Parliamentary debates: Thursday, 23 October 2025

Good morning, everyone.

on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: I present a legislative statement on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) 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 Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It takes too long and it is too expensive to build in New Zealand. That is why the coalition Government, through the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement, committed to making it faster and more affordable to build granny flats. Removing barriers to building small, simple houses is a common-sense change that will be an important step in helping address New Zealand’s housing crisis. This bill will help to increase the supply of affordable housing options for both young and old New Zealanders, as well as for people with disabilities and those in the rural sector, particularly rural workers.

Before getting into the detail of the bill itself, it’s worth noting that this bill is widely supported by the public and across the House. This speaks to the design of the bill and what it seeks to achieve—firstly, accelerating housing growth by right-sizing the regulatory approach for simple, lower-risk building work. If you take a look at the bill, it will permit non-consented, small, stand-alone dwellings, commonly referred to as granny flats, to be built without a building consent, subject to certain conditions—that is, the building must be simple in its design and meet the building code. Building work must be carried out, or supervised, by authorised personnel, and councils must be notified prior to and on the completion of building work. The bill also maintains appropriate safeguards to provide assurance to homeowners, councils, insurers, and lenders that eligible homes will still meet the minimum code requirements and still will be healthy, safe, and durable. These safeguards include existing consumer protection mechanisms in the Building Act 2004, including pre-contract disclosures and a 12-month defect-free period. To ensure consent-exempt granny flats are simple, lower-risk buildings, the bill provides that they must be new, stand-alone, single-storey dwellings of 70 square metres or less.

The bill also provides that granny flats must be built in accordance with a set design specification set out in Schedule 1A. For example, the dwelling must be constructed with lightweight materials for the roof. The bill also introduces the power to add, remove, or amend some of these simple design requirements by Order in Council. The ability to change the simple design requirements will ensure that the building design conditions in Schedule 1A may be reviewed and updated in ways that will continue to meet the building code.

It’s important that those doing the work have the competency to do so and can be held to account if things go wrong. As such, building work must be carried out by authorised professionals. These professionals are required to produce a record of the work that they are responsible for so that they have a lasting record of the work that was completed, who completed it, and when. This information will be valuable for future owners, insurers, and lenders who may want to know if the building does, in fact, meet minimum building code requirements. To ensure owners and councils can be fully informed of the proposed building work, the bill also provides that owners must notify the relevant council of their intent to build a granny flat by applying for a project information memorandum, also known as a PIM. The bill requires that councils issue additional information alongside the PIM to further inform owners in support of their decision making. This will include information on any natural hazards that may be present on the land and whether the council has a view to make changes to the proposed design or a building consent is required to manage the risk presented by the building work in connection with the natural hazard. It is important to note that this is for information purposes only. Homeowners will have the freedom to determine how they respond, and it will be up to the owners to determine how they may wish to utilise this information to build a compliant granny flat.

The bill also offers a much simpler process in regard to building a code compliant granny flat compared to the normal building consent process. Firstly, a homeowner will engage qualified tradespeople to carry out the building work along with lining up their insurance and lending requirements if applicable. A homeowner will then apply for a PIM and receive that within 10 working days. A homeowner will then use that information to complete their design plans and ensure that all the exemption conditions are met, along with applying for any relevant authorisations to connect to a council network if not received at the point of the PIM. At that point, building work will commence. As the work is completed, records of this work will be produced and provided to the homeowner or to a homeowner and a council for restricted building work. Then, when an owner has received all relevant records from tradespeople, they have 20 working days to provide these to the council and to pay any development contributions owing.

This is a common-sense, straightforward approach to building a granny flat. Building owners will then be able to choose if they wish to follow this process or if they wish to go down the normal building consent process, which can see homes taking several months to receive a code of compliance certificate. This bill will make it easier to build, it will make it more simple, and it will make more lower-risk homes that many New Zealanders will be able to live in and benefit from. It will also help unlock productivity in the construction sector, which will help to increase the supply of affordable housing options for Kiwis. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a final call on this bill, which has been an example of cross-partisan working support through the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, ably chaired by Andy Foster, a Minister who enthusiastically engages not only with the sector who builds these things—the people on the ground who know and want to be able to build granny flats and to stimulate the work that they need and to improve productivity in their industry—but also engages with many of the submissions that have come through the select committee process.

This is a sensible change that is designed to stimulate more building work at a time when the construction sector desperately needs it, and to improve people’s access to simple buildings that will be built in connection with people’s single homes on parcels of land that can accommodate them. It creates a new system for councils to be able to notify people of any risks associated with that, and that remains something that the Labour Party will continue to watch and determine whether that works because, as I have noted along the way in this process, there are systems in this which have been designed quickly; we do not know the full impact of them. It is on all of us who have been supportive of this legislation to make sure that it works for the people who’ll be affected within their communities. Those systems have to be robust, and so we’ll make sure that this is a building system addition that contributes to New Zealand’s building system overall: being affordable, delivering houses that are in the right place, and being safe.

I wanted to highlight for the House, at this point—the third reading—just how important this is for New Zealand because, at a time when we are seeing more Government policy that makes it harder for people to afford their rents and harder for them to afford their housing costs, there should be some element of Government action on this. This isn’t where Labour would have started. This is a change of the supply side which will make a small movement of the dial to make housing more affordable, at a time when rents continue to rise and when people in New Zealand are still facing a housing stock which has significant challenges of dampness, of thermal inefficiency, and—particularly for those more vulnerable communities—real issues in terms of affordability. Things like poor sanitation, which the ministry in charge of the building system and acting as a steward for the housing system, as a whole, have pointed out to successive Governments. It is not something we expect in New Zealand; it is not a standard that we should set ourselves for our homes.

Any small thing that will enable the building of new structures that are of a higher standard and that can get people into better-quality housing at an affordable rate, and make some kind of measure on the supply side to address the real needs in our communities—that is a good thing, but this is not the silver bullet. I was reflecting, when I was sitting in the committee room alongside my colleagues who have all brought a huge amount of enthusiasm to making a change here that will be lasting and that will be robust, and listening to the views of others in the community about how to make this something that New Zealanders can buy into—I was listening to the submissions of Māori architects, and there was one who came along with his two young daughters. They introduced themselves to the committee. I believe the one who was speaking was about 11 years old, and she spoke of her home in Te Urewera and about the building standards that she hoped for her community, that we could be using more local knowledge and that we could be providing for a community there who, for generations, have lived with underperforming housing stock but reclaiming some of the knowledge that her father was reviving through his work as an architect.

