Parliamentary debates: Tuesday, 24 June 2025

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.]

Five petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

Petition of Bharat Bhushan requesting that the House reinstate a pathway to residence for Bharat Bhushan and long-term temporary workers who were unable to re-enter New Zealand during COVID‑19 border closures

petition of Tony Gore requesting that the House urge the Government to further explain the Ministry of Social Development’s traffic light system, sanctions, and potential use of AI

petition of Meg Vardy requesting that the House urge the Government to incorporate voices with lived experience of eating disorders into a review of Health Star Ratings

petition of Matilda Otter-Lowe requesting that the House urge the Government to reinstate the previous school lunches programme

petition of Gemma Yates requesting that the House urge the Government to stop proposed changes to the Palmerston North and Manawatū school bus routes.

Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered 10 papers.

Government responses to

petition of Patient Voice Aotearoa

petition of Malcolm Mulholland

report of Petitions Committee on the petition of Erin Tiplady

statements of intent for 2025-29 for

Accreditation Council

Southern Response Earthquake Services

statements of performance expectations for the 2025-26 year for

Accreditation Council

Southern Response Earthquake Services

Takeovers Panel

strategic intentions for 2025-29 for

Land Information New Zealand

Ministry of Social Development.

I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General titled Managing conflicts of interest in the Fast-track Approvals process. Those papers under the authority of the House. Twenty-one select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the

petition of Bex Howells

petition of Mark Potter

review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of Education New Zealand

review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of the Education Review Office

review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority

report of the Environment Committee on the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill

reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the

report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Commentary on Te Tai Waiora: Wellbeing in Aotearoa New Zealand

Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Financial Stability Report, May 2025

Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the year ending 30 June 2025

report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the United Arab Emirates Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement Legislation Amendment Bill

report of the Intelligence and Security Committee on the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for Vote Communications Security and Intelligence and Vote Security Intelligence for the year ending 30 June 2025

reports of the Justice Committee on the

Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill

review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of the Human Rights Commission

review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of the Law Commission

review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of the Public Trust

reports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions of

Dannielle Davis

Mark Baldwin

Tamati Warmington

Walter Hicks

report of the Regulations Review Committee on the briefing on the activities of the Regulations Review Committee in 2024

report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill.

The bills are set down for second reading. The Auditor-General’s report, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s report, the review briefings, and the report of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration. The Clerk’s been informed of the introduction of three bills.

Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matter) Amendment Bill, introduction

Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill, introduction

Employment Relations Amendment Bill, introduction.

Those bills are set down for first reading.

I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate to acknowledge the death of Maurice Gee.

Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none.

I move, That this House express its sympathy and condolences to the family of Maurice Gee, who passed on 12 June 2025, and acknowledge his significant contribution to New Zealand literature.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I wish to make a ministerial statement relating to the situation in the Middle East.

The situation in the Middle East is of the gravest concern. No New Zealanders want to wake up to news of more bombing, more strife, and more misery. Yet, tragically, for the last two years, that is what we have seen: a relentless and remorseless series of events which have greatly destabilised the region and gravely harmed its people and their sense of security and prosperity.

New Zealanders are scattered across every part of the world, and so, of course, our minds turn in the current crisis to our people in harm’s way. Ensuring their safety is an absolute priority for this Government. New Zealand is a very long way from the Middle East. Unlike our own region, the Pacific, New Zealand’s influence in the Middle East and our ability to affect the trajectory of events is modest. Nevertheless, this Government, continuing New Zealand’s long tradition as a responsible international citizen, has pursued an active foreign policy based on engagement with all—via an intensive programme of prime ministerial and ministerial travel.

We have sought to understand the perspectives of all involved in the Middle East crisis, and to present a clear New Zealand position. That’s why we travelled to Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia and why we’ve met and discussed these issues with Israel, Iran, the Palestinians, the Turks, the Gulf states, the Europeans, Australia, the United States, our Asian partners, and many others. That’s why we have resisted the pressure from some to expel from New Zealand the ambassadors of some Middle Eastern countries. We prefer diplomacy to moral outrage. Indeed, ours is a foreign policy of collecting all the facts, hearing all the perspectives, and applying a careful, reasonable, cool-headed approach to the situation—not kneejerk reaction and simplistic moral posturing.

The New Zealand Government’s response to what is happening in the Middle East should be guided by two questions. First, how can we act to get our people out of harm’s way? Second, how can we best contribute to an international debate which helps push the situation towards de-escalation and peace, not further disintegration and despair?

Our first priority is the safety of New Zealanders. Our months-old advice to New Zealanders in Iran and Israel remains to leave if and when they can find a safe route. By the way, to hear some media carrying on about the fact that we have not helped our people or warned them is a disgrace, given that for months we’ve said to leave—and yet they never carried that message to New Zealanders wishing to warn their cousins or friends offshore. Back to the issue. The Government is committed to supporting New Zealanders caught up in this crisis. Since the beginning of the conflict, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has provided round the clock, 24/7 consular support to New Zealanders in Israel and Iran—and to their families back home in New Zealand—and will continue to do so.

As we announced on Sunday, we have sent a C-130 aircraft to ensure that we have the resource available to aid in evacuations from the region for those who want to leave. We are also in discussions with commercial airlines to see if they can help. We encourage all New Zealanders in the region to make sure they register with SafeTravel so we can have an accurate picture of who may need assistance and where. We are also monitoring carefully the economic impacts back home of what is happening in the Middle East.

We note and welcome positive signals in the last few hours about a potential ceasefire. New Zealand strongly supports all efforts toward diplomacy. We urge all parties to return to talks. An enduring solution depends on de-escalation and diplomacy. As we have repeatedly said, the Middle East is not a situation of black and white; of good and evil; of just one bad actor. Those in this House who rush to condemn, or call out, one actor or other, or who demand that the Government do the same, should pause to reflect on whether they are seeking to understand and influence what is going on, or simply virtue-signalling about it. New Zealand has consistently called for peaceful resolution of this latest conflict. Diplomacy must always be the first resort, not the last. We have been clear to all our partners, and to all parties to the conflict, that military action must end and parties must return to the negotiating table to find a lasting resolution. New Zealand has a long, proud history of standing up against nuclear weapons. Our concerns about Iran’s aspirations for nuclear weapons are longstanding. Iran has a proven pattern of non-compliance with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations, and Iran has made threats against other countries in the volatile Middle East.

We end this statement by noting what New Zealand is looking for in the Middle East and what we oppose. We want de-escalation and dialogue. We want a two-State solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living in security and peace, side by side. We want humanitarian aid to get to those who need it. Ultimately, we want peace. What we do not want is New Zealanders in harm’s way. We do not want ever escalating rounds of military action. We do not want a nuclear Iran. We do not want Hamas holding hostages and terrorising Palestinian and Israeli citizens alike. And we do not want Israel occupying Palestinian land. Ultimately, we do not want another generation of young people in the Middle East scarred by conflict, replicating the enmities of today and yesterday. This cycle of conflict, now generations old, must end.

The Middle East is a long, long way from New Zealand, and our influence is limited, but the Government is committed to doing all we can to help New Zealanders affected, and to help contribute to de-escalation and diplomacy. Thank you.

Over recent days, the world has watched with increasing alarm as the United States has carried out missile strikes on Iranian territory. These are not defensive actions under imminent threat, they are not sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, they are not supported by the international community, and, most crucially, they are not legal under international law. There is much in the statement by our Minister of Foreign Affairs that I completely agree with. We also welcome the possibility of a ceasefire. We also endorse the non-expulsion of ambassadors from countries who have taken actions that we disagree with. If we want international diplomacy, if we want international dialogue, the role of diplomats has never been more important. We also want to acknowledge the New Zealand Defence Force deployment, and they go with our full support.

New Zealand’s always stood proud as a nation that upholds the rules-based international order. We are a small country, but our voice on the world stage matters precisely because we’ve been prepared to stand up to speak truth to power when doing so is right. We did that in 2003, when Helen Clark and the Labour Government took a principled and courageous stand by opposing the illegal invasion of Iraq. We were told then that New Zealand should stay silent. We were told then that it was in our economic interests to look the other way. We didn’t, because we knew that legality matters, principles matter, and international rules matter. Those same principles have to apply today.

The strikes on Iran mark a dangerous escalation in an already volatile region. They risk igniting a war that would inflict enormous suffering on innocent civilians, destabilise the Middle East further, and undermine the very system of collective security the United Nations was created to uphold after the bloodshed of World War II. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State unless, as article 51 states, that is in self-defence or authorised by the Security Council. Neither of those conditions has been met. There is no clear justification, there is no credible claim of imminent threat, and there is no UN mandate. That makes those strikes contrary to international law. That’s not just my opinion; that’s an opinion shared by legal scholars, human rights organisations, and former diplomats around the diplomatic world.

New Zealand should not drift from our values, simply because the actions come from one of our traditional allies. We do not believe in a world where might makes right and where power justifies impunity. New Zealand has a proud history of diplomacy, from our nuclear-free stance to our leadership on disarmament and peacebuilding. We’ve long argued that international security must be based on cooperation, not coercion. That legacy demands consistency by New Zealand. We should not accept one set of rules for the powerful and another set of rules for everybody else. We must choose principle, we should choose peace, and we should choose the path of international law. Honouring our past and living up to our values means that we need to be a voice for restraint, for legality, and for justice on the world stage.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Noting that article 51 on the right to self-defence states specifically that that right is inherent for “individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”, does the New Zealand Government believe that the US’s pre-emptive strike on Iran meets that criteria?

In the context in which the Leader of the Opposition asked that question, we note the United States’ decision to undertake targeted attacks aimed at degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities was based on the US statement to the UN Security Council that it was acting in collective self-defence consistent with the UN Charter. That was a statement they made, and, of course, in time, that will depend on the emerging evidence.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister may not have heard my question to him. My question was: does the New Zealand Government believe that the pre-emptive strike meets the criteria of article 51?

Well, as I said, unlike some, we wait till we get the evidence, and we’ve said it constantly day after day that instead of rushing to judgment, as we were asked this morning by the media: “Has peace broken out?” “No,” we said, “We’re going to trust but verify.” When we sought to verify, we found that what they were saying by way of questioning was wrong. In this case, we’re going to find out the facts as time goes by. There’ll be some days yet—maybe some time yet—before we can establish as to the immediacy of the problem and the level of deterioration with respect to the Iran position on gaining nuclear capability in terms of weapons.

Is it the New Zealand Government position that article 51 permits the use of pre-emptive force?

It is, in fact, the international position that, if justified—and that is why it’s recognised in the UN and exactly why it’s written that way.

Has the New Zealand Government received intelligence supporting the claim that the US strike was in line with article 51?

As we have said before, we have not been privy to that information, nor did we, frankly, expect to be, but we have made the wise decision—in my view—to hold our counsel until we know all the facts before we rush to judgment and imperil the future of 5.2 million New Zealanders. More importantly, there are people over there in Iran right now—where the numbers have escalated from 46, just two days ago, to, now, 134—that we have to get out. That’s our number one priority, and we’re going to have that on our mind before we make any rash statement that might affect their safety getting out.

Will the New Zealand Prime Minister use his presence at NATO on behalf of our country this week to urge for restraint, de-escalation, and adherence to international rules by all countries?

I will contact the Prime Minister and pass on the Leader of the Opposition’s message. I think the response to that is, as the Minister of Defence says: he always does.

Finally, when the Government commits to the two-State solution, as he did in his ministerial statement, does that mean it will now take steps to formally recognise Palestine by inviting the ambassador to present their credentials, and, if not, why not?

Well, the trouble with that is—and we have said countless times—is that it’s not, when it comes to recognising Palestine, if but when. But having spoken to the Palestinian Authority, having spoken to the Egyptians, having spoken to the United Arab Emirates, having spoken to the President of Turkey, having spoken to the President of Indonesia—these huge Islamic countries—and others, they understand our view. We said, “How will we actually recognise it and maintain the standards of recognition which we’ve always held thus far, or are we’re going to lower the standard, and then the next time it happens, we’ve got a much lower base and precedent that we’ll come to regret?” That’s a position that a lot of countries share with us. It’s not if but when, and when is when we know we’ll have the authority legitimately capable of making the claim that they are the representatives of the people.

Mr Speaker!

Before I call the member, just a reminder that this debate is in response to the ministerial statement that was largely confined—although it did stray widely—to the sending of the C-130 to the Middle East. I appreciate that there is going to be some broader questioning, but I don’t want to see a repeating of questions that have already been asked.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party condemns the United States’ unlawful and aggressive strikes on Iran, and we call on the Government to do the same. The attacks by the United States are a blatant breach of international law. The attacks on Iran constitute a breach of international law because neither attack was made in self-defence by the US and by Israel.

I heard in the ministerial statement that the Minister of Foreign Affairs prides themselves on wanting to prioritise diplomacy, wanting to push for de-escalation, and wanting to push for enduring peace, and yet we did not see a statement that recognised and acknowledged the dangerous escalation of the US strikes on Iran. So, in response to the statements from the ministerial statement, we are looking for that condemnation of Israel and the United States’ illegal strikes on Iran.

The Minister also spoke in his statement about the ceasefire and having a look into it to check out whether it’s worth anything. I too want to speak to that part of the Minister’s speech, where if it is then true, of course we would all welcome that; it’s what we all want. But we know from the continued genocide in Gaza that a ceasefire with Israel isn’t worth the paper it’s written on; they have continued to breach and breach and breach ongoing calls and so-called settlements of a ceasefire.

We don’t want any nation armed with nuclear weapons, but there is no greater motivator—and, again, this refers to the Minister’s statements about diplomacy and de-escalation—to obtain nuclear weapons and power than the realised threat of attack by the greatest nuclear power in the world. Absolutely, it would be wonderful to have Iran back at the negotiating table, where they were before the strikes from Israel and the United States launched their unilateral strikes.

New Zealand must stand for—again, we heard this from the Minister—upholding rules-based international order. The Government is absolutely right—the Minister is right—to state that for a small State like New Zealand, a small country like Aotearoa, the rules-based international order is what we have to protect our interests. It is that very rules-based international order, especially because of our positioning in the world as well as our size, that we have to be able to use against military powers around the world, and yet the Government refuses to take action to uphold that very order when it is clear that it has been violated. So—

The member needs to come to the heart of the ministerial statement, not round the edges of it. The ministerial statement was about the sending of the C-130 to pick up New Zealanders who may be distressed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. There were a broad range of statements that I was directly referencing in the ministerial statement.

Well, you were interpreting some of the statements made. Bring it back to the purpose of the debate.

I heard some valid wide interpretation in the speech before me, as well. Mr Speaker, I will take your advice on board, but there was, surely, some ground for interpreting this speech from the Minister.

And I was very liberal; you had three minutes.

Israel and the United States—oh, well, OK, let me put this as a particular important point that I do genuinely want to put to the Minister: we stand by the support for evacuating New Zealanders, particularly, from both Iran and Israel, and we are very clear about being able to use and deploy our forces for those purposes. We have stood by those very similar actions to crises around the world, as the Green Party. We continue to stand by that as well.

I do implore the Minister to think about the very Iranian freedom activists who deserve freedom from both the oppression of the Iranian Government but also the freedom from the terror inflicted upon them by Israel and the United States, because the Minister did refer to the self-defence clause from the US in these strikes on Iran. I do ask that the Minister consider the very voices of Iranians in Iran and the diaspora here and around the world, who are pushing for a pathway to peace that is without violence. Will the Minister condemn Israel and the United States’ illegal strikes on Iran?

I made it very clear, in the ministerial statement, the Government’s position, but I have to say when it comes to the proxies for Iran that have committed so much terrorism and the loss of thousands of lives—Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, with respect to Iran—the Greens have been not a syllable, not a sound, not a mutter, not a murmur, no condemnation whatsoever. On October the 7th, that outrageous terrorism of 1,200 people and 200 people kidnapped or abducted, there was not a word, not a syllable. This is not balance at all. Above all, I believe our country needs to demonstrate that we’re even-minded, even here. We’ve condemned all parties—

In the face of a genocide, Winston.

—and shouting out like that typically just disposes me to point to that member and say that member’s only got one side, and, for the first time ever, she’s mentioned Iran’s people. Yes, Iran’s people have been under 40 years of desperation.

Look at my track record!

The Rt Hon Winston Peters—

I know all your track record; it takes five seconds to examine it.

Neither party here is displaying the sort of decorum that you’d expect out of Parliament. I refer both sides to Speaker’s ruling 150/1, which means that neither side of the House has carte blanche to say whatever they like as a result of a ministerial statement.

How is New Zealand contributing to de-escalation and to diplomacy if we continue to only selectively condemn breaches of international law from those countries we think we agree with?

Because the premise of that member’s question is demonstrably false. As I’ve pointed out in my speech and countless speeches, there are no rightful parties in this dispute or in this disaster. We’ve said it over and over again. Balance is what we’re talking about, not mindless virtue-signalling and one-sided answers.

to the Minister for Māori Development

Does he stand by the Government’s track record in upholding its Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations?

In the context of the obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, yes; particularly the Government’s and the sagacious Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage, Paul Goldsmith’s support of recent celebrations of Matariki mā Puanga—or as we call it, Puanga mā Matariki—with a national ceremony hosted by my whanaunga iwi of Ngāti Rangi at Tirorangi Marae in Ruapehu, and various hautapu throughout the country.

Does he stand by the exclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the Regulatory Standards Bill, which sets the constitutional standard by which all laws should comply?

The Regulatory Standards Bill was a matter that was chaperoned through the coalition agreement between ACT and National. That matter is just closing now in select committee, and I look forward to a summary of the robust and strident submissions therein.

Was he consulted on the Regulatory Standards Bill before it was introduced; and, if so, did he advocate for the inclusion of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and tikanga Māori in the bill’s principles?

That matter is the subject of advice that has been reached to my office. But, as the member will understand, kōrero in Cabinet remain confidential.

What advice, if any, has he received about the potential impacts of the Regulatory Standards Bill on the ability of the Crown to uphold its Tiriti commitments outside of Treaty settlements?

Various advice has been proffered in relation to the ability of the Government to uphold Treaty responsibilities, both within settlement arrangements and outside of settlement arrangements, and those matters can be sought by the member.

Can he assure that the Regulatory Standards Bill will not undermine the Government’s ability to implement Treaty clauses and needs-based, Māori-specific provisions in health, education, and environmental legislation?

As the member is aware, this Government, through various coalition arrangements, is very committed to upholding Treaty settlements. And as the member is aware, and I’ve said before in this House, I am absolutely determined, as the Minister for Māori Development, to ensure that the disproportionate statistics that continue to malign Māori iwi, whānau, and other communities are attacked and the inequalities of opportunity and the unequal citizenship implications are addressed.

Does the Minister agree that if successive Governments over the last 185 years had followed the principles in the Regulatory Standards Bill, many of the grievances Māori hold today would never have arisen?

I certainly can acknowledge that there are a lot of disproportionate impacts as a result of Government actions over the years, and I am assuring this House that I will work my best and as effectively as I can to address those inequalities and unequal citizenship.

Will the Minister support amendments to the Regulatory Standards Bill to include Te Tiriti o Waitangi and tikanga Māori as foundational principles of good regulation; if not, why not?

The 130,000 submitters to this bill, and I’m sure many members of this House, will look forward to the summary of those robust and strident submissions that have been made to the select committee and will take up various matters with the architects of this bill.

How does he reconcile his opposition to the Treaty principles bill with his support for the Regulatory Standards Bill, which will achieve the same intent of the Treaty principles bill, only through different means?

The member has drawn some conclusions that I don’t necessarily share with him. And if the member had some time between attending to his various responsibilities up and down the motu, including Te Waipounamu, he will see that there are differences in terms of the coalition arrangements in relation to those bills.

to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Does the Government condemn the United States’ strikes on Iran; if not, why not?

New Zealand is not going to rush to judgment on the lawfulness of various military actions occurring on the other side of the world, arising in such a seriously complex situation, without the full picture. Responding on these things can’t just be a matter of instinct but of facts. We have consistently called on all parties to comply with international law. New Zealand has consistently opposed Iran’s nuclear programme, along with many other countries. Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, and in that context, we note the United States’ decision to undertake targeted attacks aimed at degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities and the US statement made to the UN Security Council that it was acting in collective self-defence consistent with the UN Charter. That’ll be based, in time, on emerging evidence, which we have not got before us right here, right now.

Does he agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, that the United States’s attack is a “dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge—and a direct threat to international peace and security”; and, if so, why won’t the Government condemn the illegal attack?

Well, as someone who knows the Secretary-General very well and has had a number of meetings with him, I do think that his own statement will have, in time, to pass judgment on the legal context. We have consistently called on all parties to the conflict in Gaza to comply with international law. Allegations of breaches of international law are for international courts to determine. That’s what the Secretary-General will also have to live with, as we do. We are not going to comment further on matters before the court.

Will the Government stay out of the AUKUS security pact and build a foreign policy independent of nations fanning the flames of war?

Although this is, so far, distant from the original debate, I’d welcome the chance to answer, because in August 2021, the then Prime Minister and the Labour Government, supported by the Greens, entered the discussions on AUKUS Pillar II—not a mutter, not a murmur from anybody over here—all the way until the 2023 election. Then, all of a sudden, what we inherited innocently—not invited yet, of course, and still not invited yet, of course—is something of grave alarm! Do I see here something starting with “h” now?

What is his response to the many Iranians who have made it clear that we cannot liberate their people from an oppressive regime by blowing up their towns and bombing their country?

With the greatest respect, I’ve heard it from a number of people in Iran and not living in Iran, including the royal family from Iran, who have a different view entirely from that member, but that’s because, perhaps, they know a bit more about what’s going on on the ground.

Will the Government rule out joining any United States - led war on Iran or any American war lacking a UN mandate?

With the greatest respect, that question just shades into an insult. After all the seriousness that we and Foreign Affairs, working 24/7, have given to this issue over many months and many years, that question is simply a disgraceful insult.

Is the Government concerned that our international reputation as a fair and honest dealer in global affairs may be undermined by the Government’s failure to meaningfully challenge and oppose the United States’ efforts to undermine international law and global security?

Actually, it’s quite amazing to hear that question and look back in the last few hours at those people internationally who have supported—and, dare I say it, in this country, from all sides—the New Zealand Government’s balanced, fair, reasonable, logical position.

to the Acting Prime Minister

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

Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s actions which focus on cutting wasteful spending, which is making a real difference to the cost of living for New Zealanders. Inflation, which was 5.6 percent when we took office, is now 2.5 percent. The official cash rate has fallen from 5.5 percent to 3.25 percent, and Kiwis see that in falling mortgage rates. Rents are also coming down. According to TradeMe, tenants are paying $20 less a week on new rentals than they were last April. New Zealanders are much better off under a Government that manages its own finances as carefully as New Zealanders have had to manage theirs under the previous Government’s fiscal profligacy.

So how are New Zealanders better off when the price of butter has increased by 50 percent and the price of cheese has increased by 30 percent, showing that the cost of living continues to go up under his Government?

Dairy products have increased in price because the global dairy price has improved—something that is good for New Zealand’s farmers. What would be bad for New Zealand’s farmers is if we had a different Government that put an avalanche of regulation on to those farmers that produce for New Zealand and the New Zealand economy, pushing up those prices even higher. New Zealanders are better off because inflation overall has gone down, even though some prices may vary—and sometimes that benefits sectors of the economy that that side of the House seems to hate.

So why are international prices and international factors now the cause of the cost of living crisis when two years ago, they weren’t?

It has always been the case that both local and domestic factors influence inflation. What has changed in the last 18 months is we now have a Government that is not borrowing $115 billion and leaving us with nothing but inflation and high interest rates to show for it. We have a Government that is fiscally cautious, managing its accounts in the way that families and firms and farmers had to manage theirs when those guys were in power, hosing it around like there’s no tomorrow.

Does a 50 percent increase in the price of butter and a 20 percent increase in the cost of bread make it harder or easier for families struggling with the cost of living to “make a Marmite sandwich” when their kid’s school lunch doesn’t show up, explodes, or is inedible?

I think it’s interesting that the member wants to talk about the Healthy School Lunches programme. We’re now seeing 67 percent approval from the students—actually, they’re loving it. Most parents will tell you that if you get, more than two times out of three, your kids loving the lunch you send them, then that’s winning. We’re doing it for half the price that the previous Government was doing it. That’s a very good example of how this Government is doing things better, faster, and smarter, and, yes, we are achieving over 99 percent on-time delivery. Now, to come back to those other prices, what we are seeing is inflation overall of 5.6 percent when this Government came in. That is at 2.5 percent now. Overall, the out-of-control prices that those people—

Good—yep.

—left the New Zealand households with—

Bring it in a bit.

—are under control. They can cherry-pick all they like, but you won’t butter up—

Yeah, OK.

—the New Zealand public after your last failures.

Answers to questions are not an opportunity to make a grand speech, but points made are points made.

Does adding nearly $25,000 to the projected cost of a medical student’s degree help them with the cost of living and help to address critical doctor shortages?

Well, you will have seen today that the Government has committed to a 13.89 percent increase in GP funding, so if your focus is on the patients—who are the people who are actually supposed to benefit from the healthcare system—then this Government is putting the taxpayer’s money where its mouth is so we can get the healthcare that New Zealanders deserve, after neglect. Just remember: this is the guy who managed to increase—

No, no.

—the health budget—

No—don’t.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister now could address the question that I asked.

Well, I think he started out by doing exactly that, and I just pulled him up when he was starting to stray into material that wasn’t quite appropriate for the answer.

Are increasing council rate bills, higher power bills, higher car registration fees, higher insurance premiums, and higher costs for childcare—all of which the Government has directly contributed to—signs that the Government has fixed the cost of living crisis?

Well, I look at the 12 percent increase in council rates in Wellington, a city that has just built a $2.3 million toilet, and that tells me that this Government is on absolutely the right track when it restricts the range of goals that councils should have. I also notice that there are some new candidates on the ballot this year that people may just want to have a look at if they’d like to act a bit more locally.

How will taking $13 billion—

Sorry—wait, wait. Your own team were talking while you’re trying to ask questions.

Fair enough. How will—

Well, not really. I think it’s most unfair.

How will taking $13 billion from the pay packets of low-income working women help them with their cost of living?

Well, if that was true, then it wouldn’t, but it’s absolutely untrue. Unfortunately, we have an Opposition that lives in a post-fact environment.

Does the Acting Prime Minister believe that households are better or worse off as a consequence of the Government’s decision to reduce taxes, including those households with children who, on average, receive $78 a fortnight extra in their pay packets?

It is absolutely the case that one of the largest costs that most households face is taxation—and they don’t mind if they’re getting something for it. But, for example, when you have someone who increases the health budget by two-thirds and ends up with the same number of ICU beds at the end of the pandemic as when he started, you see how easily people’s money can be wasted, and that’s why they’re keen to see tax cuts so they get a little back.

Has he or the Minister of Finance or the IRD located one single family that’s receiving the $250 a fortnight the National Party and the Government promised them?

The fact is it’s not our job to go hunting for people. I would recommend that that member goes and hunts for one person in the Labour Party who believes that he’s going to last till the election.

Point of order, sir. Thank you very much, sir. Can you please review the answers to those questions and consider whether it is appropriate for an Acting Prime Minister to use question time to essentially campaign for their political party in local elections.

I’ll certainly do that, but I’ll also review the question that was asked, and the review of that question is likely to conclude that the answer was somewhat inevitable. But I will certainly have a look at it.

Thank you.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. In the same breath, I want you to review the tape and check the Leader of the Opposition wasn’t—

I just said that—I just said that.

—inadvertently campaigning for the ACT Party.

It’s not going to go terribly well for the Government’s balance of the day, with that sort of commentary.

to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Last week, Stats NZ released GDP figures for the first three months of the year. These showed the New Zealand economy expanding 0.8 percent over the quarter, following growth of 0.5 percent in the last three months of 2024. Stats NZ also reports economic growth per person. Per capita growth was 0.5 percent in the first quarter of the year. This is the highest per capita growth since September 2022 and the second consecutive quarter of per capita growth after eight quarters of negative or no growth. These economic results are welcome news for New Zealand workers, families, and businesses.

How do these latest GDP results compare to forecasts?

The latest result was higher than almost anyone had forecast. In particular, growth of 0.8 percent in the March quarter is exactly twice the 0.4 percent growth rate forecast by both the Treasury and the Reserve Bank only a short time ago, and it was the second quarter in a row where growth outstripped what forecasters had predicted. It confirms that the economic recovery was not just under way but was gaining momentum late last year and at the start of this year.

What is the expectation for growth in the second quarter of this year?

We are almost at the end of the second quarter of this year. At the start of the quarter, in early April, new tariff announcements created uncertainty and dented confidence in economies around the world. Now, at the end of the quarter, there are bombs dropping and missiles flying in the Middle East. New Zealand is not immune to these global events. We have seen evidence of a knock to domestic business confidence and investment intention, and these global events mean it will be very challenging to sustain the previous level of growth into the June quarter. The Reserve Bank, for example, is forecasting positive but subdued growth in the June and September quarters before picking up again strongly at the end of the year. If members opposite think New Zealanders are silly enough to think that global events don’t have an impact on our New Zealand economy, then they are grossly underestimating the people we represent.

The final part of that answer was probably not adding anything to the actual content of the answer.

