Zealand First didn’t take us up on the opportunity to vote in favour of that, to put some more guardrails around after having raised some fair concerns.

The second amendment that was put forward was to add some more guardrails around the environmental effects. It has been traversed in the House today around the relationship between the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act and the amendments to the HSNO Act and the amendments to this Act and this bill that’s going through the House. We did consider them in committee at the same time, and it is of interest to us on this side of the House that considered both bills together and asked questions about them together and have been advised that, no, we don’t need to have environmental guardrails in this particular bill because they sit in the HSNO Act.

However, the HSNO Act is also being updated, was reported back at the same time, but has not then appeared on the Order Paper in the House, so has not made its way into the debating chamber for its second reading, committee of the whole House stage, and third reading. Those two pieces of work have been dovetailed together. So it is of interest to us that one of those bills is now going to pass its third reading today and will have Royal assent and so forth, and the other one that it talks to, that it speaks to, will not. So it’s going to be an interesting little quagmire for officials in terms of how those two bills relate to each other. I mean, perhaps Government members can give us some more information on where that bill has gone—into the deep hole of bills that go nowhere, potentially. So just on the basis of, I guess, observing what’s happening with coalition parties and a bit of chaos at times, with New Zealand First popping amendments in on Government bills—Ministers, no doubt—it would be interesting to know what’s happened to HSNO.

We thought it would have been a pragmatic solution to add some guardrails around the environment into this bill. That would have helped allay some of those concerns raised by New Zealand First and ourselves and the Greens.

We also—and again, this came through my colleague Rachel Brooking; I’m sure she’ll want to mention these amendments she put forward, herself—wanted an amendment to say that any product sitting under that temporary consent shouldn’t be sold for commercial gain. There is the opportunity and references to those products being sold. We did discuss this with officials and understand that it’s a very rare thing to happen. We wanted an extra guardrail which would say that if those products were to be sold, because, essentially, if they’re having a provisional consent, it’s not for a commercial process; in future, it could be for a commercial purpose, but at the time, it’s usually for a research purpose.

It would be unusual for a product that’s being used for a research purpose in a very small way to have some type of sale process, but we believe that a guard rail to ensure that there wasn’t, I guess, a sideways option for one of those products to then be used to be sold for commercial gain, would have been an extra guard rail that could have been put in. Then we also just note that it would have strengthened the role of consents for research, rather than for commercial sales.

In the short time that I have left on this bill, I do just want to note that we are supporting this with those reservations I’ve laid out, because what it does do is it streamlines that process for approvals for compounds and veterinary medicines. We have heard those stories of products taking an extraordinarily long time to go through that process.

We believe it’s important to be very defined and clear between the two processes that exist: the short-term provisional consenting process—that is, primarily for research—where a product may only be used in a defined area in a defined way with extremely robust guard rails around it, versus a product that has actually received its full registration and that can be used in that environment. We know that that system, for many people, has been far too slow, and often, when there hasn’t potentially been a large risk, the process has largely been too slow, and that’s been very frustrating, because being able to have compounds that can be used in the primary production sector to treat animals is important for our primary production sector, which is so important to New Zealand’s economy.

On that note, with some of those reservations, which I’m sure colleagues from my party—the next two speakers—will be able to eloquently espouse also, we do believe that this bill, on the whole and on balance, will be useful for our primary production sector. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

11:02

Look, this bill is really important for a region like Hawke’s Bay, where I come from—

The fruit bowl.

—the fruit bowl of New Zealand. It is the powerhouse of horticulture in this country. Growers and farmers need these products to be able to produce the best products and export them to the world, and, currently, it is taking too long to approve these products. We’re losing our competitive advantage with the rest of the world, and we need to step up and approve these products a lot faster and a lot more efficiently so that we can continue to be the powerhouse of horticulture and export to the world, to create jobs and opportunities for New Zealand, and to grow our economy. So I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call.

11:03

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is slightly strange to be standing in front of you—and I’ve spent a lot of time standing in front of you—

You have, in the last couple of weeks.

—in what I think would be my last contribution in the 54th Parliament, and it is on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.

As we traversed last week under urgency in the committee of the whole House stage, this bill—or the ACVM Bill, as it is called—is an amendment bill. We’ve already got the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, and the purpose of that Act has not changed, but some bits and pieces are changing in this legislation. We heard from the Minister for Food Safety that it is to enable these safer products to get permissions to be used in New Zealand, and then that will mean that the less-safe products can be swapped out.

That is great, and that is why we—the Labour Party—have been in support of this bill. However, we did suggest some changes that would make that more explicit. It is useful to have it on the Hansard from the Minister because there doesn’t seem to be an explicit hook in the bill that does what I’ve just said, which is that it really has a focus on enabling these safer products to come into New Zealand and be swapped out with those less-safe ones. But I very much hope that that is how this legislation is used, because that is why the Labour Party is supporting it.

Now, we also heard some things about the select committee process. I’m not on the Primary Production Committee—I am our food safety spokesperson, but it sits at the same time as the Environment Committee. We heard from Miles Anderson at one point that Labour was supporting the shortened report-back time to select committee—it absolutely was not. There was a vote on the motion in an earlier contribution, and Labour opposed the vote for the earlier report back. It didn’t get a six-month report back; it got the sort of four-month report back, and then the select committee did report back slightly earlier than that.

We also heard from the Minister that there was this collegial approach in the select committee, which is interesting when you have a coalition Associate Minister of Agriculture tabling Amendment Papers during urgency against another Associate Minister of Agriculture’s bill. Now, those amendments disappeared, and that was interesting. Obviously, someone was not pleased in the coalition.

But, I have listened to the Hon Mark Patterson, and what they were trying to do was to give some clarification and some comfort that where this new consent for research is given—so it used to be called a provisional registration, or it’s called a provisional registration under the Act that is being amended—and when this consent comes in, it is really for research. We had some discussion in the committee of the whole House stage that even though the word “selling” is used in the bill, the intention is not for these products that get a consent—this is clause 40 of the bill—are not to be sold. It is that these consents, which have a much less rigorous process than the other consents, are there just for research.

I put forward an amendment that would have said “and other related purposes”, but the Government voted that down, which I think is a shame. But we did get some useful comments on the Hansard in the committee of the whole House stage of that process that really go to the scope of other purposes—which is in the subheading—which is that it is restricted and related to research. So it was useful to have that debate. I also suggested that there should be a time frame on the duration of these research consents, but the Minister didn’t agree to that amendment, which is a shame, I think, because we could have made it a little bit better.

In conclusion, for the 54th Parliament, I very much hope that this bill will do what the Minister has said. I hope that it will enable these safer products to be used in New Zealand, that we will see some of the older products stop being used, and that it will, indeed, be better for the environment.

11:08

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, this is not the first time I’ve spoken on the same bill as the previous speaker Rachel Brooking, but it will be the first time, I think, that we’ve both supported a bill. So I’d just like to acknowledge that. See, good things do come eventually, Rachel—thank you.

Look, this is a great bill for the farming communities of New Zealand and for Northland. It will allow our farmers to get on and do their jobs better, with better environmental outcomes and better economic outcomes. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On the last day of Parliament for this Parliament, this is quite both a significant day and, I guess, piece of legislation. There will be people out there saying, “The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill—why is this here on the last day and why is it important?” Well, we are an agricultural and horticultural trading nation and we have been very successful at it, and the tools that we use for that are really, really important, but sometimes we have to be careful what we ask for.

If I can go back to the reasons that this bill was brought in by the Government, there’s been grumbling for a long time. In fact, there’s always grumbling from the farming sector, and we have to admit that, but some of the chemicals that they—

I am attempting to stay neutral, Mr O’Connor!

I think even the Deputy Speaker will admit that. Things take too long to get through the process. I think there’s some truth in that, and I’ve had discussions with the Environmental Protection Authority over the years as to why it takes so long, but I could simplify it and say that there’s just too many lawyers—that’s the simple way—because the world is a very litigious place. We export some of the most vital ingredients in the world—that is, food, particularly if you talk about things like infant formula; highly sensitive. People care a lot about the ingredients that go into food, particularly if they’re feeding it to their infant child.

We’ve had incidents, unfortunately, across the globe—New Zealand being involved in one of them—with melamine in infant formula in China, and that put our international reputation at risk, in fact, and under a cloud for quite some time. The components that go into the white powder that we export—and we export about 1.4 million tonnes of white powder from our country each year. Now, the only other country that probably relies so much on white powder is—

Colombia?

—no—Colombia, and they export about 3,000 tonnes. It’s called cocaine; very valuable. One point four million tonnes of white powder and it goes into ingredients into some of the finest food products around this world. It is critical that we know exactly what is in that white powder, and we’ve had incidents when unknowns were in the white powder. Dicyandiamide (DCD) was a product that was applied by farmers in good faith and supplied by chemical companies to try and reduce methane emissions. Good tool—innovative Kiwis, as we always are, sometimes using products off-label. They might be for animal use, and some were thinking, “Oh, maybe we can use it on a different animal or maybe we can use it on a different crop.” That’s what has gone on for many, many years, but now the ability to identify residues in food products is far greater than it has ever been.

We exported some white powder, and it had residues of DCD, and indeed, the Europeans said, “Well, what is this? What’s a safe level for maximum residue level?”, and there wasn’t one, so that product is now off the shelf. We had another product come along called Bovaer, produced by a European company and supplied to animals—to cows, mainly—in indoor settings and in small amounts on a very regular basis into the feed that the animals consumed, and it had been claimed, I think, that there was some evidence that methane emissions from those animals was being reduced. So the Kiwi farmer thought, “Oh, this is a great thing. We were looking to reduce methane.” Many farmers are still looking to reduce it, even though this Government has given them confused signals over that—should they, shouldn’t they; that’s another issue. None the less, they thought, “This would be a great product for us. Let’s just kind of put it in the stalls. We don’t have a lot of in-stall feeding. We have more and more, but mostly it’s pastures, so can we use this on the pasture?”

They were frustrated. The farmers were frustrated that this wasn’t going through the process fast enough and we wanted this tool, and so they started banging on the door. Indeed, the company Bovaer were banging on the door of Ministers—we were in Government—saying, “We want this rushed through because this is a tool.” Well, in fact, the application hadn’t been made because there wasn’t sufficient proof that this would work in a pastoral system, and, indeed, still had unknowns about whether this would flow through into the milk and into the white powder that we export. So we do take a cautious approach to this, and, indeed, we should do to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO Act) and to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act.

Our concern is that this Government has been stupid with many, many pieces of legislation that it has brought through this Parliament over the last almost three years—stupid. We, in Government, when we get there after November 7, will have to reverse some of those because some of them either put individuals at risk through really crazy health and safety legislation, or they take away people’s rights, or they undermine our innovation; there’s a whole lot of reasons. I haven’t got time here to go through all the stupid pieces of legislation that this coalition Government has rushed through, much of it under urgency. This bill passed through the House under urgency, parts of it through the committee of the whole House stages. It had gone to a select committee, I’ll acknowledge that, but the risks here, if we get this wrong, are massive—absolutely massive.

That’s why the Opposition scrutinised this very, very carefully at every stage, and through urgency in the committee stages of this House. Indeed, one of the coalition partners in New Zealand First—and I have to acknowledge them because, from time to time, they show a bit of vision. In fact, their agricultural policy is not too bad; a little bit visionary, so they’re a bit cautious about this, as they should rightfully be, but, unfortunately, not National and ACT. They just want to dump anything on the market and let the market decide with the inherent risks that go with that. We are taking a more cautious approach. We should take a more cautious approach, given the impacts of getting this wrong.

There will always be companies that want to sell us chemicals. There will always be chemical companies coming up with new innovative products, and they may apply in other parts of the world, but we have a unique agricultural and horticultural environment in this country. We’re blessed with a moderate climate, with some fertile new soils, with a reasonably reliable supply of water and rainfall and some storage irrigation—we are blessed with all of those things. But if we screw it up by putting on the wrong fertiliser—and someone over there said, “Oh, glyphosate’s great.” Well, be cautious—be cautious—because, around the world, people are starting to connect cancer with glyphosate residues. We have used it cautiously; some countries don’t. They abuse the use of it.

The point being is that we can’t be dragged into a system that might apply elsewhere in the world just because companies want to sell us chemicals. We do need to have robust systems in place. This bill will speed up some of those processes, but it also raises the risk that something might get through, given, like urgency in Government, if you rush these things, you sometimes screw them up and you have to backtrack. But if we have another melamine, or another DCD, or Bovaer was proved to be clastogenic and it would get through into the food system, our economy would drastically suffer. I know, Madam Speaker, you understand this.

Labour has supported this piece of legislation through. We’ve scrutinised it to try and make sure that there are no stupid mistakes in this, but we have to table the fact that urgency, which was part of this process, doesn’t always deliver those safe outcomes. Look, we’ve got AgriZeroNZ trying to work on methane reduction, we’ve got people advocating for genetic engineering, all of those things. Be very cautious that, as we move forward and continue to be innovative producers of some of the finest food and fibre in the world, that we don’t let the market—which is the ACT stupidity and ideology—decide what we should have or should use. No, we should have proper oversight by people with ethical values through the Environmental Protection Authority and other areas of the HSNO Act. Labour supports this bill with caution, and we hope that people use it wisely.

11:19

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As the MP for the mighty Rangitīkei, and a proud farmer, I know firsthand that farmers rely on and depend on effective science-based regulation to enable them to remain productive, competitive, and innovative. This bill is about fixing the basics and building the future. It’s about helping our farmers access the tools they need while maintaining strong safeguards for animal welfare, food security, and market confidence. For a region like the mighty Rangitīkei, where agriculture drives local jobs, exports, and economic growth, greater efficiency and certainty means better returns at the farm gate and stronger rural communities, and that is great for New Zealand and all New Zealanders. I commend the bill.

Can I just, firstly, start with a quick mihi to my very good mate Mark Grantham, who, on his 50th birthday, has come to Parliament here for the first time. Gidday, Mark. G’day, Mark. Mark is an absolute stalwart in our central communities in Auckland, particularly in Maungakiekie, and has raised thousands of dollars to help people in need. It’s amazing to have you here, my mate, with my other good friend your dad, Chris Grantham. Tēnā kōrua. E mihi ana ki a kōrua i tēnei wā.

National supports farmers. This bill is going to support farmers, and, therefore, I commend it to the House.

11:21

on behalf of the Minister of Health: I present a legislative statement on the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move, That the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It is a privilege to rise for probably my last time to speak in the 54th Parliament for the third reading of this bill. The legislation delivers on a clear commitment of this Government and significantly strengthens post-natal care for mothers and their babies across New Zealand. It ensures an entitlement of a minimum of three days of in-patient post-natal care that is delivered in a way that is safe, responsible, practical, and sustainable. It is reinforced by a significant increase in funding for maternity care provided in this year’s Budget.

This bill was introduced as a member’s bill by Catherine Wedd, who should be applauded for her advocacy. She ensured that post-natal care received the attention it deserves in this House. She has been a credit to this issue, and I’m very proud that we’re able to get this bill passed. This Government was proud to adopt the bill because we agreed with the importance of guaranteeing mothers the option of three days of in-patient post-natal care when that is right for them and their baby.

Taking this bill forward gives effect to commitments in the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement to ensure proper funding for birthing units and maternity care, including a three-day stay for new mothers. It reflects our view that post-natal care matters both for the health of the mother and baby and for the longer-term health and wellbeing for their entire family.

I want to thank the very hard-working Health Committee—and specifically the chair, Sam Uffindell—for its careful consideration of this bill and to thank those who made submissions, including clinicians, midwives, maternity providers, and organisations. There was a wide support for providing greater clarity and consistency in post-natal care, and that feedback has directly informed the version of the bill now before the House.

This Government is backing this legislation with a significant financial uplift of $34.4 million over four years through Budget 2026. This funding will ensure Health New Zealand has the resource available to build post-natal capacity, strengthen the maternity workforce, and implement the three-day post-natal stay safely. It gives the system the certainty it needs to plan and deliver high-quality post-natal care for mothers and babies across the country.

The Government has made a number of important changes as part of this bill’s adoption as a Government bill. Firstly, the bill now provides for phased implementation of the three-day in-patient post-natal stay. Health New Zealand has been clear that increasing the workforce and capacity to deliver on three days of in-patient maternity across the country will take time. The bill, therefore, commences immediately on Royal assent, with a transitional period during which access to longer in-patient stays will be progressively expanded as capacity grows.

Health New Zealand will be required to publish an annual capacity plan setting out how in-patient post-natal capacity will be increased over a three-year period. Those plans must be approved by the Minister of Health, and Health New Zealand must give effect to them. This approach ensures the arrangements under the bill are implemented in a safe, well-managed, and responsible way. It gives the maternity workforce and, equally importantly, mothers confidence that this entitlement will be delivered safely.

In the early stages of implementation, first-time mothers will be prioritised, recognising that they often have the greatest need for additional support as they navigate childbirth and early parenthood for the first time. Alongside this, there will be a focus on districts where capacity has to lift the most. Over time, as capacity increases, the entitlement to three days of in-patient care will be extended to all eligible mothers, culminating in full delivery of the entitlement by 1 July 2029.

The bill also includes exemption arrangements providing that the entitlement does not apply in exceptional circumstances, such as a civil defence emergency, an epidemic, or other serious disruption that is outside Health New Zealand’s control. This exemption is tightly constrained. It does not apply to routine system pressure, such as staffing shortages or bed availability. It cannot be used as a way to manage capacity constraints; rather, it is a safeguard to ensure that the system can continue to operate safely in circumstances where strict compliance would create risk to mothers and babies.

Taken together, these amendments strengthen the bill. They preserve its purpose while ensuring it can be implemented safely, sustainably, and at scale. This bill guarantees mothers the choice to remain in in-patient post-natal care for at least three days after childbirth. It places that entitlement clearly in law. Some mothers may choose to return home earlier, supported by community-based services and their families, as they do now. Other mothers will stay longer because they require more extended in-patient hospital care. This bill guarantees mothers the right to at least three days of in-patient post-natal care when they choose it. It recognises that physical recovery, bonding with the new baby, establishing breastfeeding, and gaining confidence as new parents all take time, and it recognises that no mother should feel unsure about what care she can expect or feel pressured to leave before she feels ready.

Fundamentally, this bill reflects the Government’s broader approach to the health system—more accountability, more efficiency, and the focus on delivering better outcomes for patients. We believe in using taxpayers’ money responsibly, and we believe in making full and effective use of all capable providers across the system, whether they operate in the public or private sector. Post-natal care in New Zealand is already delivered through a mix of public hospitals, primary maternity care units, and contracted providers, including community and private facilities. This bill recognises that reality and strengthens it.

Primary maternity units, whether publicly or privately operated, play a vital role in delivering safe, high-quality in-patient post-natal care closer to home. For many women, these settings are more appropriate than a large public hospital. They support continuity of care, offer genuine choice, and reduce pressure on hospital wards. The Government makes no apology for backing capacity wherever it delivers outcomes. Many community facilities will be closer to home, meaning mothers can be with their families after childbirth. Not every family lives close to a hospital. We are confident in the ability of community providers to contribute to high-quality care. We are confident in partnerships that improve efficiencies and expand capacity, and we are committed to ensuring all providers are held to clear standards and accountability.

This bill sends a strong signal that this Government values effective delivery wherever it exists. That is good for mothers, it is good for families, and it is good for the health system as a whole.

The bill now before the House for its third reading is clear in its purpose, and balanced in its design. It delivers a coalition commitment, it includes arrangement that will ensure its implementation occurs in a well-managed and sustainable way, and, most importantly, it significantly strengthens the healthcare entitlements for mothers and babies, with significant additional resources provided in this year’s Budget. This is good lawmaking, this is responsible Government, and this is exactly what New Zealanders expect from us. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

11:30

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, I’m happy to make those contribution to vote in favour of this Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill. The bill is founded on a sentiment I’m sure we all can agree with.

We have, throughout the course of this bill, asked questions about the resourcing of the bill. It’s good to see that a commitment was made in order to make sure the resourcing is in place—though it would be important to point out that a commitment that was made to deliver this during the electoral term has actually been pushed out to 2029. It has been difficult for us at both the select committee process for this bill and at Estimates to scrutinise the resourcing and its adequacy for this particular commitment. But I guess the next Parliament will see.

One of the changes to the bill in the course of its life has been the deferred start until 2029, the addition of an implementation plan, as I’ve mentioned. But the other is the discussion about the information about a requirement, the content about a requirement for lead maternity carers to tell pregnant women their obligation or their entitlement has been removed. I think that’s a backwards step. It is precisely those women who are unaware of their entitlement who probably need it the most. It is a way in which the equitable outcomes of this entitlement are potentially undermined. And that’s a shame because one of the purposes, I would have thought, of putting an entitlement into law, which is usually left for operational delivery in the health system—but putting it into law, it should actually be that everyone would know about it, and then that would be able to make sure that everyone enjoyed the same benefits of it. So it’s a shame that opportunity was missed, but, with those caveats in mind, I commend this bill to the House.

11:32

Thank you for the opportunity to rise to make a call on behalf of the Green Party. This is a very important bill that obviously has unanimous support around the House. I would like to acknowledge the MP Catherine Wedd for the work that she did on her member’s bill that the Government took up. The Green Party also commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

11:33

I rise on behalf of ACT in support of this bill. At one of the most magical and sensitive times in the cycle of life, people are in deep need of support—mothers, in particular—and it is difficult to oppose the goodwill and the intention of this bill to give security of tenure in a hospital at that particular time. Three days, no pressure.

I think it’s fair to say that sceptical and thoughtful people together might question the apparatus that is being constructed to ensure that that happens and whether such an apparatus is really necessary or whether that might be better to leave in the hands of those who know, those midwives, those who run hospitals, those charge nurses, and, of course, the mothers and surrounding families themselves—to leave in their hands the decision about how long to stay and who should stay what length of time.

That is a view that I have to say I have some sympathy for, but in the spirit of our coalition Government, we support this legislation. We will see, in the goodness of time, whether the construction of this bureaucratic apparatus is indeed necessary to achieve a very noble objective or whether it might have been simpler to leave the choices and the decisions up to the people who do this stuff every day. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

11:35

It’s a pleasure to be able to rise in support of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill. Catherine Wedd has done a wonderful job bringing this and it has Government support and the support of a number of members around this House.

I think we can all recognise that the first 48 to 72 hours are absolutely crucial for mother and for baby and ensuring that mothers have 72 hours—and more, if needed—in hospital or in a birthing centre to care for themselves and their baby is really essential to getting those first steps right. And also making sure that they are informed of their choices to have their entitlement. This should reduce the risk of complications. This should enhance those very special first few days and make them a much better experience.

I’d like to thank the committee for all of their work on this and for all the other work the Health Committee has done this term. It’s been a pleasure to chair. I’d like to congratulate this House on putting this through. I commend the bill to the House.

11:36

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

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

I just want to thank the member for bringing this bill to Parliament and acknowledge Catherine Wedd and the select committee and the process of getting this to a third reading today. It’s absolutely crucial—we’ve heard it from a bipartisan support across the House—the first 48 to 72 hours between a mother and child for post-natal care and stay within a hospital. So it’s a no-brainer to support this bill. It’s crucial and needed within our healthcare system and within the many different wāhine and pēpē who are born. Te Pāti Māori supports this bill and commends the member for bringing it to Parliament.

Of sudden unexpected deaths, 63 percent occur within the first 13 weeks. So it’s absolutely crucial to bring this in. This is 50 percent more than the unexpected death in infancy—this is 50 percent more now than when New Zealand cot death study first started in the 1980s.

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

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

11:38

I’m here to support the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill. Of course, as we all bring our personal experience to this, I was in the very fortunate situation of being able to go home to a supportive home pretty immediately. That’s what I wanted to do. My first son was born at 10.30 at night, so we stayed in overnight; second son was jolly well nearly born in the car park—maybe explains his fondness for cars—and we were able to go and we actually went and took a library display down, if I remember rightly, immediately afterwards. But our situation should not define what people have the choice about.