It highlighted for me the missed opportunities that we have there, and it connected with me because my father was born in Te Urewera in the early 1930s, at a time when that area of the country was vastly cut off from the rest of us—

It still is.

It still is, says the Hon Peeni Henare. My father was moved as a baby over to the shores of the Ōhiwa Harbour where he grew up in a raupō whare. That raupō whare had a dirt floor, it had a thatched roof made of reeds that were replaced each season to keep the rain out. But he recalls that being a warm whare where he, you know, really enjoyed his life with his grandparents who were part of the Ringatū Church and were there safeguarding an area that was important to the life and the death of Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Tūruki.

Reflecting on those building practices that this little girl, 11 years old, had come along to speak to the committee about, and that we could not include in this bill—we could not include it in any legislation that is moving through the House on building systems—made me think about the lost opportunity that we have here when we restrict ourselves to a narrow view of what is possible in Aotearoa for a future that this little girl was advocating for. There is something to be learned from these young people who are hoping for more from a building system and a housing system that houses the people who need it most, when we cannot make any shift of the dial for her and her aspirations, and looking back to those practices that worked so well for my father in her own rohe.

When you think about the policies of successive Governments from then, when he was born, until now, it tells a picture of housing inequality in New Zealand which we are missing too. Successive Governments from the 1940s, those were Labour Governments, absolutely changed the picture for housing ownership. Rates rose over those two decades that were post-war years to increase housing ownership from about half to about two thirds. That was because people were able to build their own homes cheaply and it was because they were able to be supported by a State programme backed to build State houses.

State ownership increased and housing quality increased over those years because those two things went hand in hand. The big difference in housing policy arose in the 1990s when a National Government implemented a housing policy that involved slashing all controls around people’s access, and increasing rents. Some people saw their rents of State houses go up 300 percent in six months. The difference there is that successive Labour and National Governments have believed that it is the role of the State not only to increase supply of housing, like this bill does, but to ensure that demand for housing is also supported.

That is, I think, the point here: that we are missing a trick if we think that these measures will make the difference that we need to radically increase not only home ownership but the quality of housing in New Zealand. So for this, this is something that we can all support and this is something that we all need to keep working on, to make sure that sort of “crust”, as I like to call it, Cameron Luxton—the crust of regulations that has grown up over those decades that I’m talking about—is not holding back anyone to build cheaply and affordably, which is something we believe in, too, but to also make sure that we have the policies, the crust that has grown up, that we need to be brushing away.

There is also a role for us in making sure that those interventions that we can make, to make sure that home ownership continues increasing because, you know, it has been successive Governments of both stripes. Keith Holyoke’s Government stands out to me, in the 1960s; a Government that prioritised home ownership. He was the Prime Minister of home ownership. We need to see that commitment being bipartisan and being widely agreed as important to New Zealand because it increases our productivity overall. It increases our economic resilience; it increases resilience at the household and family level. It gives people something to be proud of and to hope for and a connection into their communities, which is unparalleled. It is a meaningful Government policy that we should not walk away from when times are like this, when the economy is tough for people, and we need to make an intervention on both sides.

I’m looking forward to watching how this bill impacts New Zealand. It’s predicted that 13,000 of these small dwellings might be built because of this intervention. That’s a good thing. Where they are in the country makes a big difference, and how they are received by their communities makes a big difference because people need to buy into this and it will change the way some neighbourhoods look and feel. We need to make sure that people can support a process, and councils that also work within the process are supported to be able to do that, have the funding and financing adequate to be able to administer this system. These also became larger during the process of our consideration of the bill; up to 70 square metres. That is also something that we will watch closely because the intention here is—I think, in most Kiwis’ minds—that they will be small, but these will be larger buildings, so we need to make sure that the system is working for everyone.

At this final stage, we’re proud to support this bill and we look forward to it making some small difference.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party at this third reading of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. As we reach this final stage of the bill’s journey, it’s time to reflect on some of the things we’ve achieved, what we’re still not sure about, and what we need to address in the future.

We support, particularly, enabling tangata whenua to build on their own land. We support making it easier for multi-generational whānau to house their kaumātua, their rangatahi, or other relatives. We support giving people who do have land to add housing capacity more simply—I have to say that 70 metres is a lot larger than where I live, but it’s an interesting change to the size. We do believe that housing is a human right, and we urgently need more affordable, healthy, secure homes in Aotearoa. But this bill is a very small tool in what needs to be a much larger toolbox. As it becomes law, we must be honest about both its potential and its limitations.

I want to say a little bit about the council role. It’s a very major shift introducing how councils operate in relation to building oversight. Instead of a consent process, councils will now provide the project information memorandum, the PIMs, and it reduces their liability in some ways, and it quite dramatically changes their role. Councils will still need to manage the infrastructure impacts—the stormwater, the wastewater, the roading—but with less information and less oversight. What happens if there is a surge of these dwellings in just one area? What happens if landlords use them in different ways than we had been expecting?

At the second reading, some members spoke about preventing councils from wriggling out—or possibly wiggling out—of the bill’s intent. But, you know, we can’t hold councils responsible on one hand and remove their oversight on the other. So it would be interesting to hear from the Minister in his closing speech what resources might be provided to councils for this new system? What training are council staff going to receive? How will the public know what they can and can’t do? What support will licensed builders get for any changed responsibilities? The risk is confusion, uneven application, and potentially unsafe buildings.

Reuben Davidson earlier rightly highlighted the importance of digital records. Master plumbers in their submissions suggested that there are some tools that need to track these buildings nationally, because it’s a big change from a sleepout to something that’s got plumbing, both for the incoming water and for the sewage. Is the Government going to fund any digital systems for councils to monitor these buildings, or is it creating yet another unfunded mandate for local government?

The legislation was developed quickly. The regulatory impact statement says it was rushed due to the coalition agreement. As Arena Williams said, not just now but earlier, there will be things we come back to because they do not work as intended, and there are some important questions that will only be answered in practice. Will insurance costs rise for buildings that are made under this particular area? How will banks treat lending for these dwellings? What happens if development does overload infrastructure? I would have suggested that we need some kind of more formal review in five years to check on a range of these buildings—whether they’ve been safe, whether their sewage and electricity infrastructure is functioning as intended.

The estimates suggest somewhere around nearly 13,000 additional dwellings over 10 years. That’s not exactly tomorrow. It’s helpful, but it’s modest. Julie Anne Genter said this is a tiny number, given the scale of our housing need. The other thing is these dwellings are going to be scattered without strategic coordination for good urban design, transit access, or infrastructure efficiency. These dwellings are going to reduce neither car dependency nor emissions. They’re not going to support compact, walkable neighbourhoods. Scattered backyard builds are fine to address some narrow needs, but they do not deliver climate-smart cities. This Government’s preference for urban sprawl in places is not going to help.