Can the Minister of Finance confirm that the Government remains committed to very careful management of its own finances, because when the Government takes less, there is more for people to spend and more for businesses to invest, and a virtual circle of growth carries on in New Zealand?

Yes, I can confirm that. I can also confirm that we were the first Government since 2010 to deliver tax relief to New Zealand households, benefiting more than a million households. Members opposite opposed that tax relief and would have those New Zealanders worse off.

What conclusion does she draw from the strong GDP results in the December 2024 and March 2025 quarters?

New Zealanders should be confident that the fundamentals of our economy are strong, and they should be heartened by the fact that growth has been outperforming what experts said was possible. The economy is in much better shape now than it has been over the last few years, with lower inflation, lower interest rates, and a return to per capita growth. Yes, global events can and do rock the economy—sometimes quite sharply—but I genuinely believe that New Zealand businesses and exporters are well placed to meet these headwinds, and they have a Government that backs them to do just that.

to the Minister for Trade and Investment

How does the Government’s $200 million fund for the fossil fuel sector impact the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability?

It has no impact upon the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS) nor on the Government’s ability to honour our commitments under this world-first trade agreement, which will reduce tariff rates for environmental goods that we sell, including New Zealand wool and wood. ACCTS does not prevent the Government from reopening oil and gas exploration permits nor entering into commercial arrangements to ensure energy security and affordable prices for New Zealand households. Natural gas will play a vital role in energy stability as a low-emission alternative to the coal that was imported by that member’s party in the last Government. Until viable, cost-effective, renewable options are in place, we intend to honour our climate change and environmental obligations under this trade agreement.

On what basis can he claim that there will be no impact when, today, it has been reported that independent legal advice shows quite clearly that the $200 million for the fossil fuel industry in his Government’s Budget is a subsidy and, therefore, a breach of the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability?

Well, this is not a subsidy, and I refer the member to the definition of fossil fuel subsidies in the ACCTS agreement. Article 4.3 of the agreement shows a number of flexibilities to enable New Zealand to address risks to energy security and affordability. Any options the Government pursues around gas exploration and development will take into account New Zealand’s international obligations, and the Government intends to do this within the commitments we’ve made within this agreement.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a document. The document is independent legal advice, commissioned by the Green Party, showing that the $200 million set aside for the Budget is a fossil fuel subsidy. It is not currently publicly available in full.

But it’s an in-house document.

No, it was legal advice that has been commissioned, provided to the media, but I have not yet seen it published in full on any media website. [Interruption]

Just a minute. Sorry—to be clear, this is a Green Party - commissioned document that’s been made available to the media.

And the media have not published it in its full totality.

Leave is sought. Is there any objection?

Yes.

Funny that—so much for transparency. Mr Speaker, he pātai tāpiri.

Aw! [Interruption]

The House will contain itself and listen silently while a question is asked.

What does he think that this Government’s fossil fuel fund says about the value of Aotearoa New Zealand’s signature on any international agreement when the Government chooses to breach them six months in, after six years of negotiation?

What it says about this Government is we will meet our international obligations. When we enter into them, we take them seriously. But we’re also going to work hard to stop the importation of coal, directed by the previous Government, and find alternatives as we transition to cost-affordable energy for all New Zealanders. It does feel like the Green Party have used taxpayer money to commission a report to get on TV, from a lawyer that probably is not involved in this agreement.

That’s not for you to comment on.

We take our obligations seriously and will meet those commitments in the agreement when it enters into force. But we’ve also worked to get the cost down for every New Zealand household when it comes to electricity and energy.

Will the Government, then, take it’s $200 million taxpayer-funded subsidy for the fossil fuels sector off the table and invest that money in things that will actually improve New Zealanders’ lives, not the least given this news that the subsidy probably breaches the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability?

Well—

Just a minute. In so much as there are aspects of that question that may be in order, the Minister may attempt to answer. But the question, by and large, doesn’t comply.

Well, I refute strongly the suggestion from the so-called independent legal advice that the Green Party paid for that this is a subsidy. It is not a subsidy. We will meet our obligations under that agreement. New Zealand will ratify the agreement on 1 July of this year. It will enter into force some time over the next one to two years. But I would also suggest that, actually, saying that the Government’s commitment to work with New Zealanders to get their costs of energy down is a subsidy is absolutely wrong and, in the case of this agreement, a fallacy.

Will the Minister, then, publicly release the advice and the information that he is making statements upon about this not being a breach of the ACCTS, given that he has so far refused to in parliamentary written questions from our offices?

Well, the questions that have come from that member’s office are actually around fishing and wouldn’t be sustainable in themselves. It’s really, really clear that this is not a subsidy.

No, I said the Green Party offices. I can very—

No, hang on. No, sorry. That’s not how it works.

The answer is: it’s not a subsidy.

Is it correct that Budget 2025 appropriates $200 million in contingency for the Crown to take commercial stakes of around 10 to 15 percent in new gasfield developments and commercial exploration, in which the Crown takes a stake and, therefore, receives upside profits, cannot be a subsidy?

Well, that is exactly correct, and that is within the bounds of the ACCTS agreement. I’m surprised that’s not in the legal advice the Green Party has commissioned with taxpayer funding. If it isn’t, and if I was the Green Party, I’d ask for the taxpayers’ money back.

Look, these little swipes at the end of questions are going to stop.

Does it remain the Government’s position to support the global phase-out of fossil fuels and fossil fuel subsidies given our current membership of at least four groups advocating to end these subsidies on the international stage?

Well, I’m not the Minister responsible for that, but what I can very clearly say to that member is: it’s the Government’s policy to ensure energy security for New Zealanders and that we can bring the cost down. Merely turning the lights off—as did that previous Government that that member was a member of—and importing as much coal as they can is not good for the climate, and it’s not good for New Zealanders. No wonder energy prices are so high for Kiwi households.

to the Minister of Immigration

What update can she provide on the Active Investor Plus visa?

Since the Active Investor Plus visa opened on 1 April, we’ve received 189 applications. These investors have indicated they’ll be investing a minimum of over a billion dollars into our businesses and economy, of which $845 million is from new applications. That is all in less than three months. It’s a staggering lift from the 116 applications received over more than 2½ years under the previous settings. Attracting investment for our economy means businesses can expand higher and grow, which creates more opportunity for New Zealanders. And this message from our Government is clear: New Zealand is open for business and for investment, and we are serious about unlocking our economic potential.

Where are applications being received from?

We’re seeing significant global interest in these new investment settings. Forty-five percent of the new applications are from the United States, with China and Hong Kong following. Applications have also been received from Austria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Great Britian, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Vietnam. These investments will help grow businesses, create jobs, and provide new skills for young people.

What Kiwi businesses are benefiting from the Active Investor Plus visa?

I recently visited Hot Lime Labs, a clean tech business in the mighty Lower Hutt, a New Zealand business that uses world-leading technology to produce clean and sustainable carbon dioxide for greenhouses from waste wood, using world-leading, patented technology. Hot Lime Labs are an accredited business available for direct investment from the Active Investor Plus. They’ve already received investment from a managed fund, and they’re targeting the European market and looking to grow to an over $100 million business, headquartered here in New Zealand, which means hundreds of jobs for Kiwis.

What feedback has she received about the Active Investor Plus visa?

I’ve spoken with a range of people who are very positive about these changes. One said to me that opportunities for New Zealand businesses to seek investment have never looked so good since before the 2008 global financial crisis. Queen City Law managing director, Marcus Beveridge, described the scheme as “A ray of sunshine” and said that he wouldn’t be surprised if we exceeded $10 billion a year coming in through this programme. He said, “We’re expecting quite an explosion of applications over the next couple of months”. Attracting foreign investment means boosting the economy, creating jobs, and building a prosperous future for New Zealand.

to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by her statement that “A number of Budget 2025 initiatives deliver targeted cost of living support”; if so, what were those Budget 2025 initiatives?

Yes, and the most important thing this Budget—and the previous Budget—does for the cost of living is help keep inflation under control through strong fiscal discipline; what a change that is from previous years. In terms of specific Budget initiatives, these included enabling New Zealanders to get 12-month prescriptions for medicines, rather than paying to get a new prescription written every three months; increasing eligibility for rates rebates, for up to 66,000 older New Zealanders; raising the family income threshold for Working for Families so that low to middle income recipients get additional financial support; continuation of our Government’s commitment not to lift petrol taxes this term, a proposal made by the previous Government and a continuation of our commitment not to reintroduce the Auckland regional fuel tax introduced by the last Government; ongoing support for the Commerce Commission to exercise its functions under the Grocery Industry Competition Act. Mr Speaker, I could go on, but you didn’t ask for a speech.

How does $7 a week starting next year for Working for Families recipients help Kiwi families struggling now?

Quite simply, this was not a change that was in law; this is a change we introduced in this Budget. It has been the longstanding practice of successive Governments that tax changes like this happen on 1 April in the tax year.

How does a decrease, on average, of $43 per fortnight for 61,000 families, who are now no longer applicable for Best Start in the first year of their baby’s life, help with the cost of living when food prices have increased by 4 percent, and electricity prices are up 8.7 percent?

We took a leaf out of the last Government’s book, which in one of its rare circumstances decided to target the second and third year of the Best Start payment at those families who actually needed it most, and we have simply continued that targeting into the first year.

Does she agree with the Acting Prime Minister that it is not the Government’s job to find a family that received the full $250 cost of living support that she promised in last year’s Budget?

We delivered on our promise. The policy commitments that informed that case study were delivered in full. I find it very difficult to take that question seriously when that member opposed every tax relief measure in our last Budget, meaning she actively wanted New Zealand voters to be worse off.

Does she believe that international factors, such as a global pandemic and a global conflict, can impact inflation and economic settings?

Yes, which is why it is so important that Governments control what is in their control. So, for example, Governments who, in the midst of global challenges, decide to double, triple, and quadruple down on their operating allowances and send cost of living payments to dead people and French backpackers are making inflation worse, not better. Our Government will not repeat the wasteful spending record of the last Labour administration.

How can she stand by her statement that a number of measures in Budget 2025 delivered targeted support for the cost of living when $7 per week from 2026 barely buys a block of butter, 61,000 families with a newborn lose up to $43 a fortnight, and she still can’t point to one family that received the full $250 she promised them in her previous Budget?

The facts are very simple. Let me read out simply the facts, which are around inflation rates. In September 2022, prices were rising 7.2 percent; in June 2022, 7.3 percent; in December 2022, 7.2 percent; March 2023, 6.7 percent; in September 2024, they’d come down to 2.2 percent. They were 2.2 percent in December 2024 and 2.5 percent in March 2025. My point is a simple one that the member has not yet grasped: if prices are rising out control and inflation is out of control, every New Zealand family is worse off. That’s your record—own it. [Interruption]

Someone’s going out early.

to the Minister of Health

What recent announcement has the Government made about supporting general practices?

Primary care is at the heart of the health system, delivering care to around 55,000 people every day. That’s why, this morning, the Government announced the largest ever funding boost for general practice in our country’s history. GPs will receive up to 13.89 percent funding uplift, bringing the total Government funding increase to $175 million for this financial year. That’s more than double the highest annual increase there has been since capitation was first rolled out. This is about putting patients first. We expect this investment to deliver results including shorter wait times, easier access to care, and better health outcomes for patients.

What will this record funding boost mean for New Zealanders?

We are backing general practice to deliver real results. We know that when people see their doctor or nurse earlier, they stay healthier and stay out of hospital. That’s why our record funding boost will enable general practices to see more patients, reduce wait times, and provide faster care to those who need it most. We’re also supporting GPs with an additional $5 million to deliver minor planned care procedures in the community, such as skin excisions and infusions, minor gynaecological procedures, and oncology infusions, so that New Zealanders can access care closer to home, without unnecessary delay.

Does the Minister need some pseudoephedrine, perchance?

I’m currently taking it.

How will this record funding boost support childhood immunisations?

Lifting childhood immunisation rates is a top priority for this Government. We want to see 95 percent of enrolled children fully immunised, and GPs will play a critical role in achieving this target. That’s why our record funding boost includes performance payments for general practices that lift their childhood immunisation rates by up to 10 percentage points or to 95 percent of their enrolled population, with partial payments for partial achievement. We’re a Government that is serious about results, and improving child immunisations remains a top priority for this Government.

What else is the Government doing to support the primary care workforce?

As part of Budget 2025, we’re making significant investments to grow and support our primary care workforce, including funding 100 clinical placements for overseas-trained doctors in primary care, 100 additional medical training places at our universities over the term of this Government, and up to 50 graduate doctor training places in primary care. We’ve also invested in nursing, with our recruitment centres for up to 400 graduate nurses each year, accelerating tertiary education for up to 120 primary care nurses, and are funding up to 120 training places for nurse practitioners. We will continue to invest in our front-line workforce so New Zealanders can get the care they need when and where they need it.

to the Associate Minister of Justice

What recent announcements has she made regarding the Three Strikes law?

On 17 June 2025, the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Act 2024 became law. It reinstates firm, escalating consequences for offenders who commit any of 42 serious violent or sexual offences. A first strike triggers a formal warning, a second means no parole, and a third imposes the maximum sentence without parole. These consequences will apply unless the outcome would be manifestly unjust. Do the crime and they’ll do the time.

Does the Minister’s announcement confirm that strike warnings issued under the previous regime will be counted towards the reinstated law?

Yes. Offenders who received valid strike warnings under the 2010 three-strikes regime and whose offences meet the new thresholds will have those strikes recognised and upheld. The message from this Government to offenders is clear: they will be facing the consequences of their actions. They will be held accountable. If they have a problem with that, don’t commit the crime in the first place.

How will this policy reduce the likelihood of innocent New Zealanders becoming victims of repeat offenders?

Bluntly, by removing repeat violent and sexual offenders out of circulation rapidly and longer, thus reducing their ability to offend. This Government is committed to protecting victims, not criminals. If a repeat serious violent or sexual offender must serve a longer sentence to ensure public safety, then so be it.

Is the regime already addressing the kind of offending it was designed to deter?

Yes, the law is already being applied to repeat violent offenders, with cases reported in the media just days after it came into force. The last Government repealed three strikes to cut prison numbers, even if it meant letting dangerous offenders walk free. We’ve made it clear that, if they commit serious crimes again and again, they will go to prison and stay there. The soft-on-crime experiment failed. We’re backing victims, not cuddling up to offenders.

to the Minister of Health

Is it his goal to provide “greater certainty for the private health sector”; if so, why?

Yes—and I quote—“in order to make the best use of all capacity that is available in the health system.” I agree with the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, who made that statement in 2020.

Will he direct officials to involve health charities, like St John Ambulance or Hospice, in writing long-term contracts for themselves, or will he only give that advantage to private hospitals?

No, we want longer-term agreements across the health system, because, ultimately, that allows for greater planning and greater enablement of delivery of services for outcomes for patients. And that is the outcome that I want across the health sector.

Supplementary. Supplementary.

This is my second supplementary. Will his agencies rewrite primary care rules to benefit community, iwi, or owner-operated general practice, or is that special treatment reserved for corporate giants like Tend?

The focus of Health New Zealand is on timely, quality access to healthcare for all New Zealanders. We have five health targets that we’re focused on, and we want to see them delivering against those targets.

Supplementary. Supplementary.

We go three here.

OK—yes, thank you, sir.

Will he bring back free prescriptions so owner-operated pharmacies are sustainable, instead of letting Chemist Warehouse drive them out of business?

Well, we believe in competition, and we believe in private enterprise, and, actually, a significant part of our health system is delivered by private enterprises across the country, including general practitioners, who are one of the greatest public-private partnerships this country has, and we’ll back them.

What certainty does his announcement of a record funding boost for general practice provide for one of the largest public-private partnerships in our health system?

Oh, what a great question. Local GP services are private businesses, and our Government is focused on ensuring they can continue to deliver timely, quality healthcare for all New Zealanders. The funding agreement reached yesterday with the sector is another significant step forward and will support GPs to continue providing care for the 55,000 Kiwis who visit a family doctor each and every single day.

Going from Ayesha Verrall’s question about policies to suit the Chemist Warehouse, which party was it that put the charge on in terms of pharmaceutical prescriptions in the first place when they were told by their colleagues in New Zealand First not to do it and now it’s being defended by that very Minister over there—has she got no memory?

That’s a very skilful political statement made inside a question.

Will he invest in proper staffing of cancer services, or will he, instead, continue to allow health funds to subsidise insurance companies for medicines they’re already obliged to cover?

Well, look, I’m very happy to talk about cancer medicines and the absolute hole in the Pharmac budget that that Government left behind and we had to fix. I just want to acknowledge the Minister of Finance, and the Associate Minister of Health, the Hon David Seymour, for the work they’ve done to deliver more cancer medicines for more New Zealanders. That is making a real difference.

Will he build a proper-sized hospital for the people of Nelson, instead of building a smaller hospital that creates greater opportunities for private providers?

I’m very happy to talk about Nelson Hospital and the fact that the rescoping started when she was the Minister—when she was the Minister. We are actually going to get on and deliver it, unlike the fake promise made in 2020 by the former Government, where they said spades would be in the ground by 2023—not a spade even got near Nelson.

In terms of delivery of health services by private providers, can the Minister confirm that it has been the longstanding practice of ACC to procure a number of its surgeries and treatments from private healthcare providers?

Well, the great ACC scheme, which I thought that party was proud of, absolutely procures services through the private sector, and I just want to remind the House of a Cabinet paper that the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins took as Minister of Health in 2020 where he said he wanted to see longer-term private sector arrangements to deliver elective care.

Can I ask the Minister, having regard to—

Mr Peters, just a moment. The House will give you the courtesy of a bit of silence.

Having regard to Ayesha Verrall’s questions, could the Minister tell me as to whether Pharmac has got any prescriptions for medicines for the early onset of political amnesia?

We’ll move on to—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Just a minute.

Here comes the cavalry.

Well, with another comment like that while we’ve got a point of order on the floor, it will be an early afternoon.

Mr Speaker, in the past—just making an observation and wanting to know what your ruling is on this—when questions are asked, we’ve been told they have to start with question words. I think they’re called interrogative pronouns. We’ve had a lot of questions asked that do not start with those words. Are you saying that that’s OK now?

Well, I’ll look at the Hansard, but I do think that some of the questions that you have asked this afternoon have started—and I have listened—with “Can” and “Is” or “Could”. Now, those are all question words.

to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries

What reports has he seen regarding the sustainability of New Zealand’s fisheries?

It’s my privilege to report to the House that the Food and Agriculture Organization, an international organisation housed within the broad spectrum of those things that occupy the UN, has given high praise to the sustainability of the New Zealand fishing resource: nigh on 85 percent pass their threshold, reflective of great stewardship, especially over the last 15 months.

What measures are being taken to support the good news in this report?

It’s important that members of the public bear in mind that we have already taken measures to sustain the future of the crayfish resource in the Hauraki Gulf. We are introducing a host of protective measures in the Hauraki Gulf, in the Tīkapa Moana, with a small concession to enable legacy fishermen to continue plying their trade in and around Kawau Island. But, more importantly, we are contemplating a set of closures or restrictions on the east coast of Tai Tokerau to protect the kōura, or the crayfish, industry.

What other reports has the Minister received regarding the sustainable growth of fisheries?

Recently, the report issued by the Ministry for Primary Industries Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries reflected good news in that part of our fisheries sector, where 13 percent growth—double-digit growth—was recorded in respect of marine farming. This is built on the fact that there is greater certainty and investment, traceable back to the extension of all the farming permits for the marine industry right through to 2050, something I look forward one day to emulating in terrestrial matters.

What is the likely impact of the proposed fisheries reform on the sustainability of New Zealand’s fisheries?

As a key hallmark of the work that our Government is undertaking to boost sustainability and drive jobs, soon we will be bringing back options in the form of proposed legislation to deliver the reforms for the fishing industry, the quota-management system, and a host of other improvements—the most profound since 1986. This is built on the understanding that this industry can create more jobs, generate export earnings, but, most importantly, will not fall prey to green ideologies designed to intimidate investment.

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

How many people are employed now, and how does that compare to when the Government took office?

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: The unemployment has been rising since 2021. In December 2023, 2,936,000 people were employed in New Zealand, and in March 2025, this figure sat at 2,914,000 people, in line with Treasury forecasts. Unemployment is always one of the last things to come right after a recession, and, unfortunately, we have inherited a low-growth economy, where unemployment was always forecast to increase above 5 percent. That is why our Government is so relentlessly focused on growth and getting people into work. When businesses have the confidence to invest and grow, it’s good for jobs, it’s good for growth, and it’s good for the incomes of New Zealand families.

Why are there 30,000 fewer people in work since her Government took office?

Well, that’s a very easy question to answer: because of the mess that member’s Government left us, with an economic recession.

Why are there zero new employment initiatives in Budget 2025 to assist or support people into work?

This Government’s focus is on growth in the economy. For that member’s understanding, things like Investment Boost encourage businesses to create jobs, because this Government knows that businesses are the entities that create jobs. This Government is relentlessly focused on keeping inflation down, on keeping interest rates down, and going for growth.

Can the Minister confirm that the rates of unemployment in the economy now are tracking almost exactly, if not a bit better, to forecasts provided by the last Government prior to the election, despite the many challenges left to this administration; and would the Minister join me in providing the member opposite a briefing on how to read Budget documents?

Yes, I can confirm that the unemployment rates are tracking as Treasury has forecast.

Why is it that Budget 2024 forecast 204,000 jobseekers in 2025, but just one year later, under her watch, that has increased by an additional 13,000?

It was always forecast that the unemployment rate would be over 5 percent. It is sitting at 5.1 percent. This is in line with Treasury forecasts, and Treasury are currently forecasting that jobseeker benefit numbers will peak at 217,000 in December 2025.

Could I just remind that member, before we go too much further, Speakers’ Ruling 181/3 makes it very clear that supplementary questions, or questions, cannot be used by a Government to attack another party in the House.

Can the Minister confirm that jobseeker numbers do not always track with unemployment numbers and that, in fact, under the last Government, jobseeker numbers increased even while unemployment was decreasing?

Point of order. It’s quite extraordinary, when you give a very clear direction to the House, that senior Government Ministers just immediately ignore that. There is no responsibility of this Minister on what the previous Government did.

No, but the member was talking about the stats and talking about the disparity sometimes between one stat and another. In this case, I took it as being somewhat complimentary of what was happening under a previous Government.

I’m not sure that’s what she meant, sir.

Well, you need to see things the way I do.

Yes, it is true that the jobseeker numbers do not always track exactly with the unemployment figures. As I’ve said previously, the unemployment figures are difficult to shift in a recession, and they are always the last stats to improve in a recession.

Does she accept that her Government’s cancellation of State houses being built, schools being upgraded, and hospitals being rebuilt has contributed to over 15,000 job losses in the construction sector?

I can confirm that high inflation rates, that high interest rates, that businesses having to watch every cent that they spend because of the incompetent management of the economy by the previous Government is the main factor in why—

That’s enough.

Point of order.

When the House is ready.

Look, I hesitate to lengthen the debate at the end of question time, but we do have an emerging practice in supplementary questions from the Opposition in which they allege facts which are not factual. This Government is continuing to build more State houses, to build more classrooms, to deliver hospitals. For the member to claim in his supplementary question that that is not the case has the potential to mislead the House.

Well, if that is the case, the member has a remedy to pursue.

Can the member tell this House, or confirm for this House, that, in fact, last year, this Government built more classrooms than in the previous year, which has meant that the construction industry has had more work in the classroom industry?

Hang on. Sorry, sit down. I’m absolutely sick of that. We’re calling it quits.

I’ve got one more quick supplementary; can I have one?

No, we’re all over.

I’ve received a letter from the Hon Marama Davidson seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the Government’s decision to deploy personnel and a C-130J aircraft to assist New Zealanders in the Middle East. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The situation in the region is a volatile one, and the Government’s efforts to assist New Zealanders who are in that situation warrants the attention of the House. This matter has been well traversed through the provision of the ministerial statement today and, indeed, in questions. The application is declined.

I understand that the Government is to introduce an imprest supply bill.

Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill, introduction.

The bill is set down for first reading immediately.

I move, That the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill be now read a first time.

I move, That the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill be now read a second time.

These two bills are technical but also very important for New Zealand’s public finances. I think it would assist the House if I explain at the outset what each of them is and what purpose they serve. The overriding constitutional principle, as set out in the Public Finance Act, is that the Government cannot incur expenses or commit capital expenditure without authority from Parliament. Parliament must agree to the spending that the executive incurs.

Of course, there are instances in recent history where Governments have fallen foul of that rule. I think back to the Ihumātao land deal, in which the Auditor-General found that the Government incurred expenditure without the appropriate parliamentary authority to use imprest supply, as the funding used was intended to deliver more housing but was instead used to stop housing development on that land.

Imprest supply is an important principle. The new financial year 2025-2026 starts very soon, on 1 July. The Budget for this year was announced on 22 May, and the main Appropriation bill had its first and second readings on that day, with excellent speeches from members on this side of the House. However, this legislation will not have its third reading until later this year, so that means that there is, effectively, a gap between the start of the new financial year and the point at which the House at law confirms the Budget.

The purpose of the imprest supply bill is to bridge that gap and to do this in a way that is essentially temporary. More precisely, the imprest supply bill provides financial authority to incur expenses and capital expenditure for the first three months of this financial year—the 2025-26 year—before the passing of the appropriation estimates bill, when new appropriations for the financial year are authorised by Parliament.

The overall amount being sought in this bill is consistent with the amounts sought in previous years. The imprest supply bill seeks authority for the Government to incur a maximum of $39 billion in expenses, $7 billion in capital expenditure, and $1 billion in capital injections. Part of this amount is to cover the possibility that fiscal risks materialise and to allow for the uncertain timing and spread of expenditure, as is standard practice. These are matters on which the Treasury advises, and there are longstanding conventions about the way these numbers are formulated, conventions which this Government has adhered to.

Overall, that’s the purpose of the imprest supply bill—it’s an interim spending authority. As its name reveals, this is the first imprest supply bill for 2025-26. There will be a second imprest supply bill later this year.

Notwithstanding the routine nature of this legislation, I’d point out that even when it comes to imprest supply, Governments face choices. It is simply the case that Governments who commit to more extraordinary levels of spending than this Government is prepared to would also have to incur parliamentary authority for many billion dollars more in imprest supply. For example, if our Government hadn’t taken the prudent and responsible step to deliver $23 billion worth of savings in our first Budget, $21 billion worth of savings in our second Budget, and hadn’t taken a number of steps to provide fiscal constraint, then the Government would be in a position of having to ask Parliament for much more money in order to tide New Zealand through this period. This is important because these are actual choices that Ministers need to make, and I am conscious that there are members in this House who oppose every measure the Government takes to control its own spending yet who also wish to hold the position that they care about debt and they care about taxes.

The simple reality is that while we and members of this House vote for what spending and taxation occurs, we do not do so with our own money, a point that is often lost by members in this House. In fact, you heard it in the member the Hon Ginny Andersen’s question today where she tried to infer that particular spending was Labour’s money or Labour’s funding. There is no such thing as National Party money, Labour Party money, Te Pāti Māori money, Green Party money; it is all taxpayers’ money, and those of us who are stewards of that money, I think, have a serious responsibility to ensure that we are as careful with every dollar as mums and dads struggling with the cost of living at home are. The question that this Government asks itself before it incurs expenditure for “doolally” exercises like three waters mergers and co-governance reforms, hundreds of millions of dollars on doomed light rail projects, and huge amounts of expenditure on hiring more policy analysts is: can we look New Zealand taxpayers in the eye and say, “We’re taking that money from you in higher taxes so that we can pay for the little things that we think are exciting.”? Our test is that we should always ask ourselves, “Could those dollars do more work in the bank accounts and wallets of very hard-working Kiwi people?”

It is the case that our imprest supply bill and, therefore, New Zealand’s borrowing requirements at this time and, therefore, our taxation requirements at this time are less burdensome for New Zealanders because of the careful choices that Ministers in our Cabinet have made about what spending they commit to on behalf of New Zealanders. Those who wish to oppose every measure to do with saving, who wish to say that every dollar should be spent on every idea that everyone has had, need simply reflect on a simple lesson that I have found easy enough to explain to my 9-year-old, which is this: there isn’t actually a magic money tree; there isn’t a place where the free money comes from. It comes from hard-working people who get up in the morning, go to work, sometimes not because it’s the thing that gives them joy that day but because they know that they need to earn the dollars to put food on the table, to pay the rent, and to fill up their car. Then what we do in Government is we take a big chunk of that in tax, and we commit to spend that for the public good.

So those who like to pretend that we can just spend as much as we want are really saying to New Zealanders that they want an open call account on New Zealanders’ back pockets, and we on this side of the House do not agree with that approach. We think it is important to be prudent and to be responsible to ensure that we keep the economic recovery that is under way going, through responsible fiscal management; that we don’t overtax New Zealanders; and that we don’t over indebt our kids and future generations. Our spending choices, as reflected in this imprest supply bill, do just that.

The thing is, it’s very easy to oppose Government Budgets when you have absolutely no alternative plan, when Chicken Little cries at the sky falling at every move but has no alternative plan except to fantasise about a magic money tree—what you have is an Opposition lacking all credibility. The thing is, I’m given great heart because those same hard-working New Zealanders I just spoke of are smart people and they can see through the antics of the other side. They know that that approach of pretending that there is fantasy money and a fantasy locker that doesn’t come from their back pockets failed them. It delivered the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, from which many households are yet to recover. It delivered masses of debt, a huge spike in inflation, and price rises. And it delivered very little that New Zealanders can speak of now except for an almighty recession.