I think it’s really important—sometimes the maternal health or the baby health mean you need to stay in longer. Sometimes, home may not be that peaceful; there may be other children, there may be overcrowding, and so on. So I think the idea that you should very clearly have the opportunity to stay in hospital for three days is useful.

But it has been brought to my attention—particularly by our health spokesperson, Hūhana Lyndon—that it’s all very well changing the law, but if you don’t change the resourcing, it’s a bit abstract. So if there is not room, if the corridors are full of people in emergency situations, if there are not enough staff, if the staff have been on such long shifts that they can’t give the attention they need to mother or baby, there are a whole load of other issues that need to be solved to make this really work.

I know there have been different narratives about the level of staffing, and it’s not my area of speciality. I’m not going to charge in and say whether it’s 54 or whether it’s some other number, but the training of midwives and the training of support workers that are not necessarily fully qualified as midwives is really under pressure. There are too many going overseas and not staying here, and not able to help Kiwi mums.

I also find it—maybe “hypocritical” is too strong a word. Maybe it’s just a little bit blinkered to say that for three days, we’re going to look after you, and then we’re going to go back to—what is it? What awful percentage is it of children in poverty—children in homes that are damp, mouldy, unsafe, where the families, if they’re in a rental home, have no security of tenure? They won’t know that that little baby will be able to go to the same preschool or the same school as their siblings, because there is no-cause eviction.

So it’s a little bit of nice glimmer, and sometimes that’s what members’ bills do. They address a small and specific issue, and we get agreement around the Table, but unless we can address the systemic issues that mean that when the mother and baby, or babies—twins, triplets, or whatever. Probably, if they’re triplets, they might be in for a little bit longer. If we don’t make sure that those first 1,000 days of childhood are warm, well-fed, loved, whether it’s a Plunket nurse or some other person who comes round to make sure the baby is going to thrive, not just survive, and that the mother’s potential post-natal depression is addressed by good mental health services—if we don’t do that, then this is just a random flag blowing in the wind of public health underfunding. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

11:42

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a real pleasure to speak on this last bill that’s going through the 54th Parliament. To extend the right to a post-natal stay of three days is, I think, an extremely sensible approach. It shows that this Government cares about the early lives of the most vulnerable New Zealanders: those early little babies and their mothers.

When a woman goes through the postpartum experience, within those first three days she will experience one of the most humungous hormonal changes that a person can go through. It is an extremely delicate and sensitive time, and often a time when the breastfeeding is being established and those bonds are being made. For that reason, it’s important that we focus on this time. It’s another way that we are supporting women’s health, and I commend this bill to the House.

11:43

Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker Pugh. Thank you. First of all, I just want to wish you well—your last day is today—and I’d also like to wish Celia Wade-Brown well, too.

I am tempted to tell my own story, but I thought I’d tell my mother’s, because I think we have to look at this in terms of the history of maternity care. At the time my mother had me, she was supposed to stay in that hospital for two weeks, and that was the norm in New Zealand society. By the time I was having my first baby, my doctor wanted me to leave the hospital straight away with my first baby, and it was one of the hospital midwives who picked up a major issue within the first few hours and my baby ended up in intensive care. Quite frankly, if I’d gone home, I would not have seen the signs that were there of serious pneumonia. He ended up in intensive care, and so it was incredibly important that there wasn’t pressure put on people to move me out of that system, even though my own instincts were to flee.

I have got to say that with my second child, I left that hospital with my baby within about an hour and a half of giving birth, and I know that that’s fairly extreme, but I did. The care that we have been giving people has been decreasing and decreasing and decreasing.

I absolutely take Celia Wade-Brown’s point that we really do need to have a think about that phrase, which is so strong in the Labour Party, of cradle to grave. We really do need to think about the wraparound support for our families because it is so hard at the moment to have a child in New Zealand. Most people in New Zealand rent, and they don’t have security of rental. Most people are going into homes that are not necessarily the best places for babies to go into. They need more support than we’re giving them, and it can’t just stop after three days’ stay.

I went into the select committee for just a short period because I am not on the Health Committee, but I was in for the submissions. I represented the midwives for quite a long time when I was a lawyer, and so I was well aware of staff shortages with midwives, and the fact was that we had had a dispute where they couldn’t take any industrial action because they didn’t have safe staff numbers—because they had been promised that would happen as part of their agreement and it had never happened. We have a real issue with the shortage of midwives, and we have an issue with the fact that we don’t have enough nurses and other staff in our hospitals, and so it was pointed out to us in that select committee process was that it’s a lovely idea, but the risk was that we would rob Peter to pay Paul and we would end up giving this care here but taking it from others.

I think we’ve been living in a society where there is way too much scarcity. It is always the situation where people are competing for resource, and, actually, there are some fundamental bottom lines as to what our job is. We are not running a business, in Government. That is not our job. We are not a business—we are not Air New Zealand. We are a country, and we have to choose our values, and then we should run our Government according to those values and according to the needs of our population.

Right now, our population is not well served, and so I commend the objective of letting women stay in hospital for three days—and I have told you why, at a very personal level, that matters to me. I also think that we need to follow up, as Celia Wade-Brown has said, on some of those other fundamentals. We need to join the dots.

It is too hard for people to have children. Because it is too expensive, it has become an issue that is absolutely about affordability. People cannot afford to live well in this country, and they are doing great things in this country, but they are not being well served. They are not well served, because there is still an absolutely biblical reliance on the belief in trickle-down economics.

Trickle-down economics has never worked. It is not well-founded, and anybody who wants to look at it will see that. Trickle-down economics is not the way through here. We have to think about the building blocks of our society. The first thing we need to do is make sure that people are actually in work and that they’re in decent work, with decent wages, and we have to recognise the value of the work they’re doing that may not have had recognition in the past.

Now, things like caregiving are going to become incredibly important in the future, but they’re important now. Caregivers, midwives, nurses—they are the backbone of our society. They are the people who are the true heroes and we need to start to reward that work, and we do have to look at the mechanisms with which we do that. This Government cancelled pay equity, and when it did that, it made a big mistake. This Government told us that it had hired a whole lot of nurses when, in fact, there had been a nurse freeze, and in fact, there were 54 nurses employed. That has caused issues and will cause issues with regard to this bill. It will not work if we do that and we take that mentality in.

I’ve got three kids, and my youngest one, she works in an area I highly value. She works as a teacher with children who are high needs. She has seven of them. There are lots of days when she gets hit because of the nature of that work. I want her to be able to stay doing that work, and I still want her to be able to buy a house. I don’t want her to miss out on those things in my very community where she grew up. I’d like her to be able to buy a house near me where I can wraparound and support her so that when she has a baby and she has been actually given this three days, she doesn’t come home to a place where she doesn’t have that support because she can’t afford to live in the community she grew up in. These things are interconnected.

I go back to what I said at the beginning—what are the values here? Cradle to grave was a beautiful ambition—cradle to grave. This has got a little bit of cradle in it, and I’m pleased to see a little bit of cradle in it, but there are years and years of support required. It starts, for me, with work, and it doesn’t end there. I’m not afraid to look at the connection between this bill and all the other things we need. It also starts with walking away from an old fashioned, absolutely morally barren concept like trickle-down economics. It’s not just about growing the pie; it’s about who gets the pie, and it’s about our value system as a society.

I hope that this bill is fulfilled and we have three days care offered to women in New Zealand, and I would personally love to see every person informed—because that was taken out of the bill—and every person who goes into hospital to have that baby told that they have that right, because that’s a really important way of making sure that the very people who need it get this care, and not just the assertive ones who know their rights and know the law, because that is part of the divide in this country. I hope we get this, but I hope we get a lot more.

I hope that that child goes home to a house, whether they rent or they own, which is warm and dry, that has curtains in it to keep the heat in, and I hope that that child gets looked after by our community, not just their parents scraping by. I hope that that mother and father have got access to good childcare, and I hope that they are also in a position to choose a life for their children which is not just scraping by—not desperate, not stressed. That’s what I see in my community at the moment. I see desperate and stressed, and I hope we can do better.

11:53

Look, I’m so excited to see this three-day stay bill pass today. Supporting better postnatal care is a huge victory for mothers across New Zealand. I would like to acknowledge Minister Louise Upston for starting this journey, and then I picked it up as a member’s bill, and I’ve been advocating for better post-natal care in New Zealand since I came to Parliament, so it’s great to see the progress and delivery here today.

No mother should have to leave hospital before she is ready after having a baby. Those first few days bonding with your baby are so important for setting mothers and babies up for a lifetime of success. This bill will give mothers a legal entitlement to three days stay if they choose, and now we have funding, the maternity beds, staffing, and resourcing needed to make this happen. This is about providing meaningful support for new mums at a time when they need it most. We know that every birth is different, and every family situation is different. A three-day stay may not be right for everyone, but for those who need it, this bill provides the choice for them to remain in hospital and receive the care that they need if they choose.

The first few days after having a baby are so precious and special. They are the time for mothers to rest, recover, and begin bonding without the pressure of having to manage everything alone. It is also a time when mothers are learning how to care for their baby—feeding, bathing, sleeping, there is so much to learn and it can be so overwhelming, and we can relate to those sleepless nights and that exhaustion. Having access to midwives, nurses, lactation support, and other maternity professionals can make an enormous difference to a mother’s experience and the confidence she gets from that to recover, and it’s so important for the wellbeing of the baby too.

We often talk about the first 1,000 days of a child’s life as being important for the health, wellbeing, and development, and the future of that baby; but we must also recognise that the first three days are especially important. They are the beginning of that journey, a time when mothers and babies need to bond. We must do better in New Zealand when it comes to post-natal care, and this bill helps ensure that families have the time and support that is required to recover safely and begin life together with confidence. It is about giving mothers a genuine choice and ensuring that that choice is backed by the maternity beds, staffing, and resources needed to make it real.

My advocacy for this bill was born out of my own personal experience when I felt pressured to leave the hospital when I wasn’t ready, and I believe that no mother should feel pressured to leave when she isn’t ready. To every mother across our country, we see you, we value you, and we will back you. Today is about standing up for mothers and families and protecting and supporting our babies. This is the last bill of this 54th Parliament, and I’m really proud that it is a bill that supports women and mothers across New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call.

11:58

Tēnā koe e te Mangai o te Whare. It’s a pleasure to stand and speak to the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill, our last bill for this Parliament. Congratulations to Catherine Wedd on your mahi in this space. I can hear that it is a big day for you, so congratulations on that. Labour supports this bill because we agree that those first few days for any new parent is so important, and it is so important that we protect that very special time for parents and families.

It’s been fun to hear the stories of parents and mothers around the House, and we all think very fondly of those times when our babies were born, probably because our brain cuts out the bits that were difficult, so we have more babies, right? Isn’t it lovely that we can reflect on those wonderful days? But they are very, very precious.

I wanted to speak in a broader sense around the application of this bill and what it will look like in practice. I had a very informative and interesting hui at River Ridge East Birth Centre based in Hamilton East. Rivier Ridge East Birth Centre was created by Claire and Warwick Hutchinson, and they were one of the first and largest birth centres in New Zealand Aotearoa. They’ve been working in that space for the past 30 years, so they were able to share a lot of stories from throughout their time. They, too, see the huge value in looking after our young parents, and I want to acknowledge the work that they do in that space and other birth centres and maternity services, parental services across New Zealand.

One of the things that we talked about, however, was the current disparities in pay between midwives that are working at hospitals and midwives that are working in the community. We know that midwives provide a lot of care building up to a birth, but also they’re so vital, after you have that baby, to establish the bonding and how to actually care for a human being, and they remain very important for those three days. The issue is that because this Government cancelled pay equity for hundreds of thousands of women across Aotearoa, they cancelled the pay equity claim for community midwives. Those community midwives were 10 days away from settling their claim—having worked on it for about three years. This has left us in a situation where, if you’re a midwife at the hospital, you get paid much more than if you’re a midwife in the community.

I 100 percent back those midwives in the hospitals getting paid well, they do incredible work, but there’s a real disparity here. And I think, as more and more people choose where to birth their baby or where to have their care, we need to make sure that there’s consistency across the board. So while we support this bill, I think there’s a little bit of a contradiction here because we’re not actually backing our midwives to do that work that is so vital to our families in New Zealand. Labour has committed to reinstating pay equity and paying women in this country what they are worth. And if we, as a Parliament, say that we back women, then let’s pay them what they are worth, which this Government has, very sadly, not done.

I want to speak a little bit to the inequities that could amount. My experience of walking into a birth centre in New Zealand, is there are a lot of white women there and not so many women from other ethnicities. I’d love to see this bill come with education around what is available to women, what services they can access, in order to get the best use of the services for every single parent in Aotearoa. The education that comes with caring for a new baby, lactation consultants, whatever that looks like, needs to be a priority for any Government to make sure our families are getting the best start in life.

12:03

That’s right, the best start for any family in New Zealand. That’s why I’m proud to stand to speak on the third reading of the last bill for the 54th Parliament, and to congratulate Minister Louise Upston, who had first started the process of providing a better start for families with newborns and their mothers. But to also carry on the banter, is our colleague Catherine Wedd, the MP for Tukituki, who’s been very present on social media and also in all interviews possible to be fighting for the best start for babies and new mothers. As a fellow female colleague in the National Party, I also congratulate all the female colleagues that I have, but also all the male colleagues who have shown support, to make sure that we have the best start for babies and their mothers in New Zealand.

As a personal experience, I remember when I first became a mother in the year 2020. I was over the moon with the coming of my first daughter, but then, before I knew, I fainted in the hospital, in the birthing room, and I couldn’t be more grateful because I wasn’t there alone; I was under care. I had all the professional care from the nurses and the doctors at the Auckland Hospital. So I was very grateful, in first-hand experience, to know that, for new mums and their new babies, we need professional care; people who know about the medical expertise but, as well, caring for the mental health and also emotional health that is needed for new mums and new dads.

So I’m very grateful and very happy to support this third reading for the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill, but also to note that this is a National Government who has put in the funding and the support to provide that choice—to provide that choice—for families to stay up to the three full days. And I have to emphasise that choice is very important, especially in families, now, who may feel that they are confident and experienced enough to leave should they wish to.

But also very fitting, I think, to comment, and if I may, quickly, to say that this is the last time I’ll be standing to speak in this Parliament, in this term, and to say a very happy Mid-Autumn Festival to everyone that is celebrating the Mid-Autumn Festival, especially in the Chinese culture, for all Chinese-Kiwis and their families in New Zealand. The Mid-Autumn Festival is to celebrate reunion and to celebrate family. So I think it’s especially fitting that I’m standing to speak on a bill that supports family, that supports the best start of newborns and their wider family, and to celebrate them at the Mid-Autumn Festival with our wider Chinese-New Zealand community. So I wish everybody a very happy Mid-Autumn Festival.

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

I’m just extremely proud to be part of the National Party and the National-led Government; to be supporting the better future for all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House.

12:06

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

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

This is a good piece of legislation for us to end this parliamentary term on. And can I acknowledge all of our mums out there, who take care of us in the very early stages of our life, and throughout our life, in fact. What this piece of legislation does—

Who’s going to take care of us for the next 10 minutes?

What was that, Mr Seymour?

Who’s going to take care of us for the next minutes?

It’s not a debate across the House.

I’ll take care of you, don’t you worry about that.

It’s important that we support our whāea, our māmās to be the best that they can be to take care of our tamariki, over all of our lives, in the periods that we need them to. This bill does that. And can I acknowledge Catherine Wedd, who I also remind that good things are growing in the Hawke’s Bay. But, yes, this investment is very important in enabling mums to get the care that they need over a three-day period. I think that’s a very good idea; to enable legislation to support that is a great outcome and a great way to finish this Parliament on.

There has been caution that has come out throughout the select committee, and it has been debated in this House, that, you know, we all know that it’s incredibly challenging times in our health system, and to enact this piece of legislation, in its totality, does require funding in other places. It does mean that resourcing has to be put in place in areas like staffing and beds to make sure that, to enable this legislation, or for our mums to be cared for at this particular period, up to three days, that it doesn’t take away from other vital services that support women within our hospital and maternity services as well. So that’s a significant part that has come out of this bill. The Ministry of Health warned that without more beds, other women’s health services could be deprioritised to make room for this. So you know, whoever is the Minister of Health after November 7, has got a big job ahead of them. It’s nothing new that there are some challenges in the sector that we need to overcome. Some of it is about resourcing and investment of that; and some of it is just about ensuring that the decisions that we make for health, for people, as politicians, are the right ones; and that investment and resourcing is going in to the right place.

So, without further ado, Labour supports the “Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill”, and we are very happy to be able to support this legislation, support our mums out there, and, in due course, support our tamariki. We commend this bill to the House.

12:10

It is fantastic—in this final bill in the 54th Parliament—to address this House in doing what matters. This bill fundamentally recognises that mothers matter. That is exactly where the origin of this legislation started, back in 2018. We might stand here, eight years later, as if there was always unanimous support across the Parliament. In the early stages, there wasn’t. Mothers Matter is an organisation that, at the time, were advocating to ensure that women got the 48 hours that they were entitled to. That group of people who came to Parliament who had formed Mothers Matter were the late Chloe Wright, Dame Lesley Max, Nathan Wallis, Dr Anil Sharma, and Tracy O’Sullivan. They came and met with every party caucus. Who was the party that picked up the mantle? It was National. It was National who recognised that mothers matter.

That is why, in 2019, I introduced a member’s bill to extend and ensure not just the 48 hours, but actually three days post-natal stay. All of the evidence tells us how critical those first few days of a baby’s life are. And, look, if we can’t invest in the first three days of a baby’s life, seriously, what are we talking about in terms of health priorities? There was a little warning in what we just heard from the last speaker about how future health Ministers—not a National health Minister—might prioritise health funding. Well, we say, on this side of the House, that mothers matter. That is why we are here today passing the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) (3-Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill.

I do want to take the time to traverse the history, because I think it is really important that people understand that you don’t just dream up an idea and then it gets passed. In October 2019, I launched a petition in the National Party social services discussion document, where you—I may address you, as you, Maureen Pugh, member of Parliament—were involved in the caucus discussions and getting it in our discussion document because we wanted to take it out to New Zealand to say, “Is this something that is important?” We campaigned on it in election 2020. It was particularly poignant that year, because several months earlier, it was the National Party who fought for women who were forced to birth alone because they were not allowed a support person there during COVID. In March 2021, Mothers Matter continued their campaign, joined by people like Sir Peter Gluckman, Gemma McCaw, Dr Johan Morreau, and others. Then in the 2023 campaign, it was National that was campaigning on a three-day post-natal stay.

It was fantastic then when my colleague the MP for Tukituki, Catherine Wedd, picked up the member’s bill and took it further. It was then, of course, adopted by our Government, and, in Budget 2026, we funded what we knew needed to be funded to ensure the infrastructure and the workforce would be there to support it. I do want to put on record my thanks to the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, who has been a champion of the three-day stay all of the time, and also to Minister Brown.

Let me just say this, because a number of MPs in this House have talked about how critical that time is. I remember when I sat in that caucus room, and I actually reflected it to those advocates who were here as founders of Mothers Matter. We were talking about how critical it is that mothers—new mothers—have the confidence to take on that special responsibility. I recounted my experience of being a solo mother taking home a brand-new baby. My mother had passed away a long time before, and my father had come to visit. I remember begging him not to leave me, because I was petrified about holding this tiny, wee, precious baby and not knowing if I was going to be able to be a good mum. I don’t want any mother in New Zealand to feel that way.

To me, that is why the three-day post-natal stay is personal. It is important, because no mother in New Zealand should leave a post-natal facility, a hospital, a birthing unit, like River Ridge, not feeling as if they are up to the job. It’s our job, not just as a Government but as community and as family, to give them the support and confidence that we want every single mother to have. I want to put on record: it is the National Party, time and time again, who knows that mothers matter. We have backed it in policy. We have backed it in the Budget. I’m enormously proud of the National Party delivering today for mothers.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Members, as this is my final shift in the Chair, I say thank you for your contributions over the 54th Parliament. Go well. The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.16 p.m.

14:00

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

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

Point of order. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I just want to raise a serious matter on Ministers taking the first available opportunity to correct inaccurate or potentially misleading statements. This is the last opportunity a Minister has to do so. On the 15th of this month, Minister Louise Upston, when asked whether she had sought advice on the impact on sick, injured, and disabled New Zealanders and whether they had been left into debt, homelessness, or hunger, answered yes. I posed the very same question in writing, and, today, just now, a couple of hours ago, she came back to me with the exact opposite answer, which was an emphatic no. I’m concerned that Ministers are not taking the opportunity to correct statements when a week ago I got an emphatic yes to a question and in writing got a very clear no to the very same question.

Yeah, look, it’s fairly straightforward. I think the procedure for such contested responses like that is to either write to the Speaker or set down a notice of motion on the Order Paper. I appreciate that we are at the end of this Parliament, but, none the less, the Standing Orders remain in place.

14:06 · to the Minister of Finance

What has been the Government’s approach to tax in this parliamentary term?

Well, one of the proud achievements of this Government has been to deliver real tax relief to working people for the first time in 14 years, against the cries of Opposition. The Government inherited rapidly rising debt, persistent deficits, and high levels of spending. Our main priority has been to get the books back in order. We’ve been very disciplined with Government spending so that our fiscal repair job has not required new taxes, but it’s more than that. While getting the books back in order, we’ve also made significant tax changes that let people keep more of their own money, increasing support for working families and giving businesses an incentive to invest in productive assets that will grow the economy.

What personal tax policies has the Government introduced?

In 2024, the Government increased personal income tax thresholds and expanded eligibility for the independent earner tax credit. The effect of these changes was to deliver the first personal income tax relief for 14 years, and that tax relief went to working people. The Government also increased support for low to middle income working families, who got up to an extra $50 a fortnight, and we introduced FamilyBoost to help families with young children meet the costs of early childhood education. This was achieved within an overall operating package of $3.2 billion, which was significantly lower than recent Budgets under the previous Government. We managed to do a lot more for Kiwis’ back pockets through tax relief than the previous Government ever did.

What business tax policies has the Government introduced?

Well, the Government restored interest deductibility for residential rental property, returning to the normal practice of taxing profit, not revenue. While there were doubters, they have latterly had a road to Damascus experience on this one and recognised the value of this policy. In 2025, the Government introduced Investment Boost to encourage New Zealand businesses to make productive investments. It allows firms to immediately deduct 20 percent of the cost of a new asset, and this, of course, is an incentive to invest in machinery, tools, farm equipment, vehicles, industrial buildings, and other productive assets. Officials advised that this would increase productivity and lead to higher wages and higher employment, and, boy oh boy, the feedback from those who have used it is strong and positive.

What is the alternative to this approach?

Right now, people are very seriously proposing a capital gains tax. In fact, the Council of Trade Unions (CTU) in particular are promoting a comprehensive capital gains tax. I note that there are members of the CTU who are also prominently running in election seats this election. There are also people proposing a wealth tax, an inheritance tax, a gift tax, higher income tax rates, an increase in the company tax, a tax on profits sent offshore—a land tax removing interest deductibility for rental properties remains popular with some members of this House as a proposal—a 10-year brightline test, a vacant house tax, a stamp duty on residential sales, scrapping Investment Boost, and no GST on kai—those are all from parties over there. That hotchpotch, that potpourri of extra taxes, is the alternative.

That’s it—OK.

We say no new taxes.

Before I begin my question, I do want to acknowledge that it is our last question time before the election so therefore the last question time you’ll be presiding over before the election. I would like to take a moment to thank you for your good grace and your good humour in chairing question time in this term of Parliament. I hope that will continue for just a few more minutes.

Thanks very much. Take an extra supp!

14:10 · to the Prime Minister

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

14:11

Well, I want to join with the Leader of the Opposition and say thank you very much for your fantastic work, and I’d be quite happy for him to have an extra supp anyway. Look, the answer is yes, and I just want to reassure the member that we won’t be introducing a comprehensive capital gains tax, as proposed by Craig Renney on the Labour Party policy committee, a candidate, and also the Council of Trade Unions.