It also does little for productivity in the construction centre. One-off granny flats are not likely to be standardised. Productivity would come from more coordinated large-scale builds. Also, some of these dwellings are going to be used as airbnb’s. Tamatha Paul brought that point forward. That’s fine for tourism, but short-term rentals are not going to solve our housing crisis.

These new dwellings will add some capacity to our housing system. Not all are going to be homes for people in need. Most critically, this bill does absolutely nothing for social housing or addressing homelessness. It doesn’t help people, whether they’re grannies or solo parents on the public housing wait-list or sleeping rough. These dwellings require existing land and existing money, so to some extent they will help people who are already better off.

Tamatha Paul said it plainly: we are in a housing crisis; homelessness is increasing. This Government was warned that their policy changes would increase homelessness, and it happened. The Green Party has a petition calling on the Government to reverse emergency housing eligibility changes, fund wraparound services to house people, and reinstate the public housing build programme. The previous Government built over 13,000 public homes, the most since the 1970s. This Government has cancelled 3,479 homes, cut $1.5 billion from Kainga Ora, and is selling off existing stock. Now, they want applause for enabling a few thousand granny flats over a decade.

We will be watching the implementation of this bill closely. We will be continuing to push for much bigger systemic changes, not just to more housing but to better housing—to housing that uses sustainable materials, to training for building apprentices that’s improved and better funded. It’s quite hard for people to move to new areas for apprenticeships without rather stronger support. You can look at the changes to the polytechnics; you can take a look at the changes to jobseeker 18- and 19-year-olds—all of these things impact on our ability to provide safe, sustainable, affordable homes.

We have got oversight reduced, the risks remain, and we haven’t really addressed our overly prescriptive building code, which holds back innovations like passive housing and energy efficient design. Rather than just deregulating this aspect, we should raise the bar and make it easier to build high-quality, long-lasting, resilient homes in the right place. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s fantastic to stand up in this third reading of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. It’s been through a great process in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, where there was a kumbaya, there were a lot of problems sorted out. It would have been good if the previous speaker, Celia Wade-Brown, had actually been on the committee, because a whole lot of the questions and issues that she raised were actually answered. I mean, scattered backyard builds, urban sprawl—this is infill by definition. And standardised—these buildings are almost the definition of standardised. There’s literally, in the end of this bill, a description of what you’re allowed to use: light cladding materials. There is an envelope restriction. Now, I have some issues with the restrictions around the envelope—what building can actually be built and where it can be located on the site. But, hey, we’ve come to a kumbaya agreement at select committee and across this House, that we are seeing a way forward.

Arena Williams talked about interventions on both sides—this is the type of supply-side intervention we need. We do not need any more demand-side intervention like KiwiBuild and other flops that did nothing but drive up the cost of housing in New Zealand and make the other side of the House ungovernable. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I stand in support of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill third reading, and I know my colleague Andy Foster, who is at the funeral for the late Rt Hon Jim Bolger, would much rather have been speaking to this third reading. However, we’re delighted to speak on this third reading. The bill makes it faster and more affordable to build simple, small stand-alone dwellings—one part of responding to our housing supply challenges, as was mentioned by the member from the ACT Party Cameron Luxton, with whom, I see, we’re actually agreeing today.

New Zealand First campaigned on removing consenting costs for small stand-alone dwellings, aka “granny flats”, and this was included in our coalition agreement with National. Today, we deliver on that promise, as we have delivered on so many other campaign promises. It’s just another example of the pragmatic solutions-focused, not problems-focused, approach that New Zealand First takes to issues confronting everyday Kiwis—not really just for grannies but for anyone wanting to build, own, or live in a small stand-alone dwelling. Just consider the current very high, very tight housing market for our kids and their ability to get into the housing market, or any other whānau arrangements, such as those mentioned by the member from the Labour Party, such as papa kāinga—and those about the Labour Party’s influence—or what they actually want.

It’s one of life’s great mysteries!

Yep. It still needs to meet all the insulation standards, as was mentioned by such member. It saves on time, saves the disruption to construction when waiting for a building inspector, and saves the direct cost of fees, as was mentioned by the Green Party member.

There was a lot of support for the bill, unanimity in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which was chaired by none other than Andy Foster. It started with 60 square metres. Following consultation prior to the bill being lodged, it was raised to 70 square metres—another pragmatic change. Many complying buildings will be factory-constructed dwellings able to be transported to site. Now, 70 square metres is small, but it still allows good space for a kitchen, bathroom, laundry, living area, possibly a dining area, two bedrooms—you can deliver a lot, and of good quality, for a modest price. We have seen many examples, during this process, for less than $250,000, which is well under the average building cost for New Zealand.

Under this bill, councils are not consent authorities and are not on the liability hook, as they are when they have to process normal building consents. What they are required to do is provide upfront the project information memorandum, as the Minister mentioned; identify any hazards; keep records of the finished dwelling; and levy any development contributions towards infrastructure, which addresses the Green Party member’s concerns earlier. They may also have to oversee any connections to water infrastructure. We will also need to deal with any relevant resource consent issues, if any.

Getting more houses built faster creates jobs, creates housing where it’s of need, mostly, so we commend this bill to the Parliament. Thank you, sir.

Scott Willis—five-minute split call.

Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party sees housing as a human right and the Government’s role is to ensure that there is effective action to increase the supply of warm and cosy homes, secure homes, affordable housing. We all need shelter and we all need shelter that will keep us healthy. The Green Party is not opposing this bill, but we do have concerns.

Say something nice, Scott.

Oh, say something nice.

It’s a good bill. It’s a good idea. Don’t be so grudging.

Well, unfortunately, just about everything this Government has done has made things worse for Kiwis. We’re seeing people sleeping on the streets.

This bill’s regulatory impact statement tells us that there’s going to be something like 7,800 new buildings in the next decade. Kāinga Ora was building 5,000 homes a year. The Green Party has put forward a proposal to build 7,000 homes a year. So if we think about solutions, this bill is really a patch-up. It’s a PR job to try and deal with the bigger problems.

If we think about the State homes that have been cancelled, I think particularly about 2-12 Albertson Avenue in Port Chalmers. Kāinga Ora put that land up for sale when it was required to. The deadline sale failed. We do not have housing in Port Chalmers in Ōtepoti Dunedin because of the failure to build the homes that were ready to be built. This is Government action.