And so I proudly speak in support of this imprest supply bill, a reflection of a return to good, responsible fiscal and economic management. I dare the members on the other side to explain exactly where their magic money tree is planted.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I actually go into the Supplementary Estimates bill and imprest supply, I’d ask the House’s indulgence for a moment. I want to acknowledge the passing of a senior kaumātua and rangatira ko Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai Charitable Trust, Rakauoteora Te Maipi, or Koro Don, as we know him up on the Kāpiti Coast. Koro Don passed away this weekend, and he was a beloved kaumātua who led with wisdom, honour, and music. He served as the Kāpiti Coast District Council kaumātua for 25 years. He was deeply committed to our community. Our thoughts are with Pat, his wife; his wider whānau; and Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai. Moe mai rā, e te rangatira, haere atu rā ki te okiokinga mutunga kore. [Rest in peace, noble leader; go on to the eternal resting place.]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to turn my attention now to both the Supplementary Estimates bill and the imprest supply bill, and, once again, we hear—from the Government side of the House and, in particular, from the Minister of Finance—a focus on the Opposition. We saw that again right throughout the lead-up to the Budget, we saw it on Budget day, we saw it after Budget day, and, again, all we’ve heard about is this side of the House in the debate on the Supplementary Estimates and the imprest supply bill.

It’s quite interesting because when you talk to New Zealanders on the ground, they say to themselves, “Well, I didn’t see anything for me and the cost of living in this Budget.”, and that’s why the Government spends all the time talking about this side of the House. We’ve seen both in question time and in the Minister of Finance’s speech just now—which I want to respond to—the talk about high inflation at the time when we were in Government.

As I asked the Minister the question during question time, we had high tradeable inflation during the period when we were in Government—particularly post-COVID—because there was a global pandemic and because there were supply chain issues. If you look at the data around tradeable versus non-tradeable inflation, you will see the major difference, and so it’s important to set that out today because what we know is that going forward, as a result of this Budget, this Budget and the Treasury documents talk a lot about the geopolitical uncertainty that’s happening in other jurisdictions. We’ve seen that, obviously, from what was debated in the House today with the ministerial statement from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and New Zealand is not immune to those global shocks or impacts that happen overseas.

That’s exactly what happened during the COVID pandemic, and that’s exactly what’s happening now, which is why it’s even more important to think domestically about what we can do as a country to support each other during a cost of living crisis and during a time when there is super-high demand. In a number of our non-governmental organisations, there is huge demand for food banks, there is huge demand for mental health services, and there is huge demand for housing, and yet what we see through this imprest supply bill, which, effectively, gives temporary authority for what’s in the Budget—what we, again, go back to is that the Budget did not provide enough support for everyday New Zealanders.

The Minister of Finance talks a lot about this magical money tree—the magical money tree which, unfortunately, doesn’t have much for everyday Kiwis or everyday New Zealanders, but it has a lot of money for landlords, it has a lot of money for tobacco companies, and it has $200 million for the gas industry. Again, there is a magic money tree with big branches and big flowering blossoms for these different industries, but what do families get? What do families get?

Some families, if they’re entitled to Working for Families credits, get $7 a week, but to pay for that, they had to strip away Best Start from 61,000 families for the first year. That first year of having a newborn is one of the hardest periods, which is why, when we were in Government, that first year was not income-tested, because we knew how hard it was for families in that first year to, first of all, deal with a newborn and the huge life changes that that makes for your family. That’s why we never income-tested it in the first year, but in the second and third years, income testing and abatement thresholds were introduced. But we’re seeing with this Government and their Budget that 61,000 families will be $43 worse off per fortnight because of this Government’s choices, and it all comes down to choices.

We heard a lot of words from the Minister about choices and money trees, and, yet again, the magical money tree seems to happen for lots of big corporates, but not for the everyday Kiwi battler who is on the ground every day and who is trying to, basically, make ends meet because inflation is not coming down for food—it is still increasing. Again, what happens overseas does have an impact here, but, once again, all we hear from the Government is, basically, that it’s not OK when Labour is in Government, but it is OK when National is in Government.

I do want to look at the Supplementary Estimates. We received a briefing from Treasury as part of scrutiny week that went through the actual line-by-line changes in the Supplementary Estimates. Again, the magical money tree seems to give—let’s have a look—$7.25 million to deliver new ministerial suites in the executive wing, at level three. The magical money tree there has $7.25 million, and yet for food banks, those get only $15 million. So, basically, the magical money tree gifts $7 million to ministerial offices so that ministerial offices can be redone on level three, but food banks only get $15 million, and yet when you talk to food banks right across the country, they are saying that demand is super high—higher than it’s ever been. They are crying out for the Government to support them, but the Government is saying, “We’ll give you $15 million, and, by the way, the magical money tree blossoms for ministerial suites.”

The other interesting thing from the Supplementary Estimates is in Vote Social Development, in relation to emergency housing. The appropriation for emergency housing decreased by $225.79 million to $78.849 million for the 2024-25 year, and so when Treasury set out why that is, they said that there is a lower number of grants than previously forecast and it’s a lower average payment per grant than previously forecast—OK, that’s the magic money tree, which is in motion again. Again, the Government chose to tighten the criteria for emergency housing assistance—so much so that this Government saves money from it.

Yet again—I say it once again in this House—this seems to be a Government that knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing, because we have growing homelessness across all our major districts. Even in Rotorua, we saw media reports out from the Salvation Army of there being a number of homeless people, and the Salvation Army at the time were trying to manaaki them, but their hands were tied because they had no choice. So, again, we see that, basically, the appropriation for emergency housing assistance has been reduced, but we have growing homelessness.

The other interesting thing which we saw in the Supplementary Estimates was to do with the jobseeker support and emergency benefits. Well, that appropriation increased by $276.236 million, so it’s gone up to over $4,711.258 million. I know that those are all just numbers, but, ultimately, there’s a person behind that number, and the reason why it’s gone up by over $282 million is because, again, there is a higher number of people than previously forecast who are now on the jobseeker support and the emergency benefit.

Once again, these are people in our society who have no choice but to have to come to the Government to ask them for support, and it’s increased. They’ve had to increase that appropriation because this year, there are more people on the benefit than Treasury had forecasted last year, which is why I stand in support of what Ginny Andersen said during question time, which was that the forecast has increased by 13,000 people—that is 13,000 people. Again, members of the House on the Government benches say, “Oh, the magical money tree.” Well, the magical money tree is having to give more to those people who don’t have jobs, because this Government has tanked the economy.

Last year, there were two periods of recession. As much as that Government believes that it didn’t cause the recession, it was still growing in the early quarters of the financial year, and Treasury confirmed it. There was modest growth until the last two quarters of the financial year, and that was because that Government paused, reviewed, and cancelled huge infrastructure projects, which led to a loss of construction roles—which, again, Ginny Andersen talked about during question time; 15,000 construction sector roles—and then, what happens when you have less people spending money in the economy? All those little suppliers, all those retail shops, and all those restaurants don’t have people going there to enjoy part of what working does to help people live with dignity and to live with integrity.

This Government can crow as much as it wants, but the facts are in the numbers. This country is going backwards under that Government.

E te Māngai, I can’t hear you.

Yeah.

Good to go?

: Yeah,

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Apologies, Madam Speaker, your microphone wasn’t on.

Bills like this represent really important—in fact, some of the most important—Government decisions. That is: how we collectively and democratically use our collective resources to build the kind of country that we want to live in, here in Aotearoa New Zealand. What I find really interesting about parties of the right and those that currently occupy the Government benches—

Ideology.

—is that we hear a lot of rhetoric about freedom. I hear just now some heckling about the notion of ideology. I would inform that heckler that all of us in this place have ideology. It simply means that we believe in things and that we stick our neck out on that basis. What we don’t want to be, in response to that heckler, is dogmatic—that is, so immovable in the things that we believe that we are not willing to reconcile with the experience of others whose shoes we have not walked in.

Back to that point around the rhetoric of freedom, which members of this Government talk about a lot, let’s be really, really, really clear: you only have illusory freedom that is not real freedom if you do not have economic freedom—that is, the ability to make meaningful decisions about how you live your life. It is incredibly hard to imagine that any New Zealander could claim to have real freedom if they cannot afford to put food on the table, which Government Budget decisions have made a heck of a lot harder for regular people.

We in the Greens unashamedly believe in universal basic services. Just to give people a snapshot or an insight into what it is that we’re talking about when we’re talking about universal basic services, we’re talking about things like free schooling, we’re talking about things like free hospitals—those things which now are considered rather undebatable. They are things that we consider to be normal and as though they are immovable. But, once upon a time, these things were impossible to fathom. Indeed, if we were fighting for these things today, for free schooling and for free hospitals, I believe—make no mistake—that this Government would call it wasteful spending and that they would say that this is about envy politics, about how we choose to tax certain groups of people who are doing pretty all right and decide to channel those resources into our collective public resources and services.

This Government is running the trickle-down economics playbook. It is to defund public services, to watch them wither and ultimately fail, point that out to the public, and then say we should privatise that. The next step of that logic is that those privatised services are then sold back to regular New Zealanders for a far higher cost in order to account for the profit that this Government so wilfully champions, which in turn increases the cost of living. You only need to look at the decisions made by the former National Government with the electricity sector to get a clear indication of where it is that we are heading.

This Government, if you’re to read between the lines of their rhetoric, wants everyone to only think about themselves. They encourage people to fight each other in this rampant, dog-eat-dog competition and especially to punch down on those who are not doing all too well, while they shred the services that all of us ultimately need, that all of us ultimately rely on. That is not how you build a country. That is how you destroy one. We are not 5 million random individual people running around this country; we are New Zealanders, and we get to choose to make decisions that benefit all of us.

But what we are debating specifically today isn’t even the full Budget; it’s just a microcosm of that, with their interim spending. Let’s put the microscope on some of the cruel penny-pinching that the Government has decided to do, hurting our communities and destroying local economies. In the environment, climate, and conservation space, they have cut $16.4 million from services for conservation. They have cut $13.9 million from identification and implementation of protection for natural and historic places. They have cut $6.1 million from managing climate change in Aotearoa New Zealand. They have cut $1.8 million from the Climate Change Commission. They have cut $95 million from waste minimisation. They have cut $6.5 million from greenhouse gas mitigations research and development funds. They have cut $4 million from sustainable land management and climate change research. In the transport space, they’ve cut $121 million for school transport. They have cut $16 million from mode-shift - planning infrastructure services and activities. They have cut $29 million for decarbonising the bus fleet. In housing, they have cut $1.3 million from transitional housing, and they’ve cut $226 million from emergency housing assistance.

The Prime Minister and the Associate Minister of Housing had the gall to stand in front of TV cameras in January of this year and announce that the Government had met its targets early to kick people out of emergency housing, when, in December last year, they had received a briefing that said that homelessness was visibly increasing in our major centres. It just really, truly, honestly boggles the mind. I think that that is the sense of frustration, the sense of gaslighting, the sense of living in an Orwellian world where we’re told one thing and the reality is another, that the Opposition is experiencing—and, indeed, I might say, I hear frequently from New Zealanders all across this country.

This Government tells us that they are all about productivity. Meanwhile, they actively undermine that very productive investment which stimulates that productivity. Indeed, this was actually identified just two weeks ago in a report from the International Monetary Fund that I asked the Minister of Finance if she had read, at scrutiny week just last week. The IMF—known Marxists at the International Monetary Fund!—pointed out that some of the major barriers to our productivity challenges here in Aotearoa New Zealand are the distortions in our tax system that see money flowing into real estate and away from productive investment in small and medium enterprises. The IMF told us that we need to see more Government investment in productive research, which this Government has cut. These things do not add up, and we’re imploring New Zealanders, here—with the transparency that we are offering, in the world between what the Government is saying and what they’re doing—to understand that this Government is not operating in their best interests.

Then, there’s all of the rhetoric about growth. Well, the question has to be: who is that growth actually for? What we can see represented in the reality of the data and the evidence that we are getting out of the consequences of Government decisions is that that growth is only benefiting those who are seeking rents or those who are seeking profits. It is not for the children that they have decided to keep in poverty. It is not for the 15,000 construction workers who their withdrawal of investment saw lose their jobs. It is not for the half a million New Zealanders who are now having to access food banks every single week. It is not for the 191 New Zealanders who are leaving this country on a plane every single day, three quarters of them between the ages of 18 to 34.

The Government is not a household; it is the democratic manifestation of all of our nation’s households. It can, and it does, borrow money on all of our behalf, and it should do that to make productive investments; the opposite of which, I might add, is what this Government is doing by borrowing for unproductive tax cuts which have not generated one job and have in fact kneecapped that growth and productivity. That borrowing that a Government can do comes with interest repayment rates that are a fifth of the cost of what a household repayment rate would be. Government spending also has positive multiplier impacts, and when a Government withdraws its spending, particularly on the infrastructure and the services that New Zealanders rely on, the experience and the evidence show us that private household debt goes up. But these facts, this truth, the experience of New Zealanders on the ground, seem to be absolute anathema to this Government—they’re just not interested in hearing it. They either don’t care, or they’re so ideological and dogmatic that they’re not that interested in engaging with that reality.

At the end of the day, the thing that I just really can’t reconcile the most in my head is the rhetoric that they use around hard-working people, who they pretend they are playing this game for, all the while further entrenching a tax system that sees those hard-working New Zealanders—regular, average New Zealanders—paying double the effective tax rate of the wealthiest in this country. And this is not Green Party reckons; this is IRD research, which is one of the first things that this Government cut in their first hundred days, repealing the enabling legislation.

I just—I’m at a loss. Very clearly, we oppose this legislation, and we oppose this Government. They’re not operating in the interests of the regular New Zealander.

Now, this is a split call, I understand—yes. I call Mark Cameron, and it’s good to see you back in the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just inform the House that dialysis and kidney disease is a terrible thing, but I am here.

You’re looking great.

Thank you very much to my colleague.

I’m saddened by some of the remarks by my dear friend Chlöe Swarbrick over the other side of the House—and I’ve got a lot of respect for her—as she talks about ideology in this imprest supply bill that we’re discussing and where we see targeted funding by this Government, speaking loudly, as she does, about what I’d maintain is collectivism. Ideology, certainly, is something that she referenced. Yes, this side of the House has a slightly different aspiration for its New Zealanders. We speak to the individual rather than the collectivism of the left, and we certainly don’t beat up those that are successful. Targeted funding, I wager, Chlöe Swarbrick, has been felt by the primary sector, which, by the way, is the backbone of the very country that you speak to and should be supportive of.

I want to speak to a couple of targeted funding measures that you might choose to support—there would be a novel idea. The primary sector afforded itself $246 million in Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures funds to help on-farm profitability and productivity. Now, I say to Miss Chlöe Swarbrick, how on earth are you going to tax a society when the country, especially the primary industries, affords itself an activity and produces nearly 60 billion bucks? And yet collectivism on the left just likes to beat up those that are successful. Well, I maintain this side of the House has done marvellously well in this bill, accounting for the primary sector and all the work that those people do. We don’t go and come into this House and evangelise and offer sermons about how the primary sector should live from those from central Auckland—gracious me, that’s nonsense.

Another thing I’d like to address that I think is very salient in this House is rural wellbeing and community support. Now, this is a very personal issue for me. Most people in this House know that my son committed suicide a year ago, and yet I came here, and I looked at this imprest supply bill and what was in the appropriation. I buried my boy a year ago. Now, this has afforded $2 million as a contestable fund. I would argue it’s not enough, but it surely speaks to the issues that we face in rural New Zealand. I am sick to death of that side of the House beating my side up for what we do every day to try and make rural New Zealand a little bit better for all of us, because, gracious me, some of the members on the other side of the House know what it’s like living in a remote area in rural New Zealand. The wellbeing that I see in this contestable fund will help my people address these very salient issues that only some of us understand. We’re over the sermons. We’re over Chlöe Swarbrick and her clan beating us up when we come to do the very best, which is supply a food product for all of us and access a market that keeps the whole country out of the economic doldrums.

Four hundred thousand for A & P Shows—what a wonderful investment. Everyone here, I would suggest, should go to an A & P Show. You will learn what it’s like to be a cow cocky, a wool grower, a farmer, or a horticulturalist. What a wonderful thing—400 grand to keep that reality of iconic rural New Zealand alive. How cool is that? Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars for rural women and their support.

Now, I just want to highlight one thing about these good people. I was asked, when I went to speak to these people, what a rural community was, thinking of this fund as I speak to this. They asked me what a community was and what a community meant to me? I offered this: in all the difficulties I’ve personally had in my life, these people in rural New Zealand are lesser so a community, because we are a rural family. Everywhere up and down New Zealand, we are a collective of rural people that believe in what we’re doing. We believe in this country, we believe in feeding a nation, and, most of all, we believe in being the fiscal spine that keeps the country alive.

This bill is a damnably good piece of legislation. It absolutely helps rural New Zealand do what it’s done for so long—keeping the country out of the economic doldrums and in the black. I support it. I think it’s a wonderful piece of legislation, and “Hear, hear!” to rural New Zealand.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to my good mate Mark Cameron. It’s great to have you back in the House. Unfortunately, you’ve got to get the radiator flushed tomorrow, I think, but, yeah, look, it’s great to have you back here.

Look, I just want to back up the comments from the Minister on this one. We live in a reality world where we’ve got to make the books balance. If you’ve been in charge of your own business, you know that the reality is that if you’re only getting so much in, you can only afford to spend so much, otherwise you’ll go out of business pretty quickly. It’s pretty simple stuff, and businesses up and down the country—small and large—wrestle with that challenge day in, day out. A key thing that we’re focusing on here is ensuring that we’re spending the money where it needs to be spent to get the best bang for buck and to deliver the best outcomes.

I hear a lot about “Oh, you’re not throwing enough money at this. We used to throw more money at that.” Throwing money at something doesn’t necessarily mean you’re delivering something and that you’re getting something in return. I’ve seen that a lot of the spending that has happened in the past has been completely and utterly ineffective. Sometimes, it’s not how much you spend, but it’s how you spend it and how you take other actions to make sure it does the job well that it needs to do. It’s thinking outside the square. Sometimes, when you’ve run a business, you learn that—“Money’s tight. What else can I do? How can I do this differently? How can I get the best bang for buck from what I’m spending?”

On this side of the House, that’s what we’re focusing on—how do we get the best bang for buck? And the Budget—on this side of the House—is about enabling New Zealand to do well. It’s not about giving stuff to people. It’s not this magic lolly scramble of “You get something, and you get something.” No, a Budget, mainly, is about us taking from New Zealand, and then it’s about redistributing it in the most effective manner. Now, obviously, we benefit New Zealand more if we take less. If we interfere in New Zealanders’ lives less and enable them to live the life most productive to them, that is to their benefit.

And I hear, “Oh, you’re only giving so and so $3 or $5 or not this amount.” No, it’s about having the settings right in the first place. It’s about getting inflation under control. It’s not about destroying our energy sector and pushing up electricity prices. The previous speaker mentioned that there’s $200 million going to oil and gas drilling for joint ventures there. Well, we need to, because the previous Government created a massive sovereign risk here, and we need to do something to keep the lights on. This country will not function if we cannot get reliable energy happening in this country, and so this is an imperative. It’s not something that, on this side of the House, we necessarily want to do. We don’t necessarily want to rush off and do joint ventures with various businesses, but it’s a reality that we are left with and that we have to do.

Look, finally, I just want to talk about a couple of areas in my portfolio. It was good in the biosecurity space. We were able to keep the money that we’ve got and ensure that it’s spent wisely and effectively on the front line keeping New Zealand safe. As my colleague said, agriculture is the backbone of this country, and protecting it in the biosecurity space is what protects that backbone. We need to make sure that we’re spending that money wisely and that we’re investing it where it needs to be invested, protecting our borders.

It was really good that we were able to find savings and direct an extra $2 million toward wilding pine control. I know that’s an issue that many farmers, particularly in the central South Island, are concerned about, so having an extra $2 million there—I’d love to have more; I’d love to spend more, certainly, because I can see it’s an important thing, but we’ve got to be fiscally sensible.

Also, in food safety, we’re spending the money wisely. We’re looking at how we can reduce the complexity and red tape in that area so that, in that future, hopefully, we can run a leaner system that reduces costs for businesses and that allows them to invest more, which obviously leads to improved outcomes and incomes for New Zealanders. I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First for the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill. I must say, trying to put a speech together for this was quite a hard feat when you stare at, I think it was, 960 pages of appropriations. Being a first-term MP and having the opportunity last week, through our Estimates debates and our scrutiny week, to revise that over just the hour we had in the Finance and Expenditure Committee—960 pages, and it was over $10 billion worth of expenditure. What I would say is I remember, before becoming a local-body politician, the family budget, where you’re dealing with dollars and hundreds and thousands; and then going into local government and dealing with millions; now, standing here and having to talk about billions. So those budgets change.

The one thing I did learn from the last week’s review was the difference between what the Budget for 2024-25 said and what was achieved was only a 5.4 percent difference. Why I raised that issue is, when a Government sets a Budget, you would expect the Government to stick as closely to the Budget as you can. I will talk to some reasons why you do change a Budget, but what I thought was quite impressive was how close we were to the original Budget spend. If you actually looked in the information given to the select committee, that difference in the last couple of years has got closer. Under this Government, we are sticking closer to what we are saying we’re going to spend, and we’re not blowing out the Budget. That 5.4 percent—which was $9.8 billion—was how close the Budget was. That took the Government spending up to $192 billion—that’s what we are actually here to speak about.

Also, the imprest supply bill—and the finance Minister introducing that into the House today has said it’s a temporary measure. We support that. It allows the authority of Government to start spending money, and that’s important. As the process of the Budget goes through and is adopted, at the moment we need that imprest supply bill to be able to spend money and keep the country moving and doing all the things the Government of the day wants to.

Also, as the finance Minister said, we face choices. Those choices have been set out in the Budget. We’ve heard a lot about a “magic money tree”. I’ve been told, yes, money doesn’t grow on trees. But where I come from, it actually does, because my portfolio is horticulture. In horticulture, money does grow on trees in that sense; it’s just not real money. You’ve got to pick that fruit and actually take it to market. The one thing I’ve learnt in recent times, travelling around the country, and especially at the Fieldays, is how great our horticultural industry is doing at the moment—our apple industry, cherries, and also kiwifruit and Zespri. That thing with horticulture is such an important thing. I’d say to the other side of the House: “Yes, money does grow on trees. We just need to put more of those trees in the ground, put the hard work in, and actually get the rewards from there.”

Again, going back to the home budget—the home budget—where all of us and people out in TV land will be able to understand, we have a certain amount of money, we budget for it on expenses and different capital things, and it’s no different from this Government. We have our expenses that must be paid for, and then we have our capital items as well. That sometimes changes, and the reason they can change is we need to reprioritise. We’ve heard from the Government how well they and the Ministers have been able to reprioritise spending. That’s been really important in that appropriation of $9.8 billion, actually reprioritising spending and actually not always finding new money but using existing money.

Also, during a year, we know, even with the home budget, there are new incentives. Ministers do have new incentives, and sometimes they need to be funded. How do you fund them? Again, through these appropriation entries. Also, you need to respond to unforeseen events. And we all know in a budget at home, things crop up—the car breaks down. Well, imagine running the Government, the different departments, and the different things that happen. Those unforeseen events are why we have the need for these Estimates.

The major reasons, we’ve learnt through the select committee last week, for some of the changes were infrastructure. Infrastructure is a key element to this Government’s priorities. Sometimes, as we know, timelines change. Timelines change for a number of reasons. And we’ve heard a lot about consenting. We know this Government is going to change the Resource Management Act (RMA). We’re going to get things moving quicker. We’ve got fast track on the cards. We’re going to make sure that infrastructure projects—where we’ve got a number of different projects out in a programme for the next 10 to 20 years, that’s all going to be done through fast track. Also, consenting just your ordinary infrastructure projects is going to be a lot simpler under the new RMA reforms that we’re putting through.

Also with infrastructure, you have supply chain disruptions. We’ve got different things in the labour market that make things not as timely, sometimes, as we want them to be. You have things with funding, with different infrastructure projects, that you need to change from your timelines and your priorities, and, as we know with infrastructure projects, there are also increased prices. The Regional Infrastructure Fund is a key element of the New Zealand First manifesto and through our coalition partners. The Regional Infrastructure Fund, that $400 million a year—$1.2 billion over the three years—in the appropriations, was needed to be brought forward. We had over $100 million for flood protection. Those flood-protection projects with local councils that were announced were an appropriation that was done through these supplementaries here.

We’ve also had global economic uncertainties. We know the uncertainties in the world at the moment. New Zealand’s not immune to that. Sometimes in Budgets, for one reason or another, you need to find money and place that in different areas. Something we’re really proud of, on this side of the House, was the help with cancer treatments and other medicines. Extra money needed to be found for that, so appropriations were brought forward for those cancer treatments. We had the community housing and finance agency group set up for community housing, which was $180 million. That was an extra appropriation put in that part. We also had some decisions through our veterans’ entitlements that actually increased the Budget by over $3 billion just in that one area that we needed to take care of.

New Zealand First is voting for this bill because it upholds the integrity of the financial system while enabling the necessary amendments. We are particularly encouraged by the targeted increases in funding for regional development that got touched on, for infrastructure resilience, and for bolstering the front-line services that this Government has talked so passionately about and is actually putting into place. These also reflect New Zealand First’s priorities of strengthening rural and provincial communities, fostering economic security, and preparing New Zealand to meet tomorrow’s challenges today, instead of having to wait further down the track. The bill also reflects practical governance, not ideology, and those are the principles New Zealand First will always stand for. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

This call is a split call. I call Mariameno Kapa-Kingi.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I just wanted to firstly acknowledge Mark being back in the House: tēnā koe, and also, I guess, your own health and particularly you sharing your personal matter, Mark; I just want to mihi to you. We come from rural areas, you know; we get it, I get it. I don’t know whether I get it exactly the same way you get it, but, nevertheless, I do want to bring some of these ideas to the House. I want to speak about rural Māori, if I can, Madam Speaker—

Of course you can.

—because I want to bring that into the minds of people as we discuss and decide on these particular bills this afternoon. I think, to open it up, really, it comes down to—because I was listening to the Minister and the range of debate, and the words that come to mind mostly for me are “trust” and “verify”. The verification part is probably not going to come for a little while, so we sort of go, “Can we trust what we’re hearing?” I don’t know; I don’t know whether we can. I’ll make these statements as I start.

Te Pāti Māori will not be supporting either of these bills, and this is why: because what we recognise is that it will legitimise a Budget and a policy agenda that protects power and not people. This is how we see it. When I say, “not people”, I’m talking about it not protecting the hard-working people, the people that can work, and the people that cannot work, and the people that cannot find work. Does this help those scenarios? I’d say no. I’d say this Government needs to pass these laws because, under the made-up rules, you cannot spend our tax dollars without the consent of Parliament. This is a hypocrisy of this institution: the Government needs the consent of Parliament, where they themselves make up the majority, but they do not need the consent of our Treaty partners to decide how they spend the revenue earned off our whenua.

The past two Budgets, in our mind, are a betrayal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. They have slashed our ability to protect our lands, our waters, and our futures. They are defunding our climate solutions, defunding our housing solutions, defunding our health solutions, defunding our solutions to poverty, and giving tax breaks and handouts to the already wealthy. There is no respect in this Budget for Māori. I know some of you might have feelings when I say that, and I’m happy to take that discussion outside this room. But that is how we see it, that is how we how we perceive it, and that’s how we recognise it when we’re meeting with our families across the motu. They do not respect Māori for our babies, for anyone, except the Government and their mates, it seems. Despite tangata whenua making up 20 percent of the population—that’s 1 million people—Vote Māori Development is receiving only 0.27 percent of the total Budget—the lowest in a decade; the lowest in a decade. How can I trust that? How can we trust that? Well, we cannot.

This Budget didn’t forget our tamariki; they ignored the unique culture, language, custom, and lifestyle of our mokopuna. They ignored our wāhine, our iwi, our hapū, and our whānau. This Budget takes $13 billion from our hard-working wāhine and gives it to the military. This Budget takes $3 billion from all of our retirement funds and gives that money to the already wealthy and happy landlords. We cannot support any bill that enables the systematic erasure of our constitutional rights, the defunding of Māori-led solutions, and the transfer of wealth from those who need it, from the have-nots to the haves. If this Government’s Budgets cared about everyday tangata whenua people, we would support them. We would like to, but we cannot, because we do not support the bills as the ones we are discussing today. Since they only care about lining their own pockets and those of the rich mates, we do not and cannot commend this to the House. Tēnā tātou.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Listening to the Minister of Finance deliver her speech on this bill, I was really struggling to tell whether she is just deeply cynical or wilfully ignorant. When she talks about responsible spending, almost every statement she makes about her Government is actually completely the opposite of what they are doing. A responsible Government that was looking after hard-working New Zealanders would not have ensured, in their Budget, that over 300,000 hard-working nurses, midwives, care and support workers, and other people in historically female-dominated professions were going to lose a pathway to fair pay. Putting more money in the pockets of those hard-working New Zealanders who do so much of the mahi that holds up our communities and our society, the glue that makes all of this possible—by not doing that, we actually hurt ourselves as a country.