Which economic record is he most proud of: real wages going backwards, GDP per capita being lower than when he became Prime Minister, or unemployment reaching a 14-year high?

Actually, I’m really proud of the fact that we’ve delivered 2.6 percent GDP growth, which is higher than the US, Canada, the UK, EU, Japan, and Australia, for that matter. I’m really proud of the fact that we see our manufacturing sector going from strength to strength and the highest it’s been since 2021. I’m really proud of the services returning to expansion, record exports up $20 billion, tourism visitors back behind pre-COVID levels. We’ve got wholesale electricity prices coming down 35 percent, which is fantastic, and we’ve got consumer confidence, business, farmer confidence, and retail investor confidence at really good levels. We’re making progress. We’re really excited to kick on and carry on in a second term and get the rest of the job done for New Zealanders.

Does he acknowledge that Kiwi households struggling to pay for their electricity bill will take no comfort from the idea that wholesale electricity prices have been falling when their own power bills have increased 20 percent under his leadership?

What I can reassure Kiwis is that they take no comfort that the Labour-Greens Government ended oil and gas and drove up wholesale electricity prices and people lost their jobs. Low and middle income working New Zealanders across regional New Zealand lost their jobs because of very poor energy policy. I’m pleased with the fact that we have sorted it out in two and half years. We’ve done a great job.

Is he still laser-focused on the cost of living, given the price of butter is up 71 percent under his leadership; bread, 65 percent; mince, 36 percent—all prices going up since he became Prime Minister—or does he just say to New Zealanders struggling with the cost of living, as he did in the House last week, “cry me a river”?

No. What I’d say to New Zealanders about the cost of living is that you sure as hell don’t want any tax increases. That’s what actually takes money out of their pockets and puts it into a Labour - Greens - Te Pāti Māori - Opportunity coalition, which would be an absolute nightmare for this country. But for the member—I want to reassure him—tomatoes are down 29 percent, eggs are down 16 percent, lettuce is down 15 percent, chicken is down 4 percent. As I said to him last week, he’s more than welcome to go create a chicken parmigiana up at the bach a bit further north.

Which of the following actions that his Government has taken does he think have helped Kiwis most with the rising cost of living: real-term cuts to the minimum wage three years in a row, cancelling pay equity for thousands of Kiwi women across the country, or scrapping fair pay agreements which would have raised the incomes of a lot of low-income Kiwis?

The thing that makes the big difference is economic growth at 2.6 percent, because what that means is that we’re growing faster than many other countries around the world. We’re seeing our sectors start to fire up. That creates jobs and opportunities. What we have done is control spending and stop the dumb and wasteful stuff that we saw from the previous administration that drove up spending 70 percent. We’ve brought inflation back down from 7.2 percent—a 32-year high outside the band for three years. Twelve interest rate rises—we’ve got interest rates down, we’ve got the economy growing, and employment is coming.

Which does he think has helped young Kiwis the most: cutting the Apprenticeship Boost programme, increasing student fees by almost 20 percent, or cutting financial support to 18- and 19-year-olds who can’t find work?

I’d just say to any 18- or 19-year-old out there that we need 2,500 people in our defence forces—we’d really welcome applications there over the next few years. We need more police officers—there’s jobs going there too. But I’d just say to you, if you’re a young person in New Zealand, what you want to see is actually economic growth. That’s the important thing—2.6 percent is really great. That’s going to create 220,000 new jobs in the next four years, wages higher than inflation, and an economy growing at 2.7 percent on average each and every year.

Which of his Government’s policies does he think has contributed the most to the record homelessness New Zealand’s currently experiencing: cancelling 3,500 new State houses, selling off over 1,000 State houses, or booting people out of emergency accommodation?

I’d just say to the member, Labour used to care about housing, didn’t they? That’s what they used to care about, but, actually, we’ve made house pricing the most affordable it’s been in a long time. We have a record number of first-home buyers, running at 29 percent, and we have the most stable rent environment we’ve had in over 25 years. We come back to Government, and we find the State house wait-list has gone from 6,500 up to 24,000 or something. We’ve taken 6,000 off that list, and we’ve actually made rents go low. We have—yeah, we have. The wait-list is down. You don’t like to hear it, but that’s the reality of it, and we ended the scourge of motels and emergency housing—we stopped that—and we put a big investment into homelessness, and there are some good signs there too.

What does he think has most improved health outcomes for New Zealanders: a hiring freeze that’s seen just 54 new nurses hired by our health system in the last two years, making it more expensive to fill prescriptions, or giving a $300 million tax break to the tobacco lobby?

I’d just say to the member, isn’t it interesting. All they did in six years was actually introduce a Māori Health Authority and restructure the district health boards, and you didn’t give a toss about patient outcomes, and every single one of them went backwards. But isn’t it great; go look at the PR this morning because every health metric is on the up, and that’s thanks to the great work of Simeon Brown and Shane Reti, doing a brilliant, brilliant job focusing on patients rather than just tweaking and restructuring and dicking around.

Why did his Government give the fire and emergency board a pay rise, whilst cutting $50 million in funding for fire and emergency services and offering front-line firefighters nothing?

We have a lot to do in that space, and, as you know, we’ve got a new chair on that board. That board needs serious overhauling. They need to be able to get much more efficiency out of that corporate head office function, which was built up under his previous Government, and we have a package that, as I said, we announced this morning, a National policy on firefighters. It’s a good policy, and we’ve got work to do on that in the next term.

Does the Prime Minister consider that, after 34 months lambasting “tax cuts for landlords” only to adopt that policy, that perhaps Peter Fraser’s party of principle has become Chris Hipkins’ party of plagiarism?

I think the Minister raises a very good point—

No, no, no. There’ll be no answer there.

Which statement does he think best represents his view of New Zealand and New Zealanders: calling low-income Kiwis “bottom feeders”, saying Kiwi businesses have a “parent-child mentality”, calling Kiwi small businesses “C-listers”, or saying that Kiwis are “wet, whiny, and inward-looking”?

I’ve got to say to the member, this is an awesome country, this is the best country on planet Earth, and we are setting up this country for the future, because we’re doing the serious reforms as well as fixing the basics that Labour broke. I want to say I’m very proud of the policy going forward. New Zealand’s going to have a great future in this country because we’ve got a growing economy; we’ve got our communities safe in their homes, their businesses, and their communities; we’ve got a world-class education system emerging; and we’re improving health outcomes for New Zealanders.

Which of the following statements by his own Ministers best represents his Government’s attitude towards migrant New Zealanders, given none of them received any sanction from him as Prime Minister: likening Indian Kiwis to a “butter chicken tsunami”, calling Chinese Kiwis “liars”, telling Mexican New Zealanders to “go home”, or telling a Cook Island New Zealander that “they aren’t really a New Zealander”?

Point of order. Mr Speaker, that statement made by Chris Hipkins is utterly false, as is—[Interruption] Listen up, you might learn something.

Hang on, just a moment. Points of order are heard in silence.

—as is the very statement just made in the last few hours by that member of Parliament over there, who’s disowned what they’ve claimed to be the case. He said that the media got it entirely wrong as to what Winston Peters said. He made that statement. Why doesn’t that Minister know about it?

Well, the—[Interruption]

Not a Minister yet, but will be in a few weeks.

Hang on, hang on. The point is definitely made, but the questioner was asking the Prime Minister’s views on various statements not attributed to anybody, so I think—

No, no he attributed it to me.

No, he didn’t. [Interruption] Hang on a minute!

I put my hand up.

What are you putting your hand up for? That’s the first time he’s ever asked permission for anything. Just ask the question again.

Which of the following statements by his Ministers best reflects his Government’s attitude towards migrant New Zealanders, given none of them received any sanction from him as Prime Minister: likening Indian Kiwis to a butter chicken tsunami, calling Chinese Kiwis liars, telling Mexican New Zealanders to go home, or telling a Cook Island Kiwi that they aren’t really a New Zealander?

Well I’m incredibly proud of our migrant community here in New Zealand. I think they’ve added to New Zealand, they’ve made it an infinitely better place. They leave everything behind, they come here, they work incredibly hard, they don’t go on welfare, they get their kids educated, they take one, two, three jobs to get a deposit for a business, and they are a great example to many New Zealanders to follow. But also, this is a Government that has ensured we have a smart, fair, targeted immigration system: we have made sure that we have moved it from 70 percent low-skill, to 70 percent high-skill. Net migration has gone from 135,000 down to 25,000, and we link our immigration policy to our economic agenda, and where our job skills and shortages are, as well as to our infrastructure growth and development. That’s the way in which we maintain a good buy-in for immigration in New Zealand.

Would he support a member of his Government taking real estate data, going through the names, working out ones that sound Chinese, releasing that data in order to castigate a particular community and blame them for high house prices?

No, I’d encourage the member to stand up for that too.

What would he like his term as Prime Minister to be most remembered for: higher unemployment; real wages going backwards; higher food, electricity and fuel prices; a health system descending further into crisis; a shrinking economy; businesses going broke; or record number of Kiwis giving up and leaving New Zealand?

I’d like our Government to be remembered for cleaning up Labour’s mess. That’s what we did. We have the economy growing, we have a much safer environment because we restored law and order, we’re building a world-class education system, and we’re improving healthcare. That’s what Kiwi’s want. They know that is what this Government has done. I would proudly put my record up against his record any day of the week, and I’m really looking forward to it, son, in the next six weeks.

Question No. 2, Rawiri Waititi.

No. 3, Mr Speaker.

Oh, No. 3? Okay, sorry that last one was so long I’ve lost my way.

I was just in the spirit of the House. I also just want to acknowledge the stellar job you have done to facilitate this rowdy House at times. [Interruption]

Sorry, can we please hear this in silence?

Ha, ha!

For the sake of an extra supplementary—for your grace.

Ha, ha!

14:23 · to the Prime Minister

Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions in relation to improving outcomes for Māori?

Absolutely.

Why does the Prime Minister define success for Māori by counting how many Māori he has kicked out of emergency housing, how many Māori he has put into prison, and how many parents have been prosecuted to address attendance, rather than whether Māori have secure homes, decent incomes, good health, access to Māori-medium education, and genuine control over our own futures?

As I have said to the member repeatedly, we don’t believe in histrionics and performative stuff; we actually get things done in this Government. Just think about it: 18 Treaty Settlements advanced; a thousand-plus Māori families out of emergency housing, 80 percent reduction; Māori health provider funding nearly doubled over this Government. I could go on.

Does he deny that good process leads to good outcomes; and if not, does he consider that his Government’s removal of Māori authority across processes that impact Māori the most will only led to worse outcomes for Māori in the future?

I reject the characterisation of that question. As I’ve said, Māori youth offending is down 28 percent. We have 4,000 fewer Māori victims of violent crime—that’s a good thing; I think the member would want to celebrate that, wouldn’t you?

On his last day, will the PM take responsibility or just his belongings?

I didn’t hear that. Will what?

Would you like me to repeat it? On his last day, will the PM take responsibility or just take his belongings?

Well, I take responsibility for the outcomes that we’ve improved for Māori. Tamariki Māori immunised at 24 months has gone up from 60 percent to 71.3 percent. I just find it unusual that the member who purports to advocate for Māori doesn’t care about outcomes and improving their daily life. We do, on this side—Māori, non-Māori.

14:25 · to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform

What recent milestones have been achieved in the Government’s work to replace the Resource Management Act 1991?

As of around 9.45 p.m. last night, the Resource Management Act (RMA) has been repealed. After 35 years of the RMA being a millstone around the neck of this country, we’ve now passed legislation for a fundamentally different way of planning for New Zealand’s future, as I think there is widespread consensus in the Parliament that the RMA has made it slower, harder, and more expensive to build homes, infrastructure, grow the food, and build the energy we rely on. It’s failed to prevent environmental degradation; we’ve had the worst of both worlds. We now have a new system—narrower, simpler, faster, more consistent, more upfront about the trade-offs we need to make, to make sure that as a country we can grow and thrive.

What are the key changes that have been made as part of these reforms?

Unlike the RMA, most of the big decisions we made more upfront in the legislation and upfront in the system. It means we can stop relitigating the same questions over and over again through individual consent applications. One hundred planning documents will be replaced by 17 regional combined plans; we’ll have nationally standardised zones and rules to reduce variation across the country. Officials estimate around 45 percent of consent and permit applications currently required under the RMA could be removed under the new system. The economic benefits of these reforms are significant. Independent analysis projects the new planning system will boost GDP by an additional 0.56 percent every year by 2050, worth up to $3.1 billion annually. These are fundamentally good reforms to supercharge our economy.

How important is the implementation of the new planning system going to be to its success?

Passing the legislation is a significant achievement for the Government, but the hard work is just beginning. When Parliament passed the RMA in 1991, it was assumed that there would be a whole lot of extra work done after that, which never happened, so the Government is very focused on the implementation around spatial planning, around national direction, and around national standards over the next two to three years. We’re also focused on driving a culture change in the new system. The RMA encouraged a culture focused on process, repeated litigation, development treated as something to be constrained not enabled. We’re working hard at changing the incentives and we’re investing in implementation. Budget 2026 invested $294 million over four years to support the roll-out of our new planning system; more will be required but we are getting on with the job.

What do the Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill do for New Zealand’s future?

One of the things that I have been reflecting on over the last three years is that we are not as wealthy as a country as sometimes we think we are, and we are certainly nowhere near as prosperous as we should be. We are, indeed, at a crossroads. We can accept a low-growth past, present, and future; we can continue to be a relatively poor country, and the continued degradation of our natural environment, or we can take tough choices and make hard decisions. If we get it right, it means our children can access higher living standards, better education, better healthcare systems, and protect the natural environment. The RMA reforms that this Government has implemented represent tough decisions in the national interest to set New Zealand up for success in the 2030s. They are part of this Government’s plan to build the future.

Can the Minister point to just one single fast-track consent application for developing industry that the dancing tussocks in the Greens have supported?

No, look, you can’t make that—if he wants to, reword your question. Do you want to ask the question again without reference to a particular style of Government?

You mean about the “tussocks”?

As it happens.

OK, then. Can the Minister point to just one single fast-track consent application for developing industry that the Greens have supported?

Well, I’ve struggled. There have been 35 fast-track applications that have now been approved, including projects that I think most people would say are pretty good. The first hydro scheme consented in New Zealand in a long time on the West Coast, Waitaha hydro; new solar, new wind farms, green steel—recycled steel proposal; development of aquaculture by iwi. Many, many projects; 990 megawatts of new renewable energy just in the last year alone. Sadly, the Greens have supported none of those projects.

Yeah, good—good. He asked for one.

14:31 · to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes, and I am advised by the Parliamentary Library that this is the 51st time in this parliamentary term that I’ve been asked that exact question by the member, and not once have I resiled from my commitment to lower taxes for working people.

Dramatic. Is the total number of KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals better or worse since she became Minister of Finance?

Well, since I became Minister of Finance, people’s default contributions to their KiwiSaver funds have increased, as have the contributions that match those from their employers. This will have a material effect on the size of people’s nest eggs in the years ahead, and I am proud of that. It is also the case that, while I have been Minister of Finance, this economy has been going through an extremely difficult recovery, which is reflected in the KiwiSaver stats that the member refers to. I recommend the member a report put out yesterday from independent experts that says, in part, the difficult recovery in New Zealand has experienced was exacerbated by poor decision-making by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, enabled through the loosening of guard rails from the last Government that allowed it to take its eye off the inflation-busting ball, and it’s led to higher unemployment and slower growth than would have otherwise been the case. More Kiwis would be in work right now if you hadn’t mucked up the Reserve Bank’s job.

Is the number of homeless New Zealanders better or worse since she became Minister of Finance?

Well, that will depend on which survey you refer to. But I stood in this House in Opposition and lamented that children were being raised in gross motel rooms, and we committed that we would fix that. I am extraordinarily proud that this Government, through its prioritisation of families who were otherwise condemned to live in motel rooms, has put them into warm, dry, social homes, because I don’t think kids should be raised in emergency motel rooms. [Interruption]

Just one person asking a question.

Is the number of children living in material hardship better or worse since she became Minister of Finance?

We have published a child poverty report with each Budget, and one of the things that that shows is that when you deliver income tax relief to working people, that improves the conditions—the material conditions—in which parents can raise their children. It matters if people can keep more of what they earn, and it matters when they can get a FamilyBoost tax credit for their early childhood fees, and it matters when the Government spends their money carefully so it can keep taxes low.

If the number of KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals, the number of New Zealanders unemployed, the number of businesses liquidated, the number of people who are homeless, the number of children in material hardship, real wages, GDP per capita, and the cost of living are all worse since she became the Minister of Finance, are her chances of getting back into Parliament better or worse?

Well, given that member’s sole suggestion for addressing the cost of living crisis for the past three years has been “We wouldn’t have done tax cuts for landlords,” and now she’s changed her mind, I’d say to you: we’ve delivered on our plan, we’ve delivered on our commitments, we have fixed the basics, and we are building the future. You got nothing.

14:35 · to the Minister for Regulation

What actions has the Government taken to reduce regulation for New Zealanders?

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and in keeping with other party leaders, I’d like to thank you for your grace and forbearance in trying to manage this place over the last three years. I begin my answer to the question by saying that this Government, I believe, will be looked back on as a Government where New Zealand started to turn the corner on regulation. The establishment of the Ministry for Regulation and the Regulatory Standards Act are some of the institutions that we’ve created, and they have saved hundreds of millions of dollars already. However, the changes that the House voted through last night to replace the Resource Management Act with two new laws based on property rights—that will halve the number of consents required for the same amount of activity; that will add half a percent or about $3 billion a year to GDP—that is the largest, most significant change that this Government has made, and yet it is far from the only one in this Government of deregulation.

What has the Government done to reduce unnecessary regulation in health?

Many things on the health front—for example, 12-month prescriptions up from three, allowing Kiwis, particularly those managing chronic health conditions, to save time and money. Medsafe introduced the rule of two, something that all three coalition parties campaigned on. Now if a medicine has been consented in two other developed countries in the last four years, it will be available and consented here within 30 days. We’ve also aligned over the counter labelling requirements with Australia so more over the counter medicines can be sold here at better prices, with more choice. But perhaps most significantly, we have legalised pseudoephedrine to wake you up and melatonin to put you back to sleep.

What has the Government done to cut red tape for farmers?

Well, I have in the back of my mind your recent admonishments for excessively long answers, so I’ll give only a sample. The Agricultural and Horticultural Products Regulatory Review has dramatically reduced the queues for new products being consented in New Zealand, and that gives farmers more affordable and more environmentally friendly agricultural compounds, veterinary medicines, and the like that allow them to compete with the rest of the world. That is a very good example of deregulation, as are Andrew Hoggard’s simpler, risk-based freshwater farm plans, and we are currently ensuring that New Zealand farmers will be able to use drones more easily as the modern flying tractor of the innovative Kiwi farm.

What has the Government done to cut red tape in education?

Again, many things. The sector review of the early childhood education sector is estimated to save $40 million in compliance costs while ramping up the focus on child safety, with a new proportional approach to regulation, a new regulator, and a much more constructive relationship between the regulator and the regulated. The Government has also introduced charter schools, which increase the choice and allow those who have innovative ways to educate young New Zealanders and help unlock their potential to teach and educate their way. The change that is making and the potential being unlocked in young New Zealanders up and down this country at over 20 charter schools now is absolutely touching and perhaps the thing that I, in politics, am most proud of.

What has the Government done to reduce red tape for the hospitality sector?

No sector has been left untouched, nearly. The hospitality sector has had a very hard row to hoe in recent years. The first was lockdown, then being told they could open the next day by a Government that didn’t understand that they hadn’t actually had time to order the food to serve that day, then a prolonged cost of living crisis in recession. This Government has relieved the regulatory pressure on them. For example, the Minister who asked the question has ensured that if you want to object to a liquor licence, you actually have to live in the community and be affected by it. You can’t object from another country. We will be rolling out, over the next half-year to a year, simpler food-control plans that are proportionate to risk, allowing venues to put up marquees more easily through the Building Act, and letting venues charge for courtesy shuttles to bring down drink-driving. In every way, we are making it easier to run a hospitality venue, by removing red tape and regulation. Nobody had listened to them for a long time, perhaps ever, until the Ministry for Regulation came along and gave them an intelligent, sympathetic ear, and it turned into action.

What regulations has the Government changed to improve access to healthcare for children in care?

I have to commend the member, who’s visited every single Oranga Tamariki facility and overseen significant improvements in safety in those facilities for some of the most vulnerable children—and she’s done it without a single bucket of KFC to get anyone off the roof. She’s also deregulated by letting trained, authorised staff administer emergency medicines like EpiPens, and by letting nurse practitioners carry out health exams so those vulnerable children are more likely to get the healthcare they need.

What has the Government done to make it easier to build homes?

Many, many things. For too long, it’s been too hard to build a home, too hard to build a whare on your whenua. We have, for example, allowed recognised building materials—certified in trusted overseas schemes, including 128,000 Australian WaterMark products—to be used here. We’re letting plumbers and drainlayers self-certify; we’ve reformed the rushed earthquake laws, that I have to say only one member of this House voted against; we’re now saving $9 billion in regulatory relief there. We have got rid of the joint and several liability that meant that councils were so unwilling to say yes to construction. Furthermore—slightly tangential to regulation—we have introduced revenue sharing between central and local government, so councils have an incentive to say yes to growth.

Supplementary, Mr Speaker.

No, I think we’re all done.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the ACT Party to have one more supplementary question so the people of New Zealand can learn about the enormous progress made by this Government of deregulation.

Is there any objection? There is. The Hon Marama Davidson.

And what a fine Speaker you have been, Mr Speaker—the leadership, the guaranteed entertainment. I dressed up especially for you, Mr Speaker, and I’m always in the market for extra supplementaries. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

See how you go!

14:43 · to the Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Yes, and in particular, our desire never to introduce a 45 percent top tax rate, never to introduce a death or inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rentals tax, or a wealth asset tax.

Whose interests was he serving when he amended his resource management reforms to reflect the demands of corporate lobby groups?

Well, we didn’t do that, as we have discussed previously.

Whose interests was he serving when he cut funding for Predator Free, passed a bill legalising the killing of kiwi, and cut protections for fresh water?

I reject the characterisation of that question.

Whose interests was he serving when he weakened our climate targets, disestablished the Ministry for the Environment, and cancelled plans to electrify our transport fleet?

Actually, I’m quite proud of the fact that we had 96.4 percent renewable energy in the last quarter. I’m quite proud of the fact that we’ve built more renewable projects in the last two years than the previous eight years, and I’m actually proud of the fact that we’ve had the lowest level of emissions from our economy, since records began in 2010, in the last quarter as well.

What is his message to the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who took to the streets in Auckland on Saturday, marching to demand environmental protections, who now see his Government dismantling decades of environmental protections?

I disagree. They’ve actually got a Government that will ensure the environment is protected, but, most importantly, they will grow and they will have jobs and opportunities for them and their families.

How are we going, Mr Speaker? Can I have one more? Thank you. Was he serving the interests of the New Zealand public when he decided to subsidise oil and gas, fast-track mining applications, and make it easier to mine in and around significant biodiversity and wetlands?

We are very, very proud of having reversed the oil and gas ban. That was, single-handedly, a point of absolute insanity from the last Government. That led to higher electricity prices and higher power bills, and we have a very comprehensive energy strategy that is working. We are proud of accelerating a renewables boom, and we’re also proud of having the thermal firming energy we need to keep prices low in a dry year.

Question No. 8, Dr Ayesha Verrall—the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall.

14:46 · to the Minister of Health

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m not going ask for extra supplementaries, but I am always on the lookout for good answers. My question is to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that the health system is “finally turning a corner”; if so, why?