When you take away one of the biggest levers that the Government’s got to address housing quality and supply, you make a big mistake. We need more direct intervention. The market is not going to solve the housing crisis. People building small granny flats is not going to help get people into homes. It’ll help with some airbnbs, it’ll help with some short-term rentals, it’ll help some people get into homes, but it will not deal with the housing crisis. There is always going to be a section of the market that will not be met because the market solutions do not deliver what we need. They do not deliver shelter for all.

I am certainly in favour of seeing the building, construction, of housing better. What we’d like to see is an improvement in the code so that we have improvements here—and Cameron’s going to say this is all in the bill. Actually, what we haven’t got is an understanding of how we can make things better through other methods such as component building, building from patterns, and using structural insulated panels. If we really wanted to make a difference, we would be amending the building code to make sure that we can build quickly to code from patterns and from component building.

This is something that I have experience of, and I also live in a community where there are homes that have been built, small homes that have been built, sometimes with a consent, sometimes not. There’s not a great difference between the poor quality of those homes, and this is where we see a real risk, because if we don’t have an understanding of what sometimes happens with builders, or plumbers, or electricians when they decided they’ve had enough—they’ve got too many risks—where does that liability fall? This is the real risk that we face with this bill. It looks like an election slogan without a lot of work done, because we saw in the regulatory impact statement that it was done in a rushed manner because it’s part of the coalition agreement. It’s just an election slogan.

Just before I call Dan Bidois, the last two speakers have not sought the call. I remind members that they are required to seek the call if for no other reason than for the people who are actually up in the broadcasting area. So if you’re on your feet and not seeking the call, you are required to do so. If you don’t do so, the risk is that I will go straight to a vote. I call Dan Bidois.

I wish to apologise for the previous speaker, Scott Willis, because I think he’s a bit upset that we didn’t get to debate the Consumer Guarantees (Right to Repair) Amendment Bill yesterday—his party’s bill. I have one message for the member, which is: you’ve got to show up to this House on time. I’m here to show up to talk about this good bill that we’ve got.

This is good policy. It’s a great example of bipartisanship in this House. It’s a practical solution to our housing challenges, and I wish to thank the Minister, the Hon Chris Penk—a great, hard-working Minister—for shepherding this bill through the House. I wish to thank the officials, who have done a lot of work to really make sure that we can ramp this bill up quickly, in record time. I wish to thank my colleagues on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

I look forward to its implementation as a practical way for us to build. I wish to say that I look forward to its implementation. Go forward—build, baby, build! I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my privilege today to speak on the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. It’s always interesting to see my colleague Dan Bidois comment on other actions and showing up to the House on time, when, in fact, I think his own party has issues in getting votes right and practices in this House. But I’ll leave that for him to discuss with his own colleagues—foot-in-mouth syndrome, I think.

Hey, the last speaker also spoke to this being a practical solution to our housing challenges, and I don’t think that that is fair at all. Labour certainly supports this particular piece of legislation. It “seeks to reduce the time and cost of building a granny flat by permitting small stand-alone dwellings up to 70 square metres to be built without obtaining a building consent, given certain conditions are met.” Those conditions are, obviously, important, and I acknowledge the select committee, who have gone through a robust and thorough process, collectively, to understand both the implications and the opportunities that sit in front of people and home owners and communities for this legislation to take place. Those conditions are that the granny flat must be simple in its design; it must meet the building code, that building work must be carried out by authorised professionals—that’s an important one, of course, because there are some people that DIY at home and quality is important there—and thirdly, that councils must be notified prior to and on completion of building work.

Going back to: is this a practical solution to our housing challenges? That member will, of course, know that Glenfield Salvation Army is reporting a homelessness list—as he moves around the House uncomfortably—of 150 people, who are sitting on that register in our own community. That’s the highest that Salvation Army Glenfield have ever reported. He’ll be aware that De Paul House in Northcote are seeing the highest number of single kaumātua, kuia—seniors—accessing their support, so by no way is this a practical solution to our housing needs.

Saying that, it does provide a suite of opportunities for Aucklanders in Tāmaki-makau-rau, that they are able to use their property better, and that it’s more cost effective for them to do so. We have seen incredible fees applied to people doing works on their homes in the consent process with Auckland Council. But those costs do have to go back somewhere, and so one of the points that was raised in an earlier speech was: what support is being provided to Auckland Council to assist their part of the role? Because what is at stake, albeit highlighted in this legislation, is the quality of those facilities. The Labour Government, despite doing the largest public housing build since the 1970s, particularly, has been criticised for transitional housing options and using motels as an alternative. But here is a Government that is putting up granny flats as that alternative, with less regulation in order to enable people to live in a warm, dry home. So there is a balance to be struck here, but we must move forward with caution, with two eyes open on actually addressing the housing crisis in front of us.

We know that under this Government, over the last two years, the construction sector has gone backwards. We’ve had thousands and thousands—tens of thousands—of people leave our shores, who likely came through New Zealand and the Labour Government’s apprenticeship scheme. As Labour’s tertiary spokesperson, I’m very clear that in the last two years, we’ve graduated 9,000 fewer apprentices in this country. That’s on top of the 20,000-odd that have headed offshore. As they scale up the infrastructure investment in this country—finally—we really find ourselves short of a skilled workforce that they actually can’t deny because they know that it’s there, so let’s not play politics on that one. We do need a skilled workforce in order to do that.

The granny flats obviously need to have a very simple design element to them. They must meet the building code in there, and this bill provides that “a consent-exempt granny flat must be built in accordance with a set of simple design specifications.”, and I understand that the select committee have gone through a process of elimination there, that they do understand that building code very well and the expectations there. Also in the legislation before us: “building work must be carried out by authorised professionals;”, as I mentioned, and that “councils must be notified prior to and upon completion of work.”. In dense areas, where we do see intensified housing across Auckland, neighbours are very important, of course, so a bit of the communication of where you’re putting your granny flat is very, very important—that we acknowledge those that live next door, that we’re working with them to find the best fit for that neighbourhood and that community and the people that live between each other. The last thing we want to see, of course, is neighbours at war, which can easily happen when building and construction happens on people’s property.

I’m personally very supportive of this bill. I think it’s an easy thing to do for households that can afford to do this. It shouldn’t be an expensive exercise. I remember as a teenager that back in my day, it wasn’t—well, it kind of was a granny flat, but my eldest brother had a converted area in our shed. This is back in the 1980s, so similarly, I guess, that’s a granny flat; but it gave people a bit of space, families a bit of space. It also offers the opportunity for kaumātua and kuia to come and live with their loved ones.