If the Minister of Finance actually cared one bit about what was good for the economy and hard-working New Zealanders, she would not be giving billions of dollars to landlords. That is an irresponsible choice that this Government has made that is actually bad for productivity. It’s bad for our economy. But it is good for that small number of New Zealanders who happen to own a certain amount of property or happen to be borrowing to own investment properties. That doesn’t increase the supply of housing in our country, but it makes it easier for some people to earn money through rent-seeking behaviour. For those who haven’t studied economics, rent-seeking is not a good thing in economics. Rent-seeking is the opposite of productive activities that make us better off as a country.

It’s either deeply cynical or wilfully ignorant on the part of most of the Government MPs when they stand up and claim to be the responsible fiscal managers, when they’re giving away billions of dollars to landlords and hundreds of millions to the fossil-fuel industry, at a time when we know—we’ve known for decades now—that we cannot afford to find and exploit new fossil-fuel reserves and still have a livable climate. That’s just basic.

I remember back in the days of the John Key Government when they signed up to the agreement at Paris. That was a National Party that was somewhat in touch with reality. They weren’t doing much to actually address climate change, but at least they stood on the world stage and signed up to the Paris Agreement, which acknowledged that we cannot afford to carry on exploring for new fossil-fuel reserves and exploiting them. We cannot.

When the Minister of Finance says , “There’s no magic money tree”, it’s actually just projection. She’s accusing Opposition parties of not having a plan when she doesn’t have a plan. Let’s look at their transport policy—completely unfunded. This is what is so infuriating about listening to the Government members. They claim certain things, and then they do the exact opposite. They’ve got a totally unfundable plan and a complete denial of that. The New Zealand Transport Agency comes to select committee and tells us. Treasury comes and tells us. They’re promising tens of billions of dollars of spending in the future on a handful of projects, and they don’t have the revenue to pay for it. When they accuse this side of the House of not doing the math and not doing the numbers, they’re actually talking about themselves.

Finally, when we talk about taxpayers’ money, that is a really loaded term. In fact, it’s public money for public good. Members opposite—most of them; not the members of the ACT Party—members of the National Party and the New Zealand First Party, I think, would say that we should have public hospitals, we should have public schools, and we should have public investment in roads. They admit all of that. Why is it that we can’t recognise that the purpose of public money is to invest in public good? That’s exactly what the Green Party is proposing and being realistic about: what the limitations are on our ability to keep using fossil-fuels and putting greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere and still have life functioning on the planet as we would like it to.

The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to rise on behalf of the National Party to talk about this imprest supply bill. One of the things that it will be giving authority to is Vote Disability Support Services. That is one Vote and one announcement that hasn’t really had the airtime that it deserves. I’m going to give it a bit of airtime.

You won’t have heard the Opposition criticise us about our investment—our significant investment—into the disability support services this Budget. Has anyone heard that?

No.

Has anyone heard that? Has anyone heard the Opposition hit us on disability support?

No.

No. Why is that? I was kindly invited by a good friend of mine Sonia Thursby, who is the CE of YES Disability and a leading youth and disability advocate. Shore Junction is something that she has a lot to do with as a youth centre in the North Shore.

I was very, very happy to turn up to this I.Lead conference. I.Lead is a disabled youth movement, and the conference is all about ensuring that young disabled New Zealanders have the skills to lead in the communities that they represent and live in. One thing that many of them kept repeating was just how much they appreciated the support in Budget 2025 from this Government. What support was that? That was a billion dollars—a billion dollars. They were telling me this, and I was standing there, kind of taking the credit, going, “Oh, yes, no problem.” I went back and googled it, thinking, “Surely it wasn’t a billion dollars of new money.” I went back to the statements from our disability issues Minister, the Hon Louise Upston—and, man, they’re loving the work that Louise is doing—and, yes, there is a billion dollars in extra funding over four years.

Some of that is going into improving the residential care service that 7,000 disabled Kiwis rely on. But most of it is going to address the many cost pressures that the disability support services face, as do many others across many sectors in New Zealand. I just thought that that was worth highlighting, and that was something where the Opposition haven’t been able to land anything on us. I don’t know who their disabilities issues spokespeople are, but they haven’t been able to touch us on that, because that is a billion dollars of new spending over four years—additional spending; additional spending.

Another major investment: Erica Stanford said at the time that the extra money that she was putting into learning support was the greatest investment within a generation. We all go to primary schools in our electorates, and the principals say, “We are sick of having to play God, frankly, with the future of children; deciding who gets Ongoing Resourcing Scheme funding and who doesn’t.” Well, the Hon Erica Stanford, as the Minister of Education, has introduced a system that will be demand-led; any child in New Zealand with higher needs will get the help and support they need. I’ll tell you what: we’re going into primary schools now, and they’re loving that announcement—they’re loving that announcement.

Have we heard much about the learning support from this lot? No—no, because that’s gone down very, very well. Building new schools and classrooms: geez, that’s gone down well, too, for kids across New Zealand. I know in the Upper Harbour electorate, the Hon Erica Stanford has come to my electorate, and she’s announced a 10-classroom block for Scott Point School—a brand new 10-classroom block. In the same day, she wandered over a couple of kilometres, and for the area of Westgate, the fast-growing north-west in Auckland, she announced a brand new school that people have been advocating for for about six or seven years, but it was the National Minister who delivered it—a brand new school on Fred Taylor Drive for Redhills, Westgate, for 600 primary school kids, opening in Term 1, 2027. These are the kinds of announcements that we made on Budget day that didn’t really get the noise that they deserved, largely because the Opposition didn’t have anything to say about them.

Now, improving KiwiSaver—who was the party that stopped the Government contribution for those earning over $180,000? You’d have to think that that was the 1916 party for the workers on the West Coast of the South Island that would stop that contribution of those earning over $180,000 and stop wasting taxpayers’ money. No, it was the party for the real workers; it was the party for small business; it was the National Party that stopped that Government contribution for those earning over $180,000 to KiwiSaver. Who lifted the default rate from 3 to 4 percent? It was the National Party—and, of course, our friends in the ACT Party and, of course, our friends in New Zealand First. Who wanted that default rate to be lifted—employer-employee contributions—from 3 to 4 percent, gradually, incrementally increased over three years? Well, it was the late Sir Michael Cullen, but it was this party, this Government, that delivered that.

Who also enabled 16- and 17-year-olds to access KiwiSaver, to access those Government contributions, to get those employer contributions? Who was it? Was it the self-proclaimed party of the “youf”—with an f—the Green Party? Was it the Green Party? No. It was the Green Party who opposed 16- and 17-year-olds getting into KiwiSaver, getting the Government contribution, getting the employer contribution. It was the Green Party, joined by Te Pāti Māori and joined by the Labour Party, who opposed all our KiwiSaver measures, despite them, in 2006, with the KiwiSaver Act, piling in behind Sir Michael Cullen and supporting KiwiSaver—and now they’re against those initiatives that so many New Zealanders have said thank you to.

I want to also acknowledge something else that hasn’t had the publicity that it deserves, largely because the Opposition don’t want to talk about it. They don’t want to talk about this. That is increasing the council rates rebates and extending it to 66,000 more SuperGold card holders. That is something that you won’t hear much about.

Another thing that we would have heard a lot about—and we’ve heard a lot about it as constituent MPs—is extending the prescription length to 12 months for those that are getting prescriptions from their pharmacists, from their doctors, meaning less time, less money, visiting the doctor. That is something, again, that has gone down very, very well.

Our smaller operating allowance—hasn’t that proved to be very, very timely? Hasn’t this Government arrived at a very, very timely time in global history? Thank goodness we’ve got a Government that’s taking a very responsible fiscal management approach to this economy. We are working on our debt so we can start bringing it down over the decade. We are bringing down inflation, that was over 7 percent under the last Government—it’s at 2.5 percent now. Our fiscal policies are working hand in hand with the Reserve Bank’s monetary policies, which are seeing the official cash rate reduce—I think it’s 225 basis points since August. Interest rates don’t have a “7” in front of them like they did two or three years ago; they have a “5” in front of them, and, in fact, in many cases, they have a “4” in front of them.

This Government is perfectly timed to take control of this economy. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to take a call and outline exactly why it is that Labour is opposing this bill. The Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill sound like dry, dusty pieces of legislation. Within these very dry documents are some very powerful stories. There are powerful stories that talk about the choices that Governments make. They talk to the values of a Government. They talk to where the priorities of a Government are.

If we take the Supplementary Estimates for a moment just to set the scene, we have a Government that lists, as an achievement, how much it has cut out of emergency housing assistance. They set this as a benchmark for a Government’s success—the fact that the Government appropriation decreased by $225 million. Supplementary Estimates are where the changes to the appropriations that were originally envisioned when the Budget was put into place in the 2024-25 year appear. In Supplementary Estimates, you’ve got to come back and say how the plan changed. What was different? Well, what was different was that we had a policy from a Government where they would control the spending on emergency housing by simply not letting people in. What have we seen? We have seen an explosion of homelessness in this country. We have a Government that has shown, in these documents, that it is not a priority for them to ensure that the most vulnerable in our communities have the dignity of a roof over their head, albeit a motel.

I look at my hometown of Christchurch. I look to one month in Christchurch and what the agencies were telling us, and that’s December 2024. Let’s bear in mind that December is a month where, famously, people could find shelter when needed. But, in that month of December, in my hometown of Christchurch, Ministry of Social Development (MSD) figures show that that over 300 people were sleeping on the streets. In that month, 372 households left emergency housing; of those, 54 households—MSD have no idea where they went. They did not go into State housing, they did not go into transitional housing, and they certainly didn’t get any assistance with an accommodation supplement. Nobody knows where they went. This is the policy that is adding to the explosion of people rough sleeping in our country—in their cars, in the doorways, and not having somewhere they can call home. These are the priorities that this Government is setting, and it is showing through these appropriations.

As we’ve heard through many, many contributions in this House, Budgets are about choices about whether a Government makes the decisions to fund or cut. And what have we seen from this Government? We certainly have seen a Government that has cut. We have seen a Government that has cut nearly $13 billion set aside for the pay packets of hard-working women in New Zealand to pay for this Budget, and what did we get in exchange for that? “A Working for Families increase”, the Minister of Finance told us in the House, was the big cost of living relief that was contained in the Budget—142,000 families are going to receive an extra $7 a week from next April. That’s the big cost of living measure that the Minister of Finance can point to in this Budget.

Best Start will be cut. It will be income tested for the entire three years from 1 April. There are going to be thousands of families that will no longer receive those payments. Jobseeker: the age of eligibility has been raised. Then, if we look into the documents and we see what the changes were that happened in terms of jobseeker support and emergency benefit numbers between Budgets 2024 and 2025, we can see that that appropriation increased by $276 million. That figure rose because of the policies of this Government, a Government that is not putting the jobs of New Zealanders at the centre of the choices it is making. We have seen 30,000 jobs in construction disappear because this is a Government that has cut infrastructure programmes, that has slowed down the State house build, and that has stalled our housing market in New Zealand. Instead, we had to have an increase in the amount that was paid out in jobseeker support.

What have we seen in terms of housing? This was a Budget that not only trumpeted the fact that it was cutting people out of emergency housing and motels, but we are also now seeing that 3,500 State house builds that were planned under our Government and funded for under our Government are being cut. These are the choices that this Government is making.

I really want to talk about energy, as we finish up. The Minister for Energy presided over a Budget that cuts support for New Zealand businesses and households at a time when they are struggling with their power bills. This is a Minister for Energy that not only could not gain more support for New Zealand households and businesses; he couldn’t even sustain what was already there. He let that Budget be cut at the very time when New Zealand businesses and New Zealand households could do with that support for their power and energy costs. He’s a Minister for Energy that could not even withstand holding the line on the money that was already there, let alone have the ability to go and get more in the Budget.

What was in the Budget was $200 million put aside for the fossil-fuel industry—for the fossil-fuel industry.

To replace coal.

Let’s unpack this. I can hear some chirping on the other side—some very ill-informed chirping on the other side.

Even if you believed that there was oil and gas to be found and you should find it, how long would that take to come on stream? Well, on average, in New Zealand, around 10 years. We are not talking about relief for New Zealand households and businesses if this was to be found. We are also talking about bringing on stream some of the most expensive marginal cost of electricity that you could, through gas. We certainly are not talking about cutting the costs of energy for New Zealand businesses, and we certainly are not talking about security of supply, because, after our Government proudly ended oil and gas exploration in 2018, over $1 billion was spent on existing permits and they came up dry.

The Minister came to select committee dressed in his costume that he’d spent more time picking than actually preparing to tell New Zealanders how he would spend $200 million and what the criteria for deciding who he would hand that subsidy out to would be. He came to select committee and told us that it was needed for security of supply. Now, this just does not stack up. What we have is a Government that has no plan for energy security in New Zealand and has no plan to help New Zealand households and businesses. Instead, we have a Minister for Energy that allows the Budget to be cut. Money that had been put aside by previous Governments to assist households and businesses, he blindly stood by and let the knife slice through and had no plan to put in place instead about how it is that we could support this.

Now, the Minister for Resources came and said that the whole of the South Island could be opened up for exploration. Someone should tell the Minister for Resources that billions of dollars have been spent looking for oil and gas in the South Island and that exploration has come up dry. There is no plan. This is a Government that makes choices to the detriment of New Zealand, and it is a Government that is not putting the jobs, the homes, and the health of New Zealanders at the first, and it certainly is not one that puts them first.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. He pai rawa tēnei pire mō ngā tāngata katoa o Aotearoa, ā, tae atu ki te iwi Māori—this bill is very good for all New Zealanders, including Māori.

Probably about now, I’d be depressed if it wasn’t for such a great Budget and a great imprest bill, after the Chiefs’ narrow four-point loss on Saturday night. I know most New Zealanders are grieving right now, but, fortunately, we’ve got good news today—good news that cheers me up—and it’s not just ACT’s psilocybin prescription!

Talk about how good the Crusaders were, Ryan!

Oh, that can wait for another day, indeed. But, credit where credit’s due, I must acknowledge the Crusaders.

I do want to focus my comments on some remarks that have been made. My great chair on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, Cameron Brewer, already alluded to the things that we’re hearing and the things that we’re not hearing. We’re not hearing the acknowledgments for learning support investment and the Ongoing Resourcing Scheme (ORS) funding, which is the greatest in a generation. We’re not hearing about our support for our disability sector, which we got a lot of grief for, a long time ago. We’re certainly not hearing about the increase to KiwiSaver, which we supported.

There are some very good acknowledgments. I do want to touch on some of the things in the Budget: the changes to KiwiSaver; the investments to health, education, law and order; the launch of Investment Boost and Invest New Zealand, which will pass its third reading later today; funding to support defence, which is so crucial, as we heard today, and our part to play in those global shifting sands; new infrastructure; $1 billion in hospitals and $700 million in schools; and, of course, our targeted cost of living to middle and low income earners.

Let me start with KiwiSaver. We’ve reduced the Government contribution. In a way, we’ve means tested it. As Mr Brewer pointed out, the Opposition could have done that, but we’ve done that to those who have incomes over $180,000. We’ve reduced that amount because it’s no longer required at that income level. Also, we’ve halved the $1,000 contribution to $500, because when KiwiSaver was introduced, it was a bit of an incentive, but now, with millions of people in KiwiSaver, it’s no longer fit for purpose.

I also want to draw attention to the fact that we’ve opened up KiwiSaver to the 16- and 17-year-olds that can now contribute through their employment package. My non-solicited financial advice to those young people would be: ratchet your KiwiSaver contributions up, do a good deal with your employer, and put in as much as you can. If you can do 10 percent of your PAYE income into KiwiSaver, crank it up and even top it up more. If 16- to 17-year-olds can start lifting their KiwiSaver contributions early and compound that, by the time that they’re 22, 23, 24, 25, and potentially with a partner, they’re going to have much easier access into their first home. If you do that in the context of the Resource Management Act reforms, which Minister Bishop is doing, which is to flood the housing market with supply, it’s going to be much more easy and attainable for our young people to get into homes, which is just fantastic. I’m really excited about that. I’d also like to draw attention to Investment Boost very quickly. We’ve heard a lot about it since Budget day, but that accelerated 20 percent depreciation on top of normal depreciation—so, in many cases, nearly 30 percent.

We had great success out at Fieldays. We know the coalition Government were out there in force. We had a lot of positive feedback. People were saying, “You guys are everywhere.”, and we’re only pleased to support them. People were giving us lots of feedback, like “Someone’s listening.”, “A Government that supports farmers.” That’s great feedback both from exhibitors and the farming community, and on the back of the official cash rate dropping, the banking inquiry putting sunlight on rural lending, good Fonterra payouts, and now this accelerated depreciation—Investment Boost—it was great news. Over 110,000 people attended Fieldays, despite wet weather, on the back of some great Government policy. It was truly a satisfying four days out there.

I also want to draw some attention to health, because we just had some announcements from the Minister of Health this morning. It was derived from some of that allocation that had been set aside in that Budget. I mentioned the investment in the learning support workers, ORS funding—the largest in a generation; the largest in a generation. But wait, there’s more: we’ve also now had the largest funding towards capitation for GPs in a generation. That’s two generational increases on the back of our second Budget.

This Government is focused on results. When you’re able to see your doctor or your nurse earlier, you stay healthier and out of hospital, and we all know that’s better for the system and better for New Zealanders. Too many New Zealanders have struggled to get care because their local GP just isn’t taking more patients or the next available appointment is weeks away. This funding boost is about to turn things around. It’s part of our $1.37 billion investment in Health New Zealand. This was the agreement that the sector reached with Minister Brown only a few days ago.

Under this agreement, GPs will receive a 13.89 percent—so nearly a 14 percent—funding increase for capitation, and that’s on the back of the 4 percent capitation funding last year. That’s a nearly 18 percent capitation increase for GPs, which is just incredible. Not long after I was elected, I met, in 2024, with one of our local GPs in Hamilton, and, like a lot of GPs, they were actually mortgaging personal property to prop up their clinics. They were capping patients coming in, and they were actually personally subsidising their business because the capitation hadn’t been lifted much, I think, in a 20-year period. This is significant. This is an 18 percent increase in two years. We know the importance of delivering healthcare in those primary sector, front-line suburban areas, and of course rural too. I’d like to acknowledge Vanessa Weenink, the MP for Banks Peninsula; she herself is a GP and has advocated very hard for a capitation increase for some time. The challenge that doctors have had is this supressed capitation and their inability to raise fees, and they’ve been trapped in the middle. For our very GPs that we want to support, this is some fantastic work for them.

A $59 million capitation increase for the number of patients enrolled with individual general practices, $60 million for improved patient access to appointments and to encourage practices to provide more data to enable more performance-based funding, $30 million for performance-based funding for improved immunisation outcomes, and $26 million in additional outcomes for GPs to keep fees capped on community services card holders and those on low incomes and to prevent fee increases for those under 14 years. It’s really good news for GPs and our health. This is the largest investment in general practice in decades, but, more importantly, it’s tied to better results, shorter wait times, higher immunisation rates, and more patients getting the care they need in the community.

I just want to reflect on this investment that builds on the Government’s comprehensive primary care package announced earlier this year, including increased access to urgent and after-hours care, 100 clinical placements for overseas-trained doctors, recruitment incentives for up to 400 graduate nurses annually for five years, 100 doctor training places over the course of this Government, up to 50 graduate doctors training in primary care, up to 120 training places for nurse practitioners in primary care, better access to 24/7 digital services, and accelerated tertiary education for up to 120 primary care nurses. So, despite the Chiefs losing, despite the Blues losing, despite the Crusaders winning, there is some good news, I’m pleased to announce.

Finally, just to talk about Invest New Zealand, which, I believe, we’ll have our third reading on later today—this is going to be the one-stop shop for foreign investment being able to invest in New Zealand.

City of the future.

We want to make it easy to bring—that’s right, the city of the future: Hamilton. Thank you for that, Dan. I hadn’t mentioned New Zealand’s fastest-growing city, Hamilton, now with international flights out of the Gold Coast and Sydney! But I digress.

Investment Boost is going to be fantastic for New Zealand, led by our Minister—Minister “Trade McClay”—attracting foreign direct investment, encouraging corporations to set up operations in New Zealand, acting as a one-stop shop, facilitating collaboration, supporting existing investors, and acting as a source of expertise to improve the policy and regulatory environment.

Mr Speaker, there is so much to unpack in this Budget, and I hope you’ll appreciate that I focused on health and the announcement around capitation and general practice around New Zealand. It’s good news. We should hold our heads up high. This Government is proud to deliver its second Budget. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The next call is a split call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I say to 16- and 17-year-olds around the country: do not take financial advice from that member Ryan Hamilton or this Government. They’re saying, “Well, all they have to do is crank up their investment into their own KiwiSaver to get into a home later in their lives.” Well, that might be OK, but it’s hard when this Government, through their decisions in this Budget, have shrunk the economy. It’s hard when you look across a squeezed job market right now where young people cannot even get into the job market. It’s hard when this Government, through their choices, have actually made it even harder for pay increases for young people right across this country. I say to 16- and 17-year-olds, as they listen to this particular debate, do not take financial advice from this particular Government.

I stand in opposition to these two bills that are being debated right now, the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill. I want to pick up a number of words that I’ve heard from the Government benches on this matter. The first one is “an increase of productivity”. Well, we know that when you shrink the economy and when you take money out of important sectors that see productivity lifted in this country and pretend like you’ve invested it elsewhere—well, productivity does not simply lift because of an announcement. I can also say this: productivity’s primary driver is people, but people are turning their back on this Government and their Budget. We know that despite their announcement around the Investment Boost, right now, Kiwis across this country are keeping their hands in their pockets because they know that the world climate for investment right now is not a good one. They know, and their banks told this Government that, despite their announcement, most Kiwis are going to sit on their hands because they know turbulent times are here and even more potential turbulent times are coming.

We heard an admission in the House today that nobody has spoken about: that is, this Government has finally realised that global matters impact on New Zealand’s economy. Throughout the entire 2023 campaign, we heard that side of the House, from the National Party, saying it was because of the Government’s decisions that the inflation rate was so high. Well, with a quick look at the trends and a quick look at all of the statistics right across this country around productivity and interest rates, they’ll see that global matters matter. I say to this Government, with what’s happening now, as sad as it is, it’s going to get even harder. This Government might crow all they like about what they’re investing in these spaces, but it means nothing when people are not investing.

I also want to talk about another term I’ve heard from that side of the House: “fiscal responsibility”. Well, say that to the Kiwis who are stranded either here in Wellington or in Picton because of the ferry decisions made by that Government. They want to talk to us about fiscal responsibility, and here we are listening to that side of the House say that they’re here, making sure they can manage our fiscals responsibly. Ultimately, there has been a lot of money wasted, there has been a lot of money taken out of the pockets of New Zealanders right around this country, and my colleagues have done a great job at pointing to a number of those factors. One, pay equity: we know that in order to get more productivity and to make sure our people are paid a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work, you’ve got to invest in them. This Government has decided, through these bills and through their choices here in this Parliament, that do they do not back our wāhine and they do not back our low-paid workers right around the country.

Ultimately, Budgets are about choices, and I heard the member’s opening remarks in his contribution. Pai tō reo Māori. [Your reo Māori is good.] It’s fantastic to hear Ryan Hamilton speaking Māori; he talks about how fast Hamilton’s growing—well, he whenua Māori tēnā. [that is Māori land.] That’s fantastic. It’s great to see te reo Māori growing in the rhetoric of the National Party, after they’ve turned their back on it over the past 18 months.

That member talks about investment in Māori. Well, look at Māori housing investment and the money that, through this Government, has been taken away from Māori housing investment. They talk about Treaty settlements. Well, we’ve seen what they’re trying to do to Ngāpuhi, to my relations, and I can tell them—and Grant McCallum can tell them too—they’re in for a fight. They think the Musket Wars were bad—you take on Ngāpuhi and it’s not going to end well.

I stand in opposition to these bills. I want to make clear to that side of the House that they can spout all the announcements that they want—like those that they’ve given over the past three months—but they’ll realise that Kiwis see right through that garbage.

I have to first address and actually correct what was spoken before me, particularly about the economy shrinking, because I believe the member who just spoke before me, Peeni Henare, clearly didn’t watch the news last week and clearly didn’t watch the news another quarter ago. Stats New Zealand last week reported that the economy of New Zealand grew 0.8 percent—grew—in the first three months of the year, twice the rate forecasted by Treasury and the Reserve Bank a short time ago.

There is more: this is the second consecutive quarter in which growth outstripped the assumption by the forecast. Let it be clear, New Zealanders: the economy is back on track. The Government is back on track. The adults in this country are now in Government, cutting wasteful spending and actually reprioritising so we can put the useful resources, the very hard-earned New Zealand taxpayers’ money, into the places where it’s needed the most, and so that we can make sure that we are not spending on wasteful projects, on things that don’t drive delivery, and on things that don’t deliver us any efficiency or impact. Actually, maybe we should start building something for the country, because, in the last six years, the Government clearly—clearly—spent a lot of money, but I don’t see any single new bridge, new tunnel, or new highway. Where has the money gone? Anyway, Stats New Zealand now have confirmed that New Zealand is back on track, with the economy growing 0.8 percent in the first three months of this year.

Now, I do rise to support the second readings of the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill. While these are very technical bills, like the Minister of Finance has explained a bit earlier, they are very important because they underpin a fundamental principle in our democracy, which is that the Government of the day cannot spend a single cent, particularly on capital expenditure, without the authority of this Parliament. More importantly, these bills reflect the kind of Government that the National Government is. We are disciplined, we are careful, and we are relentlessly focused on delivering outcomes for New Zealanders. We’re not here to spend like there’s no tomorrow, like the last Labour Government, but we are here to deliver for New Zealanders and to do that without further indebting our children and the future generations.

Now, we inherited rising debt and persistent deficits, and that’s why Budget 2024, under the great leadership of the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, was designed not as a wish list but actually as a deliverable plan, one that would actually demand better outcomes and one that will deliver better outcomes for every taxpayer dollar.

Take health: $5.5 billion in new funding is being invested into hospital services, primary care, and community health. Actually, today, that was a great, great announcement to all the GPs out there. I have a really, really close friend who is my personal GP, who had texted immediately and said, “Oh my God, finally—finally a Government that listens to us and sees the critical need to further support us.” Take education: the Government is investing $464 million to lift school achievements, including support for additional learning needs, and another $100 million for targeted maths support. Let’s take law and order. In law and order, extra money has been prioritised for front-line policing and serious youth offender intervention.

Now, take it back to another one: what are we doing to grow the economy? What is this Budget doing to help the Government to grow this economy? I just take us back to one thing: Investment Boost, the new tax incentives that got the market and people so excited. As a chartered accountant myself, many of my former colleagues have called me and said their practices have not been this busy for the last seven years. Businesses call them and say, “Oh my God, tell me about this. Can I do it today? What can I do it with? What is it that I can spend on? Tell me about it today, because I am ready to do something, but I need to understand: are we serious? Is this Government serious about backing the growth of Kiwi businesses?” Here, to them: yes, we are serious. We are backing you to grow. This is why I support this bill.

The previous speaker, Nancy Lu, began with a correction, so let me begin with one, too. The previous speaker correctly pointed out that on a quarterly basis, the economy was up 0.8 percent in the first quarter of this year. That’s what the Stats New Zealand data told us. They also told us that on an annual basis, to March this year, growth in the economy was down; in fact, it was negative 1.1 percent. It fell 1.1 percent on an annual basis. More tellingly, in the last month or so, there has been data coming out showing that if there was growth in the first quarter, it has stalled in the second quarter. Retail card spending was down 0.2 percent in May. The Business New Zealand’s Performance of Service Index strayed below 50 in its most recent index.

What does that show? It shows an economy that is waiting, waiting, waiting, not sure. It shows a service sector where there is no growth occurring, and the service sector makes up about three-quarters of our GDP. I’m just going to suggest to the previous speaker that while one might crow about the last quarter, it would be advisable to wait for just a wee bit more data to tell whether anything has really changed. It’s too soon yet to know.

In terms of the debate that we are having today on the imprest supply and the Supplementary Estimates, the Minister of Finance opened the debate and told us a lot about what these bills are and how they operated. Then she made some very telling remarks. She said, “Governments make choices.”—she said, “Governments make choices.” I say that, yes, Governments do make choices, and their choices let us know what kind of people they are.

The Minister of Finance talked in broad terms. She said that in the first Budget they had presented, they saved $23 billion; in the second Budget they presented, they saved $21 billion. She used words like “fiscal constraint”, and she said then that these were the “choices” they have made on behalf of New Zealanders: to cut, to do away with, to undermine, to underfund. Those are the choices she said that they had made on behalf of New Zealanders. But it does beg the question: what do New Zealanders want?

Like Mr Hamilton over there, I spent time at Fieldays the week before last, and as we usually do, we had an issues board at our stall—at the Labour stall. The number one issue for people attending Fieldays, rural people and urban people alike, was the cost of living. That was the biggest issue for them; the one thing that they saw as a huge issue was the cost of living. What did New Zealanders want? Well, they wanted help with the cost of living. What has that Government offered? Well, they’ve offered $14 a fortnight, starting in April next year, for families.