Well, Mr Speaker, thank you so much for your leadership of this Parliament. I just want to add my congratulations, alongside everyone else, before I answer my question. In the context it was made, yes. This morning, I announced the most recent health targets results, covering April to June, showing significant improvement across all five health targets. All five health targets are set for 2030, and every one has now improved for two years running, which is the steady, year-on-year progress needed to reach the 2030 targets. Key improvements include more than 14,000 fewer patients waiting more than four months since the peak, a reduction of 41 percent; shorter waits for elective treatment in every district across the country, including a 21 percentage point improvement in Whanganui, a 14 percentage point improvement in Gisborne, and a 10 percentage point improvement in South Canterbury; continued improvement in immunisation rates; faster cancer treatment; and shorter stays in emergency departments, particularly compared to 2023, when that member was the Minister of Health. We know there is more work to do, and that is exactly why now is the time to double down on the health targets and not return to removing them, like Labour did in 2017, and to make sure that we continue the progress that our hard-working front-line staff are delivering across the country.

Can he confirm that Middlemore’s emergency department has routinely operated at 200 percent over capacity and that staff are being asked to come to work when sick?

According to the emergency department target data that was released today, in the most recent quarter, Middlemore Hospital improved from 65 percent to 76.9 percent of patients being seen within six hours. That is one of the highest, best improvements of any hospital up and down this country, and that member should be proud of the great work being done by the front-line staff at that hospital.

Can he confirm that in Waikato, his Government has cut staff by 90 fulltime-equivalent nurses over the past year?

I want to point out the most recent quarterly data on emergency departments, which shows that improvements at the Waikato district health board—69.3 percent, up to 73.8 percent of patients seen within six hours at the hospital. There are shorter wait-times for elective treatment, from 74.2 percent seen within four months, up to 80.6 percent—above the milestone. That is thanks to the hard-working front-line staff at Waikato Hospital.

Can he confirm that in Christchurch emergency department, 15,000 patients were treated in corridors last year, nearly four times more than in 2023?

We’ve got more good news, and if you look at the most recent health targets report, shorter wait-times for elective treatment at Canterbury has improved from 62.9 percent of patients seen within four months, up to 71.4 percent seen within four months. What about first specialist appointments? 50.8 percent seen within four months last quarter, up to 57.7 percent. The member opposite might like to talk down our health system, but we are seeing year-on-year improvements under this Government, after decline under her watch.

Does the Minister of Health consider that had qualified doctors and nurses not been mandated out of their jobs by the previous Government, leading to permanent employment scarring, that New Zealand would have more trained professionals in our hospitals, GP offices, and healthcare centres?

Our focus has been to grow the number of front-line staff across our health system. We have 900 additional doctors working at Health New Zealand since we’ve come to Government. We are training more at the University of Auckland and Otago; with a third medical school that this Government is funding and building—that Labour opposed. We’re supporting our front-line nursing workforce with 2,100 more nurses working at Health New Zealand since we came to Government. We’re investing in nurses in primary care, with nurses becoming nurse practitioners. This Government is backing our front-line health workforce, while Labour continues to talk it down.

Is he really content to leave his last comment in this Parliament, on the matter of 15,000 people in Christchurch Hospital waiting in corridors, to be, “More good news”?

There is more work to do. Every time I’m asked about our healthcare system, I acknowledge there is huge amount more work to do. But after six years of decline under the previous Government, six years of decline in our emergency departments under the previous Government, things are on the way up. Improving under National; down under Labour. Let’s not go back to what they did to our health system.

14:52 · to the Minister of Education

What has she achieved in this term of Government?

After decades of declining achievement, we’re a Government that’s putting raising achievement and closing the equity gap at the heart of everything we’re doing. We introduced an hour of reading, writing, and maths; we banned cellphones in schools; we’ve delivered every single curriculum area from years 1 to 13 for the New Zealand curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa; we’ve mandated the structured literacy teaching in every school in New Zealand; we’ve introduced structured maths; we’ve trained over 50,000 teachers in structured literacy and structured maths; we’ve funded maths books, science books, and music kits in every primary school in New Zealand in English and te reo Māori; and we’re scrapping NCEA and replacing it with meaningful qualifications to set kids up for success—and the results are starting to show.

What has she achieved in assessment and reporting to parents?

For the first time in our country’s history, we have consistent nationwide mandated twice-yearly assessments between year 3 and year 8 to measure progress in reading, writing, and maths, to measure progress over time. We’ve delivered the 20 and 40 weeks phonics checks in English and te reo Māori; we’re delivering the Year 2 maths check in term 4 this year; and parents are, finally, receiving detailed reports on how their children are progressing and how they can help at home using our new Parent Portal tool. We are measuring progress consistently. We’re acting sooner and giving parents clearer information to raise achievement and close the equity gap.

What has she achieved in learning support?

Budget 2025 was the largest injection into learning support in a generation, with three-quarters of a billion dollars. We’re delivering a learning support coordinator in every single primary and intermediate school in New Zealand—promised by that side and not delivered. We uncapped Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme (ORRS) funding, with 1,057 extra children receiving ORRS support—uncapping ORRS funding: promised by that side, delivered by this side. We’ve funded the expansion of the Early Intervention Service, that saw over 6,000 year 1 students receive support this year to transition to school; a thousand extra placements have been made available for private providers to get children off wait-lists for specialist services; and we’ve taken 15.7 days off the average wait time for early intervention support—more children who need support are being seen sooner.

What has she achieved in school property?

More good news. We’ve set up the New Zealand School Property Agency to drive better value for money and better response to schools. We’ve halved the cost of building a school classroom and put an end to open-plan classrooms; we’ve funded nearly 1,400 classrooms across the country in three years. We invested more than double the funding into property maintenance over Budget 2024 and 2025 than in the previous six years combined. We’ve raised five-year agreement individual school property and maintenance grants by 50 percent. We’ve funded three new specialist schools for the first time in 50 years; we’ve funded over 140 extra satellite classrooms for specialist schools; and we’ve funded 500 schools to have solar panels. We are delivering in school property.

What results has she seen on these reforms?

We are finally, after decades of decline and stagnation, seeing results improve under this Government. The New Zealand Herald led with my favourite headline this year—“The Phonic Boom”—when, last year, we saw the number of children at expectation for early reading and writing go from 36 percent to 58 percent after just three terms. The 2025 Curriculum Insights data showed us that at year 6, the number of children at curriculum expectations for maths rose by 6 percent, and 5 percent for writing—the first time we’ve seen significant improvements for years. Our international Programme for International Student Assessment results showed that while the trend for the rest of the OECD was in decline, New Zealand held steady in maths and reading and improved in science. But, importantly, the equity gap closed for the first time. I want to take this opportunity to thank our principals and teachers for these achievements. Our plan to raise achievement and close the equity gap is working, and we cannot put this all at risk by returning to the low-aspiration, low-expectation, low-bar Labour.

Question No. 10, Arena Williams. [Interruption] Hang on a minute. Sorry. I’ve called it.

It’s a two-way street, isn’t it.

No, no, no. You’ve got to allow your member to ask the question she’s called to ask.

She’s more than capable.

Yeah, she is, and that’s why she doesn’t need your assistance.

14:56 · to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Are New Zealanders paying more than they should for groceries; if so, does he agree that they should not have to wait for another review before the Government takes action?

14:57

Mr Speaker, if I’m nice to you, will you give them less supplementaries?

If this was a Government question, you wouldn’t be getting an answer at all!

Yes, New Zealanders pay too much for groceries. That is why this Government has made it easier to build supermarkets, strengthened the grocery supply code and competition settings, and backed the Commerce Commission’s enforcement work. We also commissioned independent analysis of structural reform, and that independent analysis is now finished and public on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) website. Of the options tested, separating Foodstuffs has the strongest case.

Why should a family whose grocery bill is higher today than when National took office believe that their food will be more affordable under that plan, when all along he has been telling us that, under his Government, it will just get more expensive more slowly?

Because, under this Government, our track record on inflation, food inflation included, stands for itself. In the last 12 months to July 2026, food inflation was just 1.9 percent. In the last 12 months of the previous Labour Government, food inflation for one year was 12.5 percent.

Why, when even the Prime Minister acknowledges that supermarkets are already making excess profits, does he need another review to tell him if changes to the grocery sector are needed?

We’re not doing another review. If the member was to look on MBIE’s website, it’s complete—it’s complete. Government’s commissioned independent analysis of structural options is finished and is public. The autonomous, independent Commerce Commission will then take—with all the intention in the world, after this election, when the mandate’s even bigger, ComCom will look at that and make up recommendations, and, in six months’ time, we’re back in business.

Why has his Government spent $274,000 on a review of a review to tell him to break up the supermarkets, when he was too weak to get a supermarket break-up through Cabinet?

I suppose the question could be put back: why consider, hypothetically, a wholesale retail split, when MBIE’s own commissioned independent analysis, and the Commerce Commission, outright ruled against a wholesale retail split?

Point of order. I seek leave to table a document from MBIE dated 21 September 2026, obtained under the Official Information Act (OIA) but not publicly released, which details the cost of the review of the review.

How’s it not publicly released if it’s obtained under the OIA?

It was released only two days ago and is not available on MBIE’s website.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Thank you. Why should Kiwis expect any better from a Government whose answer on food prices has been to tell Kiwis to be grateful for price increases of only 143 percent for the tomatoes and 31 percent for the cheese in the Prime Minister’s chicken parmigiana?

Because, as I’ve said before, our record speaks for itself on food inflation. The member, in chapter 1 of “spaghettigate”, waved around a can of spaghetti proclaiming that the price had fallen by 1c, and then the Minister of Finance stood up and reminded her that in one year under Labour, that same tin of spaghetti went up 35 percent.

Supplementary. [Interruption]

Yeah, when the House is settled, we’ll have another question.

Has he missed the latest food price data that shows the price of a tin of spaghetti has actually gone up 8 percent under National, or is that all he’s got?

Oh, we’ve got much more than that, but fruit and vegetables, in the 12 months to July 2026, fell 1 percent—fell. Now, should we compare that to the 12 months to June 2023 under the previous high-inflation Labour Government: fruit and veges, in one year, went up 22 percent.

After spending $274,000 of taxpayers’ money on a review of a review, has he committed to spending another $5 million on a review of a review of a review?

Any review, any analysis, is on the MBIE website, independently done and commissioned by this Government. It’s complete for the member to go on and see it. The review is complete.

Supplementary.

You’ve used up the allocation well and truly.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table this can of spaghetti.

No, no, you can’t do that; it’s not a document. You can’t table something that’s not a document, and besides that, there’s not enough to go around. Question No. 11—[Interruption] Excuse me.

15:03 · to the Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

The right honourable Prime Minister, and—[Interruption] Excuse me. Let’s just calm everything right down—two more questions to go.

Yes, and particularly our desire never to introduce a comprehensive capital gains tax.

Does he stand by his statement to Jordan Williams and the Taxpayers’ Union to “Be louder.”, and, if so, what exactly did he mean by that?

Well, sorry, I haven’t seen that reporting or that quote because I’m much more focused on an Indian free-trade agreement getting ratified on Monday and Resource Management Act reforms being done last night.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the Green Party that our country needs to regulate lobbying?

No, I don’t agree with the Green Party on many things.

Why did his Government cancel work that was already under way to regulate lobbying if he had, as he said in answer to me yesterday, “not considered it deeply”?

Well, look, I mean, we’ve improved the transparency of this Government. Our diaries as Ministers are freely available. We’ve managed conflicts very assiduously across a very big legislative programme. We’re also proud that we’re a Government that does something quite unusual, I’ve found out in the last week, which is actually talk to New Zealanders when we have policy ideas to get all that feedback.

Does he think that companies should be able to donate to political parties, or does he agree with the Independent Electoral Review that only people should be allowed to donate to political parties?

I’ll just say to the member, when I think about large donations that end up going to the Green Party—$100,000; $132,000—they should practise what they preach.

Is he aware that the majority of New Zealanders believe that the economy is rigged in favour of the rich and powerful, and, if so, can he name just one thing that he or his Government has done this term to demonstrate the opposite?

I reject the characterisation of that question and the assertion at the top of it.

On the issue of the Indian free-trade agreement (FTA), has the Prime Minister established whether the $33 billion to be invested by New Zealand in India’s economy is “aspirational”, as claimed, or a commitment, as written and stated by India’s Prime Minister, Modi?

Look, I want to thank the Foreign Minister for his question. I want to reassure him that it is a commitment to promote. It’s very different from other FTAs that have been struck with India. We’re going to make sure that we get more business-to-business connection between the two countries. But I’ll just reassure him: commitment to promote.

to the Prime Minister

will he rule out—

Just a minute. They need to turn on your microphone.

to the Prime Minister

will he rule out campaigning on a referendum on the Māori seats and ending the Waitangi Tribunal?

Hang on. Look, sorry, do you mind just asking again and we’ll just try and get the sound modulated properly.

Āe. To the Prime Minister: will he rule out campaigning on a referendum on the Māori seats and ending the Waitangi Tribunal?

I’m sorry, I don’t campaign as Prime Minister.

On the eve of the campaigning period, what message do you have for te iwi Māori?

What was the question? Sorry, can you repeat it?

Sure. On the eve of the campaigning period, what is the message that you have for te iwi Māori?

Oh, party vote National for sure, because this is a Government that cares deeply about outcomes and improving outcomes for Māori: 18 Treaty settlements advanced; 1,000-plus families out of emergency housing; Māori health provider funding nearly doubled; the Nelson Tenths deal, which I think was one of our proudest achievements over that period of time; the Taranaki Maunga Collective Redress Act passing; improving regular attendance for Māori, from 51.3 percent up to 54.6 percent just in the last year. I could go on: Māori youth offending—did I tell you about that one—down 28 percent; 4,000 fewer Māori victims of violent crime.

With respect to the last question, has heard the quote “Better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and be removing all doubt”?

Well, I’m sure no one would direct that at the member’s particular person.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the class of 2023, we would like to acknowledge your guidance and leadership for this term, and hopefully you will give me an extra supplementary as well.

No, I won’t.

15:08 · to the Minister of State for Trade and Investment

What progress has been made on the New Zealand-India free-trade agreement?

Well, Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Trade and Investment, who also sends his kind regards and congratulations and thanks to you, we have made excellent progress. New Zealand and India now have formally ratified the New Zealand-India free-trade agreement (FTA). This is a significant milestone towards the implementation of one of New Zealand’s most significant agreements in decades. For farmers, growers, foresters, manufacturers, and other exporters, this FTA creates new opportunities to earn higher export returns and expand into a market of 1.4 billion people when it enters into force on 20 October this year.

What does the entry into force timing mean for exporters?

Well, the sooner the FTA enters into force, the sooner New Zealand exporters can benefit from the improved rules and market access achieved in the agreement. This includes tariff-free access of 57 percent of our current exports to India on day one, rising to 82 percent once the agreement is fully implemented, with most remaining exports benefiting from substantial tariff reductions. The entry into force will open a new chapter for Kiwi exporters and positions New Zealand businesses to take advantage of India’s rapid economic growth.

Which sectors benefit most, from day one?

Several sectors will benefit from tariff removal on day one—for example for forestry, over 95 percent of exports will be able to enter tariff-free immediately. Tariffs will also be removed immediately for wool, sheep meat, and coal. Others—like fish and seafood, mānuka honey, wine, and bulk infant formula—will benefit from two tariff reductions in close succession, with the first cut on 20 October and the second on 1 January 2027.

What do the most favoured nation commitments mean in the free-trade agreement (FTA)?

Three years ago, they said we wouldn’t be able to get a deal with India and this Government has got out there and got it done. The agreement secures valuable most favoured nation protections for wine and key service sectors. For wine exporters, tariffs will fall from 150 percent today to 25 percent or 50 percent over the next 10 years, depending on the value of the wine product. It will then further reduce to 20 percent or 30 percent in the next seven years. This is just another example of our plan to fix the basics and build the future.

That concludes oral questions. [Interruption] Look, if you are leaving the House, just be courteous enough to leave as quietly as you possibly can, and quickly. Unreal; move on.

15:12

In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, I move, That the House adopt the amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Appendix A of the report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders 2026, with effect from the day after the dissolution or expiration of the present Parliament.

As we close out the 54th Parliament, we come to a debate held at the end of every term, one that I suspect only the deepest Parliament nerds will ever pay close attention to. Each term, the Standing Orders Committee needs to consider how Parliament operates and the rules it uses to keep things working well. It is an incredibly collaborative process, and I want to thank all of the members of Parliament who sat on the committee and worked through the changes before us. I also want to thank and acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, for presiding over the committee and ensuring the Standing Orders review was run in an efficient and considered way so that final decisions were not rushed. I also want to acknowledge the Clerk, Dr David Wilson, and his staff, particularly David Bagnall, for the tremendous amount of work that they have put into this report.

We discussed many issues during this process. I want to speak briefly about urgency, which was raised at length in submissions. I think a lot of people misunderstand urgency. A bill being included in an urgency motion does not in itself mean it is bypassing scrutiny or has been poorly drafted. In this Parliament, urgency has largely been used as overtime. Only 10 bills skipped select committee this term, outside the first 100-day plan and the normal Budget urgency. Part of the reason urgency has been used in that way is this is the first three-party coalition Government, which has placed additional pressure on legislative priorities. Bills have also, in general, taken significantly longer at the committee of the whole House stage than in previous Parliaments. I do want to note that the committee has agreed to changes that I think will encourage a better use of urgency, including requiring Ministers to explain why they need to bypass select committee, and I hope that will help demonstrate that when urgency is used, it is for good reason.

By far the biggest change we have agreed to is the establishment of the Legislative Scrutiny Committee which will act as a kind of second Chamber for the House. This committee will be able to take the place of the committee of the Whole House for non-controversial bills that would not normally receive high priority in any Government’s programme. The committee will be chaired by the Deputy Speaker and will not have a Government majority. The intention is that almost everything referred to it will be broadly supported, so that votes are rare. The Standing Orders Committee has thought carefully about how the legislative scrutiny would examine legislation and what would be referred to it, but thought experiments do not enact legislation, so it is important that we see that it is tested once the new Parliament begins.

There were other changes agreed by the committee that should make Parliament a better place for the public to engage with. I personally am particularly pleased to see a change requiring MPs who are on the parliamentary precinct to attend select committee meetings in person during sitting weeks, rather than by joining from Zoom from their parliamentary office. For many people, making a submission is the only time in their life that they directly engage with Parliament. People travel from all over the country to come here and to make an oral submission, often only for 10 minutes. It is incumbent on us as elected members of Parliament to give them the respect they deserve by being physically present and listening to them in person.

Similarly, just as a Minister will need to explain why a bill may be skipping select committee entirely, there will now also be a requirement for a Minister to give a reason if they choose to refer a bill to a select committee for less than six months. This is not necessarily to discourage that practice, because there will be cases when it’s needed, but it does put the justification on the record and will help members of the public understand why the Government has made that decision. It is another step towards increasing transparency in the legislative process.

There were many other changes agreed by the committee, and I’m sure other speakers in this debate will address some of them. These include making the pecuniary interests register clearer and fairer, looking at how select committees can use modern technology such as artificial intelligence to help manage the sometimes overrun submissions process, and further refining scrutiny weeks for the next Parliament. I’m incredibly proud of the work that we have done to make the next Parliament just that bit better, both for elected members but, more importantly, for the members of the public we are here to serve.

15:17

Thank you, Mr Speaker, on this final sitting day of the 54th Parliament. I want to begin by acknowledging the members of the Standing Orders Committee, and you, Mr Speaker, for chairing that committee; the Clerk of the House, Dr David Wilson; David Bagnall, Principal Clerk; and all of the officials and the specialist advisers that we were afforded the opportunity to have with us, who have worked through this process of this review.

Now, uncharitably, Standing Orders can sound like the somewhat boring machinery behind Parliament rather than the substance of what Parliament actually does, but they do matter, and they matter enormously. They determine who gets heard; they determine who can object to who gets heard. They determine all sorts of things that happen in this place. It’s about how the Government gets scrutinised. It’s how much opportunity the public has to participate in these processes, and, ultimately, it is determinative of how carefully this House makes law.

So changes to the rules of Parliament shouldn’t simply be imposed by whichever Government happens to have the numbers, or whichever party happens to have the numbers at any particular time. The committee works on the basis of overwhelming support across parties, because the legitimacy of the rules that make this place work depends on all of us having confidence in those rules.

The committee has tried to do two things at once—and I agree with many of the points made by the Hon Louise Upston. These are to make Parliament work more effectively while protecting proper scrutiny and democratic participation. The first and probably the most significant proposal is the creation of this new Legislative Scrutiny Committee. The Standing Orders Committee, at least, was trying to deal with what is a very real problem, increasing pressure on House time and on select committees, while still protecting what should be proper scrutiny of legislation. The Parliament has seen a very substantial use of urgency this term. The committee heard directly about the consequences of going through legislation at pace, going through the lawmaking process too quickly, less scrutiny, fewer opportunities for members to influence legislation, less public participation, and legislation sometimes bypassing or receiving a truncated select committee process, which is very important in terms of appropriate consideration.

The legislative scrutiny committee is an attempt to respond to that very pressure and to do things in a slightly different—or, hopefully, slightly better—way for appropriate, largely non-controversial legislation, of which there is certainly some. It would provide another place for that level of detailed scrutiny to occur. It’s a new place where we could examine legislative quality, consider bills, question Ministers—still in public—and have some cases, undertake a detailed consideration that would otherwise happen in the committee of the whole House stage. The point is not to just reduce scrutiny in order to save time—and it’s really important to emphasise that—it is to free up House time whilst still preserving scrutiny, and in doing so, hopefully, reduce some of the pressures which have led to an overuse of urgency.

Urgency—it would be remiss not to comment. Urgency is, of course, a legitimate parliamentary tool. It’s used by Governments of all stripes. But it should not become the routine answer to pressure on legislative programmes. Those are about choices, and Governments make choices about what occupies this House’s time. The Government devoted a significant amount of time—this House’s time and select committee time—to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill this term, which went through a huge select committee process and was ultimately defeated. It also progressed several bills, including things like the English Language Bill, through all stages this year, some of which many people considered completely unnecessary. When Governments say there is not enough House time, it is also fair to ask how that time has been prioritised.

Now, the second point follows directly from that. Where urgency is still used, we do also need to make sure that there’s a greater accountability for bypassing that scrutiny. Under these proposed changes, a bill read for the first time under urgency would still go to a select committee process unless the member in charge specifically requested that it skip that stage and therefore has to, with some particularity, explain why that is warranted. That’s a modest but important safeguard and we’re yet to see how that will play out in reality but we hope that that works well. If a Government wants to remove an important stage of the parliamentary and public scrutiny, it is only fair and reasonable that they should at least have to explain why.

One of the other important parts of the work of the Standing Orders Committee was, as always, looking at financial scrutiny. One of Parliament’s most fundamental constitutional roles is holding the executive to account for the money it spends. The scrutiny weeks were introduced following the previous Standing Orders review, in which they established a parliamentary calendar. This Standing Orders Committee has received the feedback from that and decided that those changes shouldn’t be overruled. They worked well. There were some select committees that said that it definitely seemed to improve that process, so we are continuing with that.

Finally, this report, as said, is also about modernising Parliament without losing sight of what Parliament’s for, and that includes some modernisation of processing submissions, given that sometimes, depending on the nature of what’s passing through this House, it can engage and exercise the community quite vigorously. We do need to have much more modern ways of dealing with what could be a huge submission process, and seeking stronger processes around international treaties, changes to public engagement, and clearer rules also for committees. Technology changes, workloads change, Governments change—even—but the underlying purpose of this place doesn’t. It’s important that Parliament needs enough time, enough information, and enough independence to scrutinise the executive so that ultimately we can make good law. I commend this report to the House.

Ricardo Menéndez March. This is a split call.

15:25

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I also want to commend the Clerk, officials, and, actually, our Green Party staffers who supported myself and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan here, and a special shout-out goes to Raewyn Tate and James Coad for their assistance in our participation in this report.

Looking at the amendments that we’re proposing to make, I wanted to actually begin by giving a shout-out to one of my colleagues—that is, the person next to me, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan—because I actually think that if you look at the amendments on page 43, there’s one that I think is the “Lawrence Amendment”, which is the one on grouping of amendments. Few people, I think, in this Chamber have been able to produce as many amendments like my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. That speaks, in my view, of both an ability to actually go through a piece of legislation well outside his remit of portfolios and actually be able to look at ways of improving it. He has supported colleagues to draft amendments. In my view, it has created a bit of a conundrum where now we have spent considerable amount of time voting for individual amendments.