It’s not a solution to the housing crisis; let’s be very clear about that. The Government has taken us backwards in both building houses and also growing a skilled workforce for the construction sector—we have low number of apprentices graduating—but for the average Joe, in communities like mine, I think it’s a good thing. It enables them to get on and create a granny flat in their backyard, and I really, really support that. It’s one action that the Government can take to support people at this time. The cost of living challenges are pretty heavy, and we aren’t seeing any solutions there.

Without further ado, can I acknowledge the select committee, the mahi that they’ve done on the bill; some of the expertise that sit around that table, I think are pretty good, and they’ve come from all angles, so I do certainly support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

It is great to hear that this bill received unanimous support from the House. Several speakers have addressed affordable housing regulation and workforce issues, but I would like to highlight something different. I want to speak for my ethnic communities. For many ethnic communities in New Zealand, including the Pacific and Asian families, multiple-generation living is not just practical; it is culture. These families value being close while also respecting each other’s needs for privacy and independence. This bill allows the development of small stand-alone dwellings that support this way of living. It reflects our diverse communities and ensures our housing solution meets real families’ needs. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a delight and a privilege to be able to speak in the third reading here of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. This is the first time that I’ve had the ability to have a contribution on this bill. It’s something that I’m quite passionate about, believe it or not. This is an area that I think is a really positive one for this country, and, as has been traversed here for Labour today, we are very supportive of this bill and have been very engaged in the select committee process around it—

You just need Scott Willis to get on board.

It seems like a sensible change. Mr Patterson, I’m pleased that you’re really engaged in my speech here this morning—that you can call out and support that.

I’m here with you, Jan.

That’s really good—lovely to hear that, Mr Patterson. We see this as a sensible change, and what we are pleased about is that the new builds will still have to comply with the building code. That was a concern that we took through into the select committee stage and were able to traverse that and have that conversation, and we’re pleased that the select committee made some sensible changes in that report as well, and that has been said here this morning in this debate.

I heard my colleague Shanan Halbert talk about a granny flat that he grew up with in his house. I was a member of a very large family; there were six siblings in my family, and we had a very tiny two-bedroom house that I grew up in. While it wouldn’t have been compliant with this bill, my father did build a granny flat to add to our dwelling to make it a bit more comfortable as a family, and it meant that our family were able to stay together for a lot longer. It wouldn’t have been compliant, because my father built it and he was not a certified personnel member, in this particular case, but that’s what happened back in those days.

Don’t throw your dad under the bus!

Ha, ha! It was a very safe dwelling, though, and it still stands today. I have to say that this is one of the things that I really think is important. With the changing nature of our families in this country, and in places where it’s really important to keep families together, anything that we can do as a Government to help and support that is going to be helpful for those particular families. I say that from working in a particular place where larger families were more the norm, and it was hard to keep those families together. In many cases, when they came together—it might have been cousins coming together—back in the 2010s, they would often have to be in garages and in lounges and places like that, and it was very hard for them. This bill does make that easier. As my colleague Shanan Halbert said, it doesn’t solve the housing crisis, and it doesn’t go near to solving the housing crisis, but it does help particular families and particular places to be able to keep their compositions and make certain that they can stay a family unit.

One of the questions that I would have—and I would hope that, when this bill is looked at and reviewed down the track, we can see some changes—is will this make a difference to social housing? I say that because I’ve had knowledge, just this year, of a couple of families in my area around me who were in social housing; they had family—not even extended family, but direct family—a 16-year-old young woman who had a child and was wanting to put a granny flat on that particular social housing property, and that had been declined. Unfortunately, there was no emergency housing for that young person and her baby, and she had to live in a tent on the grounds of that house. I think those are questions that all of us can be taking forward and looking at to see whether that could make a difference for social housing providers to be able to put such dwellings on those pieces of land.

Again, those are questions for review down the track, but, overall, I think this is a really good change; it’s a pragmatic change; it won’t solve some of the big issues that we have as a country, but it will help certain demographics within the country. I have no hesitation in commending the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a great honour to rise in support of the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. We want to increase the supply of housing because, currently, it’s far too hard to build a home in New Zealand. Even the simplest dwellings are tied up in red tape. This is about building the houses and the homes that New Zealanders need. We want to increase the supply. This is just one measure we’re taking. We are also increasing access to overseas products that comply with overseas standards. This is going to really make a difference.

The other thing I’ll mention is we’ve already seen up to 29 percent of real estate sales going to first-home buyers in New Zealand. That’s the highest on record. This Government is serious about getting houses to New Zealanders. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kua rongo koutou mai i aku hoamahi kei te whakaae Te Pāti Reipa i tēnei kaupapa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. You have heard from my colleagues that the Labour Party agrees with this initiative.]

I stand in support of this bill, the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill, as my colleagues have indicated.

Jan Tinetti took me on a trip down memory lane. I am—I’ve said in this House before—one of nine children and have a very large extended family, and looking after our elders is something that’s been entrenched in our whānau. When I was younger, my grandmother came back to Rangitukia to stay with us, leaving her granny flat here in Tītahi Bay to come and spend a couple of years with us so that—well, actually, so that my cousin could get disciplined by my mother, and also to have a bit of a taste of country life. So in that sense, in the sense of keeping whānau together, of course, we naturally support this bill.

Easier doesn’t necessarily mean accessible. One of the barriers—which I accept that this bill removes a lot of barriers and that’s why we support it—when building on whenua Māori, especially, there are enough barriers you have to go through. First of all, to get your whānau together to look at the land block and then to go to get the consent from the shareholders; and then to get your ducks in a row to finally get to Te Kooti Whenua Māori; and then go through that process to get your occupation order or your license to occupy. That can take years. Once that’s done, you then have to go through the process of finding finance to go through the process of naturally building what often is a dream home on your whenua, to which you feel absolutely connected.

Sometimes, that dream actually becomes a nightmare for so many whānau because of the laborious process it can be, and that’s a bigger-picture item for us, I hope, as a whole House to work on: removing that barrier and making that easier for whānau. While that doesn’t remove those barriers, this does go some way to helping whānau access housing. While this may not be the express intention of this bill, to provide permanent long-term housing, let me tell you, that’s what’s going to happen. If you drive across not just Ikaroa-Rāwhiti but around the bay—probably some of a lot of the areas some of the constituent MPs live in—you will see whānau establishing makeshift papa kāinga. Whether or not that is the intention of this bill, that is what’s going to happen. Whānau who don’t have access to resources to build their dream home are going to see this as an opportunity to whack up what they will see as housing options, as permanent full-time housing. The risks that come with that, with the lack of infrastructure required, are health and safety risks, and just—well, quite frankly, we risk Soweto-type situations popping up around communities.