Now, let’s carry on with that, thinking about what’s going on right now. You see right now, food prices are up 4.4 percent, year on year. That was the statistics release that came out just a few days after the Budget—it came out last week: 4.4 percent, year on year. This is from last year, since when this Government has been at the helm. Beef has gone up 16.2 percent, year on year; lamb has gone up 20.3 percent, year on year; cheese is up 17.3 percent, year on year; milk is up 13.7 percent, year on year; electricity has gone up 8.7 percent, year on year. What is that Government offering? What is that Government offering? It’s offering—

What about rent? Talk about rent.

Up 2.1 percent, year on year. It’s offering $7 a week starting in April next year. How have they paid for that? They’ve paid for it by taking Best Start away from 61,000 families. That’s the kind of response that that Government has had to the daily cost of living problems faced by ordinary, everyday families in New Zealand—$7 a week, next year. If we ask New Zealanders what they want, it turns out they want some of the basics. They want health, they want welfare, they want education. These are some of the great agreements that were forged in this country as far back as the 1920s and 1930s when the welfare State was formed in this country and we agreed that we were better off doing health and welfare and education together.

This Government has not chosen health and welfare and education. We know that hospitals are not being built; they’re being downsized. We know that patients are queuing in the corridors. We know that people can’t get the mental health assistance they need when they want it. We know that this Government has cut emergency housing. We know that there are more people on welfare at the moment but that the increases in the benefit have not matched increases in wages—people on benefit are going backwards. We know, in terms of education, that that Government has cut pay equity for teachers. That Government is undermining the great things that New Zealanders want: health and welfare and education. The Government has not chosen those.

One of the speakers over there talked about the hard work of running a business, and he was quite correct. It is extraordinarily hard to run a business. Those business owners do it tough. You see, the thing is, in terms of running a business, they just want to get on with it, and they don’t think there’s any magic money tree to run their business. But there is no magic worker tree either to run a business. There is no magic worker just out there who is going to turn up day after day in a business without a decent wage, and more importantly, without the support of the health system, without the support of the welfare system, without the support of the education system.

You see, that’s how workers get to turn up to support business owners day after day after day. They do it because they have the security of the health system, and the welfare system, and the education system. That was the great compact forged in the 1920s and the 1930s by the Labour Party. In the face of the destruction from the right, we forged a compact that said that in this country, we will all pitch in together and look after each other. That is why business owners can have workers in their businesses, because those workers have the health and welfare and education systems.

The line that was coming from over there was the line about there being no magic money tree to pay for all this. Well, there is also no magic teacher tree; there is no magic nurses tree; there is no magic police officers tree. If we want these sorts of people working to support us, then they don’t come from nowhere. We actually need to have an economy that supports them, and that Government has chosen to contract the economy, chosen to undermine the economy.

Now, they say they’re interested in growth. And there was one measure in their Budget which they said would add to growth. It was going to maybe add 1 percent to growth over the next 20 years. It took until the eighth speaker in this debate for anyone to even mention partial expensing. They kept on talking about being proud of their Budget, but the key point of their Budget for businesses, it took them right through until the eighth speaker to mention, and even the Minister of Finance didn’t mention it at all. And yet it was one of the key points of their Budget.

That is not a Government that is proud of their Budget. You can see why: sitting in the Supplementary Estimates of appropriation, sitting in the revenue section, there’s a section that forecasts a $324 million increase in the forecast impairment of debt and debt write-offs due to debt—forecast debt growth across all tax types. That Government is predicting that they are going to write off more tax debt than ever before. Then we look and see why that is the case. It is as a result of the global economic environment.

This is an economy that is in trouble. It’s seen in those figures there—those tax debt write-off figures—and it’s seen in the increased numbers for the jobseeker benefit because more and more and more people are out of work. That Government has done nothing to support ordinary New Zealanders in the Budget and is doing nothing to deal with the fundamental problems that they have caused by undermining the economy. They should be utterly ashamed of this Budget.

It’s a pleasure to be the last speaker in this debate and to round off this exciting discussion of the imprest supply bill and the Budget Estimates bill as well. I do want to go back to some comments from the other side—in particular one from Megan Woods—and say to her, look, we don’t measure our success as a Government based on how much we appropriate; we measure it based on the outcomes that we are actually able to achieve. If you take housing and homelessness, like what Megan talked about, we’ve got a great Minister here, Tama Potaka, who’s managed to turn that around in a very short space of time. I’m really pleased to announce to the House that more than 1,000 families are no longer in dark, dingy motels. That’s over 2,000 children that are no longer in hotels—

Remember it costed a million dollars a day.

A million dollars a day. There you go. Thank you, Tom Rutherford. For those of you who’ve monitored the situation in Rotorua, I remember the days in the last Government where Rotorua became a bit of an emergency housing city. I was really pleased to see an item on the news the other day saying that they’re on track to have no emergency motels by the end of this year. That is really great testament to the work that we’ve done and the work that we continue to do.

Now, I just want to reflect, because we have just come out of a week of scrutiny of the Government—

Didn’t feel like it.

Doesn’t feel like it. That’s right, David Seymour. I just want this House to know that I felt that there was a general level of flatness amongst the Opposition members. There were no knockout punches, I should say—only F-bombs and S-bombs. There was no “gotcha” moments—only props and empty rhetoric. To me, it showed an Opposition that hasn’t done the work. They haven’t done the mahi. They haven’t put in the work to understand what is in the Budget, and they don’t get the rewards. They don’t get the rewards. Now, don’t do the mahi; don’t get the treats. That’s a clear adage that I try to apply when I’m at the gym.

On this side of the House, we’re focused on really two things: growth and delivering better outcomes. I’m really pleased to see Ryan Hamilton; he had a great speech talking about all the extensive things that are in the Budget that are focused on growing better outcomes in health, education, law and order, and you name it.

My focus is really around growth, and I want this speech to be focused on growth. Just take a step back and understand where New Zealand’s economy is at the moment, we’ve come out of the worst recession since 1991. Why were we in that recession? Because interest rates were jacked up and because of the cost of living crisis and the debt that the previous Government had doubled. Now, we have a recovery under way.

It was great to see Deborah Russell at Fieldays—and a lot of my colleagues as well. I must say it was a really positive, upbeat environment amongst our rural communities. I had my gumboots from Birkenhead on, and it was a really great, upbeat environment. I think—

Did she stand in my seat?

That’s right—no, Tom. Look, I think there’s actually a real positive growth trajectory, particularly in our rural communities, which is real positive to see.

I do want to acknowledge—and I want to put this in the House, today—that I think there’s a two-stroke economy that we’ve got in New Zealand at the moment. We’ve got the rural economy, which is driving our economic recovery, but in parts of Auckland, like where I represent in Northcote, we’ve got some tough times at the moment. I do want to acknowledge that people are still struggling with the cost of living, and we have a construction sector that’s still understanding how that pipeline looks. We’ve got some real big challenges, and I do just want to say that we’ve got a lot of work to do on this side, in Government, so that the other side of New Zealand sees that economic recovery like the rural sector does.

I want to turn my attention to debt, because out of every aspect of this Budget, I think the most important number is how much debt we’re in as a country. Right now, we’re forecast to have a debt that is $277 billion this year, and that is very concerning. In fact, if you put that on a per-household basis, that’s about $136,000 per household. Let me break down the fiscals for those of you on the other side that haven’t read the Budget documents. This coming year, we’ve got a forecast revenue of $175 billion. How much are we due to spend? We’re due to spend $191 billion, which leaves us with a deficit situation—according to this new measure, the operating balance before gains and losses, excluding ACC revenue and expenses—of about $12 billion. Now, that’s $12 billion that we’re going to have to borrow from overseas, and we’re going to be borrowing that money every year until we get back to surplus. This Government has certainly got a path back to surplus in the 2028-29 period. That is the state of our economy. That’s our fiscals. We are growing again, but it’s a little bit uneven.

I do want to acknowledge that, actually, it’s been real positive; growth on a per-person basis is now 0.5 percent, on a quarterly basis. That is positive, but we want to see more from that. I would encourage every single one of my colleagues on this side of the table to think it’s not just about growth; it’s actually about growth relative to our peers, because no one cares about growing. It’s actually about growth relative to Australia, relative to America, and the UK. We’ve got a lot to do to make sure that we are growing faster than our peers so that my son doesn’t have to leave to go overseas and can have a great future right here in New Zealand.

That turns me to the Budget, because this Budget was all about growth. I don’t think in my time understanding Budgets that there really have been Budgets that are transformative. I think the most important role of Budgets is setting the general direction, the direction of the boat.

Some of the Labour ones transformed us.

In more ways than one. That’s right. Certainly, I think the most important part of a Budget is setting the direction of the ship and where the ship is going. I think, with this Budget, what we’ve found is that Nicola Willis, our finance Minister, has tried to steer the ship in a direction that’s pro-growth, pro - returning to surplus, and is actually trying to get this fiscal ship under good management.

That’s why, in terms of growth, my colleague here Cameron Brewer, ably chairing the Finance and Expenditure Committee, has talked about Investment Boost, KiwiSaver, and Invest New Zealand. No one here has talked about the investor visa that Erica Stanford’s got. I think that’s excellent news. There are people that want to pay to come here—and pay a lot of money—and invest in New Zealand. That is great news. We should be encouraging more of that and unlocking the bottlenecks in the way to make that happen.

In terms of cost of living relief, that is by far the top issue in this country. There were some good wins in the Budget. The 12-month free prescriptions: if you’re one of those who needs those prescriptions, you’re having to renew them every 90 days, and that, of course, has a cost associated with that. The eligibility thresholds for rates rebates: I think anybody over 65 would definitely be appreciative of the work we’ve done there. The commitment to no new regional fuel taxes: that’s also very, very positive. We have a lot of work to do on cost of living—we know that—and the best thing we can do for the cost of living is improve our economy. That is, by far, the number one thing. The last thing we need is an alternative approach, which is to dish out money. That is what we’re focused on here.

I just want to spend the last minute talking about our long-term challenges, because, in my sense, beyond the forecast period, we’ve got some real big challenges to face. Treasury’s own forecasts say that debt-to-GDP is going to balloon to over 100 percent of GDP by the time I’ve far left this world. I think we need some greater bipartisanship from across the House on things like superannuation, raising the age, putting in means testing, and other things like that. Infrastructure: we have some fantastic infrastructure projects, but we need the other side to support them because, sooner or later, they may be in office, sadly, and we need them to support those projects.

Education: we should all agree on the things that are actually making a difference to improve our kids’ educational performance, healthcare, and the like. We’ve got some big challenges here. I would encourage those members from across the House to come to a bipartisan consensus with our side. We’re up for it, we’re ready, we’re focused, and we’re getting our economy back on track. I support this bill in the House.

Those bills are set down for third reading immediately.

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Appropriation (2024/25 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Imprest Supply (First for 2025/26) Bill be now read a third time.

I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

I move, That the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 31 October 2025.

Ah, very good!

Thank you. Ha, ha! You shouldn’t take anything for granted. It’s with great pride that I speak on the first reading of this bill. It forms part of our Government’s commitment to opening ourselves to the world and ensuring that we are a place where our friends who would like to do business with fellow Kiwis and who would like to invest, to trade value for value, and get stronger together with us are welcome under our laws.

I saw a very wise New Zealander who has risen high in the ranks of business and politics internationally tell us something recently that I think we need to ponder on. He said, “It’s very simple: New Zealand needs foreign investment, but foreign investment does not need New Zealand.” For far too long, our country has stood at the edge of the map, asking people to jump through more hoops and go through more rigmarole in order to send their money and ideas to be part of New Zealand’s economy than nearly any other society. The delays have made people ask the simple question: “Are these guys for real, and do they really want us to send our money there?”

Well, since this Government has been in place, we have transformed that attitude. We have seen a dramatic improvement, simply through issuing letters of expectation, that have ensured that consents are processed much faster, with 88 percent of consents recently processed within half of the statutory time frame. That means 88 percent in less than 35 days. The average consent to invest, to send money to New Zealand, is now processed in 28 days. That’s pretty good progress compared with where we’ve been in the past, where people just kind of found that their consent had maybe been left in the bottom of the Minister’s draw.

However, in order to make more progress and achieve our goal of ensuring that New Zealand is a place where, if you have ideas, if you have knowhow, and if you have capital and you want to send it to New Zealand and invest in this country as a vote of confidence in the New Zealand people and the New Zealand economy, you will find that the laws of the land are welcoming to you, so long as you are not a threat to our national security, our public order, or our particularly sensitive assets. That is the objective of this legislation.

This amendment to the Overseas Investment Act, specifically the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, does three things, as laid out in the legislative statement. The first is that it revises the Act’s purpose statement. For too long, we’ve been alone in the world in telling overseas investors that it’s a privilege to invest in this country, with no sense that maybe people sending money to New Zealand might also have some benefit. This legislation finally rebalances that imbalance by putting an explicit statement at the beginning of the Act—and if I could just bring up clause 4, amended section 3(2), so I read it exactly right—that we will also have “the purpose of recognising the role of overseas investment in increasing economic opportunity by enabling the timely consent of less sensitive investments through an initial national interest risk assessment.” That purpose is now in line with the true benefits to New Zealanders of people sending their money and their knowhow here.

It will also consolidate the national interest benefit to New Zealand and investor test for the majority of consents. Now, there are some asset classes that will remain sensitive. Farmland will remain sensitive. We will keep the restrictions on investing in residential property. Investing in fishing quota will remain sensitive. However, for a large number of the investments that people would like to make in land that is not farmland—in businesses, for example—we will be consenting—and this is the third point of the bill—within 15 days. This is the message of a country that is open for business and does not fear the world but stands proudly amongst our friends who want to do business with us, trade value for value, and get stronger together. The effect of this—of clarifying the purpose; of consolidating the test; and ensuring that the overwhelming majority, I suspect, of consents will be processed in just 15 business days—is that New Zealanders get more investment.

Let me just give you a few thoughts about what that really means. I was visiting a couple of businesses—it was a few years ago now—in the same region in the same sector. One of them had received enormous amounts of foreign direct investment from a company on the other side of the world—a very sophisticated manufacturer of luxury goods. The sophistication, the automation, the marketing, the technology that this business had was seriously impressive. They were able to do it because they’d received two things from the other side of the world: one was knowhow, the other was money. That is what foreign direct investment brings. As a result, they were able to create better products that sold for more. As a result, they were able to pay their workers more. That’s what it’s really about—higher wages for people working with more capital. I went down the road to visit another business in the same region, in the same sector. Don’t get me wrong, they’re good people. They worked hard. They had good ideas. But I couldn’t help but think they were just a little bit behind because they hadn’t had that advantage of the capital and the knowhow from trading and exchanging value with their friends from the other side of the world.

This shows up in the statistics. Ultimately, a cost of living crisis is a productivity crisis. It’s because people don’t take home the money they need to afford the things that they want. That’s what it’s really about. Ultimately, if we want to raise productivity, we have to look at the factors of productivity. The most glaring one is that New Zealanders, particularly in the past decade—particularly after we had a Government that regulated too much, spent too much, and borrowed too much—have not had the advantage of significant investment in capital in the workforce. If we want to raise the productivity of New Zealanders, then we have to ensure that they have more capital to work with.

The other side of being able to afford more stuff is actually the productivity of delivering the goods to market. I spoke with a company this morning, and I won’t say exactly who it is because I don’t want people to stop telling them, but let’s just say that it was a business that is heavily invested in getting New Zealanders the goods that they need every day. This business is from offshore, and they are invested in a capital investment programme with an enormous sum of money. They’re investing that money—I won’t say how much, in case anyone figures out they’ve breached their confidence—in ensuring that the goods that people take for granted but often are not concerned about the price will be delivered fresh, often chilled, on time to the right place in the right quantity at an affordable price. In order to do that, they are taking an enormous amount of money from outside of this country into this country so that they can deliver goods faster, better, and more affordably to where New Zealanders live.

It could be another Costco—they’re doing this. It could be an IKEA. It could be the third supermarket competitor that people are talking about wistfully as if it will bring down prices. All of those examples are ways that by ensuring we have more investment, more knowhow, and more capital, we can get goods to market faster and more affordably so that New Zealanders can afford them. That is what foreign investment really means—more capital to work with, more higher wages through higher productivity, and more affordable goods and services.

This bill will go a long way to ensuring that foreign direct investment that can lead to better lives for all New Zealanders is reflected in our laws as a country that is actually proud that people want to send us their money and invest in our future, and that is not fearful of the rest of the world but stands proudly amongst it. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Actually, quite oddly enough, I want to first of all congratulate New Zealand First on being able to prevent the foreign buyers ban being reversed under this legislation. It’s good to see that you have held strong that that is a sensitive asset in New Zealand, and New Zealand First has held the line for the rest of New Zealand who does believe that our land, our residential land, should stay in Kiwi hands unless it meets certain tests. First, I do want to acknowledge New Zealand First for that.

The second thing I want to just have a discussion about is that I’ve just heard the Associate Minister of Finance say that we have one of the most restrictive overseas investment policies in the world, in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The interesting thing that the Minister failed to actually say is that there are four other countries that are more restrictive than New Zealand: Australia, Canada, Iceland, Mexico. If you just look at Australia and Canada alone, it’s quite interesting to see that the Minister failed to say—we have one of the most restrictive overseas investment regimes in the world, in the OECD, and yet he failed to mention that our closest neighbours, which, if you want to question the productivity, you can, by the Government members, but, actually, they have the most restrictive overseas investment—

They don’t need the money.

—regime in the world. It’s actually in the regulatory impact statement. I hear Dan Bidois, the MP for Northcote, say it’s because they don’t need the money. If that is the problem you’re trying to solve, how is cutting Government KiwiSaver contributions going to help deepen our capital pools? On that point, it doesn’t incentivise greater savings and investment, which is why Australia has greater pools of investment, of superannuation savings. Had the National Government back in the day not cancelled the Superannuation Fund back then, we would actually have billions and billions and billions of dollars more of capital here in New Zealand. But I digress, because he was just talking about why Australia is different from New Zealand, but, again, Australia, Mexico, Canada, and Iceland have more restrictive overseas regimes than New Zealand, yet, on some accounts, they’re actually more productive as a nation.

The Labour Party does not support this bill, and, ultimately, the main reason why we do not support this bill is because of the changes to the economic benefit test. The economic benefit test, under this legislation, will not only apply to assets such as farmland; it will apply to fishing quota and residential land. What about forestry? What about other assets? The Minister talked about investment in business assets.

The real key reason why I believe that we need to take a very good look at this at the select committee—and I implore our New Zealand First members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee to have a really good look at this—is because the benefit test to New Zealand has seven factors which are now gotten rid of by this Government. The thing is, under the regulatory impact statement, Treasury says overseas investment is enabled by a screening regime, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the economic benefit is actually realised in the country.

This Government is getting rid of the benefit test, which has seven key factors; one is economic benefits. What’s an economic benefit? The creation and retention of jobs, the introduction of technology or business skills, increased productivity. These are all about growth, and yet they’re taking away the test that actually helps to ensure that there is going to be proof of increased productivity—increased export receipts, increased processing of primary products, and reduced risk of liquid assets. They’ve narrowed the test.

The second element of the benefit test which is important is the benefit to the natural environment. I’m pretty sure we will have a number of members in this House who will stand up to say, “What is the point of overseas investment if it degrades our environment?” I’m not going to go into that, because I’m sure there’s going to be plenty of commentary on that.

The other assets that the benefit test, which has now been narrowed by this Government and which therefore doesn’t apply to are sensitive assets. There’s public access—there has to be some sort of assurance that the public can access these assets—protection of historic heritage, advancing a significant Government policy, oversight or participation of New Zealanders, and consequential benefits. This Government has narrowed that test and is giving, basically, a green light to all overseas investment unless it’s farmland, residential land, or fishing quota—basically saying, “Here’s the red carpet; come in.”—never mind whether it creates jobs, never mind if it degrades our environment, and never mind if New Zealanders can no longer access this asset. Basically, they’re saying that doesn’t matter. They are open to overseas investment, but never mind about actually proving that it benefits New Zealand.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Aotearoa New Zealand is a country that could be very, very prosperous if we looked after all of our people. The Government we have—and, in particular, the Minister who spoke to this bill—does not have the ability to imagine a country where we actually look after each other, invest in projects together which enable us to live good lives, enable us to protect our climate, enable us to protect our waterways and our beautiful diversity either on land or under the sea and our very large exclusive economic zone. Life is not commodity. The ideology—

That’s so profound!

—of the Minister who is speaking has been proven wrong for the last 30 years. Letting the rich get richer does not trickle down and help ordinary New Zealanders. There is no way that making these changes to the Overseas Investment Act is going to flow down to better wages for workers when the Government is, at the same time, changing employment law to disadvantage workers and refusing to raise the minimum wage to even match the rate of inflation. Every step they take is about disadvantaging ordinary workers and advantaging those who already have money and power.

This Government, make no mistake—Minister David Seymour; Prime Minister Christopher Luxon; most of those blue suits, or whatever, over there—all believe in a magical money tree, and the magical money tree that they believe in is foreign investment. They believe that very kind, benevolent foreign investors with their capital from overseas are going to come to New Zealand and invest in a way that benefits New Zealand. Really? Do we still believe that after the 1980s and 1990s? Look, the Green Party is proudly—

Proudly against foreigners, against foreign accents?

—a party that believes in global peace and action on climate change. Don’t try to pretend that allowing foreign hedge funds to come in here and own our retirement villages—which is already the case, by the way—and to own more and more of New Zealand is something that is going to benefit New Zealand, and that those who question the benefits are somehow against people from other countries. That’s not the case.

The Green Party has proudly stood in favour of enabling immigration and of enabling human rights. I’d love to see the Government increase the refugee quota. Let’s see more family reunification for refuges, OK? But don’t pretend that BlackRock or Stonepeak or any of these huge hedge funds coming over and owning bits of New Zealand is going to benefit New Zealand workers, when, at the same time, they dismantle our employment laws and try to reduce the ability of workers to be able to negotiate for better pay and better conditions, and particularly when they completely overlook the incredibly important work that is done in the public sector by front-line workers who are caring for aged people, who are caring for disabled people, and who are teachers and teachers in early childhood education.

Every step this Government makes is about protecting the rich and powerful and then pretending and trying to sell to ordinary New Zealanders the crazy fantasy that by enabling more foreign ownership of things in New Zealand is somehow going to flow through to better wages and better infrastructure.

There is no question. If you look around the world, the countries that actually have decent living conditions, less inequality, decent wages, better democracies—I wouldn’t say many places have thriving democracies at the moment, sadly—what they have done is very, very different; it’s the exact opposite to what this Government does. They have more progressive tax systems. They ensure that they don’t have a concentration of wealth, because the system will naturally concentrate wealth if we don’t have a progressive tax system. If we don’t have things like inheritance taxes, like capital gains taxes, then wealth will concentrate, and concentration of wealth is antithetical to democracy.

I see the Minister David Seymour shaking his head. The truth is that David Seymour is not someone who truly believes in liberty. He is a feudalist. He is here to protect the landed gentry, the powerful corporates. He dresses it all up, and he pretends he’s about liberty. But just look at the very law changes that he’s proposing: they’re all about enabling the very rich and powerful around the world to come to New Zealand and extract more profit at the expense of our environment, our workers, and our people. We will oppose this bill.

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

It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the National Party, to rise for this first reading of the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. As the Minister had articulated before, the importance of having overseas investment into New Zealand and making sure that we have the right settings is not without dispute; what is indisputable is that we do have one of the most restrictive foreign investment regimes in the OECD. That is what has been ascertained from a number of studies by a number of organisations over a number of years, and this bill will help open the door to that new investment. It’s all about growth, it’s all about productivity, and it’s all about higher wages.

The new national interest test is faster and more efficient, and, importantly, it provides more certainty for investors. It aligns—and here we go again for international alignment—New Zealand’s investment regime with global best practice while keeping safeguards for our key assets.

I just want to allude to the fact that getting our settings right is key to getting international foreign investment into this country, and there is no better example than a statement that was sent out by the Minister for Economic Growth, the Hon Nicola Willis, and the Minister of Immigration, Erica Stanford, yesterday that was headlined “Flood of interest to invest in New Zealand”. There is interest there if we get our settings right, and they have announced as of yesterday that “Since only April—less than three months [ago]—Immigration New Zealand has received 189 applicants for the Active Investor Plus visa, significantly more than the 116 applications received over more than two-and-a-half years under [the previous administration].” There’s proof there that people are lining up to invest in New Zealand if you get the settings right.

I look forward to this bill going to select committee for further discussion at the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I commend the bill.

Mr Speaker, I’m over here, over in the seat called Siberia. We’ve got to get these angles right. You and I both have to adjust.

New Zealand First does support this Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. These are sensible changes. They’re not the apocalyptic version that the Hon Julie Anne Genter was describing before the dinner break or a return to feudalism. This bill does streamline some processes. There is some triaging so that the genuinely sensitive transactions that would trigger a national interest test still go before Ministers, but there is a fast track, if you like, a streamlined process, for those lower-risk investments, and it adds a trusted investor category too, which does make some sense. The process at the moment is ad hoc, it’s bureaucratic, and it is opaque. We do support these refinements.

It does enable us to have a focus on growth. We are absolutely, relentlessly focused on growth. We do have enormous opportunities in this country. We are restrained in many cases by capital. We’ve got an enormous infrastructure deficit that we do need to address. These measures are freeing up the overseas investment provisions, will create jobs, will enable us to add value to the likes of our primary sector—that’s $60 billion of primary exports—and get money for agritech and nutraceuticals and the like. But New Zealand First is cautious about foreign investments. It’s on the tin; it’s in the name. We have looked very, very carefully at this bill.

We do think there is a strong case for keeping control and having some oversight of our key strategic assets. To our cost, we have lost Marsden Point, we have lost control of our banking sector, and we see those dividends sucking out every year to the cost of our balance of trade or our current account deficit. It is not one-way traffic; we do need to keep some guard rails here. New Zealand First had been very clear, and I’d like to thank the Hon Barbara Edmonds for probably acknowledging that—well, she did acknowledge that, but she was right—New Zealand First has drawn a line around farmland, around fishing quota, and, essentially, the stock of family homes. Putting those on the international market and inflating them beyond the means of the average Kiwi is completely anathema to us. The coalition as a whole has agreed to that, and that is protected, and I want to make that absolutely clear in this reading that that is protected within these provisions.

There should be a Kiwi citizenship advantage. We should tip the scales in favour of our own people in areas like that, where it doesn’t actually bring any advantage to us, just inflating a price of an existing asset. We have held firm over that, and we make no apologies. It is core to our values. We do not want to be tenants in our own land. That doesn’t mean that we are “Fortress New Zealand”. We are not North Korea. We do rely, and have always relied, on foreign investment to grow our economy and to build our productive capacity, and, as the Minister said in his introductory speech, it’s not just the capital; it’s the expertise that can be brought in, and it’s the access to the domestic markets for the companies that are coming in. There are some mutual benefits that can be gained through this, but we do go in with our eyes wide open within this bill. We should make it easier. It is far too complex; it is far too bureaucratic.

We will support this bill. We are going to support this through to the select committee and beyond. We think we’ve got it into a pretty good place. We thank the Minister and our coalition colleagues for being sensitive to the ideals that we hold dear and hold firm on, and we have made our way through this to get this bill to this first reading. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. E tū ana ahau ki te whakapuaki i ngā whakaaro o Te Pāti Māori e hāngai nei ki ngā whakaaro o te iwi Māori mō tēnei pire e kīia nei ko te Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to express the opinions of the Māori Party that align with the opinions of the Māori people concerning this bill, known as the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.]

I might just open by referencing the Associate Minister of Finance’s statement. He said we’re opening ourselves to the world. This seems to be a fairly common theme in the thinking from this Government—opening ourselves up to the world. Indeed, we’ve seen many bills brought before the House that have suggested that opening ourselves up to the world is the way to go. We’ve already had to deal with the Fast-track Approvals Act, readily opening ourselves up to the world as quick as we possibly can. The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill—opening ourselves up to the world again—lorded over the New Zealand public for more than a year, exhausting many of us. Now, we have the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) aiming to do the same thing. It’ll open us up to the world, and not just any part of the world, e te whānau: the corporate part of the world. You know, whai mai [follow along]: it stands that following these few, we’re going to have to deal with a review of 28 pieces of legislation, taking Te Tiriti o Waitangi out—one of the last and longest-standing vanguards for the protection of Aotearoa against the corporate interests of the world. But, here we go, let’s get rid of that one too!

Now, here we are with the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and the Minister is happily and openly promoting the idea that we need to open ourselves to the world for foreign investment and that exports are the things that we need to fix our country. Well, in my 46 years—but probably only 30-odd of paying attention to these things—it seems that exports haven’t managed to save us yet. Neither has foreign investment. All it’s done is managed to entrench the people who live in the lower end of society—all of the New Zealanders out there—into their category.