Amendment 23 allows for amendments to be grouped not just by individual members but by members of political parties. I do hope that Chairpeople who are reading out amendments and choose to group those do make good and responsible use of this new amendment and provision to adequately explain why these were grouped, because we cautiously support this amendment—as we do think that ultimately it is in the interest of all Governments to be able to progress legislative agendas and members to have a right to try and improve legislation—but I do not think that this amendment would have happened if it wasn’t for the contributions of my colleague. I know that he has been asked by other colleagues across the House as to whether he has used AI to draft amendments, and I think that may speak more perhaps to the tactics that other political parties have used to draft them, rather than Lawrence. I can assure you he has never used AI.

But if we look at some of the other amendments, including amendment 19 on the legislative scrutiny committee, I think this will be one that we are also supportive of, particularly because I think that this will address the reality that Governments want to progress legislation that particularly draws public attention while dealing with non-contentious bills in a way that doesn’t use more of the House’s time. I think it’s particularly good to see the Deputy Speaker chairing this committee. I think that will elevate the Deputy Speaker’s roles as well. I think it’s good to have that committee giving the ability of all members to be able to be there and participate. One of the tensions, I think, that this committee will create will be particularly for smaller political parties who may have to juggle, for example, the ability for this committee to sit after 6 p.m., and the reality that smaller political parties will have to juggle having less members to, for example, contribute on bills during the evening, while perhaps also trying to participate in these committees. I think it’ll be good to really test how that works.

Testing how these new amendments will work is really important because we have also made improvements and changes to how things like scrutiny week work. Scrutiny week was a feature of the last Standing Orders review—one that I think was really welcomed. It’s really good to see the amendment to enable, for example, in-depth reviews to occur beyond just one meeting. One of the challenges I think, in the annual reviews has been the tension between Opposition parties and Government members on the length of those reviews. While, initially, I think there was a lot of good faith, in my view, of giving large agencies like the Ministry of Social Development adequate time, that time has actually, for some agencies’ or Ministers’ sessions, been sort of trimmed down. That is really concerning because I think scrutiny week should afford the time of non-executive members to actually scrutinise how decisions by the executive are made.

I don’t want to remark on the use of urgency, and particularly the Leader of the House’s remarks that your urgency was not used to bypass scrutiny. I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t think any member can really say that when there is urgency, there is adequate scrutiny. When we have had urgency, we often rely on massively redacted regulatory impact statements, at times—no input from stakeholders and experts. While we may have a committee of the whole House stage, I don’t think that actually is a good replacement for the reality that we still need to hear from the public. While there are amendments here that seek to improve and better justify the use of urgency, we remain concerned about the precedent that this term of Parliament and this Government have set over its use. But overall, we really support this report. We commend everybody who’s worked on it, and I think this will, hopefully, lead to improvements in our democratic processes.

15:30

Mr Speaker, thank you. I rise to give my final speech in the 54th Parliament on the Standing Orders report.

Now, I think one of the things that’s really important, as my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March said, is the importance of the Standing Orders, but also the Standing Orders reviews—one of the most important documents that we have here in the New Zealand Parliament. This particular report is important in the sense that not only does it introduce a few elements but, also, some tidy-ups, which are much needed.

With that, I do want to thank you, Mr Speaker, as the chairperson of the Standing Orders Committee and thank you, Dr David Wilson, as Clerk of the House, and everyone at the Office of the Clerk for helping us through this, and everyone in all political parties who took part in the Standing Orders review to get us to where we are.

There are a few things I do want to touch on, further from what my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March has said. Most importantly, the legislative scrutiny committee is something that is going to be introduced in the new Parliament, and I think that is going to be something that we’re looking forward to seeing how it’s going to work in practice. As my colleague said, it is going to be chaired by the Deputy Speaker and, with that, it’s also going to have equal membership between Government and Opposition party members, just to ensure that whatever does happen within the legislative scrutiny committee is able to have the same transparency but, also, the same robustness as what we do here in this particular House.

I note that the legislative scrutiny committee could take part in or replace what is considered the select committee stage between the first and second readings, as well as, for some bills, even committee of the whole House, between the second and third readings, with the approval of the Business Committee. I think that’s really important, when we’re looking at how that is going to be working in practice—ensuring a level of oversight by the Business Committee.

It was mentioned previously, I think, by the Leader of the House that there are some elements in the report around the use of artificial intelligence (AI). This is something that we are approaching in an incredibly cautious way with how AI can be or could be used in terms of looking at some of the submissions. I think one of the things that the committee and the report is very clear on is to ensure that there is still a high degree of oversight in terms of how and when that could be used, and the committee must still be asked permission in order to undertake that, noting that we have seen in select committees a significant increase in submissions in this term of Parliament, particularly on the Justice Committee. With this, there has been some allowance that has been given in the analysis—or the expediency when it comes to analysis—of some of the submissions. Again, this is something that I think is important and prudent for the 55th Parliament and the future Standing Orders Committee and select committees in general to keep an eye on.

A couple of other things I want to touch on is, number one, some of the changes to the omnibus bill and some of the changes to the way that we look at minor updates. This is specifically to Standing Order 267. I think it’s also an important ability for any Government to be able to include more minor amendments or the allowance to have more minor amendments—again, pending the approval from Business Committee—incorporated as part of an omnibus bill, particularly when minor amendments affect more than two principal Acts.

Something that’s very important to me and very dear to me is some of the adjustments to international treaty examinations in Standing Order 405. The reason I say that is because, currently, as part of our dualist system, international treaties can be signed up to by any Government and that includes trade agreements, and then it goes through a trade examination process by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. But then the agreement has already been signed, and there’s very little ability to truly really examine the agreement when any Government has already signed up to the agreement. Of course, it only becomes domestic legislation if there is an ensuing domestic law. While we didn’t get everything we want to see in terms of, I guess, the specific ability for Parliament to scrutinise any executive branch of the Government around international treaty examination, the review does allow the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee greater power in conducting some of those analyses, including some of the abilities to have briefings, etc.

Finally, in terms of the ongoing tidy-ups of how we now conduct the financial scrutiny with the introduction of scrutiny weeks under this Parliament, I do want to thank our previous Green Party MP, Jan Logie, for some of the work that she has done in getting this new system up and running. It’s something that we are continuously improving on. With that, we commend the report to the House.

15:35

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I rise to speak on the review of Standing Orders. Again, just like my colleagues across the House, I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for chairing the Standing Orders Committee, and to the Clerk of the House and his team. It’s not a very easy task to get consensus across all of the different political parties, but that’s exactly what we did do in these in this Standing Orders review. I think it was a great process, taking the time—and I think you commented, Mr Speaker, that we started a bit earlier in this Parliament, so we took a bit more time to get to work through the different issues, which was good.

I also want to thank, actually, submitters. This is just like any other select committee, where submitters were able to make submissions on the Standing Orders. I just want to thank the people that took the time to do that. They’re actually set out in Appendix C of the report, so if you want to have a look, you can.

I’m just going to use my time to talk about a couple of areas which I think were really useful. I want to suggest to incoming MPs that they actually take the time to read the report in the new Parliament, because that’s where it’s going to be most useful. We did spend quite a lot of time on select committees and, actually, in the report, it talks about what is the purpose of a select committee. I think a lot of discussion has been because of the large number of submissions that a lot of select committees, including the Justice Committee, got in this Parliament. We’re actually outlining, now, in the Standing Orders what is the purpose of the select committee process. Again, it really is to try and result in high-quality legislation.

So it’s really providing—and, again, that’s why it’d be important for MPs in the next Parliament to read this: it provides a bit of an outline as to what is the objective of the select committee process so that when select committees are going through legislation and getting submissions and deciding who’s going to submit, they can say, “Well, are the submitters we’re going to be hearing from actually going to help us deliver high-quality legislation—yes or no—or are there other reasons?” So, again, just to say you don’t actually have to hear from every submitter and actually think about the value of the submissions on a particular bill and what it might add. I think there’s some really good material in the report around that; making sure that when you are hearing from submitters, it’s actually aligned to that purpose. Again, I think that’s going to be useful for the next select committee members.

The other one, and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan talked about this is, is just talking about some issues around omnibus bills, but particularly regulatory systems bills. We saw quite a few of those in this Parliament, as we’ve seen in other Parliaments, but they’re being now specifically called out as a type of omnibus bill that can be used. They are really important bills, regulatory systems bills, because they do keep our statute book up to date. I think that was a really good discussion.

The other one, again, is around scrutiny week. This is the first Parliament that has had two weeks set aside for different types of scrutiny. I don’t have anything to compare it with, because it’s my first term, but, again, I think just acknowledging some of the learnings from this Parliament around scrutiny weeks—what can be improved or done differently. That provides some really good guidance for select committees.

The only other two things I’m going to call out were just around petitions. We actually had a sessional order in this Parliament around highly discriminatory content in petitions to Parliament. We don’t want to be hosting or allowing petitions that do have highly discriminatory content, so we had a sessional order, which has now been put into Standing Orders. I think that process we worked really well, and I want to thank both the Clerk and the Petitions Committee for bringing that process to us, and seeing how that worked and how that’s now being put into Standing Orders.

Finally, I just want to draw people’s attention to Appendix B, which is a really helpful table which talks about Parliament’s workload. You can actually look, over quite a number of Parliaments—I think we’ve got seven set out there—at the number of hours we’ve spent on sittings, different extended hours, committee of the whole House, petitions; everything. It’s a really good resource. You can actually see how this Parliament has compared to others: the number of bills—everything. Again, I think that’s a really useful piece of the report, and I think it’ll be used by people. So, with that, obviously, I want to commend this to the House. Thank you.

15:40

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the review of the Standing Orders 2026 carried out by the Standing Orders Committee.

Obviously, we’ve got a number of recommendations in front of us today. Some of those I will touch on briefly, but, firstly, I just thank you for your leadership, for chairing the committee, for your wise words as we went through a number of different submissions on different issues; to the Office of the Clerk and to Dr David Wilson for your reports, that were always timely and very well informed. Obviously, transitioning now from the 54th Parliament, what we’re sitting in today, into the 55th Parliament, my reflection with the Standing Orders is that this is something that has, over many Parliaments, been refined, and what we’re doing here is just, as the Leader of the House did mention, making this a better process, making this place a better place for the 55th Parliament. As we did see last week, there are still times where we get caught off guard, when we were in urgency last week, and there’s going to be continual need to refine these Standing Orders every Parliament. It is something that we just keep refining as we go forward.

The select committee, if we go back, actually first sat on 30 July 2025, so it has been a very long process, but starting early has been able to give us, I think, a better result than trying to put it into such a short period of time. We received 86 submissions, we received 27 oral submissions to the select committee, and the report back also takes into account the three petitions that the select committee had in front of it.

The most major change in front of us to the House is the Legislative Scrutiny Committee. That’s something that is going to be new for the 55th Parliament. From all parties involved, we’ve come to the conclusion that that is the best thing to trial in the 55th Parliament. It is there for those non-controversial bills, stuff that otherwise might not be prioritised, and pieces of legislation that Parliament struggles to get to with the workload that we do have. This Legislative Scrutiny Committee no doubt will need some refining. It is something new, but I think we all struggle in this House, from time to time, with some of the processes through the committee of the whole House, the hours that are spent, often on legislation that we all agree on. This opportunity to trial this new Legislative Scrutiny Committee is, I think, something that will see a lot more legislation passed but also the more important pieces of legislation actually debated in this Chamber.

Also, around the scrutiny weeks, there is some clarity around Estimates and making sure that Ministers are available around Estimates—not so much around the annual reviews—and also that question in scrutiny weeks of making sure that the business that is conducted in those weeks is actually scrutiny and not other business in front of the committee.

An important part, also, was the select committee having a purpose statement. That purpose statement—I think it’s on page 17—actually sets out that the primary purpose of considering a bill is to ensure that, if the bill is passed, it results in high-quality legislation. Why I bring that to the attention of the House is that we’ve received a massive amount of submissions on bills in this term of Parliament. I think it’s, like, 700,000 submissions; 39 bills have attracted over 1,000 submissions. What that actually relates to is, in the past 30 years of the House sitting with legislation, 1.4 million submissions in 30 years, but 700,000 of those have been in this term of Parliament. With the amount of submissions being received through select committee, having a purpose statement—it is not practical any more to hear from everybody, but it is actually making that quality of legislation.

One part important to New Zealand First, that we did comment on through a submission, was members’ attire—how members actually present themselves in this House. There is a statement here, and something that you did circulate, Mr Speaker, during this term of Parliament, about how the expectation is, obviously, set by the whips and, obviously, our leaders, but, importantly, in the Standing Orders now it does include that men must wear jackets, women must have covered shoulders, T-shirts are not acceptable, and clothing that conveys a graphic or message is not acceptable. I think that, from New Zealand First’s point of view, we’d probably like to see something a little bit stronger, but it is in the right direction.

Winston likes things that are a bit stronger.

The other thing—thank you, Chris, for that. The other part to that is, on page 147, what was alluded to by the last speaker, Todd Stephenson: the combined statistics, and the work that this Parliament has done was up to something like 1,773 hours of Parliament’s time, counting the committee of the whole House time. It’s the busiest Parliament that there has ever been, so those statistics going forward are only going to increase, and the numbers that are included there are only up to 11 September. Obviously, with the urgency debates last week, that time frame will push well over 1,800 hours.

On all that, it was really a pleasure to be part of that select committee—learnt a lot—and I commend the report to the House.

Before I put the question, I just want to put on record thanks to Dr David Wilson for being so generous with his time and guidance to members, but also to David Bagnall, who was a key adviser to that committee, for his work. This report is the result of a very collaborative process, and I have no problem saying that the question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

15:48

I move, That the House do now adjourn until 2 October 2026.

Mr Speaker, let me begin by thanking you and your wise leadership of this House, and also, to everyone who has kept this place working over the term: the cleaners, our Copperfields staff, the messengers, Hansard, VIP drivers, the Dignitary Protection Service, security, Parliamentary Counsel Office, the library, IST, select committee staff, finance, travel, reception, building staff, the Cabinet Office, our sign language interpreters, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, electorate office staff, private secretaries, and everyone in our offices who makes it possible for us to do our work here, can we say thank you, thank you, thank you.

Can I thank our coalition partners: to David Seymour and to Winston Peters, to all of our colleagues across ACT and New Zealand First, thank you for all of your work this term. Despite every prediction, we have delivered strong and stable government at the moment New Zealanders needed it most. We have shown that three parties can disagree honestly and still work together for New Zealand; we have found common ground, and we have governed in the national interest.

I do want to pay a special tribute to my National Party colleagues, because they are working away in select committees, late night sittings in urgency, making sure that the promises we made to Kiwis make it through this House. The long hours here away from their families, the long hours back at home solving problems for their constituents, showing up at the school galas and also the public meetings.

A few thankyous for the other side, too. Can I just thank Willie Jackson for his absolutely outstanding services to the National Party this term? Can I thank Ayesha Verrall, whose relaxed and easy going nature has brought such levity to this Chamber? And can I wish Chris Hipkins all the very best with his now four-year attempt at “just getting warmed up”? I have to say, if that’s him getting warmed up, I’d hate to see him having a lie down!

I’m incredibly proud of what this Government has achieved. Let’s start with the economy, because three years ago, New Zealand was in trouble. Under Labour, spending grew at one of the fastest rates in our history. Debt tripled, from $60 billion to $180 billion, and it doubled as a share of GDP. For all those billions and all that extra spending and debt, we didn’t get better schools; we didn’t get safer streets or shorter hospital queues. What we got was inflation at a 32-year high, we got food prices up 12 percent, we got higher interest rates, and we got a massive debt bill that’s loaded up on our kids and our grandkids. That is the Labour formula: it is simply spend more, tax more, borrow more. It didn’t work then, but they want to do it all again if they get in.

Now, on this side, we are getting the books in order. We are stopping a billion dollars that was spent on consultants and contractors. We have halved the price of a new classroom. We are cutting the waste. That means that we can invest more in front-line services. You’re seeing that in health and education. We can invest in those services with no new taxes. We are growing the economy, and growth means jobs, and it means higher incomes. When Todd McClay set out to land a free-trade agreement with India this term, people said it couldn’t be done, but we did it. That means real opportunity, and it means prosperity for all Kiwis across New Zealand. When Chris Bishop set out to fix the Resource Management Act, people said it couldn’t be done, but we did it. That means that this country can now crack on and get things built and get things done. When we promised tax relief, we did it. Nicola Willis delivered the first tax relief in 14 years, because we believe the best place for a Kiwi’s hard-earned dollar is in their back pocket, not sitting over there with Chris Hipkins to waste as he did.

Let me set the record straight for just one last time, please. Is National considering a capital gains tax?

No.

Are we considering a land tax on your farm?

No.

What about scrapping Investment Boost?

No.

An inheritance tax?

No.

A new 45 percent top income tax rate?

No.

And what about bringing back Labour’s rental tax?

No.

Good. Well, Labour and their mates are lining up nine new taxes, to cover off $18 billion of election freebies. And what’s our answer? Our answer on this side is: no new taxes.

Well, I’ve got to tell you, New Zealand is heading in the right direction. We have 22 months of manufacturing growth; record exports, up $20 billion; tourism back above pre-COVID levels; first-home buyers are actually a record share of the market, at 29 percent; rent rises are their lowest in 25 years; more Kiwis are choosing to come home for good. In fact, the ones from Australia are up 14 percent; the ones from around the rest of the world up 7 percent. Most importantly, growth is outstripping Australia, the UK, the US, EU, Canada, and Japan. We know it’s been a hard few years, but this is a resilient country that knows, if we stick to the plan, our best days are ahead of us.

Labour had exactly one law-and-order goal when they were in power, and that was to cut the prison population, irrespective of what was happening on the streets and with crime. I have to say we’ve learnt that “soft on crime” doesn’t work, because violent crime went up 33 percent, retail crime doubled, ram raids quadrupled—all under a Labour Government. So what did Mark Mitchell and Paul Goldsmith do? They put three-strikes together, tougher sentences, and more police on the beat. They banned the gang patches; a new anti-stalking law, and real action on retail crime. Wouldn’t you know it, when you stop making excuses for offenders and you get on the side of victims and start enforcing the law, it actually works! We’ve got 37,000 fewer victims of serious violent crime, serious youth crime is down 26 percent, the ram raids are down 85 percent, and the police out there on the beat doubled, which is fantastic. Incredibly, one of the parties that Chris Hipkins wants to govern with has on their website, “If you’re not trying to abolish prisons, what are you doing in Parliament?” I’ve got to say, well, National is unapologetically backing our police and victims, not the criminals and not the offenders.

Now, Chris Hipkins was the Minister of Education for five years, and I have to say the record is utterly, utterly shameful. In a First World country, only 46 percent of our kids attended school regularly; 47 percent, by the time they got the high school, were at the standard they needed to be in reading; and, sadly, at high school, only 23 percent were at the standard that they were needing to be at in mathematics. I’ve got to say, Erica Stanford, on the other hand, is doing an excellent job, because she is teaching our kids the basics brilliantly: an hour each of reading, writing, and maths; phones out of the classroom; a brand-new Curriculum; structured literacy; structured numeracy; a relentless focus on attendance; and the biggest investment in learning support in a generation. What are the results: 176,000 kids back at regular school attendance; kids making 12 months’ progress in mathematics in 12 weeks.

I think one of the worst things that Chris Hipkins did was he scrapped the health targets. Instead, Labour focused on a Māori Health Authority and reorganising the district health boards—not on improving outcomes for patients. The result was longer stays in emergency departments (EDs), longer waits for surgeries, slower cancer treatment. Well, Simeon Brown, and Shane Reti before him—they are turning that around. We have brought back the targets. We’ve invested a record $34 billion in health this year. We’ve boosted doctor training. We’re building a Waikato medical school. We’ve funded 66 new medicines—33 for cancer. And we’ve delivered 51,000 elective surgeries in a single three-month window. As we saw today, it is working: shorter ED wait times, faster elective surgery, faster cancer treatment, higher immunisation rates, and shorter waits for a first specialist assessment.

New Zealanders have been knocked around by COVID, by lockdowns, by inflation, by Trump’s tariffs, by war in Iran, but things are turning around. We know, in the National Party, that this is the greatest country on Earth, with extraordinary potential still to realise if we make the right choice. This election is a very straight choice: a National Party growing the economy so Kiwis can get ahead, or a radical—a radical—Labour coalition addicted to spending and taxing and borrowing. The choice is poverty or prosperity; chaos or competency; nine new taxes or no new taxes. Be under no illusion, a Labour coalition is going to tax every single ounce of aspiration out of the people trying to leave the next generation better. That is not a New Zealand that we believe in in the National Party. In 45 days, I’ve got to tell you, New Zealanders are going to get a choice, and it’s going to be on our record and on who has the better plan. Make no mistake: this is a policy election.

A party vote for National will deliver economic growth, new jobs, higher wages, tougher consequences for criminals, more police out on the beat, more trade deals, better school results, replacing NCEA and teaching the basics brilliantly, 30 weeks of paid parental leave, better infrastructure, roads of national significance, new classrooms and new and upgraded hospitals, 5 percent deposits for first-home buyers, universal KiwiSaver, higher contributions, and a $1,500 baby boost, and, most importantly, no new taxes. Yes, there’s more to do, but we are building a future for New Zealand where hard work is rewarded and families can get ahead. There is no time to waste. Our best years are ahead. Bring it on; party vote National.

15:58

Traditionally, a Prime Minister’s speech in the adjournment debate is light-hearted and contains some humour. I was worried when Christopher Luxon got started, but then he decided to talk about the Government’s track record, and the humour arrived unexpectedly! Three years ago, I said that if Christopher Luxon went into Government with David Seymour and Winston Peters, they would run circles around him. Well, it’s just as well they work in a round building, because they’ve run the carpet threadbare. I also said Christopher Luxon would have to get better at answering questions. On both of those predictions, I think I was right; on both of those predictions, we have seen no discernible improvement under this Government.

They promised to fix the cost of living. They have made everything worse for New Zealanders. This is a Government that’s had the wrong priorities, that’s been out of touch with New Zealanders, and now, they are out of time as well. This is a Government that has been focused on their own jobs, not the jobs of New Zealanders.

I want to share three stories in this adjournment debate speech which illustrate the real track record and the real New Zealand of this Government. The first is from Tauranga. An emergency department nurse came up to speak to me in a car park, and she said, “Mr Hipkins, I saw you on TV, and I wanted to say you were wrong, because you said that our emergency department was often in crisis, and you got that wrong. We are always in crisis under this Government.” Those nurses and doctors in our emergency departments feel like they are always in crisis. The numbers prove that and back them up. This Government has descended our health system into an absolute crisis, and they have no plan to fix it. Fifty-four new nurses in two years is the best they can do. Many of our hospitals have fewer nurses working in them today than they did three years ago. That is the track record of this Government. It is no wonder our hospitals are in absolute crisis. That emergency department nurse was right.

The second person who I spoke to in the last few weeks was a business owner here in Wellington—

Oh, yeah, that would be right—Wellington.

—a small business owner here in Wellington, a hospitality business owner here in Wellington. I know Christopher Luxon hates Wellington; he’s just proved that, once again, with his interjection. On Budget day, he said that from there on in, his turnover went down by $1,000 a day because this Government announced they were going to cut 9,000 more jobs. Those 9,000 job losses won’t just affect people working in the public sector; they will affect the private sector as well. That business lost $1,000 a day in turnover because of the axe that is now hanging over the jobs of 9,000 people. But it’s not just the 9,000 people; it’s everybody else who doesn’t know whether they’re going to be one of the 9,000 people who is now facing that uncertainty under this Government.

The third story I wanted to tell was about people I spoke to in the supermarket at the weekend, a couple with a newborn baby, who came up—

In Wellington?