While the price tag of less than $250,000 might seem attractive, that is still far out of reach for a lot of whānau. I’ll go back to the issue of accessing finance. Some of the criteria is such that I know of one person who couldn’t get access to a $50,000 mortgage to renovate a family home on Māori land, but he could get a loan to buy a $77,000 vehicle. These are the realities that whānau are facing, and the risks that come with this legislation—while we support it.

That said, I want to reflect on the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle, where we saw whare āwhina pop up to support and house whānau from Wairoa all around the East Coast; and visiting a whānau member in Te Wairoa, who was so happy to be in her whare āwhina, which I think was about 30 metres squared. Why she was happy was because she still got to be on her whenua. So that’s a beautiful opportunity that comes with the support that that provided and with this bill; it is going to allow people to put something that they want on their whenua.

The other positive thing that I want to raise is the opportunity for Māori providers who are already fulfilling builds of this nature. I think of Toitū Tairāwhiti, who—referencing Willie Te Aho, who’s one of their senior advisors—has already stated that they have the ability to build these, so they come pre-built to your whenua, within around two to three months. We know that’s a proven record, because as I’ve said, they have delivered already in situations such as post-Gabrielle. And actually, there are papa kāinga that are popping up around Tairāwhiti and Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.

Again, just want to support and reflect on the comments of my colleague Shanan Halbert about the workforce that’s going to be required to fulfil these whare—because speaking of post-Gabrielle, it was just so amazing to see apprentices in Hawke’s Bay, in Ngāti Kahungunu, supporting the builds of houses which now sit at Omāhu Marae, who, as we all know, was a beacon of light for all communities post-Gabrielle. These are the considerations that need to be made.

I am very pleased for the whānau whom this will serve—whānau for whom this is accessible, who now can build a whare for their kuia, for their koroua, for their mokopuna in their backyard, and also build a dwelling on their whenua so they can be grounded and connected and be where they want to be. Nā reira, e te Māngai o te Whare, kei te tautoko au i tēnei pire.

[Therefore, Mr Speaker, I support this bill.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m thrilled to be the last speaker on this bill, the Building and Construction (Small Stand-alone Dwellings) Amendment Bill. This bill will go a long way to solving some of the issues some of my constituents have building on their land. In particular, I’m thinking of one who I’ve been dealing with recently, so, Gordon, I hope this helps solve your problem. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to speak against the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. While we do believe that it’s important to ensure New Zealand is protected from genuine threats of foreign interference, we believe this legislation does not ensure sufficient protection for civil liberties and democratic freedoms. This was a sentiment that was echoed in the submissions stage of the select committee process. The committee received 705 submissions, 49 of which were accompanied by oral submissions to the committee. Out of those 705 submissions, 620 submitters opposed the bill, 34 supported it, and the remaining 51 were either unclear or did not take a position on this bill. We share the concerns of the submitters that this legislation could be used against environmental advocates, trade unions, human rights groups, and indigenous peoples. The recommendations in the departmental report and from the select committee have not alleviated this.

We do believe that the legislation is written in such a vague way that it could encapsulate—for example, I’ve already wished members a happy Filipino Restaurant Week yesterday, and I did that just because I saw that it was Filipino Restaurant Week. But if the Filipino Embassy had contacted me and asked me to share posts related to Filipino Restaurant Week, under the really vaguely defined provisions of the legislation, my posting that and encouraging people to celebrate Filipino Restaurant Week could potentially constitute a crime if you interpret that under this legislation. That’s how loosely defined this legislation could be, and that’s why we have serious concerns.

The Crown’s record in this regard is not good. We only have to look at the Urewera raids and the history of espionage in a domestic way to see that. We consider that the new offences created represent State overreach and a significant threat to civil liberties, particularly the right to peacefully protest and organise, the right to privacy, and the right to voice one’s own personal political opinions, or opinions about restaurants for that matter. References to a foreign power and what it means to act for or on behalf of a foreign power are too broad and have not addressed the concerns of many submitters. Intelligence agencies often highlight concerns about foreign influence from countries such as China and Russia, for example, but there’s no clarity on how this bill will address, if at all, the influence of Five Eyes countries and the additional complexities of navigating those relationships.

I’ll give you an example of that complexity. There’s widespread public concern about the presence of a law enforcement FBI office being opened here in Wellington, particularly around the level of coordination and cooperation in law enforcement and policing matters, and the relationship between our security services. It took everyone by surprise, especially the trade Minister Todd McClay, because the very next day we got pinged with 50 percent tariffs. We actually felt a bit sorry for him. They let this lot set up shop, including an FBI headquarters right in our capital, and they said thank you with tariffs. We’ve had Ministers say that this wasn’t about China, but then the person who came over to open the office, Kash Patel, reiterated that it actually is about countering China. This is not a simple administrative move, and it’s not just an intelligence liaison. This is an expansion of a foreign surveillance power on to our soil under the banner of cooperation and security. Is that foreign interference? This legislation doesn’t count it so, but apparently we can just invite them.

This appears to step over successive Governments’ claims on independent foreign policy and continues with the trend that we’ve seen, under this Government, of being aligned to the United States rather than with other partners and our neighbours in the Pacific. We should not accept that our membership of Five Eyes means we should be open to agencies from within that group. We are not another state in Donald Trump’s United States. There’s also insufficient clarity on how this would address foreign interference from powerful multinational corporations who might owe no allegiance to any foreign power. References to benefiting a foreign power are also too subjective and broad. The implications of this are numerous. I’ve already mentioned the right to peacefully protest could be threatened by accusations of being a protest movement in service of a foreign power. We are also concerned that consultation with Māori was inadequate, particularly given the submitters’ concerns around the State’s poor track record, and the rest of this legislation could unfairly target Māori, particularly for aspirations of tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on this bill. There are three things I want to touch on in terms of amendments that came through the Justice Committee: replacing “enemy alien” with “citizen of a State at war with New Zealand”, just to make that really clear what that reference related to; secondly, making it a question of law whether a person owes allegiance to New Zealand, so a judge will make that decision instead of a jury—that was a suggestion of the New Zealand Law Society—and, finally, a safeguard for protesters to ensure that engaging in protest, advocacy, or industrial action would not, by itself, be criminalised. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very glad to be able to have a chance to contribute to this second reading debate on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill.