As we all know in this House right now, we are living through some of the most extenuating times that our country, and people of this country, have ever had to deal with. All of the economic wizardry of decades and decades and decades of Parliaments and Governments come and gone, come and gone, come and gone, hasn’t seemed to address the issues but only entrenched them even further. Here we go again: a bill with no regard for Te Tiriti o Waitangi—a common theme amongst many bills in the current iteration of New Zealand Government—the removal of protectionary measures that are there—they’ve been there for a long time, but let’s strip them out to make the accessing of natural resources and the opening up of ourselves to the world easier to do, quicker to do. The benefit test has been stripped down to one protection that a single Minister could make the call on. We’re just continually faced with this set of circumstances and these types of propositions that have consistently failed us, decade in, decade out, so why should we possibly think that they’re going to fix things now for ordinary New Zealanders?

A condensed time frame—it seems again that te iwi Māori have been quite conveniently left off the groups of people who will be consulted with bills such as this. When we’re talking about opening up our natural resources, I’m sure te iwi Māori are still a partner to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That had a blanket caveat across all natural resources of the country and yet was left out again—owing to, of course, a short time frame. Well, we know that the bill was part of the coalition agreement, so it’s been around for at least two years, so I don’t know how you haven’t had enough time in two years to consult with any iwi Māori groups out there. And I’m sorry, but Te Arawhiti and Te Puni Kōkiri don’t count as iwi Māori groups. But we are getting used to seeing this—getting used to seeing this. All these things are left out of a raft of bills: the fast-track Act; the Treaty principles bill; the RSB; the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from 28 bills, as promoted by New Zealand First; and the Overseas Investment Bill—all taken out. And so, man, where can we turn to?

What we can say is that Te Pāti Māori are committed to strategies that enhance te taiao, strategies that protect the country’s natural resources for future generations, and strategies that are committed to the wellbeing of our mokopuna. These are the things that we will support, but unfortunately for this bill, we do not commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to speak on this, the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I think it’s good to bring it in context with another bill which will be coming through today or tomorrow in its third reading, the Invest New Zealand Bill. Of course, my colleague referred to the Active Investor Plus visa. As you start to look at these things in context, it’s starting to say New Zealand is open for business. We can’t survive by selling things to ourselves; we need to open ourselves up to more investment to get things done. Federated Farmers agrees and says that, as a small nation, capital and investment from overseas can help New Zealand to fix infrastructure and drive industry development. I commend this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a bill that exemplifies the cracks in the coalition. This is a bill that exposes that, on one hand, you have the ACT Party that want to sell everything off and, on the other hand, you have a deeply conflicted New Zealand First, who are agreeing to something that they know is not right.

Now, let me be very clear: Labour is and has always supported high-quality, strategic investment that delivers benefit to New Zealanders. That is without debate. That is something that, throughout our history, we have supported and will continue to support. Do we believe there should be no guard rails? The answer is a categorical no. What we believe is that when it comes to foreign investment coming into New Zealand, we need to ensure that this is of benefit to New Zealand, and this is our problem with the bill that is in front of us. What it does is it removes the benefit to New Zealand test.

Now, I do acknowledge that New Zealand First have looked for carve-outs in some areas—in farmland, in residential housing, in fishing quota. But I put to you: what about our health system? What about our education system? What about these other parts of things that we own here in New Zealand where we must always be asking ourselves when someone seeks to invest in them: is this of benefit to New Zealand? The fact that we have a piece of legislation in this House that is removing that question is of great concern to Labour and the reason why we cannot support this bill.

Now, making these decisions is not easy. It is complicated and it is complex. I myself, as a former Associate Minister of Finance, have been a deciding Minister, along with my colleague Damien O’Connor; we were deciding Ministers in the last Government around this. It is always a decision that weighs heavily, needing to ask that question of whether this is of benefit to New Zealand and whether or not it is something that we should be doing.

Now, one only needs to look through the regulatory impact statement that has been tabled with this bill to understand why there are concerns. Although this section is heavily redacted in the regulatory impact statement that has been tabled with the bill, this is what is noted: “While the potential benefits are clear, foreign investment can also pose risk. New Zealand[ers], like our partners,”—heavily redacted section. It then goes on to say, “Reflecting this the UK, Canada, Australia and the US have all tightened their own investment screening regimes to protect essential security interests in recent years.” What we have here is removal of that fundamental screen of whether or not this is of benefit to New Zealand.

Now, on this side of the House, do we think that processes around making decisions around the Overseas Investment Act could be faster? Certainly. Do we think there are ways that we could have tighter time frames? Certainly. Do we need a bill that removes the benefit to New Zealand test in order to do that? The answer is no. We can make changes to make a more efficient, more streamlined Act that does, actually, make sure that those that seek to invest their capital here and invest in our country can do so and they can get an answer quickly, because everyone I’ve spoken to is after that. They want to know whether it is yes or no, and they want to know it within a reasonable time frame. We believe that is an entirely valid argument to put up.

But do we need to remove asking that fundamental question about whether or not this is of benefit to New Zealand? The national interest test is a different test than the benefit to New Zealand test. It is possible to still have those safeguards, those guard rails for New Zealand’s interest within this legislation. That is why, despite being a party that absolutely believes that we do need to attract foreign investment in New Zealand, we need to have the appropriate guard rails so that we can put New Zealand first.

There are three things needed to grow an economy, according to Robert Solow, who was a Nobel Laureate in economics. The first is human capital, the second is physical capital, and the third is financial capital. The bill that we’re debating here today deals with improving the financial capital of New Zealand, which, as the Minister spoke about earlier, also has knock-on effects to our physical and our human capital, and all of these in turn improve our economic performance as a nation.

Other, more prosperous, countries around the world understand this, and that is why they welcome foreign direct investment. They also make it super easy to get foreign investment into their countries. I welcome this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

I can only conclude that members of the Government have not actually read the regulatory impact statement associated with this bill. It’s probably worth them taking a little bit of time with it, because the solutions in this bill don’t necessarily address the problems that are raised in the regulatory impact statement.

Let’s just start with some of the obvious things in here. Now, we all agree that the Overseas Investment Act has gotten really complex and difficult. I just want to draw members’ attention to something that has been said—if I can find it. I can’t find it exactly, but it acknowledges that, in actual fact, the current regime is complicated and difficult to negotiate, that there could be ways of making it better, and that, in fact, something could be done in that space. It could have been done, but, in fact, you’d need to do it from a first-principles sort of basis.

If we go to paragraph 46 of the regulatory impact statement, it says that instead of doing a fuller first-principles review, it couldn’t be completed within the time required—in other words, that the Government has imposed some kind of artificial time constraint on getting this right—and it was broader than necessary to meet the coalition requirement. Now, it just strikes me that we shouldn’t be doing things just because they are coalition requirements; we should actually be doing them because they are the right thing to do for New Zealand. That is what Governments are supposed to do. It is a shame that they haven’t taken the opportunity to do a proper review of the Act and to streamline some of the processes, which we all agree could perhaps be done.

Then I want to look at some aspects of the regulatory impact statement—and, members, if you need to find it, it’s on the Table there. I’m going to draw members’ attention to paragraph 43. It talks about the objectives that “effective foreign investment screening regimes must balance”. It’s things like the “Management of risk”, the “Provision of flexibility”, and the “Retaining Investment Attractiveness”. But here’s the difficulty: those are put in an order, and the first one is “Retaining Investment Attractiveness”, the second one is “Management of risk”, and the third one is the “Provision of flexibility”. I suggest that the proper one to go first, in terms of thinking about overseas investment regimes, is actually the “Management of risk”. Why is that not being given priority? When we’ve managed the risk, then we can look at some of the other aspects.

Then there’s the final set of information that I found sitting in this regulatory impact statement, which suggests that we should actually reject this bill because it simply is not going to deliver some of what we were told it would deliver. In the regulatory impact statement, it says, “New Zealand’s approach is one of the most restrictive in the OECD”—that’s New Zealand’s approach to overseas investment. It says, “There is evidence New Zealand’s approach does not balance these objectives well”—the objectives around screening foreign investment—and, “In particular, the OECD FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness Index shows New Zealand to be highly restrictive of overseas investment. In earlier iterations … [it] was found to have been the most restrictive foreign investment policy in the OECD. Recent methodological changes find New Zealand is no longer the worst”.

We’re actually better than a couple of countries now, in terms of openness to foreign direct investment. Do you know who those two countries are listed in here? They’re Canada and Australia. Our rules at the moment are pretty much the same as Canada’s, but they are way less restrictive than Australia’s. I don’t know what problem this bill is trying to solve. We’re actually sitting alongside our OECD and our Commonwealth peers. We could do things better, but I think this is an overblown solution to the problem. Something could have been sorted. Perhaps we should have gone for that proper full review of the Overseas Investment Act. Perhaps we could have sorted out procedures in the office. Perhaps we could have funded the Overseas Investment Office better so that it could process applications better. There were all sorts of avenues that were available and simply weren’t taken.

I am so glad that I am the final speaker to speak in support for this first reading so that we can go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee—that great select committee—and we can actually pass this bill. Do you know what? I’ve been on the user side of the office and this legislation, as I was working as a consultant trying to bring in good, healthy foreign capital to help New Zealand companies to grow. But guess what! The problems are the uncertainties with the waiting time and the huge legal costs and compliance costs that come with the uncertainty of waiting and waiting and waiting, and, essentially, companies just say, “Guess what! If you don’t want our money, New Zealand, I’ve had enough, and I’ve had enough of the opportunity cost.”

I am so supportive of this bill, and I know that it will deliver for New Zealand some really good, healthy capital that can help New Zealand businesses to grow and, in return, grow the economy for all New Zealanders. I support this bill.

The question is, That the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

I move, That the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 31 October 2025.

I move, That urgency be accorded the first reading and referral to select committee of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill and the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill; the third reading of the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Bill, the Rates Rebate Amendment Bill, the Racing Industry Amendment Bill, and the Invest New Zealand Bill; the remaining stages of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System Legislation Amendment Bill and the Employment Relations (Pay Deductions for Partial Strikes) Amendment Bill; the third reading of the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill; and the first reading and referral to select committee of the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill.

It doesn’t give me any pleasure to move urgency today. However, we are a busy Government with a big legislative agenda. There are limited hours in ordinary House time to get things done. I would point out to the House that the Government is moving urgency not to skip select committees and, sort of, ram things through without select committee scrutiny; in fact, some of the bills that are in this motion are broadly supported across the House. It has been taken purely for the purposes of essentially extending—taking more time, going through to midnight tomorrow night, and using the mornings in order to pass some bills.

We are dealing with a couple of first readings—in fact, three first readings—and third readings, some of which have time limits on them; they need to come into force by 1 July. Or, indeed, they are Budget commitments, and they are bills that we didn’t get quite done through the post-Budget urgency stage. Some of the bills I think are quite broadly supported across the House, although it is true that there are a couple that are perhaps a bit more controversial. But this is largely an urgency motion in order to take more time. It’s not an urgency motion that I move with great pleasure, but I do commend it to the House.

I present a legislative statement on the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) 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 Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 13 November 2025.

Immigration is integral to New Zealand’s economic and social prosperity. It plays a key role in supporting this Government’s Going for Growth agenda and delivering the skills our businesses need to compete globally and to grow. We want to enable a smart, responsive immigration system that attracts the skilled people that New Zealand needs. Since taking the immigration portfolio, this Government has made changes to the regulatory settings to get them right and to deliver on our priorities. We’ve targeted key skills gaps and ensured sustainable and efficient visa processing while effectively managing risk.

Settings are more attractive to migrants and more workable for businesses, the Accredited Employer Work Visa targets high-skill migrants and mitigates exploitation concerns, and we have significantly improved processing times. The new parent boost visa will help unite families and enhance New Zealand’s appeal to bring in highly skilled migrants. Our investor visa settings are now more simple and flexible, and they are delivering results. From November, we’re making it easier for people to visit New Zealand from Australia. Chinese and Pacific Island Forum nations will no longer need a separate visa. This trial will make it faster, cheaper, and simpler for our second-largest tourism market. Also, we’ve adjusted the fee and levy rates to reduce the taxpayer burden of administering the immigration system. I’m proud of the improvements we’ve made to the immigration system, but there is more to do to ensure our legislative settings are fit for purpose and designed for the future.

The geopolitical context of the world is changing, and New Zealand is not immune to risk. This bill will improve the immigration system’s integrity and responsiveness by tightening settings in response to risk. More instances of migrant exploitation can be prosecuted, and there will be stronger consequences for resident class visa holders who commit criminal offences or who pose significant risk.

The bill also introduces appropriate safeguards in the system for vulnerable people. It implements legislative recommendations from two independent King’s Counsel reviews of the immigration system. Those were Victoria Casey’s 2022 review into the detention of asylum seekers and Michael Heron’s 2023 review of immigration out-of-hours compliance activity. The bill’s changes also ensure that the system is flexible to unusual events and enables immigration funding to be fairer and more sustainable into the future.

The bill makes 10 targeted changes to the Immigration Act. Firstly, the bill addresses a gap in New Zealand’s migrant exploitation settings by creating a new offence, which is to knowingly seek or receive a monetary premium for an offer of employment. Charging premiums for employment is an increasing form of migrant exploitation, and it causes real harm. Often premiums are in the realm of tens of thousands of dollars. Currently, the legislation does not cover premiums that are paid before the employment commences, premiums that are made offshore, or situations where a premium is sought or received by someone other than the employer. This change makes it even clearer that this behaviour is not tolerated in New Zealand. It will enable us to prosecute more instances of migrant exploitation and hold exploitative behaviour to account.

Secondly, the bill amends the definition of a “mass arrival group” to better respond to changes in international people-smuggling trends. The current definition excludes people who have arrived on a scheduled international service, such as a commercial flight or a cruise vessel. This change will ensure that New Zealand can appropriately and humanely manage the potential arrival of a large number of irregular migrants at one time, regardless of how they travel into the country.

Thirdly, the bill will reinforce the expectations of resident class visa holders. It will clarify that deportation liability is a consequence of criminal offending rather than solely on a criminal conviction. Currently, if a judge orders a resident class visa holder’s discharge without conviction, the person cannot be liable for deportation, even if they’ve pled guilty or been found guilty. This undermines the integrity of the good behaviour bond for new resident class visa holders. It also advantages migrants over New Zealand citizens, who cannot seek to avoid a conviction on the grounds that it could lead to their deportation. This change means that a person is liable for deportation if they plead guilty, are found guilty, or are convicted of a criminal offence. Decisions about the deportation liability of individuals who have committed triggering offences will be made within the immigration system, rather than in the criminal courts. The existing humanitarian appeal right to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal will remain unchanged.

Fourthly, the bill improves our ability to respond to the very rare situations where a migrant poses a threat or a risk to the security of New Zealand but cannot be deported, because, for example, there is a credible chance that they would be subject to torture. In those situations, the Minister of Immigration will be able to cancel the person’s resident class visa. The removal of resident class visa status will facilitate deportation in the future if circumstances in the person’s home country should change. In the meantime, an individual will be on a temporary visa. They will no longer be able to vote or purchase a home, and they will lose the ability to sponsor friends or a family member to come to New Zealand. This approach is consistent with the international human rights law and the principle of non-refoulement.

The fifth amendment builds on operational improvements by requiring immigration officers to obtain a judicial warrant prior to conducting out-of-hours compliance activity. While most compliance visits can be effectively undertaken in hours, sometimes out-of-hours visits may be the only realistic option for contacting a person subject to deportation. This will ensure that when such an action is necessary, it is scrutinised by an independent body, protecting individual rights and providing confidence in compliance action. This was a key recommendation in the 2023 Michael Heron review.

The sixth amendment in the bill establishes a separate, higher bar for the detention of asylum claimants. These groups of people are in New Zealand under very different circumstances and have particular needs which New Zealand is under an obligation to respond to. This change responds to a recommendation in the 2022 Victoria Casey review and long-held concerns from stakeholders.

The seventh amendment will increase the range of tools available to manage immigration risk and ensure that compliance measures are proportionate. At present, judges have only two options when someone is subject to restrictions of movement under the Act: they can either detain the person, usually in a prison, or release them on the condition that they comply with a residence and reporting requirements agreement. The bill establishes electronic monitoring as an alternative to detention where a person is subject to deportation. This change responds to concerns from judges and stakeholders that the existing compliance options are not always appropriate. It also responds to a recommendation in the 2022 Casey review.

The bill’s eighth amendment enables flexible responses to challenges to the immigration system to more effectively respond to unusual events. Currently, the Act requires an individual to submit a visa and a decision maker to individually determine the outcome. This individualised approach doesn’t allow for the efficient management of large numbers of visa applicants, such as visa holders like the visitors who were stranded due to an airline disruption, which we saw in May last year. The system also struggled to respond to the collapse of Air Vanuatu, which temporarily stranded hundreds of Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers in New Zealand, and the volcanic explosion which caused Tonga’s airspace to close, which meant that many visiting Tongan citizens were stuck here. This change will enable the Minister of Immigration to make decisions on visas in the absence of applications only in situations where this would benefit a group or an individual.

Finally, the bill will support the immigration funding system to be fairer and more sustainable, through two amendments. The bill provides an option in the future to expand the immigration levy - payer base so that immigration system costs are more fairly shared across people who benefit from, and create risks for, the immigration system. The bill also creates a new immigration levy - making power to expand the purposes that an immigration levy can be used for. While there are no immediate plans to undertake a fee and levy review to implement these changes, the bill futureproofs the system should such changes be needed in the future.

These are important, sensible changes to the Immigration Act that will ensure New Zealanders have confidence in the integrity of the system. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment consulted with key groups, including immigration experts, businesses, unions, and the legal profession, on the policy proposals drafted in the bill. Their feedback has helped to strengthen and improve this bill. With that, Mr Speaker, thank you, and I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s Labour’s view that the purpose of our immigration system is for New Zealand to attract, welcome, and successfully settle the people our country needs and—importantly, we believe—to treat people with dignity, respect, and fairness. This is a wide-ranging bill that makes a variety of changes to our immigration system. Labour supports some of the changes made by this bill, such as those recommended by Victoria Casey KC and Michael Heron KC. We have questions about other aspects of the bill, and we look forward to exploring those at select committee, such as the increased levy powers and the changing of the definition of a “mass arrival”.

There are important principles that underpin the discussion here. The first, I think, is that people have a right, under international law, to seek asylum, enshrined in international law and commitments that we have signed up to. The second is that the integrity of the system must be protected to keep the public’s faith in asylum being just for those fleeing war and persecution. The third is that the primary risk, we must always remember, when people flee their countries is to the lives of those asylum seekers, not from asylum seekers.

Let’s walk through some of the key provisions of the bill. I want to start with the provisions that have arisen out of Michael Heron’s 2023 review of out-of-hours immigration compliance activities. It was a concern to a lot of people, including to us when we were in Government, that immigration officers were turning up unannounced at homes in the middle of the night or in the very early hours of the morning. Given the scars that the Dawn Raids of the 1970s left on this country, clearly that compliance activity needed guard rails put around it. I’m glad to see the provisions in the bill do that.

Secondly, in relation to the conditions around warrants of commitment and the provisions around the detention of asylum seekers—the background on that is that about three years ago, Amnesty International published an investigation into the jailing of asylum seekers in New Zealand and alleged that this was going on. They provided some very harrowing examples, and they said it was happening in contravention of New Zealand’s international obligations. As Associate Minister, with the support of my senior colleague, I arranged for Victoria Casey, then QC, to do the investigation, and she did an excellent job. She entirely vindicated Amnesty International’s report. Asylum seekers were being jailed in New Zealand, not in large numbers, but decisions were being made by junior officials in Immigration New Zealand, in the absence of any proper process, to jail asylum seekers—indeed, in contravention of New Zealand’s international human rights obligations. Immigration New Zealand has since then implemented a raft of policy and operational changes. These legislative changes are the final piece of the puzzle, I think, and Labour is very glad to see them before the House tonight.

Third, creating an offence for people who seek a monetary premium for an offer of employment—also, this is something that we’re very happy to support in the House. No one likes to see the kinds of migrant-worker exploitation cases that pop up in the media with alarming frequency—corrupt overseas agents, effectively, selling visas, seeking premiums for offers of employment, and working in cahoots with dodgy employers in New Zealand. It has to stop, and we strongly support this particular initiative to do that.

On the fiscal-sustainability provisions, we’ll be interested to see who exactly the Minister wants to target in relation to that. On the mass arrivals, I’ve run out of time to talk in depth about that, but we will be exploring that in detail at select committee, along with the special powers that are being granted in relation to how you deal with someone who’s a protected person but is deemed to be a risk to public safety. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak on the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill. I know that this bill actually covers a lot of different aspects of the Immigration Act 2009, but I think I actually want to first pick up on something that is on the first page of this bill, which is “to manage immigration in a way that balances the national interest … and the rights of individuals”. Although this looks great, I think it’s also a key reminder for this House that the Immigration Act is one of the few Acts that is exempted from the Human Rights Act. I’ve seen that we are able to discriminate against a person who is seeking immigration status on the basis of their disability. We have seen that over and over again in recent years and even in recent months. It is important to note that while this is the purpose and the right of individuals, we do not see it in practice or in other parts of this bill.

I just wanted to leave that there for now, because this segues really nicely into the first part of this bill, which is around the immigration levy. I think it is a genuine concern. One of the things we have seen that’s been announced by the Government so far is the idea of the parent boost visa etc., but let us be clear: there are very few people whose parents or who themselves—if they are one person with two parents, like a lot of the people from China—have $250,000 just tucked away in cash in their back pocket to be eligible for that particular visa type, as well as, or alternatively, their parents having superannuation in their country of origin that matches the level of superannuation here in Aotearoa New Zealand. That is simply not feasible for most of the people.

The reason for that, as the Minister said, is to strike a balance between people here—migrants who pay their taxes, who are contributing to Aotearoa New Zealand, who bring diversity and vibrancy to Aotearoa New Zealand. But what we’re telling them is that they need to meet this really specific criteria in order for them to be eligible to bring in their parents, on the basis that their parents might add burden to our healthcare system. But let us be very, very, very clear: what is the definite proof that migrants, or even migrants with additional housing needs, who are sometimes not eligible for our public health system anyway, are responsible for the systemic underfunding of our healthcare system and also our education system?

This first point: allowing immigration levies to be charged on visa applications, which is already exorbitant and outside of some people’s reach—for example, the application now for residency is, roughly, I think, up towards $5,000. On top of that, we’re asking for the charge of additional levies on employers and migrants to fund the public health and education system. That then is no longer a levy. We are adding an additional immigration tax. Levy implies it is for the operations of Immigration New Zealand, which we acknowledge, but it is not for migrants who want to apply for visas to come here and support the lack of funding that this Government has given towards health and education. Something like this is something that the Green Party absolutely will not support.

In saying that, there are other worthwhile elements in this bill. Like the previous speaker, the Hon Phil Twyford, said, they expanded the special direction of power. There are certain areas in here—some of the aspects around stronger restrictions on out-of-hours immigration rates; these are good things to see, because we have seen our migrant community being harmed as a result of over-the-top treatment towards them in the form of the Dawn Raids and others. But there are other elements of this we’re interested to see in the select committee, like the cancellation of resident visas—what would that actually be? The Green Party will not support this bill, but we’re keen to see what happens during select committee.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker, I think, when he read that statement on the first page of the bill, completely forgot that the statement also says that it is to take into consideration the interest of people—those who are already here in New Zealand. So, yes, of course this bill is to provide that balance, and that balance is needed when we look into our immigration system so that it is fair and just for people, those who are looking to be here in our country, whether it is just for visiting, for studying, or for wanting to make New Zealand their home. But then it has to be fair for people, those who are already in our country as well. And these two things which this bill addresses—fiscal sustainability and enhancing integrity, by making several changes that the Minister has already talked about—are really important, because, in this very complex global landscape that we live in, immigration systems are really important. It is not only about looking at one side for people, those who are coming into our country, but also to ensure, for the interest of people who are already here in our country and who are calling New Zealand home, we are able to be fair to them as well.

In this bill, yes, fiscal sustainability is important, and this provision which will be in the bill—as the Minister said—is not going to be implemented straight away, but this will be there so that, if needed, this can actually be implemented. This is to expand the immigration levy - payer base, and it is very, very clear in the bill, that it will have to be justified which groups this expansion can be done to. These kinds of levies, through regulation that the Minister can make, will have to be justified on the basis of the link; as it says, if other people are benefiting from that, then they will be included in that levy-payer base—for example, if an employer is bringing somebody from overseas and that person comes on a temporary work visa, that person can become that expanded group; or if it is some education provider, those who provide education, those who are signatory providers providing education to international, fee-paying students, they can be included in that group. The Minister will have to justify the linkage before that expansion can be done.

Coming to other issues, this bill is making several changes, and I want to touch on only a few in the limited time that I have. Migrant exploitation is a very, very big issue. It’s a very serious issue, and it happens in so many different forms, and some of the forms are visible; some of the forms are still invisible. We become aware of these different forms of migrant exploitation only when somebody comes forward. I really want to commend each and every individual who has come forward and shared their stories of migrant exploitation. It’s because of those stories we are able to make the changes we are making through this legislation.

Just two years ago or so, we were seeing so many stories of people coming to New Zealand, packed in a small house, like 10 to 15 people packed in a house. They landed here in New Zealand, and straight away, they were told that they didn’t have any employment. It wasn’t that they had a dodgy employer, but the employment didn’t exist. Many of these people shared the stories that they paid money to get this employment here in New Zealand, which doesn’t actually exist. This kind of situation, we know, is migrant exploitation, but, now, what this bill does is it takes cares of people who are doing this kind of activity offshore for New Zealand - based employment offers, and also takes care of any kind of premium that is charged before the employment commences. These changes will ensure that people understand that we are taking it very, very seriously. This is going to be introduced as a new offence through this legislation.

We also know that sometimes, when the applications are processed, people come into our country, and we believe that they are going to be the kinds of citizens and residents we want in New Zealand. But sometimes we may find, later on, that these people are actually a risk to the security of our country and that actions need to be taken. If these individuals have a residence class visa, then the Minister having the ability to revoke the residence class visa is actually going to send a really good message—a strong message—to such individuals if they decide to take up activities which pose risk to our country. Very clearly, it has been said that if we consider that there is going to be a threat for them in their own country, they won’t be deported straight away, but they will lose the rights of being residents here, with the Minister revoking residence class visas for such individuals. With that, I would say that this is a good bill, and we support this bill and commend this bill to the House.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill at its first reading. This bill delivers on a key component of our coalition agreement and party values in strengthening protections that ensure our immigration system serves the needs of our country and the needs of those who are migrating to New Zealand.

This is a complex piece of legislation, in that there are a lot of moving parts, but at its core it is a simple recognition that we can do better. It respects the importance and value of immigration to New Zealand and our economy, it respects the contribution that our migrant population pays to New Zealand, and it does this by providing some fundamental protections around the area of exploitation, which is an area I have worked significantly in and recognise the incredible harm that it does, not only to the individuals but to our reputation as a country. The more that we can do to make this legislation workable, practical, and fiscally sustainable is really important as we move forward to achieve the targets we have as a Government for our economy.

The bill creates a number of changes and arrangements, but I would applaud, most importantly, the priority that it has given to Victoria Casey KC’s and Michael Heron KC’s recommendations. These have taken some time to be fully addressed and worked through, and I think the bill does an enormous service to ensure that those key recommendations are addressed through this piece of legislation.

I’d also recognise the tidying-up around the “mass arrival” definition. There has been some debate previously around mass arrivals in this House, and I think it’s important to recognise that having a robust definition as well as a process for managing mass arrivals is, again, actually about protection. It’s about protection for those that are vulnerable. It allows us an opportunity to provide some support, some services, and to ensure that no matter how you arrive—which is what this is trying to address—whether it is through, you know, illegal means or whether it’s through commercial services, we have the ability to manage those arrivals and do it efficiently and effectively.

The bill, as has been mentioned, also provides the ability to cancel resident visas for security risks. Again, this is about the credibility of our immigration system, to ensure that New Zealanders can have good faith in our immigration system, and that when there are security risks and when there are vulnerabilities created, in order to protect the reputation of those enormous number of immigrants that are now calling New Zealand home, we aren’t allowing their place in our society to be in any way discredited, because we have migrants we are unable to manage when security risks occur.

I think there are a lot of moving parts in this legislation. It will be an important piece of work for the Education and Workforce Committee to work through. I think there is an enormous benefit to us as a country having these legislative changes that make sure that our future in immigration is supported by really good, robust legislation and that we have the ability to manage any risks that arise in this space but also have the ability in balancing that to ensure that we have all the protections in place for those who may be victimised through the very immigration system that we have introduced into this country. I have no hesitation at all, on behalf of New Zealand First, to commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. I’m taking a short call on the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill. I’m rising on behalf of Te Pāti Māori, not just as a lawmaker but as tangata whenua, as kaitiaki of this land and of the people who seek refuge upon it.

While there are some positive elements in this bill, including protections against migrant exploitation and the requirements for the judicial warrants before immigration officers can enter people’s homes after hours, ultimately, we cannot support it. The bill, while dressed up in the language of fiscal responsibility and system integrity, reinforces a two-tiered immigration system—one rule for the rich, another for the poor. On one hand, we have the “golden visa” scheme fast-tracking residency and citizenship for the wealthy. On the other hand, the bill introduces harsher deportation powers for refugees—people who arrive with nothing but hope for a better life—by allowing the Government to cancel resident visas of refugees even if deportation would result in them being tortured in their homeland. This is not an immigration policy; this is class warfare disguised as legislation. Let’s be clear: in the past 10 years, no one has been certified as being a national security risk under section 163 of the Immigration Act 2009.