Yes, that was in Wellington. I live in Wellington. I live in Wellington. I speak to people here in Wellington. A couple came up to me while I was doing my supermarket shopping—which, coincidentally, Prime Minister, added up to a lot more than $60. They came up to me, and they said they just can’t make ends meet. They feel like they’re doing everything right. They go out to work—both of them work—and yet they can’t make ends meet. They’re doing everything that the country asks of them. They work hard, they contribute, and yet they don’t feel like they are better off with their own hard work. And they, like so many others, are considering leaving the country. Record numbers of New Zealanders have left the country under this Government, and the exodus is only going to continue if this Government gets re-elected. We cannot afford three more years of this Government.

Let’s look at the track record that Christopher Luxon is supposedly so proud of: higher unemployment—50,000 New Zealanders who had jobs three years ago don’t have jobs now. That’s his Government’s shameful legacy. Youth unemployment is up, with nearly 100,000 New Zealanders under the age of 25 doing nothing. They’re not in education, they’re not in employment, and they’re not in training—nearly 100,000 New Zealanders. That is our future that this Government is writing off. Wages have been going backwards for New Zealanders, and this Government, the National Party and their mates, want to freeze wages for three more years. They’re not talking about freezing anybody’s costs. They’re not talking about freezing board directors’ fees, which they’ve hiked up by up to 80 percent. They’re saying that those people who go out and earn salaries and wages should have their wages frozen if they get re-elected. This country cannot afford three more years of this Government.

Then there are the tens of thousands of women up and down the country that had their pay cut by this Government in the dead of night under urgency, because this Government doesn’t think the work of women is worth the same as the work of other New Zealanders. It was one of the most disgraceful and shameful things that I have seen happen in this Parliament, passing under urgency a law that took away pay equity from the woman who have worked so hard to get it—care and support workers who work hard in our rest homes, caring for our elderly in their own homes, now earning barely minimum wage under this Government. It says everything about where this Government’s priorities are. Eighty to 90 percent increases in fees for company directors, but pay equity for hard-working women in New Zealand gets cut.

New Zealanders face a clear choice at this election. Where this Government promises more chaos, which is what we’ve had, we will offer the stability that New Zealand deserves. Where they promise more cuts, we will invest in New Zealand’s future. Where they offer fear, we will offer New Zealanders hope. Where they embrace conspiracy theories, we will back science. Where they offer arrogance and entitlement, we will offer humility and service, because that is what public service and politics should be about. While they offer blame, excuses, and word salad, we will offer honesty and answers—something this Government has spent three years avoiding delivering.

Homelessness is up, and their excuse—their answer—to homelessness: just pass move-on orders; make the problem go away by making it less visible. KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals are at record levels, food prices are up, business liquidations are up, and attacks on migrants and Māori are happening more and more. This is disgraceful behaviour by this Government, and the National Party have a lot to say on a lot of issues but not when their own coalition partners attack migrant New Zealanders. They tout the India free-trade agreement, and yet they don’t mind Ministers in their own Government talking about a “butter chicken tsunami”. They had nothing to say in defence of migrant New Zealanders when that happened. They had nothing to say in defence of Chinese New Zealanders when the Minister of Foreign Affairs chose to attack them. They have nothing to say on the division that Ministers in this Government have been stoking. They’ve shown no leadership on those issues, and now they’re going to go cap in hand to those same communities and ask them to vote for them. Why should those communities vote for them when they weren’t willing to stand up for them in Parliament when their own Ministers were attacking them?

Better is possible. Labour will offer New Zealanders real help with the cost of living, making sure that you can get to see a doctor and that you don’t have to go to a hospital emergency department because you can’t get in to see your doctor or you can’t afford to see a doctor; making sure public transport is more affordable for New Zealanders, with a public transport fare cap of $20 a week, or $10 a week in the provinces; making sure people can install solar panels on their roof; taking on the supermarkets; telling all New Zealand corporates that we will not tolerate price gouging in New Zealand—we will make sure Kiwis stop being ripped off and get a better deal—standing up for Kiwis in a way this Government has completely failed to do for three years; backing New Zealanders back into work by supporting the 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand that are small businesses, who have been completely forgotten by this Government; helping young New Zealanders into a trade by restoring the Apprenticeship Boost that was cut by this Government; taking action on AI, where our Government has been completely absent on one of the major issues facing humanity.

This Government has completely failed to do the thing that it promised to do. They promised to fix the cost of living; they made it worse. They promised to get New Zealanders back to work; they’ve increased unemployment. They promised to fix the health system, and Kiwis are dying in hospital waiting rooms. This Government are out of ideas, and they are now out of time.

16:09

What I would say to you is that I want to start by thanking the workers who actually make this place tick. That is, the cleaners, the clerks, the security guards, the Chamber officers, the messengers, the librarians, the Coppers and catering staff, the team at the Parliamentary Service, and our dedicated lean Green parliamentary fighting team. Shout-outs to all of the press gallery, who are up there doing their best to report on the rolling trash fire that is this Government’s one term. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for finding a way to kick me out of Parliament more times this term than Winston Peters for the crime of asking whether we could find any Government MPs with a spine. For the record, I never actually said that the Government MPs were spineless; I simply asked if we could find six of 68 Government MPs with a spine to sanction Israel for its genocide in Gaza, but clearly we could not find an answer to that question. But, as we know, in this place you can’t say that something is racist if it is racist, and you cannot call a lie a lie. And, clearly, you can’t say that an MP is being spineless if that is what they are. It turns out you cannot even ask the question. You can, however, as this Government does every single day, serve its corporate mates.

Let’s take a little moment to do a retrospective of what Christopher Luxon, Winston Peters, and that other guy have done with their three years in power. They came to office three years ago and reinstated the Resource Management Act, which the previous Government had already replaced. Then they spent three years complaining about that very Resource Management Act, which they had reinstated, only to finally claim victory yesterday by finally scrapping the law that they had put back in place. Congratulations, guys. It must have been really difficult to pat yourselves on the back for doing something that the last Government did, but worse.

Then, before Christmas, under urgency in 2023, they revoked the Inland Revenue Department’s ability to report on the unfairness of our tax system. I wonder why the Taxpayers’ Union wasn’t up in arms about that one! But, then again, the Taxpayers’ Union was also missing in action when the Government chose to dish out $200 million in taxpayer money to subsidise new fossil fuels in the middle of a fossil fuel crisis. Of course, the problem, Christopher Luxon believes, is not with corporate greed; Christopher Luxon’s problem is not the bloated corporations that are ripping New Zealanders off on their energy and their grocery bills. His problem isn’t that our infrastructure is failing or that we are too dependent on imported fossil fuels and therefore exposed to imported inflation. No, Christopher Luxton’s problem is the environment, that pesky Treaty, those school kids and their lunches, the teachers, the nurses, the firefighters, the small businesses, and those pesky frogs.

Nothing will get in the way of the Government’s growth agenda. Not the climate that is necessary for life on Earth as we know it. Not the health of our soil or our air or our water. Not those bloody fish in the oceans. Not the biodiversity on our public conservation land, and not the endangered geckos or skinks or moths. Indeed, Christopher Luxon has decided that it’s the kiwi who are the problem, getting in the way of all of those motorways that he thinks we need to build. It was a dedicated ministry for the environment that was the problem, so he disestablished that. Christopher Luxon decided that women actually are the problem, so he took away the rights of 300,000 of our lowest-paid working women to access pay equity. In fact, it’s actually renters who are the problem! So he passed law to allow landlords to evict 1.5 million people without any cause, undermining every single other right that they have.

In Christopher Luxon’s New Zealand, it is the Public Service and the poor who are the problem, so his Government has cut benefits for the severely sick and disabled, pushed 47,000 more children into poverty, and intentionally increased homelessness to the highest levels that we have ever seen. But don’t worry, the Government has decided that they will just empower the police to move those homeless people out of sight and out of mind! Christopher Luxon has delivered us the highest unemployment that we have seen in 11 years. Then he decided that we’re going to sanction those who are struggling to find work. But don’t worry young people, Christopher Luxon has not forgotten about you! While one in three young New Zealanders is currently looking for more work that doesn’t exist in Christopher Luxton’s economy, he has decided to make those young people financially dependent on their parents, increase their tuition fees if they decide to turn to studying, and told them to just move to where the jobs are. So 178,000 New Zealanders have taken the Prime Minister’s advice, leaving their home and our country, along with taking their skills, their creativity, and their energy.

But here comes the Government with the full power of the Public Service to tackle the real problems! Under their direction, this Parliament has spent hours and hours making English an official language, and the three men in charge of this country have decided to waste all of our time defining what a woman is. Here we are, in the middle of the campaign, and Captain Simeon Brown is at the helm. I was first introduced to his handiwork two decades ago almost, when we were both students at the University of Auckland. Lecture theatres had been littered with flyers filled with disinformation about abortions. Simeon’s Pro-life on Campus was later disaffiliated by Arena Williams from the Auckland University Students Association, but it was an early exposure to just how this man works. Now he’s graduated to big boy tax billboards and AI slop.

Look, I know the National Party hates the arts and they hate artists, but you’d think with all of those corporate donations, perhaps they could pay some creatives to design their attack ads—although I will say one cool thing about all of these artificially generated illustrations of KiwiMart is just how popular it is. That’s the funny thing: this Government cannot run on its track record. It is, frankly, embarrassing. Instead, they have decided to attack the very idea that the Government could actually do something with the power that it is given to improve the lives of New Zealanders. In Christopher Luxon’s world, people don’t work together; they screw each other over to make as much money as possible. That is why this Government has no vision, no aspiration, no plan to bring us together to do the things that none of us could ever achieve alone. It wants us fighting each other as their donors laugh their way to the bank.

The Greens believe in the power of New Zealanders. We believe in this plucky little country’s ability to lead the world. We believe that nature should flourish. We believe in fixing what is so obviously broken. We believe in making life easier, less exhausting, and, God forbid, more fun for all New Zealanders, and that is why we are in this building.

I was actually probably a little bit dumb, given how long it took me to realise that that is not the same reason that all politicians are here. One day, early on in this term, when we were in the midst of one of the many urgency sessions spurred on by this Government’s lobbyist wish list, I must have had my head in my hands, and Rawiri Waititi turned to me and said something that made it all starts to make sense: “Politics is a game to these guys.” Politics can be a game when you’re wealthy and sorted. Politics can be a game when you’re entitled to your entitlements, Prime Minister. But politics is not a game when it is the difference between whether your family can eat, whether they have a roof over their head. Politics is not a game when you sit with the reality of the climate crisis. I know that means that we get a reputation for being uptight dorks. I know that it means that we get a reputation for being angry, but I make no apologies for caring about this country, because that is the point, if there has ever been one.

Drill, drill!

I want every New Zealander to know that, in the real world out there, Shane Jones, we here in this place are fighting for you, to fix the real basics necessary for all New Zealanders to live a decent life—for Te Tiriti o Waitangi, because it is indeed ironic that the Prime Minister doesn’t recognise Māori sovereignty despite his co-Deputy Prime Minister being the most self-sovereign individual that Parliament has ever seen. Winston Peters is living proof that Māori never ceded sovereignty.

For affordable bills, healthy nature, and honest politics, the Greens are fighting for New Zealanders every single day, for a country that works for all of us.

16:19

Mr Speaker, thank you. I couldn’t help but think, if Chlöe Swarbrick’s speech just then needs background music, it could be set to “Help!” by The Beatles as a perfect accompaniment.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for this term of Parliament and your work; my coalition partners, fellow leaders Winston and Chris, for the way we’ve worked together more successfully than our worst enemies’ worst nightmares to put a record amount of legislation through this House, making New Zealand a better place. I particularly want to thank all of those who work across the parliamentary precinct, some 700 people, and especially my colleagues in the ACT Party, who have shown up every day with courage and conviction to make New Zealand a better and freer society. Particularly, I want to farewell Mark Cameron and Brooke van Velden. I think their valedictories, for us, have been highlights of the term—a pure expression of why they came here.

I think, if we’re honest, this country faces some challenges that it has faced across Governments. Productivity growth has been too low, for 15 years at 0.2 percent. Houses have been too expensive, recently as high as 10 years’ income to buy one. These are challenges that require serious solutions, executed well, over time so that problems which grew up over a long period can be fixed.

The most urgent need is, first of all, to lock Labour out of power, because we know that they won’t make it better, but worse. The Labour Party was soft on violent crime and gangs. You can’t trust them on law and order. If you can’t be safe on the streets, you can’t produce an honest buck. But, even if you can, you know they’ll tax it and then borrow $120 billion more, putting debt on to you and your grandchildren. When you hear these speeches, the visionless, energy-less nothing from cynical Chris Hipkins; the madness of business class Chlöe—and we can only dread what may be to come; hopefully at least a laugh from Rawiri—you see why it is so critical to lock Labour out.

It is even more important—it is even more important—that we unlock this country’s potential. I would argue that the ACT Party has played a consistent, effective, and honourable role in this Government at unlocking this country’s potential. We do that in three ways. One is that we need a smaller, more efficient Government. We need to spend less and get better results. The ACT Party can point to $14 billion of savings from our Ministers and our policies over the last three years. We worked out that’s $57,000 for each person who voted for us. Now, when you consider it’s free to give your party vote to ACT, that’s got to be a good deal.

We’ve also stopped three new taxes during this term of Government. We welcome new disciples to the “Church of No New Taxes”, no matter how recently they may have sinned. All are welcome. We know Chris has changed churches before, and we’re glad to see him at our one, preaching “no new taxes”. But there’s something more than that. We don’t just need to stop reaching for people’s money in new taxes; we must ensure that our Government is smaller and more efficient, has fewer Ministers, fewer departments, and has clear objectives, with one Minister in charge of one department, with one chief executive that they’re responsible for and can hire and fire. When you do that, you get a real focus on efficiency, which I don’t believe we’ve done enough of in this Government, but I’m proud of the effort that our party has made to ensure that the savings are there—a smaller, more efficient Government that delivers the medicines on time, that gets the children to school, that makes sure that they’re safe if they’re taken into custody by Oranga Tamariki, that the court system goes faster, and that you can even get your passport so fast it’s almost not worth paying for the rapid service.

That’s just a few of the things that ACT Party Ministers have been up to in this Government. Even as Andrew Hoggard has acted as a one-man biosecurity defence army, keeping every kind of bug, from microbes to pests and—

And hornets.

He stopped the yellow-legged hornets by putting little devices on them. I mean, there is nothing that Andrew Hoggard cannot do in defence of the realm against biosecurity threats.

The second thing we’ve got to do, other than have a smaller, more efficient Government, is be safe. We brought back three-strikes. We defunded cultural reports after we found the last Government was spending more on sob stories for convicted criminals before they were sentenced than they were spending on Victim Support. Then we said, “If you attack someone working sole charge or at a place that’s adjacent to their dwelling, that’s an extra crime.” But we’ve got to go further. We’re going to make it a crime to coerce someone by animal abuse, perhaps the most despicable crime in this country that I’ve been shocked to learn about in the last few years. We’re going to make sure we throw the book at it. We’re going to get tough on shoplifters, with accredited security guards, and we’re going to ensure that burglaries—if you get caught for three, you’ve probably done a heap, so you’re going to jail for three years for three-strikes burglary.

Then there’s something else we’ve got to do to unlock the potential of this country and get prices down and productivity up, and that is stop the stupid rules and the red tape that has tied New Zealanders up in process instead of production. Again, this Government has made a fantastic start. We’ve done fast track. We’ve replaced the Resource Management Act with new laws based on property rights. We’ve got new medicines consented faster. We’ve got new agricultural and horticultural products consented faster. We’ve made sure that the Holidays Act has been replaced with something that actually makes sense for small business. The Ministry for Regulation has saved at least a quarter of a billion dollars by cutting red tape out, sector by sector by sector. This Government, I believe, will be seen as a turning point where we began to start saving money and saving time by stopping tying people up in red tape that draws people into process instead of production. That is work that we will continue in the next Government, carrying out a jihad on red tape so the potential of New Zealanders to produce more of the day, more creatively, with more Xeros and ZURUs, more Halters and Gallaghers. We’ll make sure that higher-paying jobs are available so New Zealanders can afford more of the things that we need.

Finally, if we want to really unlock the potential of this country, we must ensure that we each are valued as human beings with hopes and dreams, with equal rights no matter when it was that our ancestors made the pioneering journey to these islands. We should not be judged differently based on which wave of migration brought our family here, whether it was in our own lifetimes—or, in my case, starting 600 years ago. We are all united as New Zealanders who made that journey, and I’m proud that, in this Government, when two patients come in for pre-diabetic medicine, they both get the same treatment, based on their clinical need now, not treated differently, where one pays and the other doesn’t because one’s ancestors came here at a different time. It’s the same with bowel cancer screening.

Oh David, that is not right.

Yes, that is right. That’s exactly what we’ve done. Carmel Sepuloni needs to keep up. Then you look at the Māori Health Authority, gone; three waters, no longer co-governed. This Government has brought about one law for all and one future together. Yes, we started a debate no one else had the courage to start, let alone follow through, on the true meaning of our Treaty. It cannot be the case that our founding document is the Treaty, that the Treaty divides us into a partnership between races, and that we are a liberal democratic society. You can have any two of those, but not all three at the same time. That is why the ACT Party will continue to campaign for one law for all, one future together, equal rights before the law as human beings, not discriminated against on the basis of when our ancestors arrived in this country.

This country has great potential; it has great hope. If we can ensure that the work of this coalition Government continues, that the streets remain safe because victims are the priority in the home, in the shop, and out in public; if we can ensure that the Government is smaller and more efficient—perhaps with 10 or 15 or 19 departments but far fewer than we have right now—and if we can ensure that we have a red tape jihad that frees people up to be more productive and spend less time in compliance activity; and if we can treat each other as New Zealanders, equal before the law, regardless of when we arrived, there is no limit to what we can achieve. There is no reason that we should not be the wealthiest country on Earth, and there is no reason we should not be proud to call New Zealand home, as the greatest society that humanity has ever known. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

16:30

As this Parliament adjourns, it’s appropriate to record our thanks to the cleaners, the library staff, the security teams, Hansard staff, committee clerks, chauffeurs, receptionists, and every other worker in this House, including yourself, Mr Speaker, your deputy, and assistant speakers.

Now, adjournment debates are traditionally a time to outline a politician’s record in this House across the term of Parliament. Unlike others, we have the rare privilege of actually having a record. That is why we say thank you to Shane Jones, Casey Costello, Mark Patterson, Jenny Marcroft, and their teams supporting them in their Government portfolios and, indeed, to the entire New Zealand First caucus and our team.

We are a party limited by the Standing Orders to only four member’s bills at any one time, but we have introduced 56 private member’s bills in the last term—56. That means we’ve done the work, we’ve done the research, we’re not all talk—fast on the lip and slow on the hip—no, we do the actual work.

These bills represent—[Interruption]—no, you can cheer later; you can applaud later—new ideas in line with New Zealand First’s values of social conservatism, patriotism, economic nationalism, and common sense. Our bills will be ready to be adopted in the forthcoming coalition agreement, and members of our supporting governing parties will, no doubt, look forward to advancing the interests of the common man and woman in the next term of Parliament.

We cannot get too far ahead of ourselves, because there is much too much good news to share in our record of this term. When New Zealand First makes an agreement, we keep our word. We’re famous for it too. You need to not judge us only by our words but by our deeds. We said the regions needed investment. We invested $1.2 billion into the regional infrastructure fund—money directed into productive and resilient assets around this country. Jobs, jobs, and jobs and wealth created in New Zealand with training chances for our young people.

We said that the Therapeutic Products Act was the wrong law, overtly complicated, over-bureaucratic, and a threat to the natural health products sector. And it was repealed. We said young New Zealanders waiting for mental health assistance needed practical help right then with providers like Gumboot Friday. We kept our promise. By November last year, more than 40,000 counselling sessions had been delivered through the Gumboot Friday programme.

We said English, the international language of commerce and the language used overwhelmingly in this House—including by the Greens, on a good day—should have the same statutory recognition of its official status that other official languages have. On 7 August this year, that became the law.

We said New Zealanders were entitled to a wider examination of the country’s response to the COVID-19 occurrence and not a mark-your-own-homework exercise as happened under Labour. The expanded royal commission completed its work and delivered its final report in February this year. It found young people between 12 and 17 were given second doses when Chris Hipkins and Ayesha Verrall were told not to do that; 311,000 young people wrongly got the dose.

Labour were found scurrying amongst nurses and teachers—meaning training professionals who were desperately, desperately needed in hospitals and classrooms—and they sacked them. They mandated them out of a job. And then they get in this House every day and talk about a lack of nurses and doctors—hundreds and hundreds of which they sacked. The Opposition yells about the need for more teachers and nurses—well, shame on them for mandating them out of the profession.

We said our citizens deserved recognition and practical support. Budget 2026 funded the next generation of the SuperGold card, including the option of a free physical ID that seniors have long called for.

Then there is the question of the infrastructure. While others campaigned to get our country back on track, you need look no further than New Zealand First to get evidence of who actually delivered it—$1.075 billion for rail network funding in Budget 2026. This is the first time ever a full three-year programme has been funded in advance—not fiscal cliffs like under Labour.

On the Cook Strait: we fixed the ferries for road and rail, and we’re going to save $2.3 billion from the idiocy we inherited, where the ferries were going to cost 20 percent of the total cost. So you go to buy ferries and they spent 80 percent of the money on infrastructure. How foolish. Go look at Tasmania and see where that would have got us; $2.3 billion saved—

Government by text message—what a shameful way to govern!

Don’t argue about the common sense of this. I know you’re slow. Can I ask you this question: what’s your business background? What’s your business background?

Zero!

Zero—exactly. It ain’t hard to get it right when you have experience—unlike the last lot who pursued palatial department allowances and wanted to lift the arts so high that Noah could berth his ark. When the fuel crisis hit our shores, who ensured we finally sorted out increased storage at Marsden Point by nine days, just like that? That’s right, it was New Zealand First.

Likewise, this House has finally grappled with the 1980s misadventure of the legal fraternity to invent Treaty principles. Now, I know imitation’s the most sincere form of flattery, but how many people now agree with us? Māori leaders like Ngata, Pōmare, Buck, and Carroll all understood the Treaty was a pact between two peoples to create one nation, one people under one flag and with one name. They understood the Treaty has no principles in it. This country has had it up to here with the wah-wah-wānanga delivering nothing but grievance founded on spurious words invented by the Labour Party. The country respects the Treaty signed in 1840—not the made-up nonsense written in those 1980s university clubhouses. That is why we have repealed those provisions with certain legislation—and we have more work ahead of us.

That is what it looks like to understand reality. We know what a Treaty is; we know what a woman is—[Interruption]. Oh, it’s got them going. One more time: we know what a woman is—hush for a while—and we know what realpolitik looks like in foreign affairs. We’ve got the experience; the others are all talk.

In our efforts, we have spent eight months abroad rebuilding New Zealand’s relationship with the world, including visiting all 17 Pacific member States and China—yes, I’ve been to China, not once but twice. Yes, I have a great relationship with China. Of course, I was the first guy to ever have a business connection with China when I did the export education in 1997—the first deal ever; you’ve all forgotten. So we’ve been offshore for eight months.

But, look, we’ve spent more time in this House than every Māori Party MP combined, including the two who got chucked out. Now, tell me, what on earth is going on in the mainstream media when I have to tell you that information? All this time, since 1867, the law was changed to accept Māori into this Parliament and they don’t turn up, for the first time ever.

Members, there is much more work ahead to fix this country. To govern a country, you need to know the ropes. The world is tough out there in reality and away from the cloistered comfort of the Green and Labour Party MPs in the leafy suburbs.

We are the party who ensured the minimum wage, who lifted and strengthened the fast-track legislation to enable industry to create jobs for our own, and who knows what hard work looks like. New Zealanders are sick and tired of globalist ideologies capturing politicians and leading to industry closing down and people losing their jobs—

Tell us about the gays, Winston!