I wanted to say a couple of things about why I think this bill is important and why it’s worthy of serious debate in the House. The motivation here is to protect our democracy. And when we look around the world right now, democracy is under threat in so many places. It’s under threat from right-wing populism. It’s under threat from Governments who deliberately set out to undermine democratic institutions, to ignore the basic human rights standards that have been really the foundation of democratic systems for more than a century—I would note that both of these things are going on right now in the United States, a country that much of the world has looked to as a pinnacle of democracy for a long time—and the rise of unregulated, unchecked social media. For so many reasons, our democracies are under threat, and foreign interference, the deliberate covert interference, including in elections, is also a feature of the international landscape right now. The Russians have been identified often as one of the worst culprits in this respect. But they’re not the only ones, and we have no reason to think that little old New Zealand at the bottom of the South Pacific is likely to be immune from these kinds of pressures.

I want to acknowledge the concerns that were raised by our Green Party colleagues. This is something that warrants careful and thoughtful balance here. Historically, it’s not very long since the anti-communist witch hunts of the 1950s. Think about the McCarthyite hounding of people both in politics and the entertainment industry; in fact, all walks of life in the United States where anti-communism and geopolitics was used as a pretext to suppress absolutely legitimate political dissent in a liberal democracy. It’s not very long since that happened.

Think of the Government of Sid Holland, the National Party Prime Minister from 1949 in New Zealand. We had plenty of our own echoes of exactly the same phenomenon when geopolitics and anti-communism were used to crack down on critics of the Government of the day. And I think about the Bill Sutch case and others. So we’re not immune to all that. But by the same token, it’s very clear, and our intelligence agencies have provided plenty of evidence, that there is foreign interference that is covert and deceptive activity taking place that, at least arguably, could undermine New Zealand score national interests. So I think we have to take that seriously.

I want to talk about the elephant in the room in this debate, and that is the quite well publicised activities of operatives from the Chinese Government who have been engaging in, I think, foreign interference, in the way that it is defined in this bill—their activities would qualify as foreign interference.

Now, I’m not an advocate for a kind of new Cold War mentality about the rise of China. In fact, I regard myself as a principled critic of this Government’s headlong rush into the arms of the united military alliance, effectively with the United States, to counter China’s growing strength in the Asia-Pacific region. In my view, and I think it’s the view of my colleagues too, the relationship with China is one of our most important foreign policy relationships. We have an enormous amount at stake not just in economic terms and trade, but China is already a great power in our region, and we need to conduct our relationship with China in a way that’s calm and thoughtful, and mature. There is far too much at stake to cast China as some kind of military villain in our region and a military threat to New Zealand. It’s not. The biggest threat, actually, is what would be a catastrophic war between China and the US and Asia. And in our foreign policy, we need to be doing everything we can to avoid that. We need to be a voice for peace and negotiation and detente. So I’m not a new Cold War guy in terms of our relationship with China, but I do think that we need to be candid with our friends in China and in the Chinese Government and say publicly and openly that foreign interference activity in New Zealand is not acceptable.

As a local MP in West Auckland, I represent a substantial community of Chinese New Zealanders. They are New Zealanders, they live here, they have the right to stay here, they contribute to this country, they are making a new life, and their human rights are just as important as the human rights of any other person in this country. So when I see reported incidences of people in the community being intimidated, when there are threats that are alleged or implied against the family members back in China of people who might be considered to be dissenters or dissidents here, that is completely unacceptable. There is a word for it and it’s “transnational repression”. There are a number of countries around the world who engage in transnational repression, where they basically send their operatives to put pressure on people in the diaspora to try and keep them in line.

It’s also, in my view, unacceptable that that the Chinese Government, through its United Front Work Department, deploys resources of the State to influence the behaviour and the publicly expressed opinions of the diaspora communities in New Zealand by controlling and influencing Chinese language media outlets who serve the diaspora communities in New Zealand. That is not OK, and when I read reports of the deliberate influencing and the distribution of funds through community-based associations and organisations who serve our Chinese diaspora communities in New Zealand in order to exercise influence in a covert way, I don’t believe that that is acceptable.

So, as a member of this House, I want to say to the Chinese Government that New Zealand values the relationship with China. We are inextricably bound together. We share the Asia-Pacific region; our destinies are intertwined. We have a very important and growing Chinese diaspora community in New Zealand. It’s been around for a long time, back to the 1800s, and today it is growing fast. These are New Zealanders who contributed enormously to our society, and we expect that their human rights and civil rights will be respected and that they will not be used in a way that’s instrumental in what we regard, and certainly in the terms of the bill that we are debating in the House today, as foreign interference. I think that for those reasons this bill is very important. It’s about a protection to our democracy. I’ve spoken about China as an example, but there are many other countries around the world, like Afghanistan, like Iran, and others who engage in transnational repression. It is not good enough and I think this bill actually is a good and useful move to address those issues.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s great to speak on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, which we considered on the Justice Committee, and it was great to engage with that. Let’s just be really clear about what the legislation is intending to do here. It’s about strengthening the criminal law and providing a means to better hold people accountable for undertaking foreign interference. That’s ultimately what the legislation is all about. There are some foreign States that try to influence what people in other countries do, and this is simply providing a means to better hold people accountable for undertaking foreign interference. As such, I commend the bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill. I’m not on the Justice Committee. However, I am a proud member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—probably the hardest-working committee, certainly from my perspective. That these matters go hand in hand is the point here. When we consider our relations in the foreign sphere—when we consider the way that we interact with other nations abroad, but also here domestically—these things must be considered hand in hand.

My colleague the Hon Phil Twyford gave, I thought, a very good speech about the fine balance being struck here—about trying to make sure that we can continue to protect our citizens here in New Zealand; to protect also the right, in a free democracy, for advocacy, to have the right for protest, but also to make sure that we continue to protect the sovereignty of New Zealand, the democracy we all enjoy, and also the rights of citizens here in New Zealand. I thought Mr Twyford made a very good contribution on this bill.

I think of the speeches in this House in light of the most recent threat assessment that has been completed by our agencies, as a background to some of my thinking with respect to this bill—how we must continue to act in our best interests, how we must continue to make sure that we look towards the geopolitical challenges that the world finds itself in today, and how ever-evolving that is, and how we must make sure that the legislation is fit for purpose today but also lends itself to an opportunity for the evolution of that legislation given the ever-evolving situation of foreign affairs matters around the world. It is a tricky time—it is a tricky time.