Te Pāti Māori leaves no one behind. The law reinforces a class system for migrants and reinforces the mentality that refugees pose a risk, when they do not. While billionaires can buy their way into Aotearoa, refugees’ whānau, who carry nothing but hope, are treated like political pawns. Yes, there are some good provisions in the bill, and we acknowledge those, but let us be absolutely clear: these small wins do not undo the deep injustice at the heart of this bill. The message remains that wealth equals worth and poverty equals suspicion. It is hypocritical, it is elitist, and it is a breach of our values as a nation grounded in manaakitanga. We call on the Government to rethink immigration policy in line with Te Tiriti o Waitangi and with the values of fairness, manaakitanga, and rangatiratanga. Te Pāti Māori leaves no one behind, and we do not support the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak in support of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill. This bill is making targeted changes to do just as the title suggests: improve the integrity, responsiveness, and sustainability of New Zealand’s immigration system. A couple of things that have already been highlighted and that I think are really important are creating an offence for charging for jobs in New Zealand and, also, requiring a warrant for out-of-hours enforcement actions. These are very important changes, and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As members clock up mileage in this House, they’ll reflect upon their careers and look towards the events that they experience in their time here. For myself, there are two in particular that I’d like to speak to, with respect to this bill.

The first one is of course the tragic incident that took place at the New Lynn shopping mall. I was in Cabinet at the time, and, as decisions were being made with respect to that individual and the tragic circumstances that led to that individual doing what the individual did, we acknowledge that this bill looks towards special powers that would allow the Government of the day to look towards ways to remedy the situation that we found ourselves in during that tragic event. Mr Speaker, you can imagine how difficult it is, as lawmakers and as the Cabinet leading the country at the time, how, often, through pieces of legislation—often obscure, sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle—you can find yourself hamstrung in the ability to make effective decisions to make sure that the community is kept safe. Now, in that particular instance, we didn’t have the powers, which is why we acknowledge it in this bill.

However, of course, with great power comes great responsibility, and the ability for the select committee to make sure that we can interrogate the checks and balances on the power that Ministers do have with respect to immigration cases is going to be important. We’ve seen cases with respect to immigration across multiple Governments over decades fall foul of the rules in one way, shape, or form. It’s important that those checks and balances can continue to make sure that those who do come here with a special status and those who do come here with the hopes and aspirations that their new home will be a home that they can call their forever home for them and their family can continue to do that.

The second part that I reflect upon in my time here in this institution is of course the Dawn Raids apology that was made under the Ardern leadership. I was fortunate to speak at that ceremony in Auckland, and I recall just the weight of burden, the weight of anxiety, the past trauma, and the way that our people who come to this country and call New Zealand home look towards immigration settings and immigration laws to make sure that they and their whānau get a fair go.

When we look at this particular bill, as I already stated, there are some really good parts in the bill, but there are some that we will look to interrogate as it goes through the select committee process. We know that there are a large number of interest groups in our community—community groups, family groups—who are looking towards this particular bill and will, no doubt, make submissions on this bill, and we encourage those voices to come through in this process in order to make this bill robust and something that we can all look back on our time in this House as a progressive and smart move moving forward.

One of the other parts is of course mass arrivals. My colleague and friend the Hon Phil Twyford spoke to this particular matter before his time ran out, and that was about the definition of “mass arrival”. We’ve heard from the Government that there are instances where organised travel has been utilised to bring illegal immigrants, or those who wish to travel to this country under what would have been formerly termed as “mass arrivals” under the old legislation but is being proposed for a change in this particular bill. In changing that definition, I think it’s important that we look toward what those definitions mean in a modern context and in today’s times. Once upon a time, it was only ever seen as the arrival of “boat people”, and that’s because we live here in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and it was thought that that was the only way you could have that kind of an event, which was voyage across the sea. But we know times have changed, and we will look towards that particular definition to make sure that it gets the kind of interrogation that ensures that it’s evidence based, that it’s fact based, and that, actually, the good policy in the bill that we’re debating here will be robust. That’s all we can ask as we look towards the progress of this bill.

I do want to make a quick point to some of our whānau that might not be supporting this bill. We can’t lose hope in the democratic institutions that we uphold in this place, and that means that the select committee must be given a chance—and I implore the Government to remember this—to make this bill better.

Excellent—thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great honour that I stand to rise in support of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill in this first reading. I think probably a great way to sum up this bill is it is really to manage immigration in a way that balances our national interests with the rights of individuals. I think it’s really important that this bill introduces measures to combat migrant exploitation by creating a new offence for seeking or receiving monetary premiums for employment offers. It also strengthens any consequences for someone who commits criminal offences or poses a risk—the ability to respond to individuals who threaten our national security. It just gives us—and it’s been previously mentioned—a few more powers in the immigration space, once again to kind of balance our national security with the rights of individuals. It addresses the recommendations from a number of independent reviews. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me begin by saying—similar to my two colleagues who spoke on this bill before me, the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill—that Labour supports this bill. Madam Speaker, as you’re about to take the Chair, we support the intent of this bill. We agree that our immigration system should be sustainable and that it should be fair and robust. We agree that those who benefit from, or create risks for, our system should contribute to its costs, and we agree that system integrity is essential for public trust.

One of the most commendable aspects of this bill is the decisive action that it takes on the issue of migrant exploitation. As the ethnic spokesperson for the Labour Party and also as a person who has so many thousands of migrant folks who live in my electorate in Panmure-Ōtāhuhu, in South Auckland, this is actually a huge issue for our community. I would like to commend the Minister and the ministry of immigration for ensuring that migrant exploitation is one of the things that this bill addresses.

The new provision makes it explicitly illegal for employers, agents, or recruiters to charge employment premiums, regardless of whether the fees are charged or collected offshore, before the employment begins or whether the worker is ultimately hired. That is an aspect that we absolutely agree with on this side of the House. However, values matter, and we should not allow fiscal discipline and technical fixes to come at the expense of equity or transparency or the fundamental rights of our migrants, who actually contribute so much to Aotearoa New Zealand.

The bill proposes changes to expand the immigration levy base so that it now includes employers, education providers, and visa-waiver visitors, who will now share the cost. But this Government’s own departmental disclosure statement reveals a glaring lack of analysis of how these costs could possibly flow through our economy. For instance, will our small businesses, who are already under pressure, be able to absorb these new proposed costs? Another question: will our world-class tertiary institutions be forced in the future to raise their fees, making New Zealand possibly less attractive to international students; or will these costs be passed on to the most vulnerable—our migrants and our students—who are some of the least able to bear these costs? Fiscal sustainability should not become a euphemism for cost shifting on to those with the least power.

This bill also grants the Minister of Immigration really broad new powers to be able to set the levies to determine who actually pays and how much they pay. This is only with periodic consultation and a five-year review. We should be careful when we look at centralisation of power in the Minister’s office that it should not go unchecked.

There are some useful aspects, though, in this bill. Of course, we absolutely support the bill—for instance, judicial warrants for enforcement, electronic monitoring as an alternative to detention, and protections for asylum claimants. But the power to cancel residence-class visas, even in rare cases, sets a rare and dangerous precedent.

The Minister’s statement earlier framed this bill as a technical fix for efficiency and for fiscal responsibility and discipline. But where is the acknowledgment of the lived realities of our migrants? Where is the recognition that New Zealand’s strength lies in our diversity and our openness and our commitment to justice? We urge the Government to work with us to strengthen this bill to ensure that it reflects the best New Zealand values, those of fairness, openness, and respect for all. Let us build an immigration system that is not just fiscally sustainable but one that is socially just, an immigration system that is not just technically sound but one that is also morally strong. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s with great pleasure I rise to speak in support of the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill in the first reading. I look forward to working with members across the House on this bill to once again strengthen our immigration system and through the select committee process.

A couple of aspects of the bill really appealed to me—particularly the one focusing in on the whole process of people who exploit our immigrants. As someone who moves around the electorate, you hear these stories of exploitation, so anything we can do to really make it quite clear that that is totally unacceptable in our society is a great thing, and I look forward to working through those issues.

The other one that actually hasn’t really been touched on much is the concept that people who are facing deportation will actually be monitored on electronic bail as opposed to being in a jail. I think that was highlighted through the KCs’ reports. I think that is a really important part of it. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is, That the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

I move, That the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 13 November 2025.

I present a legislative statement on the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) 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 Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider this bill, and at the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 13 August 2025 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day in which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside of the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

The bill amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to limit whole-farm conversions to exotic forestry from registering in the New Zealand emissions trading scheme (ETS). The bill delivers on the action in the Government’s second emissions reduction plan and action 24 of the quarter-two action plan to introduce this legislation to the House. The bill takes a balanced and practical step towards protecting our most productive farmland while still supporting our climate goals. It’s about preserving choice—the choice to farm, the choice to grow, and the choice to sustain rural communities for generations to come.

The primary sector is vital to the success of our economy. Our farmers feed New Zealand and the world. I also acknowledge the significant role forestry plays in contributing to regional employment and helping us meet our emissions targets. But the current settings in the emissions trading scheme have tipped the scales too far. We’re seeing entire farms converted into exotic forests under the ETS, from Invercargill to Ruatōria. These are not marginal lands; these are productive farms supporting families, communities, and local economies. Once they are planted into exotic carbon forests, they are, effectively, lost to food production for decades, if not permanently so. This is not balanced land use, it is not sustainable, and it is not fair to the rural communities who bear the brunt of these conversions.

The bill introduces targeted, sensible limits on whole-farm conversions into exotic forestry under the ETS. It does not ban forestry. It does not undermine our climate commitments. What it does is protect our best land for food production while still allowing farmers to diversify and to participate in the ETS where it makes sense. There is still a great deal of land that can be utilised for forestry, of course.

The bill introduces four key changes to the ETS forestry planting in New Zealand: (1) restrictions on exotic forestry ETS registration on actively farmed land-use capability (LUC) classes 1 through 6, our most productive land; (2) an annual ballot allowing 15,000 hectares of exotic forest on class 6 land, providing planting opportunities while managing planting scale nationally; (3) a 25 percent cap allowing farmers to plant up to a quarter of their land in exotic forest for ETS purposes to maintain flexibility and income diversity; and (4) temporary transitional protection for those who invested in good faith before December 2024.

These changes are grounded in the land-use capability classification system, a well-established tool that reflects the productivity of our land. By focusing restrictions on the most productive classes, we ensure that on low-quality land, native-forest planting and planting on certain types of Māori land remain viable options. To support those who made legitimate afforestation investments before this policy was announced last December, the bill includes temporary transitional exemptions for new restrictions. In order to qualify, a potential ETS applicant will need to provide evidence that a qualifying forestry investment, as specified in the bill, has been made in relation to that LUC 1 through 6 land they seek to register in the ETS. This will both allow for affected investors to proceed with planted forest projects, recognising investments already in train, while also ensuring qualifying forest investments demonstrated genuine investment in relation to a specific piece of LUC 1 through 6 land.

For instance, the purchase of land and ordering of trees together would be an example of proof of a qualifying forestry investment, as long as it took place before 1 December 2024, whilst each of these actions alone would not demonstrate that. Investment must also have been made between 1 January 2021 and 4 December 2024 so that we are only allowing those exemptions for recent investments and real intentions. These exemptions will be assessed on a case by case basis by the regulator at the point of ETS registration, but the conditions for transitional agreement arrangements have been published previously and are clearly set out in the legislation.

This is not about pitting farming against forestry; it’s about maximising land use for our whole rural sector. Both agriculture and forestry can coexist in a way that is sustainable, strategic, and fair. Whole-farm conversions don’t just affect landowners; they affect entire communities. Schools, local businesses, and services all depend upon the steady year-round activity that farming provides. Exotic carbon forestry, by contrast, offers short bursts of economic activity, often decades apart. These bursts can be significant, especially when spread across a region with staggered forest ages, but they cannot come at the total expense of our farming communities.

Let’s not forget that this is also about New Zealand’s global reputation. We are known for high-quality sustainably produced food. That reputation is built on the back of our farmers. If we allow productive farmland to disappear under a blanket of trees, we risk undermining that brand and the livelihood that depends on it.

We as a Government have publicly committed to the legislation taking effect in October 2025. Forestry remains a vital part of our climate response and rural economy, providing jobs, carbon sequestration, and export value, but it must be integrated in a way that complements, not replaces, our food-production systems. By continuing to provide planting pathways, we are offering a balanced approach to maximising production on farms. This bill is about balance, it’s about choice, and it’s about protecting the future of rural New Zealand. Let us back our farmers, let us back our regions, and let us preserve the right to farm for future generations. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The Labour Party will offer very cautious support for this bill through to the select committee. It is cautious because of the very short report-back date, because we think some of the issues that need to be worked through are quite significant, and it is cautious because, in some ways, this bill just doesn’t go far enough; in some ways, it maybe goes too far. There’s a whole set of issues that we need to work through very, very carefully.

So let me, first of all, tackle one way in which the bill may not go far enough. This bill will limit the amount of land that can be converted to forestry for emissions trading scheme (ETS) purposes, but there is a huge question around whether or not we should have forestry in the emissions trading scheme at all—a question that was really highlighted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment recently in his report on examining the drivers of forestry in New Zealand. This is an issue that needs to be examined in depth and considered. Of course, this particular bill starts to work around some of the issues in forestry but by no means all of them. That sort of issue we do need to have a look at.

In the Labour Party, we are fully cognisant of the effect on rural communities, of the impact of afforestation, of the extent to which particularly remote rural communities are being affected. We’ve spent a bit of time with Federated Farmers recently. A lot of us went to Fieldays, and we heard some of the stories about what was going on in rural communities. This is why we do actually support some of the intent of this bill, because we do recognise the need to protect those communities. We’ve heard that and do that. Nevertheless, there are, as I said, questions that need to be worked through.

Let’s just talk about some of them. One of the things that’s sitting in the regulatory impact statement (RIS)—which was, incidentally, quite hard to find, because it’s not actually on the website yet—is the assessment of the options that have been chosen by this Government. There has been a whole lot of consideration of the costs of the preferred option on ETS forestry participants—good people to consider—on farmers, obviously; on foresters; on Māori land owners; of the effect on the regulator; of the effect on others. What we haven’t got is an assessment of the cost or the impact on the emissions trading scheme. This will introduce some distortions into the scheme. Now, maybe that’s a good thing, but we are going to need to work through that very, very carefully at the select committee as well. There’s a whole set of questions around that.

Then there’s something which I’m just trying to puzzle my way through—and again, it needs to be examined—and that is the ballot system for category class 6 land. Under this bill, as it’s come to the House, land categories 1 through 6 will only be able to have 25 percent of the land planted up in forestry. But category 6 land—there’s a special category in there to say that more than that can go for forestry: you can do whole-farm conversions or significant amounts of forestry conversion, up to 15,000 hectares per annum. Whose 15,000 hectares? Well, it turns out that’s going to be decided by a ballot. Everyone who wants to convert some of their farmland over and above that 25 percent will need to go into a ballot. That, of course, means that their land, by virtue of a ballot, may become more valuable for the purposes of sale. I’m going to want to understand whether the permission to plant forest applies to the land or to the farmer and if it’s transferable. That’s a set of issues that, in the short time we’ve had the bill available to us, we haven’t been able to work through, but I’m sure that we’ll find that out in due course. Nevertheless, using a ballot like this has its advantages and disadvantages. It’ll be interesting to work through that as well. There’s a lot to work through in terms of this bill.

The Minister introducing the bill spoke of the need to balance and complement our productive farming, our food production systems. I agree. We need to do that, but we also need to balance what we are doing with respect to climate change as well. It’s not just to do with the ETS or with our Paris commitments or with our emissions budgets; it’s to do with the real existential threat that climate change poses for us and our farmers, and that’s an issue we most definitely need to examine.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We have a major challenge in this country, in that we are losing vast hectarages of farmland to pine forestry, and this is because of a distortion through the emissions trading scheme whereby it is cheaper to offset emissions to pine forestry than to actually cut gross emissions. For understanding that, in the climate change context, the only meaningful way for us to deal with climate change globally is to cut gross emissions, which is real-world emissions. The fiction of offsetting has the same practical impact of an alcoholic paying somebody to drink water and thinking that they have solved their drinking problem. That is the distortion that we have in this country to this day, and what’s more, the person who’s drinking all the water is making a lot of money and thinking that they’re doing something about alcoholism, but they’re not at all.

The worst effect of it is that we are not solving climate change but, actually, we’re sacrificing some of our least-emitting farmland, because a sheep and beef farm produces about a quarter of the emissions of your average high-intensity dairy farm. It seems like the effect we got with He Waka Eke Noa, in which sheep and beef were thrown under the bus to protect the dairy industry. That is the distortion that still exists. To give you an example of one of the worst effects of that, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment did modelling on the current settings, which showed that by the middle of this century that we’re presently in, we could face a situation where land use was dominated by only two types: pine forestry and dairy farms.

Now, that is a major challenge for us in terms of our resilience. It is a major challenge for us in terms of the fact that many of those pine forests in the high country will become the tinder dry fuel for future forest fires as the impacts of climate change hit. Let’s be clear, the major threat to humanity in terms of climate change is in large part how it impacts our ability to produce food. Globally: erratic seasons, prolonged droughts, greater floods, extreme weather events—these are the things that farmers are, on the front line, being impacted by. It’s a sad denial on the part of the farming industry with some many years of climate change as a problem, and it has, actually, really undercut farmers and undermined farmers’ longevity.

We think it’s important that the Government is acknowledging this problem. I think, however, this bill isn’t biting the bullet. The Green Party policy is to remove forestry from the emissions trading scheme to stop that distortion. That is the actual solution to the problem. The risk with this bill, whilst it is a step in the right direction—and, Minister, we will be supporting it to select committee because we want to see it developed more thoroughly and we would actually like to see it given the proper time it deserves because there are some real risks with it. One is that there’s a risk that you actually get with the ballot system, a continued loss of that high country land. I note that Kate Acland from Beef + Lamb said that “Land Class 6 is the foundation of our breeding farms … 15,000 hectares every year coming out of this will add up over time.” Toby Williams, from Federated Farmers, said there “is a huge amount of land … going into pine trees … that’s what farmers will currently be using as breeding country—we can’t afford to lose 150,000 hectares in the next decade.”

The other distortion that we risk is that we have adjacent bits of land, one that might be dominated by land class 6 where you won’t be allowed to plant pines except through the ballot, and another dominated by land class 7. It could be that you invert the value of those land areas whereby the land class 7 becomes higher value because you can now plant pine trees on it. That’s another unhelpful distortion. What is more, farmers—and we hear this all the time—need the ability to have long-term planning in their land use. Being in a lottery to know whether they can plant a forest is the opposite of giving certainty to farmers in terms of how they can plan their land use.

The other exciting thing that’s happening in the sector is the likes of agroforestry and silvopasture and tree intercropping. These things are not recognised for their valuable use of combinations of diverse mosaic landscapes where you’re planting trees and you’re raising livestock and you’re producing crops and food.

I don’t see that this bill addresses those challenges. I look forward to debating it at the select committee. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker.

The Hon Mark Patterson.

Andrew Hoggard.

Sorry! You’re in the wrong seat.

No, he’s down there.

Yeah, I know. Sorry—the Hon Andrew Hoggard. My apologies.

He’s got sheep; I’ve got cows. OK, thank you, Madam Speaker. Yeah. Look, I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to support this bill. We’ve had some challenges about it, but I do think it is an elegant solution to quite a complex problem. This problem has been around for about six-odd years now; people have been debating it and talking about it and proposing solutions. We need a solution, and I think, you know, this is the solution that is here now. It is a solution we should be backing because it will create change. Now, you may argue it doesn’t go far enough, it goes too far, or whatever, but let’s get started with something, because if we do nothing, like what happened with the previous Government, then more land will keep going out of farming.

I want to talk about what the problem is here—we’ve sort of missed it to a degree in terms of some of the speeches. The problem really has been identified by rural communities in terms of large swaths of land being moved out of farming and into forestry and communities being decimated—a point that’s well known to me. A neighbour of mine had moved here to my area recently. They had previously been out farming on the East Coast, and, basically, they had to leave because their entire valley up to their property had been planted out, all gone into forestry. They were the last farm left in the valley. There was not going to be a school to send their kids to. Quite frankly, they were worried about their lives if it ever caught fire, because how were they going to get out of the valley. This is the challenge that’s been recognised by rural communities, and this is what we’re trying to solve.

In terms of the solution, as the Minister of Forestry mentioned, farmers really have a problem with anyone telling them what to do on their land—usually, much more unparliamentary language is used than that—but then they also want to tell their neighbour what they can do with their land, and we run into quite a conundrum there as to how we balance that up. This is why I think it’s a very elegant solution: we’re not telling anyone what they can do with their land, but we’re saying, “If you make this choice, I hope the log prices are good, because that’s how you get the return.”, and people will not be getting the emissions trading scheme credits. So, basically, it’s not telling people what to do, but it’s removing an incentive that’s creating this distortion as to farming moving into that. This is, I think, a really elegant solution.

I have heard concerns from the rural community around the transitional measures. I don’t know how true it is, but I’ve heard concerns raised that some forestry companies are diverting seedlings that were going to be replanted into land they’d bought after the ban. Hopefully, that isn’t the case. My suggestion to anyone thinking they’re going to try and weave their way around this is that you might find out the hard way that you can’t actually get around it and you might lose out in money.

I fully commend this bill to the House. It’s been a long time coming, and I thank the Minister for bringing it.

The Hon Mark Patterson—take two.

Thank you—yes, it is I! Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I could not be more pleased to be rising to support this bill, which is the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill, and I thank Minister McClay for progressing this. It is part of the New Zealand First - National coalition agreement. In my view, in having the honour of being the Minister for Rural Communities, this is the most consequential bill to come before this House in this term of Parliament for our rural communities. Whole-of-farm conversions of some of our most productive land, if left unchecked, are in the process of shuttering large swathes of rural New Zealand. Action is both necessary and overdue.

The emissions trading scheme creates a mismatch of profitability for land-use options. The current pricing for a tonne of carbon—it’s around $59 a kilo—is somewhere near five times more profitable than sheep and beef farming, and sheep and beef farming is going pretty well at the moment. It is now estimated to be competitive with dairying. I know: I planted some myself; I’ve taken advantage of this scheme. Why would I not? It would be looking a gift horse in the mouth. This is not about vilifying forestry. It is $6 billion worth of export earnings. It is a legitimate and valuable land use, and we do have large areas of less productive land that we can plant in forestry and utilise the scheme. It’s very much a right tree, right place strategy that we’re trying to get back to here. It does create opportunities to integrate forestry in with sheep and beef farming primarily, in a mosaic-type approach, and it can help cash-flow farm succession. It’s not all downside, by any means, for our rural communities.

When whole farms are planted out, livestock are culled—some 2 million stock units estimated since 2017 that’s here, is gone. Farm labour is gone. Stock agents, gone. Food and seed reps, gone. Vets, gone. Contractors, gone. Truckies, gone. That’s families gone. That’s the viability of our rural communities, our schools, our local pubs—wide-ranging impacts. It is flowing into our provincial towns. The closure of Smithfield meatworks in Timaru and the loss of some 700 jobs is the canary in the coalmine, and there will be more. If we’re doubting the consequences of what we’re doing here, when Governments are pulling levers like this, this week’s Farmers Weekly, I think, shows it all. There is a quote here from Bayleys Gisborne director Simon Bousfield, who estimates the average value of hill-country farmland has dropped by $5,000 per hectare on the current market, in relation to, and as a direct result of, us bringing these measures in.

Decisions we make in this place do have consequences; we’re not doing them lightly, but we are doing them for good reason. They are inflated values, and what we’re looking to do is return farmland value to its productive value as both sheep and beef and forestry land. We need the sheep and beef sector, which is doing really well at the moment and has great potential—and I’m so focused on the wool for this reason. We need to get sheep and beef farming profitable again so that they can be a competitive land use. But they do deserve a fair fight. We can’t plant our way to net zero. The burden is falling disproportionately on rural New Zealand and our sheep and beef sector, and we will not allow them to be collateral damage.

This bill is sensible. It rebalances the drivers of land-use change. It seeks to protect the viability of rural New Zealand. I do take note of some of the Opposition speeches. I do think, within the select committee—it is quite a complex bill—we should be open to sensible changes around some of the settings. But New Zealand First strongly commends this bill to the House.

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero a Te Pāti Māori i te pō nei e pā ana ki ngā pae āhuatanga e hono ana ki te taiao.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed greetings to us in the House. I stand to convey the statements of the Māori Party tonight regarding the features connected with the environment.]

Te Pāti Māori note that this bill provides for exemption of certain Māori lands from emissions trading scheme (ETS) restrictions in this bill, principally Māori land held under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, Māori land in which the status was changed to general land under the Māori Affairs Amendment Act 1967, and land to a Treaty settlement.

Te Tari Whakatau and a small number of Māori stakeholders were consulted on identifying the types of Māori land that fall within these categories. Officials conclude that the exemptions provide, certainly for Māori land owners, an opportunity for Māori to exercise rangatiratanga. In developing the policy for the bill, Ministers and officials considered the interest and effects of the proposal for Māori throughout the analysis. Māori and iwi stakeholders were also consulted alongside the public on this policy as part of the second emissions reduction plan. The Māori entities that were spoken to were in favour of this exemption and in agreement with specific exemptions included in this bill.

However, Te Pāti Māori considers also the concerns: placing certain restrictions on farm conversions, limiting the volume of hectares available for conversions per year, also setting out provisions for farmland planting and ensure flexibility and choice, setting out protections for Māori-owned land in line with the Treaty obligations, also creating time-limited exemptions for certain people who were in the process.

Also, protections for Māori land do not outweigh the negative impact on taiao and reduction of the broader environmental protections. In fact, Māori land only accounts for a very small number of land-use activities in Aotearoa. In that context, Te Pāti Māori considers the bill to also undermine the integrity of the ETS and weakens it further by removing methane, which only limits the scheme further.

We support efforts to assert kai sovereignty, but we are not totally convinced that this current proposal is effective enough in providing and ensuring that all our whānau in Aotearoa have access to kai. Nō reira, tēnā rā tātou.

Look, I rise to support this bill tonight. It’s great to see some cross-party support on this, and I am looking forward to it coming to our Environment Committee, where we can navigate it further. Look, it’s heartbreaking to see some of our large Hawke’s Bay stations absolutely blanket covered in pine trees. This is a huge issue for the East Coast, where I am from. These sheep stations used to be the jewel in the crown of Hawke’s Bay. We are now seeing them blanket covered in pine trees. This is our good, fertile soil, good land—good food-producing land—that’s been gobbled up in trees in the race for carbon credits. Well, this is ending under our Government.

National campaigned on putting a stop to this, and this bill is going to put a stop to blanket covering our beautiful, fertile, food-producing land in pine trees. Enough is enough. This bill is a practical approach—it’s a right tree, right place approach. It’s good to see that farmers are diversifying. Fine. Plant the really, really steep stuff, but not the good, fertile, food-producing country where we see our sheep and our stock numbers going down. We’re seeing our rural communities being decimated. I’ve been out visiting the meat works in our community, and they are seeing the stock numbers going down, so they’re not processing. We’re seeing shifts getting less. This is jobs and opportunities for many of our families in our rural communities. We cannot stand by and watch this good food-producing land being blanket covered in pine trees. I am really pleased to see our Minister acting on this and delivering on it, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Noting how the last speaker, Catherine Wedd, said that enough is enough and that this bill will fix everything, I think that’s slightly ambitious, but we’re all agreeing there is a problem that needs some fixing. We think that some more fixing will be needed in addition to this bill.

The problem is that we have too many carbon emissions and we have too much pollution from carbon and also methane, and this is a problem, so, some time ago, the emissions trading scheme (ETS) was established. It was thought that it was better to give people an avenue to offset rather than to really focus on that decarbonisation. Rather than changing our vehicle fleet from oil-based, petrol-based cars and trucks to electric or hydrogen, the focus became about planting these pine trees, that people could make money from. Of course, that focus on offsets has made people make sensible financial decisions. We heard the Hon Mark Patterson speak before about a piece of farmland that he owns where he planted some trees because that is what the economics were telling him to do. He didn’t have to do it, but it made good financial sense, and people will follow the incentives.

That is a problem with the ETS and with our focus always on these offsets. Of course, that is why we’re interested in this change to disincentivise these carbon forests on farmland—farmland that, as the Minister said, is good food-producing land. I think it’s important to also note that, here, we’re talking about carbon forestry and only exotic carbon forestry. These are pine trees that are planted to stay put. They might be harvested once, but then they’re going to stay in the ground. It’s different from plantation forestry whereby foresters are out there planting the trees and then planning to cut them down and to make other things out of them or to export them.

That’s an important thing to note, as well as this: offsets versus decarbonisation, the net versus the gross. The bill is interesting. It sets up some things that I wasn’t expecting to see in a bill like this—like the ballot system that my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has talked about. A lot of the bill—maybe about half of the bill—is about that ballot system. There’s also a lot in the bill about mapping. Mapping is something that I probably was expecting to see in a bill like this.

There’s also a lot of regulatory powers in here as well. These are all things, along with the transitional provisions—and we heard the Minister say, “Well, we made the statement back last year that we were going to stop whole-farm conversions to carbon forestry.” That feeds into the transitional provisions that are found right at the back of the bill, but it does seem that these transitional provisions are not nearly as clear as they could be, and that is something that we will want to explore in the select committee.