Look, come to Tauranga on Saturday afternoon at 2 o’clock to Trinity—it’ll be wall to wall again. The only party that is filling the halls in this country—it’s called democracy, it’s called market share, and it’s called logic. Now come and learn; you just might find out something.

You see, the Greens have been here trying for Parliament since 1972; 54 years and they’ve never been in Cabinet—54 years, never been in Cabinet.

And we’re still bigger than you, mate. You won’t be around next time. Bye-bye, Winston! Bye-bye, Winston!

Oh, “Bye-bye, Winston!” Stand back, sunshine; I’ve got news for you. I’m coming back real big-time. We’re coming back with an army. We’re going to come back much bigger. Oh, don’t wave out to me. You should get up shortly and make your valedictory speech, because you guys are going to be out of here. No, we’re coming back—not for the first time. Out there, there are hundreds of thousands of people who’ve realised one thing: there’s a party that understands this country better than any other and that offers real hope for tomorrow. Thank you very much.

16:40

Thank you. How generous. Thank you for that applause. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe e te Pīka. This is the second time I’ve mihi-ed you today. I just want, again, to pass on these sentiments and thank you for the hard mahi, and also to all the staff here in Parliament for making the House work. This is my last speech I will give in the House under this Government, but like Arnold Schwarzenegger said, I’ll be back. This has been the most anti-Māori, anti-Tiriti, anti-taiao, anti-worker Government in a generation, and they have finally run out of numbers on the clock. On 7 November, we will issue their move-on orders from this House.

This is a Government that challenged our resilience, who we are forced to activate against, and although we couldn’t count on them, we have run their numbers. It took them two days to disestablish Te Aka Whai Ora. They removed 24 Māori wards from local councils across Aotearoa; that’s 24 tables that will no longer have an unapologetic Māori voice. A hundred thousand voters—that’s how many people will be disenfranchised because the Government’s parties are afraid of our voting power. A hundred and eighty thousand women—that’s how many hard-working wāhine had their pay equity claims cancelled under urgency so that this Government could give out handouts to landlords and corporations.

They removed section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act, and they have weakened Treaty obligations across education, pae ora, and the Resource Management Act. There are 19 more Treaty clauses that they will weaken or remove if we don’t vote this Government out. Four million dollars—that’s how much taxpayer money was wasted on the failed Treaty principles bill. Fifty days—that’s how long Te Pāti Māori MPs were suspended from this House for daring to challenge the most racist and ignorant bill of this century. This Government overturned at least three major court decisions; they entrenched the theft of our foreshore and seabed with the marine and coastal area amendment bill; they protected the biggest polluters in Aotearoa from litigation; and they legalised the killing of those, Chlöe, pesky kiwis. They have prioritised the erasure of our rights and privilege of our whenua—wow.

Over 112,000 people in Aotearoa don’t know where they’re sleeping tonight. One in seven tamariki is living in poverty. One in four tamariki Māori is living in poverty. Māori continue to die seven years earlier than non-Māori, and Māori unemployment has gone from 6.8 percent to 10.8 percent under this Government’s watch. These are the numbers under this Government, yet when Te Pāti Māori challenges the lived reality of te iwi Māori in this House, we are met by excuses and justifications centred in statistics of crime reduction and incarceration. A Government that measures the success of te iwi Māori in crime reduction is one content with keeping our people incarcerated. A Government that measures its wealth in the tax breaks afforded to the 2 percent is one content with keeping its country in a cost of living crisis. A Government that measures its “clean, green” New Zealand image in only tourism sales is one content on allowing mining and drilling and the further degradation of whenua Māori for profit. A Government that measures its unity in the regression of equitable policies is one that doesn’t understand Te Tiriti o Waitangi and has never read Matike Mai.

When Te Pāti Māori stands in this House, this Government calls statements performative. I would argue that should be said for the Government’s ability to create positive change for this country. The Prime Minister can reject the characterisation of our questions in the House, but we reject how this House characterises te iwi Māori. Despite everything this Government has subjected te iwi Māori to over this term, and the harmful rhetoric and narratives they have generated, I want to share the real stories, and stats, our people live in: 312,000 people are on the Māori roll; 100,000 people hikoi-ed against the Treaty principles bill and this Government; 300,000 submitted against the Treaty principles bill; and te iwi Māori’s population is now almost one million.

30 seconds.

Our stats live—point of order. I was under the understanding we all get 10 minutes?

No, it’s a split call.

It’s a split call.

Yeah, sorry.

I will go to the back page, Mr Speaker; 8 November will be an opportunity for New Zealand to see a brand new Government. If you want to see more Māori in Parliament, if you want to see a one-term Government, and to maintain an unapologetic Māori voice, the only way you can do that is candidate vote Te Pāti Māori. That is how we do that. This is the last stand that this Government will make. Come 7 November, you’ll be bye, bye, goodbye. Kia ora tatou.

16:45

Democracy should work for all of us, not just the wealthy few. Te Tiriti has always been about taking the best possible care of each other, but right now a handful of very rich and powerful corporations can buy access and influence the Government for their private benefit.

In 2024, an Ipsos survey revealed that two-thirds of people feel that the economic system is rigged totally in favour of the rich and the powerful. Yet, it is Te Tiriti that has been weaponised as being divisive, despite the generosity that Māori have shown to all people for generations, whether it is marae opening up when the roads are closed, feeding and caring for multitudes of strangers with the utmost manaaki, whether it is iwi and hapū restoring the health of our rivers and oceans, native forests, and native taonga species for all of our mokopuna to enjoy, whether it is iwi and hapū providing social and health services to whoever needs it in their communities.

They label Te Tiriti as being divisive, despite the overwhelming majority of select committee submissions from the public and diverse organisations pleading to the Government that Te Tiriti and the relationships with local Māori have been vital to improving their work; that’s churches, unions, local and regional governments, local businesses, even developers, environmental groups, migrant groups, professional bodies, health bodies, and just ordinary members of the public who outright reject the attempts of these Government parties to sow division, who come with all the receipts of how Te Tiriti is one of the last bastions of protection for the environment, for workers, and for a community voice. That is why Te Tiriti is the target: because it stands in the way of the outright exploitation of our living systems, of workers’ rights and safety, and of community voice.

Which brings us back to where the real, unelected representation has always been, and it’s not Māori on boards wanting to ensure there is accountability for environmental protection that benefits everybody. No, the real unelected representation has always been the underhand, backdoor connections between political parties who are refusing to tax their billionaire and big corporate donors, and who instead want working people like tradies and nurses and the local barbers to keep paying twice the effective tax rate of someone who owns 50 houses. To copy and paste the demands of the wealthy straight into their law; that is where the real divide has always been.

The good news is that the Green Party will take big money out of politics. We will cap political donations at $30,000 and ensure that only people can donate and not companies. The Green Party has consistently stood by our values and our evidence-based policy solutions, to prioritise the wellbeing for the many and not just the few. We have not just a powerful opportunity to get rid of this Government, who have shown outright that they are here to serve billionaires, and bugger everyone else, but people have the chance to demand a Government that prioritises affordable living, healthy nature, and democracy for all of us, not just the powerful. Thank you.

16:50

Well, I thought that was a very good example of the co-leadership in action. Marama Davidson has certainly been taking Chlöe Swarbrick’s advice to touch grass. I think the only problem is there is such thing as touching too much grass.

Colleagues, this is a time for gratitude, and I want to express some gratitude to a few people; first of all, to you, Mr Speaker: this is the first term of Parliament I have not been kicked out once, and I want to recognise you for that. Thank you.

Well, thank you for highlighting my failures.

Ha, ha! In particular, I want to acknowledge the extremely special piece of correspondence I received from you—in your handwriting—reminding me, as the Minister of Finance, of the existence of the Parliament Act 2025. I shall always treasure that correspondence.

I want to also acknowledge the staff at Copperfields, especially the baristas who pour long blacks directly into my veins, along with all of the unsung heroes of the precinct: the cleaners, the messengers, security guards, the Crown car drivers. These people don’t just deliver apricot danishes—but they do do that—they provide numerous moments of genuine kindness every day in this place. Chamber staff, Office of the Clerk, Parliamentary Counsel Office, Parliamentary Library, researchers—all these people who keep the democracy going. The members of the Press Gallery: in an age of declining trust, short-format video, clickbait, you soldier on and democracy is better for it, thank you.

I want to acknowledge my caucus colleagues in the National Party, and also our dedicated National Party members and volunteers all over the country. They are the very, very best people, and I am so looking forward to campaigning with them.

Our coalition colleagues: it has been an honour to have delivered this country’s first three-way coalition, and boy oh boy, have we got stuff done. Yes, there have been things on which we have differed, but we have gotten so much done for the good of this country.

I want to acknowledge the agency staff, especially, in my case, the Budget and fuel response teams; departmental private secretaries; my extraordinary political office staff, who have saved me from so many potential troubles, and whose grace and kindness continues to astound me.

But I feel that while we have achieved a lot for New Zealand—the first tax relief in 14 years; Investment Boost, ensuring tax incentives for those investing in growth and development; extending contributions to KiwiSaver; the tightest spending allowances in years, and yet prioritising investments in things that really matter: 33 new cancer drugs on our watch; the biggest boost for special education in our schools in decades; the FamilyBoost payment to help parents with the costs of early childhood education; funds in each of our Budgets to restore the dignity of the New Zealand Defence Force and the men and women who put their lives on the line for our country; backing our police; building infrastructure; getting things done.

But it is wrong in a speech like this to save all congratulations for the Government. I do want to recognise the Opposition. I really want to hand out some awards to them. I think the first thing we need to recognise is that if Parliament handed out medals for political gymnastics, Labour would have swept the podium this term. Yesterday, in a routine that would have scored a perfect 10 from the East German judge, Chris Hipkins performed the finest backflip this House has seen in a very long time. For three years, that member, backed up by his chorus of MPs, has practised one routine and one routine only. For every problem that has been ever described under this fair sun, he has had something to blame: it’s the tax cut for landlords! Interest deductibility—that was the problem. Whether it was the cost of living, whether it was unemployment, whatever it was, the problem was tax cuts for landlords. But then yesterday, we had a dismount, and we had—what I’ve been told they call in gymnastics—is a case of the “twisties”. Now, what happens with the twisties is that when you’re rotating in mid-air, you suddenly lose your sense of direction—completely lose your sense of direction—don’t know what’s up, what’s down, where you’re going, what you’re doing, and you panic. You panic in mid-air when you get the twisties, and I think this is what happened to Chris Hipkins yesterday. He was in mid-air, he realised he had no plan, he had no policies, he had no energy for the campaign, and he went, “Actually, I’m going to flip it and reverse it. That is exactly what he did.

Speaking of routines gone wrong: Ginny Andersen—can we just recognise her? She tried her signature move on live radio a few weeks ago, telling Mark Mitchell that road maintenance is not funded by the National Land Transport Fund. “You don’t even know what you’re talking about.”, she told him. “It’s a separate fund—you need to go check that.”—you need to go check that—“[if] you want to be credible on financial things, then you’re really kidding yourself.” She learned the truth during the ad break: there is no separate fund for road maintenance. She attempted a Hipkins-like backflip to correct herself, face planted on the mat, and then— this is the impressive part—got up and instead insisted that the beam had moved.

She is said to be receiving some coaching from Willie Jackson, her senior colleague, who is a master at never letting the facts, or your absence of policy, get in the way of the story. In fact, in Willie’s experience, the best way not to let the policy get in the way is to be blissfully unaware of it—that way, you don’t even have to defend it, you can just say, “I don’t know, ask Barb.”

This is actually someone I do want to spend some time on. On the one hand, I see in the member for Mana, a lack of imagination—51 times she’s asked me the same question this term. But on the other hand, I feel genuine sympathy for Barbara Edmonds, and let me let me tell you why: because she is surrounded by people who know one thing and one thing only, and that is how to spend other people’s money. That’s what they’ve done all their political careers, and that’s what they want to do with the rest of their political careers. They have gone out there and they’ve promised, so far, $18 billion worth of promises. And they’ve said, “Barb will tell you how she’s going to pay for it”. Barbara’s been sitting there with the calculator, trying to make it add up, and she knows it won’t add up. Maybe one of the little fig leaves she was holding on to with hope was, “Well, I think the leader will let me raid the landlords for the interest deductibility. I think I’ll do that.”—but, no, even that little glimmer of hope was taken away from her yesterday. But the good thing for Barbara is she knows that in a case of emergency, she can break glass. What is in that little glass that she can break if she really can’t make it add up? Well, the good news is Craig Renney’s got some ideas.

He’s been a bit painful for her, he’s been kind of competing for the role, but Chris Hipkins put him down the list, so he’s got his message. But he has come up with the idea—he said, “Look, this whole idea on a capital gains tax (CGT), don’t make it narrow, make it comprehensive.”, and that’s his plan. I just want to say with friends likeCarmel Sepuloni, Barbara—I don’t know how you do it. She was asked, on Morning Report, how Labour was going pay for its promises, and this is what she opened with: “Well, we certainly wouldn’t be giving tax breaks to landlords.” That was her answer! Poor Barbara, she’s left there going, “How on Earth do I make it up?”

But here’s the thing—actually look at the mates they’ve got in the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Yes, Chris Hipkins is half baked and he’s got no energy and he’s got no policies, but look, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori are brimming with ideas, they’re generating new taxes every minute. And don’t worry: Chris Hipkins says. “Well, trust us, we’ve sort of ruled it out.” This is the same guy who said he’d never deliver a CGT—and what’s he campaigning on? A CGT. If the leader of the Opposition can backflip on tax deductibility in the space of one press conference, why should anyone believe a thing he rules out between now and polling day? You can’t trust Labour on tax. You can’t trust Hipkins. There is a way forward for this country, we stick to the plan—no new taxes. Don’t let Labour ruin it all again.

The Hon—[Interruption] At least start with a bit of silence. I call The Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

17:00

In about 6½ weeks, the Hon Nicola Willis is going to look back on that speech and think, “Is that really the valedictory I wanted to deliver?”

I do want to reiterate some of the thanks to the staff that have been given by many of those that have spoken before me today. I also want to acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, even though Willie Jackson is speaking to you—not the first time that Willie Jackson has interrupted anyone—and, Mr Speaker, I want to acknowledge that I sit rather close to you and I do have a voice that carries—

Yep.

—so thank you for your tolerance over the course of this term.

I’m going to take a slightly different tack and acknowledge the fact that we are all going into campaign mode. Campaigns are hard work. They are not for the faint-hearted. I’m pretty seasoned now—not as seasoned as some in here—and as an experienced campaigner, I thought I’d offer up some do’s and don’ts to Government parties as we all head out into the wilderness of the campaign trail. These particular words of advice that I’m going to offer up are based mostly on the learnings of the past three years, observing the members of current Government parties, a Government that will go down in history as the coalition of chaos, and a Government that will be the first ever one-term National Government.

Now, what not to do on the campaign trail. My first piece of advice: do not ride scooters on the campaign trail. As we all know, our emergency departments do not have the capacity, let alone the nurses, to deal with avoidable injuries, particularly given there’s been only 54 additional nurses added over the last two years.

Second piece of advice: steer away from discussing sports teams when you know nothing about sport. No one wants to be the guy who refers to his childhood respect for the Crusaders when the Crusaders did not even exist during his childhood; and no one wants to be the guy that gets the Waratahs and the Warriors confused.

Do not say, “What I would say to you”. People can see and hear when someone is talking out loud. You are not thinking in your head. There is no need to premise every answer with that statement. Best not to talk about growth, growth, growth, Nicola Willis. When people hear National say those words three times in a row, they think they are referring to the growth in unemployment, the growth in business liquidations, and the growth in Kiwis moving overseas. Even if the three words were said by Nicola Willis whilst she was clicking her heels together, no one would end up in a better place.

Please, also—and this is a serious one—do not pretend to be political parties who support women. Women are not stupid. The scrapping of pay equity and the decision not to pay women what they are worth will go down in the books as one of the most shameful acts of this Luxon-led Government.

Now, on to the do’s for the campaign. It’s important for politicians to sound like they are in touch with the everyday experiences of New Zealanders. Telling them to cry you a river when talking about the cost of living is out of touch. Try hard, Government parties, to be honest about the alternative policy positions of other parties. People will tire of lies about taxes. I know how hard it must be for the current Government having nothing positive to talk about after three years, but people can sniff the desperation, and it is not mana-enhancing for any of you.

What parties must do is look like they actually support their boss. Two failed coups in National haven’t helped with their boss’s credibility. To be honest, you already look like the try-hard dad in the schoolyard or at the PTA meeting before his own team turned on him. I know that’s a little bit mean, but so was scrapping pay equity.

Most importantly, keep at the forefront of all statements and actions what is important to New Zealanders. Their jobs; not the jobs of politicians. Their health; not the healthy size of some political party donations. Their homes; not the multiple homes of those politicians trying to avoid a capital gains tax. Their cost of living; not the $60 a week one guy reckons is all he needs to do his grocery shopping. And finally, their country; the one thing they love, and the one thing they feel has gone backwards. It may hurt Government parties whilst out on the campaign trail when they hear people say over and over again that they simply cannot do three more years of this National-led Government. Suck it up and remember: “Better starts now”.

17:05

Well, that’s the end of the most anti-Māori, anti-worker, anti-rainbow, anti-disability, anti - New Zealand Government that we have seen in our lifetime. You’ve got to ask yourself, why are they so weak? Well, because they’ve got a weak Prime Minister, who has allowed David Seymour and Winston Peters to take this country to a place that would shame Chris Finlayson, shame Jim Bolger, and shame Sir Douglas Graham.

The Prime Minister can’t control New Zealand First and ACT, and they have polled 6 percent and 8 percent. My God, imagine the nightmare—imagine the nightmare and the influence—if they return with greater majorities. We’ll fight to make sure this never happens.

Bye, bye, Willie. Haere rā, haere rā!

We’ll never forget what they’ve done—never forget what they’ve done. Their assault on Te Tiriti obligations. The Waitangi Tribunal found the Crown’s approach to the education changes breaches Treaty principles. That means nothing to Shane Jones. He’s a disgrace to his people in the North. He no longer supports principles he formerly supported when he was a young, recognised, and principled young man.

This racist friction that came about through the Treaty principles referendum cannot be complete without us acknowledging the honourable member for Epsom; the member who, this year, has managed the extraordinary feat of introducing a bill, losing it in the largest protest march in New Zealand history, and then telling us all he won. I mean, how delusional is that? The Treaty principles bill, 300,000 submissions against; the Regulatory Standards Bill opposed by every major Māori organisation, every legal academic who submitted, and at last count, the entire common-sense caucus of New Zealand; but the member for Epsom marches on, because he’s on a mission—a mission to erase kaupapa Māori and change the Treaty.

Meanwhile, on the National benches, the Prime Minister, whose biggest achievement this term was to fend off Chris Bishop and Erica Stanford and his mates—we want to thank the Prime Minister. We want to thank him very much for staying the Prime Minister. He’s Labour’s best chance of winning this election. He’s not here, but I wanted to thank him and acknowledge his acknowledgment of me earlier in the day.

And you’re our best chance of staying in Government.

You know this, Mark Mitchell; you’re in big trouble. When you look at the Public Service and what’s happened here, at a time when every second news story is about the Public Service failing in terms of underfunding, they attack the Public Service. Look at the economic vandalism that sees one in three Pacific kids in poverty, one in four Māori kids in poverty, 5.6 percent unemployment, 10.8 percent unemployment for Māori. And, of course, let’s not forget the fast-track development that weakened environmental protections—

Fast track! Gold! Gold!

—for Shane Jones’ donor mates. For Shane Jones—that’s what the Greens said—and for their mates. We’ll never forget the school lunches, where hungry kids became an experiment in how cheaply lunch could be made, thanks to Mr Seymour again. What about the appalling pay parity betrayal? New Zealand women must never forget the betrayal of this coalition Government. New Zealand women do not count for this Government. They are a disgrace. Pay parity means so much to us, and we will change the position and reinstate equity.

This Government came to office promising to fix the basics. Instead, they have made it worse. Three years later, unemployment rose, thousands of public servants went, hungry kids became the norm, environmental protections were weakened, and Māori spent the term watching rights and Treaty obligations stripped from statute after statute.

They told New Zealand they were cutting bureaucracy, then spent three years restructuring the machinery of government. They told us they were restoring accountability, while their own officials warned that some of the Treaty changes had no apparent benefit and risked serious damage in the Crown-Māori relationship.

Perhaps that arrogance, in terms of ignoring officials, is how we should remember this lot. Because when the experts warned them, they knew better. When communities protested, they knew better. When Māori marched, they knew better. Well, now there’s one group of New Zealanders whom they don’t get to tell that they know better, and that’s the voters. Kia ora Mr Speaker.

17:11

Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

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

Mr Speaker, thank you, and thank you for the call today. I’m going to take my opportunity to just present a little bit about what hope and vision has looked like for te iwi Māori over the last 50 years. The story of advancement and development for te iwi Māori over the last 50 years has been one of clear vision, of hope, of determination driven by the people. It’s never been about gaining things from Parliament and Governments, although they’ve played their role. The people have driven that growth and that development. We thank everyone involved, and to the people, [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.], and the people of Te Tai Tonga, tēnā koutou.

The debates, or the kōrero, this afternoon—it’s quite defensive, you know? It’s what we’ve done, and what we haven’t done, what they’ve done or what they haven’t done, what we’re going to do—all of this type of thing. But, really, the people in our country need to hear vision. They need to hear vision and commitment, drive, hope. What does the future Aotearoa look like, instead of just stones going across the aisle here?

And then I’m reminded of some things that great Māori leaders have said. One of them was Dr Ranginui Walker. And he said, “I have little time for people in privileged positions in our country, who use that privilege to attack the most vulnerable of our society.” Those aren’t my words; those are Dr Ranginui Walker’s words.

And as I think about the actions of this House over the last three, six, 30, 50 years, they ring true—they ring true. They are great words that last for ever, not like these ones that are just going to be here now and gone later. But those people shaped the course of Māori development. Those people shaped the course of Māori building out of what is one of the darkest ages for any people across the globe. And the story of Māori advancement, Māori development, is one of those stories. Māori have to live with the reality of it. The Māori whānau out there, living right throughout Aotearoa, have to live in the reality of it, and the reality is crippling.

Our people were once trapped in low-income work and poverty-type situations. They’re now firmly entrenched in poverty and homelessness. They are being shuffled further and further down the ranks, slipping through the cracks, while some in the country just keep going the other way. But when the majority are left behind and a few advance, that’s not the story of a people’s development; that’s the story of the development of only a few. And it ultimately won’t last.

Our development and our potential as a people has always been in our hands, e te whānau. It’s always been in our hands, and our story of Māori advancement, Māori development, is an astonishing one.

Over the last 50 years we’ve reclaimed more ground than was taken from us in 180 years, and that frightens a lot of people. The parliaments and people of power and influence in this country held that power in their hands for a very, very long time, and in the last 30, 40, 50 years, that grip has slowly come undone. And that’s an uncomfortable thing, for them. But what we should never forget is that that’s the story, that’s the reality, and despite the temperament of Governments that come and go, we remain and the story of advancement continues.

The Māori economy is one of the newest players, the newest pieces, in that development story, and everyone is all of a sudden interested in it. I’m reminded of the words of Whata Winiata, who said to us as a people that the best way for us to reclaim and retain our rangatiratanga and our mana motuhake is to behave as if we never lost it. And the story of Māori development is that in action, e te iwi, so make sure that we keep that in our hearts—those things that our rangatira said over decades, and has been the bedrock, the driving engine of the vision, the hope, the determination of te iwi Māori, and that is how we continue on. [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

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

17:16

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. This is a first, again, for me, to provide an adjournment speech. I’ve listened to a few so far, and I’m thinking, “Shucks, is that how those things are meant to go?” So I’m thinking, well, no, that’s not, from my point of view. So I’m going to approach it in a different way.

Firstly, the obvious thing to say is to thank you, Mr Speaker, for looking after us in this particular piece of this Whare—and I think in a good way, and I think in a fair way, and a loving way. So mihi atu ana ki a koe.