I want to, here, speak briefly on the fact that it is going to the Environment Committee, and that is good—the Environment Committee normally deals with climate change issues. However, the report back is only 30 August, which is not much time, but it is better than all stages under urgency, which, of course, this Government likes to do. I’m not sure why there is so much need for a rush at this stage of the process when the bill is going to be at select committee. That is because we see, in the appendix to the regulatory impact statement, that there was a regulatory impact statement in October of 2024. I acknowledge that Cabinet made decisions later in March 2025, but this has been in development for some time, yet the select committee is only going to get it for a very short period of time so that it can come into operation by October 2025. I think that speed is problematic because it is more complicated than it might sound at first.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the saddest things I’ve had to experience driving around the electorate of Northland and the rural parts of it is seeing all the beautiful rolling hill country that has been converted into carbon forestry. I want to make a quite distinct difference here. There’s production forestry, which we fully support—it’s an important part of the Northland and New Zealand economy. It’s the carbon forestry that’s been causing the problems. It’s the carbon forestry on good, easy country that has led to rural communities quietly disintegrating as more and more schools end up closing as people move out because of the carbon forestry.

This was an issue that was highlighted for a large number of the last few years—highlighted by members on this side of the House, particularly the National Party. We highlighted this issue. And what did the Government of the day do—the Labour Government? They did nothing. They ignored it. They let it carry on. Consequently, we are dealing with the issues here now today. The only party in the last—

That’s bullshit!

—campaign that stood up and said, “We will do something about this”—

It’s rubbish!

—was the National Party. I’m proud of that and, believe me, I look forward to taking it to select committee, and I commend this bill to the House.

Now, before I call the next speaker, can I just remind members about the unparliamentary language coming there on my left. I know it’s an emotive topic for some, but just maintain it.

I was about to make a comment about peace almost breaking out in the House tonight until the speech from the previous speaker, Grant McCallum, where he quite inaccurately claimed that the previous Government had not taken steps on this. I do just want to acknowledge the work of my colleague Damien O’Connor, who has been very passionate about this issue and has done a lot of work on it.

I want to take some time to talk briefly about the bill, but before I get there, I just want to reiterate some of the position that my colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell laid out at the beginning, which is that we will be supporting this bill to select committee but there are some concerns around aspects of the bill. The particular concern that we have, which I’m sure we’ll get to when the next debate comes along, is actually having a short report-back time on this bill. It is a complex piece of legislation. It does have the potential for significant unintended consequences. Actually, I think, from the discussion in the House tonight, everyone that has been part of this debate tonight accepts there is an issue, but, actually, the role of the select committee is to drill into what are the unintended consequences of any legislation and to make sure those get addressed properly. I do just want to put on record my concern around the short report-back time frame on this bill.

Just to get to the crux of it, there are two essential issues from whole-farm conversions that we’re seeing, and that is where we’re seeing the conversion of productive sheep and beef land, particularly, being converted for the purpose of carbon forestry in order to participate in the emissions trading scheme. There are two issues around that. The first is the inaccurate use of land, essentially—I say inaccurate, but it’s the changing land use from using land in a productive way that supports the growth of our economy but also continues to support a really important sector for New Zealand. There is that part of it, and the second part is the distortion with the emissions trading scheme.

Now, I want to talk about that a little bit, because, on the whole—and I think my colleagues have made these points very, very well—there needs to be a greater focus on actually reducing emissions. That needs to be the bigger focus for our nation. However, there are also appropriate times when increasing the use of things like forestry in order to create alternatives for activities that create more carbon actually is helpful, so we have to be careful that we also don’t make so many changes to the emissions trading scheme that we end up actually undermining what we’re attempting to do. These are the kinds of things that need to be discussed in the select committee process.

I do just want to point out that it’s interesting hearing the ACT Party saying that they’re not taking away choice; the party that likes to promote private property rights above all else are making in their—and even nodding when I say that. This is an impairment on private property use. It is, essentially, banning carbon farms and stopping carbon farms, so there is an anomaly here from the ACT Party that I thought would be useful to point out to the House tonight.

The point is that we in the Labour Party do agree that using productive land in a way that takes away from its ability to support key sectors in our economy, particularly food-producing ones, is something that we should be turning our minds to, and we do support the House turning its mind to this particular issue.

In my area of Nelson and the wider area of Tasman, we have seen these issues presenting themselves—which I’m sure you will be aware of, Madam Speaker; just bringing you into the debate briefly—not only turning productive land into carbon farms but also turning productive land—and I’ll get this word in tonight—into large swathes of housing across urban—

Swathes!

—yes—around some of our most productive land, is something that has concerned us as well.

I do commend this bill to the House. I do hope that the select committee will be able to get into some of the details of the bill and have the appropriate amount of time to ensure it comes back to the House in a way that will support our communities. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, this is such an important issue for the part of the country that I come from, Tairāwhiti, East Coast, home to forestry, farming, and fishing. I am delighted to stand in support of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill. It absolutely makes sense for us. We in Tairāwhiti depend on forestry and farming, and the balance needs to be found. The balance is found through this bill, and I am delighted that now all of the farmers in Tairāwhiti who keep asking me when this bill is coming and when we are doing this and when we will get it through the House can now stop asking me, because it is happening.

I also just want to make a point that in 1988, after Cyclone Bola, we mass-planted pine trees everywhere because we thought that was the solution. That’s been found to not be the solution, and this bill now follows up on that.

I just want to say that it’s ironic that the Opposition has finally realised that the rural economy is the backbone of this country and that they have finally realised that it was their policies that ruined rural communities in the East Coast and ruined the schools. I am so pleased that they’re now supporting it and they’ve figured that out. I’m just so pleased that the 3 percent of farmers who said they supported them will be very pleased with that—good luck with that. National is the party for farmers. We campaigned on this, and we have delivered. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill be considered by the Environment Committee.

I move, That the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Conversion) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 13 August 2025 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

The committee will consider the bill for seven weeks. This reflects the urgent nature of the bill to limit whole-farm conversions of exotic forestry in the emissions trading scheme (ETS) that are negatively impacting rural communities and the economy. The policy has been well signalled to the public through the second emissions reduction plan and our announcement on 4 December of last year.

We acknowledge the bill necessarily adds some complexity to the emissions trading scheme registration, and, therefore, we value the scrutiny of both the committee and the public of the bill.

We’ve made a commitment to the public to have the legislation in force from October 2025. As part of the process to meet that deadline, we require the bill to pass through the House with sufficient time to establish the associated regulations and the IT system to manage new registration processes in the ETS.

Delivering this legislation on time will also provide certainty for foresters on land-use capability rules and their ability to plant for the next season, reduce regulatory uncertainty for the forestry sector, provide certainty for farmers seeking to plant parts of their farm and diversify income, and continue to support confidence in the emissions trading scheme.

As a result of the announcement last year, a number of companies and others involved in forestry have not been able to make considered decisions about what they would do for this season. The reason we are to get this in place so quickly is so that they, too, will not lose another season next year, given that when people make a decision, they can’t plant straight away. I commend the bill to the House, and thank you.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. Could I just get the Minister to clarify, please. I didn’t quite catch it. Was the report-back date 13 August or 30 August? I didn’t quite catch it, Minister, I’m sorry.

Thirteen—13.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Here we are under urgency with a bill that’s—to be honest—been on the boil for a while, as the regulatory impact statement shows, and the Minister has now just moved that the report-back period be truncated, with a series of other restrictions. I think that the Government throws those in just out of an excess of caution, and it’s sort of belts and braces. For example, he has moved that the committee is authorised to meet at any time that the House is sitting, other than question time, and I just can’t see why that needs to be included.

Also, I honestly don’t see the urgency for this. On this side of the House, we see the policy reason for this bill, and I note that that’s been very clear in the speeches, but this is a problem which has been well identified and which has been thrown around. Even whilst we were in Government, I know that we were looking at issues like this, and to suggest that there’s going to be some kind of rush and, in the next seven weeks, our hills are going to be filled with pine seedlings just doesn’t hold water.

The other thing is this, and this is really important: this Government, or at least one of the parties in this Government, is big on regulatory process, and, once again, we have a regulatory impact statement which identifies flaws in the regulatory impact procedure. I want to identify them because it just shows that this Government says one thing and does another, and we know what that is.

It says in the regulatory impact statement, under the quality assurance section, that “The costs and benefits of the preferred option are qualitative, due both to the final design decisions not [being] known and lack of public consultation”—so there are two things in there. First of all, when they say that the cost-benefit analysis is qualitative, they mean that they haven’t done quantitative work, and we need time so that people who care and who want to speak to the select committee can have a reasonable length of time to look at the proposals and provide evidence to the select committee.

I want to say that I’m always impressed that within the usual six-week period for submissions, parties come with very well-thought-out analysis, often of a detailed nature. Here, that is what we need, because there has been a qualitative cost-benefit analysis, which means that they’ve talked to people, but there’s been no genuine Treasury-style cost-benefit analysis, and we need time for that.

Then there’s the big one—the so-called regulatory principle that the people who are affected by a change should be consulted on it. That’s actually a good principle. I agree with that principle, and one of the main tools in this House for implementing that principle is the select committee process. But in a seven-week period, it’s inappropriate, because you’re only going to give—how many weeks are you going to give? You’ve got to get a briefing, you’ve got to call for submissions, you’ve got to analyse the submissions, maybe hear from the submitters—hopefully, we’ll hear from the submitters—and how long are they going to get to get those submissions in? Two weeks, if you’re lucky. That’s not long enough. That’s not long enough.

These are rural communities you’re talking about. These are not beltway Wellingtonian bureaucrats; these are rural communities, and I hope you’ll go out and tell your rural communities to have their say. They deserve a lot more than two weeks to submit on it. They’ve got their cows to milk and their sheep to milk, as well, so that’s an important point.

Look, I really want to say this because in the regulatory impact statement here—it’s on the Table. Grab a copy. I know you won’t read it, but it says that there’s a lack of public consultation, and those are the words it uses: “decisions are not yet known and [there’s a] lack of public consultation, which could have contributed [to] further information.”—which isn’t available—“While it is noted that some consultation is planned, through both targeted engagement and the select committee process”. This regulatory impact statement says there hasn’t been enough consultation and the fix is a select committee process, and it’s the select committee process which you’re now seeking to truncate, and that is, yet again, a bad thing, because people do need to have their say.

This is an important matter, as the ACT Party well knows. You’re now taking away this bill when we want to look at it with a critical eye. There’s an important thing that people need to be consulted on, because if you’ve just gone out and bought yourself a large rolling bit of country that’s category 6 land, thinking, “I’m going to plant a whole lot of carbon trees on that”, that right is being taken away from you. Your property rights are being impaired. I wonder if those people who will submit to the select committee—if they get a decent chance—will say that they deserve compensation, because that’s the ACT Party’s policies. Now, they deserve to have their say because this is a significant change. This is a very significant change in the ability to use land in the way that you choose.

Now, we want to have a good look at it. That’s the other thing—the period of time available to MPs—because this regime is not straightforward. It is a complicated regime, and fast law is not usually good law. We need not only time for submitters to write good, fulsome, and thoughtful submissions but also a period of time to read those submissions—properly read them—and not read them at 10 o’clock one night and turn up at 9 o’clock the next morning, but to read them and reflect on them, to actually reflect on what’s in those submissions, to let the information sort itself out, and come with some genuine reflections.

There is something this Government’s not particularly good at, and that is doing justice to submissions. We know that they didn’t even look at most of the Treaty principles bill’s submissions. I think, here, that this is a bill which deserves every submission to be properly read—and, hopefully, read by MPs from both sides of the House—because it is an important bill.

The thrust of the Minister’s first reading speech here was about protecting rural and remote communities. That’s great. That’s why we are looking to support this bill, to see whether we can contribute to it so that that outcome is actually achieved, but, once again, you need to engage with those rural and remote communities, and that’s not something—

We have.

No, you haven’t. Read the regulatory impact statement. To the member who says, “We have”, here’s a wee heads-up: the purpose of a regulatory impact statement is to give an independent view of the pre-introduction work that has been done, and it says that there has not been adequate public consultation—a C- is what you get. This regulatory impact statement says the legislation partially meets the quality standard. This place here is the final quality check on legislation, and a seven-week process for what is clearly a complex piece of legislation, touching on both property rights and community values is socially complex, economically complex, and legally complex. Yet here we go. We’re like, “Don’t worry, I’ve talked to my policy advisers.”, and you ram it through, and it’s just bad process once again.

This is a situation where the select committee absolutely needs to have a full—well, not even a full process; I’m going to table an amendment. I accept that you want to get it done, but at least the minimum is the four-month process.

Then, once again, you say the committee has all these special powers to meet on Fridays, to meet when the House is sitting except at question time, to meet outside of Wellington, and all that stuff. It’s foolish to put it in, because it’s unnecessary. Now, if you want to have a truncated process, fine, but you don’t need those special powers. You certainly don’t need to meet whilst the House is sitting. What select committee meets after 7 o’clock at night? What select committee meets at 3 o’clock, other than the Business Committee and what have you. No, subject select committees have never met whilst the House is sitting in normal sitting hours, so those sorts of things are just ridiculous. We simply can’t support this—

The member’s time has expired. Before I call the next speaker, I’m not confident that I got the question out before the point of order, so I’ll just put the question again. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I am deeply concerned by the very short report-back period that has been proposed for this bill by the Government, by the Minister of Forestry, just now. Originally, when the Minister spoke in his initial speech, I thought he’d said 30 August, and I thought, “Hmm, that’s pretty short. That won’t do justice to this bill. But, OK, that’s close enough to two months, I guess we can do it.” Then it turns out that I had misheard. I asked for clarification, and it turns out to be 13 August, so about a seven-week process for this bill.

I want to explain why that’s really deeply problematic and why we actually ought to have a longer report back. Let me quote some words—actually, I’ll have to paraphrase them because I didn’t write them down at the time, but I do recall the words quite clearly, from a New Zealand First Minister, from Minister Mark Patterson, when he spoke to this bill. What he said was something to the effect of either the most significant—or, I think, maybe he said this was the most consequential piece of legislation in this term of Parliament. I thought, well, that’s a big ask, to say it’s the most consequential piece of legislation in this term of Parliament. Then he qualified it; he said, “for rural communities”. That’s quite significant—the most consequential piece of legislation in this term of Parliament for rural communities. A key member of the Government regards this as an incredibly consequential piece of legislation. A consequential piece of legislation like this deserves full consideration from the Environment Committee.

Now, let me talk about that in a couple of moments. As my colleague Dr Webb has alluded to, we are talking about rural communities who are affected by this, and many of them live in remote areas and so on, so many people who perhaps don’t have as easy access to Parliament as city dwellers will be affected by this bill. I have family members myself who are sheep and beef farmers out around Ōhura, the back blocks of Taranaki, in that dissected hill country—they’re not great townies. For people like them—and this is going to affect them—it’s a huge ask to come and submit on this sort of bill. Even though this is the most consequential piece of legislation in this term of Parliament for rural communities, I find that shortened report-back period does not give sufficient weight to rural communities.

That is not the only problem with this very shortened report-back period and why we actually do really need the extra time. I want to speak here, too, to some of the experts that we would hope would give us some feedback on this particular piece of legislation. By the way, I’m talking about people who are absolutely expert in the workings of the emissions trading scheme. Now, as I noted in my speech on the bill in the first reading, the cost-benefit analysis doesn’t—and I couldn’t find it anywhere in this—have any analysis of the impact on the emissions trading scheme. The emissions trading scheme is horrendously complicated in terms of understanding the economic impacts of what’s going on there. It sounds like a simple scheme until, as I’ve had to do of late, one starts trying to really get to grips with it to understand the complexity of it. The subtleties of it take a great deal of understanding. Frankly, I rely on some of the experts to point out where some of the issues are and so on.

Now, we want experts to come and speak to us about this piece of legislation, to tell us what the impact is. Dr Christina Hood would be a great person to come and talk to us. I’d like to hear from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on this piece of legislation. Given his enormous report on forestry, that I’ve already referred to, it would be useful to know whether the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment can add anything to the analysis. I would hope that the Climate Change Commission would do so. Here’s the problem: we’ll be asking experts for their well-considered and expert opinion on this piece of legislation, and yet it has come to this House very abruptly and without time for them to even track down the regulatory impact statement. When I was corresponding with Dr Christina Hood earlier today, she said she had been unable to find the regulatory impact statement anywhere, and I took quite an effort to find it. Even on the day that the bill was first being debated, it was hard to find the analysis. We need to give those experts time, actually, to consider the legislation—to work their way through the regulatory impact statement, which is a pretty dense piece of writing there—and to actually come to a considered opinion. That all takes time. We absolutely want that kind of time available to the select committee.

There was that sort of thing. I do want to read exactly something that my colleague Dr Webb said, and it’s on the regulatory impact statement, and I’ll direct members of the Government to pick up a copy from the Table. It’s on page 17, right down the bottom, under “Public consultation”, and it says, “Ministers have chosen to proceed with legislative change without substantive prior public consultation.” Now, I heard members of the Government, in response to my colleague Dr Webb, saying repeatedly that, in fact, there had been consultation, they’d talked about it for years, and they had run on it in an election campaign, and so on. That is, nevertheless, not the formal consultation that a Government is expected to undertake. Consultation has not been undertaken. In particular, if the select committee process is in some way to mitigate that lack of consultation, then we do need to have a much longer period of time available to the select committee.

We hope that the Environment Committee will be able to meet on Thursday and to make a call for submissions, but in the meantime, the chair of that committee is going to need to consult with the leads from other parties as to even the appropriate length of time to open submissions for and how the process is going to be managed. I think this whole process needs more time. To this end, I will absolutely be supporting my colleague Dr Webb’s proposed amendment, where he suggests that instead of this quite frantic seven-week process, at least we go to a four-month process. I just invite the Minister to reflect on the fact that had he opted for an at least plausible four-month process, then we wouldn’t have needed to have been having this debate right now. I urge the House to consider a much longer select committee process, even if it’s not the full six-month process.

Members, the time has come. The House is suspended until 9 a.m. tomorrow.

to the Acting Prime Minister

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

Yes. In particular, I stand by the Government’s actions to provide certainty to the energy sector by repealing the ban on oil and gas exploration, and being prepared to co-invest in exploration projects. In many ways, the latter policy is one a Government wishes it didn’t have to have. However, it’s been made necessary by the flagrant, reckless—

No, that’s enough.

—irresponsible ban under the previous Government.

Let’s make it very clear that Ministers answering questions who today choose to have a flick at the Opposition in the answer to that question will be leaving the House.

Does he agree with Mark Mitchell that working Kiwis aren’t fundamentally feeling the economic recovery in this really tough economy?

I believe that New Zealanders are facing challenging economic times. However, the trajectory is one of continual improvement. When you have a Government that borrows $115 billion and leaves nothing to show for it except for inflation and high interest rates, the recovery takes some time. But since this Government has been in office, we have seen inflation fall from 5.6 percent down to 2.5 percent. We’ve seen the official cash rate fall from 5.25 percent down to 3.5 percent. We are seeing people’s mortgages come down, we’re seeing their rents come down, and we’re seeing their inflation come down, and that is what an economic recovery looks like.

Let me also remind members that question time is for questions to be asked and questions to be answered, not speeches made. So we’ll be curtailing those question answers if that sort of practice continues.

So is it his view that the cost of living crisis is over for New Zealand families?

The cost of living crisis is abating with every positive move taken by this Government. But the fact is that you can’t be the guy that dug the hole and then complain it’s a long way to dig out of it.

Why does he think it isn’t the Government’s job to figure out whether its policies are delivering for Kiwi families, as he indicated yesterday, given both Nicola Willis and the IRD haven’t been able to find a single family that’s receiving the full $250 a fortnight this Government promised them?

And I ask the member: has he found anyone sitting behind him who still supports him?

I think the Acting Prime Minister could do a little bit better than that. And, once again, it’s attacking the Opposition, which is not the form that’s acceptable under Standing Orders. The member’s a very articulate man, I’m sure he can do better than he has.

Well, it’s very simple: the member has a supposition in his question which misrepresents my position. I reject it.

Which part of his position is being misrepresented?

Well, unfortunately, the Speaker is asking me to make shorter answers, so I won’t be able to list them all.

Point of order, Mr Speaker—

No—

—that cannot be a legitimate answer.

No—thank you. Good. You can do a little better than that.

Well, it’s too long and now too short. The member is misrepresenting my position by saying that I somehow am not concerned about the welfare of New Zealanders or evaluating the effectiveness of the Government’s policies. I can tell him that we are deeply concerned about the welfare of New Zealanders and deeply concerned about the effectiveness of our policies. The good news is that those policies are very effective and it brings us great joy to show concern in them.

Does he accept the Government’s decision to cut early childhood education subsidies in real terms will increase fees for Kiwi parents?

That is a nonsense. We have increased the amount of money that goes into early childhood education by a very similar amount as it’s been increased year on year, over the last decade.

How is increasing early childhood education subsidies by 0.5 percent when inflation is running at 2.5 percent not a real-terms funding cut?

Well, people may recall not so long ago when inflation was running at 7.3 percent. And did that member, as Minister of Education, increase the funding by 7.3 percent? No, he did not. New Zealanders up and down this country were on the treadmill trying to keep up with the out of control inflation that these turkeys foisted on them.

No—now hang on. No. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that last remark.

I withdraw and apologise.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if, now that he’s got that out of his system, he could perhaps address the question that I asked him, which is how increasing early childhood education subsidies, as this Government has decided to do, by 0.5 percent when inflation during that time is running at 2.5 percent is not a real-terms funding cut. Because, in his previous answer, he indicated that they haven’t cut the funding, when they have.

No, no—you’ve got to think carefully. I listened to this because of the expectation around questions about how the exchange would run. So the question was, as you said, asked. The member then spoke about the overall increase that had been put in place. It was established, and previous Speakers have established—not actually from my political persuasion; from another—it is appropriate to reflect on a previous Government’s performance, which I think is what he’s done. And I don’t think it’s reasonable to say he’s got to answer more.

Does he accept the Government’s order to hike public transport costs will drive up bus fares by as much as 50 percent from next week?

The Government has made no such order.

to the Minister of Finance

What is the Depositor Compensation Scheme and when does it start?

Starting next week, 1 July, a new scheme will protect New Zealanders’ deposits at banks, as well as at building societies, credit unions, and finance companies who take retail deposits. The Depositor Compensation Scheme will guarantee a person’s deposits of up to $100,000 per institution in the unlikely event of a failure. The implementation of the scheme, which has been many years in the making, will give Kiwis peace of mind that if something were to go wrong at the institution they have entrusted their money to, that money will be safe.

What types of accounts will be covered?

The Depositor Compensation Scheme covers money held in standard banking products like transaction accounts, savings accounts, and term deposits. The scheme starts automatically next week, and people don’t have to do anything to be covered. People should check on their bank, building society, credit union, or finance company website, or give them a call, to see exactly what is protected by the scheme if they are unsure.

How is the scheme funded and administered?

The Depositor Compensation Scheme will be levy-funded. Banks, building societies, credit unions, and finance companies will pay the levy, based on the riskiness of their institution and the total deposits they hold that are covered by the scheme. The levies collected from institutions will build up over time in a fund so that money is available if compensation needs to be made—

Desperate today that you’re having to talk about a Labour scheme.

Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has just said that it is “desperate” for me to be talking about a scheme which will guarantee New Zealanders’ deposits, and I would put to them that, actually, that is meaningful to everyday New Zealanders, and possibly more meaningful than the semantic games he prefers to play in question time.

Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Good. We’ll take the—we’ll stick to the rules, sorry. Dana Kirkpatrick.

Why is the scheme being introduced?

It turns out that New Zealanders are interested in their financial security and whether or not the savings that they have can be guaranteed. If a bank looks like it could be in trouble, people typically want to take their money out of it. Such withdrawals can trigger a whole series of unpleasant events in the financial sector and across the economy. Depositor protection gives people confidence that their deposits are not at risk and is international best practice. New Zealand is now getting in line with that best practice. In addition, and importantly, I expect the scheme will improve competition, because New Zealanders are more likely to consider switching if they know their deposit will be protected. New Zealanders can be assured: the guarantee exists whether or not you’re with one of the “big four” banks or you are with a credit union, a building society, or another financial service provider. I think this is important for those who may have been reluctant to switch their banking services due to a sense that their funds may not be secure. The Depositor Compensation Scheme, I hope, will be a spur for greater competition in our financial sector.

When was the scheme referenced in the Minister’s answers passed into law and who was the Minister of Finance at the time?

I welcome this turning-around of events, in which me talking about the scheme was initially “desperate” and a terrible thing to do, and it’s now something the Leader of the Opposition wishes to take credit for. Well, that is “Flip-flop Hipkins” for you.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a pretty straight question. The Minister was asked when the scheme was passed into law and who the Minister of Finance was. It wasn’t an opportunity to attack the Opposition; it was an opportunity to answer the question. [Interruption]

Some of you will be leaving in bulk if you interrupt a point of order. Make your point of order again so that those who were talking through it can hear it.

The question was very simple: when was the scheme passed into law and who was the Minister of Finance at the time?

Yes, I heard the question. We’ll just get a straightforward answer.

I think that the Leader of the Opposition already knows the answer to that question, but I’m very happy to spoon-feed him, and I’d suggest he probably needs a bit more of it. It was introduced by the previous finance Minister Grant Robertson, and has the rare attribute that it was actually one thing he did that was helpful. But, unfortunately, it doesn’t out-balance the absolute mess he left the New Zealand economy in, which that member aided and abetted at every step.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

No, there are several members on the front bench of the Opposition who have put themselves in danger of leaving early this afternoon—not particularly looking at anybody, but just scanning the entire front bench.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The ruling that you have just made right now is very much the same as the ruling you made regarding Ministers at the very beginning of question time. If you stuck with the first ruling, you probably wouldn’t have needed to make the second.

Thank you very much for your advice. I look forward to you putting that in writing and sending it to the Standing Orders Committee so that they can record the wisdom of the Rt Hon Christopher Hipkins.

Could I ask the Minister: is she telling us that it’s taken 19 long months for Mr Hipkins to find something commendable about Grant Robertson’s time?

No, no, no—that’s not a question that the Minister can answer, much as she may want to. Moving now to—[Interruption]. Urgency—urgency just turns the place upside down.

to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries

Does he stand by his statement, “The bottom trawling techniques that are pursued by the New Zealand fishing industry are relatively harmless”; if so, are current levels of bycatch acceptable?

on behalf of the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: A range of management measures are in place to manage fisheries by-catch while enabling sustainable utilisation of fisheries resources. We continue to monitor the effects of fishing and assess whether additional management measures are necessary. The Government works in a number of ways to prevent and minimise by-catch from fishing. This includes restrictions on fishing in areas which overlap with particular habitats, as well as longer-term plans to prevent and minimise captures.

Is it harmless that nearly 1,000 seabirds were captured by commercial fisheries in the first three months of this year?

The reality is that the seabird capture is down dramatically because of changed methods of fishing, but it’s an ongoing matter which crosses, of course, a whole lot of countries, not just New Zealand, and we’re in international discussions to ensure that we’re following best practice to minimise that occurrence.

Does he think it’s hypocritical that last year Aotearoa pledged $16 million to the Global Fund for Coral Reefs, yet this year we’ve had the largest coral by-catch event in 15 years, dredging up to 6 tonnes of ancient coral from the seafloor?

No such pledge was made by any such country as named by that questioner.

Are you sure?

Yes, I am positive. Unlike you, you dickhead.

OK. Does he have confidence in the sustainable management of fisheries when 60 percent of fish stocks being managed are not assessed, and, of the remaining stocks, 15 percent are not being managed sustainably?

I wonder if the member can ask that question again, because there was interruption on my right.

Does he have confidence in the—[Interruption]

No, no. Hang on, the House will be quiet while a question is asked.

Does he have confidence in the sustainable management of fisheries when 60 percent of fish stocks being managed are not assessed, and, of the remaining stocks, 15 percent are not being managed sustainably?

Well, first of all, both those figures are totally incorrect.

Will he stand with the 80 percent of New Zealanders who agree that the Government should ban bottom trawling on sea mounts and protect these biodiversity hot spots?

The bottom trawling is an ongoing consideration by the New Zealand Government. Of course, the procedures have dramatically improved, but there are some stock which cannot be caught any other way—orange roughy happens to be one of them at certain parts of the country—so that is why it’s an ongoing discussion, ensuring that we follow best practice.

Will he stop insisting that bottom trawling is harmless when clearly the indiscriminate method is causing wide-scale death and destruction of our native species and ecosystems?

Again, we reject the premise of that question. Again, it is stated on assumptions which have not been proven and are not of the best and latest science that we have available to us.

Point of order. I’ve witnessed many times in this House disparaging comments being made between sides, and I’m quite sure that being called a “dickhead” would fall in line with that tikanga of the House, we might say, Mr Speaker. So if Mr Peters wants to call me a dickhead across the alleyway here, I think that we should consider something for him.

Well, that’s an interesting point of order. Until the member brought it up, I had no idea that that was the allegation being made against him. But if he has obviously found it offensive, I’d ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise.

No, he hasn’t found it offensive, has he?

No, no, hang on. It’s not something—