And I acknowledge the other Speakers as well, who in fact I had the opportunity to travel to Japan with, at your request. Thank you for that, too, because it was a bit of a homecoming for me, having the time that I spent there, and I appreciated being back in that particular piece of the world.

Ironically, you might recall, Mr Speaker, that we were at a summit meeting, which is interesting because it’s important in this context, because you never know when your name and your children’s names are going to show up. Suddenly somebody on this summit table on that side asked me about my son’s name, because he meets him every three months in Nelson. So, again, you know, it’s interesting, the privilege and the responsibility that this role provides us, which I’m grateful for, by the way.

To all the clerks and all the coffee makers, and all the people that keep this House warm, and look after us, mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa.

I want to mihi to my mate Doc, sitting right here. I want to mihi to him—he’s a great man, he’s a loving man, he’s a family man, he’s a fisherman, and he backed me. And he backed me in one of the most important times that I needed that. He backed me—

An absent man from the House.

Tom, that’s enough, thank you, or whoever else is chatting over there. He backed me, as good men do, and I’m grateful for that, because that’s why I get the opportunity to remain in this House for Te Tai Tokerau and bring this speech to you today.

I want to acknowledge the team. So we’ve got Tapi and Sue and Maia. I want to say Maia’s name because Maia is beside me all the time doing the work that I need to be able to do to stand and take these speeches, and present at select committee. So, Maia, to you, big love to you, darling; good for you for sticking with me.

In my maiden speech, I referred to the word “lioness”, because everyone, when they knew I was coming here, just said, “Gee, Meno, you’re going down to that lion’s den.” You might recall I said, “That’s true, except it’s the lionesses that do the hunting, and get the work done.” So, as a lioness, yeah, again the importance of being able to be in this House for Te Tai Tokerau and—and I expect to do that on 8 November when I have my job interview on 7 November; I expect to come back and continue to do that.

But I also have a lion cub; as all good lionesses do, you have lion cubs, and I have a lion cub. He happened to be the one that led the biggest march in this country to the steps out here, and his name is Eru Kapa-Kingi. And he’s obviously known for other bits and pieces in this House, but, most importantly, he led the march from Te Rerenga, where I was born, all the way here, with near to 100,000 people, based on love, compassion, and for all people. He knew then what our tupuna Parāone Ngāruhe signed in 1840, and I’ve trained my kids to know this: that you must stand, you must fight, and you must speak for your people—Te Tai Tokerau people, Māori people, and all people that share this land. I want to make sure to make that mentioned in this adjournment speech.

Then, in closing, I just want to say this: I went to this interesting meeting the other night—it was a “meet the candidates”. You wouldn’t necessarily find me there, because there are lots of farmers and foresters and food producers, but it was one of the best meetings, because I once was a farmer, right? In fact, just before I came here, I used to manage 3,000 bulls, 37 ropes of mussels up in Te Kao, and I learnt what a R1 was and an R2 and what bull collars are and what fences are, and how much grass seed I need to make that cow fat to get it to McDonald’s. So, yes, I do know something about Māori economic development, and I want to be part of that after 7 November.

It has been a pleasure, even when it’s been a pain, to sit amongst you, to debate with you, and have a “pint of order” with you. Kia ora tātou.

17:20

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s the last day of Parliament in this term, and for some of the people across the other side of the House, you can see they are a little bit exhausted getting all the way to the finish line. For some of them, they might even need a little bit of rest, a little bit of sleep, in order to get there.

Of course, Chris Hipkins, with that lacklustre speech he gave at the start, you could tell why he made his slogan “Better start now”: because it’s not just about helping him warm up; it’s like a self-motivational statement. Every time he’s driving around the country, he says, “Better start now.” Well, the reality is he doesn’t actually drive around the country, as the Prime Minister says. He only manages to get as far as Rongotai, to the south, and slightly north of the Remutakas, to those public meetings. Well, of course, we wish him well as he tries to warm up for the campaign and get started.

For some people, when they’re sleeping, they like to count sheep, don’t they? Some like to count sheep. Well, some in this House also like to count nurses, as I’ve been hearing, quite obsessively. As tradition is in these adjournment debate speeches, having some numbers is always a helpful thing. Well, for the last time in this Chamber this term, there are 1,640 additional fulltime-equivalent nurses under this Government—a huge achievement. I’d encourage members who are trying to “better start now”, or just warm up, that counting to 1,640 might aid them with their sleep; it might put them to sleep.

Here are some other numbers: one—that’s the number of cats at Chris Hipkins’ first public meeting. No one knows what the cat said, only that the cat attended, but no one knows exactly what anyone else said, either. In fact, I have four children and we sometimes have more people at our home for dinner than attend a public meeting with the Labour Party. The number four—that’s how many parties will be needed for the left and the far left to be able to form a coalition Government after the next election: Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori, and Opportunity. What a disaster this country is going to avoid on 7 November. Of course, two of the four parties each have co-leaders, so that’s six leaders of one potential Government. What that adds up to—you know, maths and all of that. I must acknowledge Erica Stanford. She’s doing a great job getting our kids reading and writing. That all adds up to one big shambles, because 10 percent of the combined caucuses would be leaders.

The four parties, with their six co-leaders, are all promoting nine new taxes between them—nine new taxes between them. Well, at least nine new taxes, because they’ve got the capital gains tax from the Labour Party, but we’re not sure if that’s a capital gains tax or, as Craig Renney says, maybe it’s a “comprehensive capital gains tax”—ask Barb—a 45 percent top tax rate, an asset tax, an inheritance tax, a digital tax, a gift tax, a business tax, a rental tax, and a land tax. In fact, if you look at all their taxes, they will tax you on your income while you’re living; they’ll tax your house if you’ve got a rental property; and they’ll tax you on your inheritance when you die. In fact, they’ll keep taxing you—a land tax, which will be on top of your rates, as well. I know there’s also a proposition for a death tax, which means they’ll keep taxing you after you die. That’s the reality of the Labour Party, the Green Party, the Opportunity Party, and Te Pāti Māori. They want to tax, tax, tax, and this election is going to be about tax.

Some of our achievements: here are some more numbers: “32”—a 32-year high. That was inflation under the previous Government. They did it once, and the reality is they could do it again. That’s not a challenge—that’s not a challenge—even though I have no doubt they could rise to it, because that’s exactly what they’d do: spend more, tax more, borrow more. That’s why we’re campaigning so hard against the taxes at this year’s election. Eighteen billion dollars—that is the gap between what a Labour Government wants to spend and the money they’ve got available from just their taxes, just their taxes. That’s not the Greens’, Te Pāti Māori’s, and Opportunities’ taxes. No wonder they need those taxes from the other parties, because they’ve got no way of actually being able to deliver it themselves. The last number is unknown: the amount that Te Pāti Māori MPs have spent on lawyers; not to fight the system, just to fight each other. No one quite knows, do they?

Well, here’s some numbers on our side: zero. No new taxes under the next National Government. One oil and gas ban overturned this term. In three years, we’ve doubled the renewable generation that was commissioned—more in the last three years than in the previous eight. Five health targets, and all of them improved under this Government; they declined under the previous Government. Fourteen years: that’s how long New Zealanders waited for tax relief until this Government came to office and delivered it. Sixty-six new medicines, including 33 new cancer medicines, making a huge difference for patients up and down our country. Four percent: the new rates cap that we’re putting in place, which Labour still doesn’t know what they think about. Nine hundred and forty additional doctors, and add to that the 1,640 nurses you count at night if you’re an insomniac. We also have 14,200 fewer New Zealanders on the elective treatment waiting lists waiting over more than four months.

There is so much that’s been achieved and so much more to do, but of course, every election is a choice. I want to just highlight the choice and the member of the Opposition, the Opposition leader. I call him the Opposite of the Midas man—you know, the opposite of Midas. I’ve got four young children, and I love reading them stories. One of their favourites is, of course, the story of King Midas, who turns around and touches everything and it turns to gold. Well, the Leader of the Opposition, the man who wants to be Prime Minister, he’s got the opposite of the Midas touch. He was Minister of Education and achievement kept sliding; Minister of Police and ram raids became a nearly daily event under his watch, while gangs flaunted their regalia on our streets. Minister of Health: wait-lists and emergency department waits blew out. Minister for the Public Service: 47,000 public servants became 65,000 public servants, growing three times faster than the workforce at large.

Minister for COVID-19 Response: well, he forgot to order the vaccine, and kept Auckland locked down longer than needed. Of course, he then didn’t even follow the health advice, as the royal commission has now confirmed. Chris Hipkins doesn’t have a record of fixing things. He has a record of breaking things; in fact, breaking everything he touches. He’s failed upwards, and now he wants the top job again. So, when Chris Hipkins asks New Zealanders to trust him and this country again, understand what you’re actually being asked; not to trust someone new but to trust the man who’s already run the Police, the Public Service, Health, Education, and the Covid-19 response, and delivered exactly what you just heard.

In closing, it’s important that we thank all of the people who play such an important role here at this House. We want to thank you, Mr Speaker, Deputy Speaker, and Assistants. I do try hard to be good, as you know, Mr Speaker. The officials who have worn the carpet, coming in and out of my office, from Energy, Health, State Enterprises, Transport, Auckland, that I’ve held over this term; my private secretaries; my political office staff, electorate office staff, electorate team.

It’s also important to acknowledge the families. In this Chamber, all of us know the price of us doing this job. To my own family, especially my wife Rebecca, my four children, for whom, too often, I’m simply a face on screen saying goodnight at bedtime—thank you very much.

Finally, my favourite number: it’s 45 days until the election, when New Zealanders choose who they trust to form the next Government. I say to the Opposition: don’t take it personally, but I hope to see fewer of you when we return to the House. I also wish everyone all the very best on the campaign trail. Good luck and may the team offering the fewest taxes win.

17:30

Fifty-four is the magic number, not of today, but of the whole of the term. He talked about the favourite number that he has, in the countdown to the election, but Mr Simeon Brown is the “54 nurses” man. I think, if we look back, we have Studio 54, which was a famous studio that was famous for glamour and glitz and parties and celebrities—very opposite to the current National Party; they have none of that. As I listened in, the comment was made about being continually obsessed with the Labour Party; all they could talk about was us—in fact, for the last three years. All I can say is, if they’re still talking about fixing the basics, it’s because, clearly, the basics are pretty broken for themselves and what they’ve done, and they need to obsess more on what they’re going to do, as opposed to what we are going to do.

Now, three years is a long time in this place. For me, it was a different experience. At the start of this term, I was out, then I was back in—something you won’t often hear a gay man say, but I will say that this afternoon. For many of you in this room, this will be your last time in this space. We acknowledge the work that people have done and how tough that is, but I want to comment as the chief whip of the Labour Party and the privilege I’ve had, and the responsibility, to take on that role. I had one key performance indicator when I came into this role and that was to never be seen on the black and white tiles as a chief whip. You know what happens if a chief whip is standing on the black and white tiles? You have not done your job, because you’re standing behind an MP who’s either apologising or resigning. Thank the Lord—touch wood; we’ve got about 40 minutes left—it has not happened under my “whipship”. Thank you to my caucus for being so diligent, so focused, so passionate, and so driven; to my colleagues, to Tracey and to Cushla for your support. Also, I do acknowledge whips from across the aisle and the work that you do together.

I was listening really carefully as we gave our speeches and comments this afternoon, and David Seymour had some really interesting comments—which I would never have thought I’d bring up. He talked about this cultist church that he was drawing the Prime Minister into—his strange Seymour-ACT church. Well, if his church is one that is callous, if his church is one that punches down and is compassionless and is mean, that’s a pretty stink church, and I don’t want to be part of that church. I don’t think the Prime Minister should either. But then, if I look at the meanness and the punching down that we have seen this term—look at our trans whānau, our rainbow communities, our Māori, our ethnic communities, when it comes to working women, when it comes to 18- and 19-year-olds, our disability sector, the homeless, the list goes on and on and on—that is a church of unkindness and meanness and we will have no part of that.

As I was listening to the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, as we’ve been preparing for the election over recent weeks and months, it’s really got me thinking about what church I want to be a part of. I think about Michael Joseph Savage. He talked about applied Christianity when it comes to the work of this place and looking after society. Then I look at the Rt Hon Dame Jacinda Ardern, and she talked about kindness, which, again, is that same thing, around how we look out for and work for people here in Aotearoa. And then, as I’ve listened to Chris Hipkins, over recent months, he uses this phrase about “a fair go for everyone”—a fair go for everyone. I think that is what the people outside of this building are looking for: a fair go for everybody; lifting people up, not punching people down, being kind, not callous and rude. I want to be part of the Labour Party whānau and church that is advocating, that is lifting people up and not pushing people down.

We do want to say thank you, because we don’t always look this beautiful and sound as wonderful on our own. We do have people all over this building and around the country looking after us—when it comes to, I think, it’s Colin and Keith in the booth up there, keeping our microphones going; when it comes to our security teams; when it comes to our electoral office staff, our staff here in this building; when it comes to the caterers, the building team, the press gallery; when it comes to the library and Hansard; the cleaners, the clerks, the messengers, the Chamber staff, and, of course, you, Mr Speaker, for really holding this place together and in good stead.

We look forward to counting down to the election, and we look forward to having more nurses in our hospitals. Better starts now.

17:36

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

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

People get ready, change is coming.

You don’t need no ticket, just enrol and vote.

We need more than faith to get New Zealand humming.

Get out and tick it, and give Labour your vote.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

That’s right, Aotearoa. Change is coming, and that change sits with you. Māori enrolments are up, and, whānau, the mana is in your hands to make sure that this National-led coalition is a one-term Government. Let’s turn out, let’s vote, and make history, whānau. Ka nui tēnā. Aotearoa can’t afford three more years of this National-led coalition.

For three long years, whānau across Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and Aotearoa have told this Government what matters most to you. You have told them that the cost of living is the number one issue facing your family. They have blatantly ignored you. They have made other choices, choices that begin with

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

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

They’ve also takahi-ed on workers’ rights, kaimahi, the backbone, the pillars of our economy, the people at the coalface with our whānau each and every day. Even worse, whānau, they have takahi-ed on you. They have left whānau out there feeling bereft and without a voice. Well, now is the time for change, and the change starts with you, whānau. Come 7 November, you need to get out there. You need to take your mokopuna, auntie, uncle, all your breathers, whānau. Get out there and vote to make history and make sure Aotearoa doesn’t have to endure another three years of this National-led coalition. Māori mā, this is our call to action. Each and every Anzac Day, we gather to remember our fallen; those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Well, we don’t have to take up arms, e hika mā, to enjoy the freedoms they fought for. We simply have to pick up a pen and make two ticks on paper. Get out and do it and take everyone with you.

That said, during my maiden speech, I acknowledged the members opposite who serve in general electorates throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, and I want to acknowledge the members opposite and Ministers with whom I have worked, collegially, in my service of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. I am sure—I’m confident—that, as we prepare to swap sides of the House, we can commit to continuing to work in that same spirit.

Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, it’s been my absolute privilege to spend the last three years serving you. I’ve spent those three years moving amongst you and bringing your kōrero back to this House and getting ready to govern, whānau.

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

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

It’s time for change, and that change is in your hands.

To my colleagues, what a privilege. Thank you for teaching me the tricks of the trade and getting ready for Government.

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

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

Get out there, make sure you vote, and

Remember, the mission is an easy fix:

Put two ticks in 26.

Give it to me one time—two ticks.

Give it to me two times—two ticks.

Two ticks are in that for Labour in 2026, whānau.

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

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

Better starts now.

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

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

Vote for change. Better starts now.

17:41

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think, for anyone who is watching, they can tell it is the last day of school. It is the last day of the 54th Parliament. As the member of Parliament for Taupō—the very proud member of Parliament for Taupō—I do want to just reflect on this period of time. Every single one of the 123 members of Parliament who have sat in this House serve a number of people in their communities, and they do it with the best intent. But, today, primarily I rise as the Leader of the House, and I want to acknowledge our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon, and the privilege that he gave me in serving in this role. I want to acknowledge the support of my predecessor, the Hon Chris Bishop. We’ve worked together very closely over this term.

Most people look at this House, they look at this Chamber, as an amphitheatre of war, where members go into battle each and every day, and it’s something to win, something to endure—blood, sweat, and tears lie on the floor. It’s all about the legislative outcomes that people are willing to fight for, and that’s the end result, the political fight, the war which captures the media headlines. What is often not reported is the amount of work that goes in to getting a bill before this Parliament. I want to just run through some of the stats of the 54th Parliament, the collective efforts of the National Party, New Zealand First, and ACT: 230 pieces of legislation—210 Government bills, 14 members’ bills, four private bills, two local bills; 240 bills have been introduced by our Government this term. Yes, sometimes it’s felt like a bit of a political marathon. My thanks to this side of the House, who have endured many hours of urgency, overtime, over time. I do have to say the Hon Paul Goldsmith takes the gold medal for the most legislation, with 34 bills enacted. Chris Bishop comes up second, with 23. I’m a little bit down the medal table, on only 10. I do want to acknowledge the amount of effort that goes into each and every one of those bills—hundreds and hundreds of hours to get those pieces of legislation ready.

I want to acknowledge some of the unsung heroes in the parliamentary process. Firstly, we are blessed in this country with phenomenal public servants. They work incredibly hard to deliver for the Government of the day policy solutions to the problems that our communities and our countries face. Then there is the Parliamentary Counsel Office, more commonly known as PCO. They do incredibly hard yards, translating the policy ideas into legislation, and they often, in our term of Parliament, have had tight time frames to do that. I do want to acknowledge and shout out Cassie Nicholson KC, who is the Chief Parliamentary Counsel, and Richard Wallace, the Deputy Chief Parliamentary Counsel, who have been incredibly helpful for our Parliament and our Government, working through an enormous amount of legislation. There’s also the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. There is also the legislation coordinator in the Cabinet Office and all of the staff who support the legislative process for our Cabinet committees. Of course, then, when it comes here, it is the Clerk’s team who are really significant in terms of making sure everything is correct according to the Standing Orders. There are also other teams that make sure the Parliament runs as best as it can. As well as the Clerk’s Office, there is the select committee staff, and Hansard.

I also want to draw on my own experiences of the 54th Parliament and reflect on the people in my own team who have helped progress those 10 pieces of legislation. In our team, we call it the “middle office”. Thank you to you all. I also want to thank somebody whose name is probably on more emails that run around this Parliament than anybody else. Of course, he would never have put his own name in a speech, but I do want to acknowledge my trusted House adviser Carlos Webster, who makes sure, with lots of challenges at times, that the legislation gets through the House on time. Also, as in every Minister’s office—and in our office, we call it the “Team Upston Class of 54”—there is an enormous team of private secretaries who are seconded from agencies. Every Minister has them. They are absolutely worth their weight in gold. I think the private secretaries who work in the Beehive are a particular special breed of public servants who deserve our acknowledgment today.

As I approach the end of my speech, I also want, given it’s the end of the 54th Parliament, to offer a shout-out to the Opposition members. We do know that, in terms of accountability, question time is a really important part of this process. The public must have confidence that Ministers will be questioned robustly and—Mr Speaker and your presiding officers—if they transgress, they will be held to account. I’m reliably informed that, during the 54th Parliament, I have faced 153 primary questions, with only 99 of them coming from the other side. It is a really important part of the process.

As I said, 240 bills have been introduced by this Government, and they have all been about making New Zealand a better place for all New Zealanders. One group of people that we could not do without are the incredible staff who work in our electorate offices. To my electorate office team and to the electorate office teams of every member of Parliament, thank you for what you do.

I want to just have a look at the legislation that our Government has passed, because we have been fixing the basics; lowering inflation and interest rates to begin easing the cost of living; reducing taxes on Kiwis so they keep more of their own money; making it easier for Kiwis to farm, to build, and to grow businesses. National has continued to restore law and order, making New Zealand safer and putting victims at the heart of our justice system. We have been getting our kids back to school, teaching the basics and setting them up for life. And, of course, now, what are we doing? We are building the future. We are growing the economy to create more jobs and better opportunities for New Zealanders. We are maintaining disciplined spending so taxes are spent wisely. We’re upgrading roads, schools, hospitals, and giving Kiwis quality and reliable public services. By securing affordable housing for families and first-home buyers, hard-working Kiwis will have the security of owning their own home.

Do you know what, Mr Speaker? I thank you, and I thank your presiding officers, but I want to particularly thank the National Party team. You’re an extraordinary group of New Zealanders. I know how hard you work. I know how dedicated you are to serving our communities and our country, and I feel enormously proud to be part of team National. And guess what! We’ll be back after 8 November. We’ll be here to do it all over again for the 55th Parliament. There are two things to remember: firstly, under National, there will be no new taxes; and if that’s what you want, you’ve got one choice before the 7 November, and that is party vote National.

17:50

It’s usual, at the conclusion of this debate, for the Speaker to offer not only some thanks but also some statistics to the House, but Louise, you’ve just completely stolen my thunder, which leaves me—

Kick her out!

I’m sure she’d be pleased to go, but it leaves me with some stats that aren’t quite so exciting, like Copperfields having sold 166,000 cups of coffee; 18,000 scones—Bish, where’s he; 5,690 doughnuts—that’s you, Willie, I think, is it? Oh no, it’s the pies, Willie—12,000 pies. Are you putting your hand up, Duncan?

Could be me.

Yeah, it could be. Most of all, I was asked if I would say that the brilliant catering manager, Mr Bryce Hughes, has a personal favourite, which is the 1,000 servings of mince on toast.

I want to put on the record an acknowledgment of all the work that all the members of this House have done over the past three years. It’s not an easy job and, as many have mentioned in their speeches, it does affect families and it does take people away from all of the normal things that people might do in life, and you do that because you have that commitment to the democratic process.

Inside of that, there’s always this talk about the hours that we work here. There’s a lot of people today mentioning urgency, etc. Breaking it down, this House does about 600 hours—or, over the last three years, about 615 hours a year. It may not seem a lot if people hear that in a bald sort of way, but the time that MPs put into all of the knowledge that they bring into this House, all of the views they bring to this House, and all of the ideas they bring to this House is extraordinary, and I don’t think we should allow people to get too fixated on the time that people spend here in the House. There are always people away doing stuff. What I’ve learnt as Speaker, working with the whips, who I really do have a lot of respect for, is that there is an enormous number of things that people do that require them to be away from this House, and I fully respect that.

I just want to add my thanks to the Clerk’s Office for the work that they do, not only with select committees but also here in the Chamber, and the Chamber staff as well. I want to thank the Chief Executive’s Office for the work they do in making everything that is Parliamentary Service work for members, and I want to thank the security staff for the work that they are doing. Security is one thing that we’ve had to improve significantly over the last three years, and the staff here have picked up on that extremely well, with a great deal of pride, and they now also work, of course, outside of Parliament should any of us need them.

I want to mention the catering staff. They do a great job. I mentioned them before. I also want to—

Ha, ha!

Well, look, imagine what it’d be like spending your time making 5,000 doughnuts. You’ve got to respect that. I also want to thank my executive assistant Laree Taula, and I also want to thank Kellie for stepping in when Roland Todd retired. I also want to thank Alyson Groves, from Parliamentary Service, who has done 42 years here and is about to retire, as well. I should thank the triumvirate of advice that I’ve had over the last three years, and part of that triumvirate is Dr David Wilson, who’s our Clerk and is a very learned man, and I’ve enjoyed our discussions with him; and also Rafael Gonzalez-Montero, the Chief Executive of Parliamentary Service, who genuinely has the best interests of members at heart; and also, the person that makes them both good, Andie Lindsay, in the joint office, who I’m sure everyone knows.

I want to thank the VIP drivers—I’m just going through my list here—and I also need to thank Barbara Kuriger, Greg O’Connor, Teanau Tuiono, and Maureen Pugh for the work that they have done, sitting in here for those long hours of committee.

With those remarks, can I wish everyone well as we go out on to the campaign trail, allowing New Zealanders to make a choice about how they want to be governed, in one of the freest democracies in the world.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.