I think it’s naive for many of our people out in New Zealand, who often sit in ignorance of many of the challenges that they face and of many of the challenges that this country faces—and I think of some recent examples, whether it’s what seems like a benign kind of cyber-attack or phishing, if we will, or whether it’s something far more sinister. We’ve seen occasions of that, where we know, on a regular basis, that our public institutions are constantly under attack in those spaces, all for access to data—to public and to private information.

When we look towards a piece of legislation or an apparatus that is designed to deter but also to define—and also, where appropriate, look towards an appropriate punishment for those that do enter into that particular space of what we’re covering here, around terrorism and countering foreign interference—we’ve got to make sure that it is able to answer the questions that many have on instances that we are aware of and that we are clear on. Mr Twyford spoke to some of the well-documented and publicly known instances where there have been cases where it has been proven that there has been foreign interference, but also cases where it has been proven that it doesn’t quite meet that threshold, or in fact that we might have had a rogue or a person acting on their own. There have been those instances, certainly in my time here in Parliament.

We’re looking to support this bill and continue to remind the House, though, that, on a day when communities across the country are striking, we must continue to respect and also protect the ability for our people here in this country to peacefully protest, for advocacy, and for industrial action. It’s rather fitting that we continue to speak and discuss this bill on a day when New Zealanders look towards taking to the streets to prove their point in the industrial action space, rallying against the moves by this Government with respect to their pay.

Mr Speaker, we support this bill. Like I said, from my perspective on the committee that I myself and you sit on, we must think of it in its entirety, within its context in international affairs, and, of course, the security of our democracy here at home.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. As my colleague—or my friend—the Hon Peeni Henare said, as a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, I have an interest in this.

Foreign interference from any country is simply unacceptable and it often disrupts the rights of New Zealanders, including their right to freedom of expression. So this legislation will help to ensure that our criminal law is fit for purpose to address what we see as a harmful activity and will better equip the relevant agencies to hold people to account. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. It was an interesting process at the Justice Committee to hear submissions and to understand the nature of some of the threats that this bill is designed to counter. In particular, the instances that were provided at select committee revolved around members of the New Zealand community who have Chinese connections and who have been in situations of protest against issues that are occurring in China. There were instances where there had been pressure put upon them not to be able to protest in New Zealand, to the point where sometimes there was a physical threat to prevent that protest from happening. We have a very strong view in Labour that irrespective of your country of origin, if you are a New Zealander you have every right and privilege of a New Zealander, and that includes the right to be able to protest about whatever you want to as a free citizen. We believe that’s a fundamental part of our democracy, and we believe that no other nation State has the right to interfere in our democratic processes here in New Zealand.

The bill, essentially, seeks to deter, detect, and respond to covert actions by powers that threaten our sovereignty, our democracy, and the safety of those who call this country home. Let me be clear from the outset: Labour supports robust measures to protect New Zealand’s democratic institutions from foreign interference. And in this day and age, that is more important than ever before. It’s important that people can rely upon information and make up their own minds and be able to participate freely in a democracy. We live in a world where State-sponsored disinformation, cyber-attacks, and coercive diplomacy have become tools of influence on the international stage. It is only right that our legal framework evolves to meet these modern challenges, and that is what this bill attempts to do.

It’s important to note that this is qualified. We recognise the importance of acting decisively, but also the importance of acting wisely and being fully informed. When Governments expand the powers of the State, particularly in the realm of national security, they must also do so with precision, accountability, and transparency. Labour’s position is that while the bill is a necessary step, it must be accompanied by strong safeguards, resourcing, and oversight to ensure that it protects our democracy not only from foreign interference but also from overreach at home.

The main points I would like to make today are the importance of defending New Zealand sovereignty and democratic values, and also the importance of having a broader, more coherent national security strategy—one that earns, not assumes, public trust, and that is so important. At its core, this bill is about protecting our independence of decision making, the ability of our people and institutions here in New Zealand to shape our future without external manipulation. That is so important.

Foreign interference can take place in many shapes, and sometimes we’re not even aware of that. It can involve covert funding of political activities, attempts to intimidate members of ethnic communities, and cyber-attacks designed to steal sensitive data or disrupt Government operations. We’ve seen examples of this behaviour internationally, and we would be naive to assume Aotearoa is not immune to this.

The National Security Strategy, released in 2023, was right to identify foreign interference as a key and growing threat. However, that recognition must now be backed by substance and capability. The gaps that this bill seeks to close are real, but also too are the risks with acting without balance. We cannot defend democracy by weakening the very principles that underpin it. Laws designed to target foreign interference must be precisely defined and proportionately applied, ensuring they do not have a chilling effect on the legitimate political activity, advocacy, or even dissent, especially amongst diaspora communities who already face pressure from authoritarian regimes abroad. Labour will therefore continue to seek assurances that these laws will not be misused to target individuals exercising their democratic rights, to silence critics under the guise of security, and make sure New Zealand is protecting its democracy and protecting its freedom of expression as much as it means countering covert influence.

This bill has some big changes, and I’d just like to outline what some of those changes are. Targeting foreign interference offences: this bill has the introduction of a foreign interference offence. It squarely criminalises covert, deceptive, corruptive, or coercive activity undertaken on behalf of a foreign power to harm New Zealand’s core interests, including national security, elections, and human rights. This provides a clearer pathway for authorities to prosecute those who intentionally or recklessly act against our democratic integrity, and it is a necessary change. However, we also urge the Government to ensure that clear prosecution thresholds and judicial oversight accompany these powers. Vague or overly broad definitions risk unintended consequences, and the line between influence and interference is not always clear, and the law must be careful not to blur that.

This bill also clarifies allegiance and espionage liability. It’s a clarification of when a person owes allegiance to the Sovereign in right of New Zealand. It may seem technical, but it is an important fix. This provides greater certainty for charging individuals for serious crimes such as espionage offences, which go to the very heart of the loyalty of the State. Labour remains concerned about how this principle is applied to dual citizens or long-term residents, and whether the Government needs to make sure it fully considers its diplomatic implications in this space.

In terms of protecting Government information, we support the expansion of those offences that are related to unauthorised disclosure of Government information, including explicit coverage of military tactics and sensitive data held by a wider range of public bodies.

Good national security law is precise, not broad; is balanced, not blunt. This legislation alone will not keep New Zealand safe. Foreign interference is not only a criminal problem; it is a societal challenge that demands our awareness, our resilience, and coordination across all levels of Government and community. This bill must sit within a broader strategy—one that equips New Zealand’s public sector, local government, academic institutions, businesses, and communities with the knowledge and tools that they require to identify and resist foreign interference.

Under the previous Labour Government, we took steps to modernise our national security approach and strengthen agency cooperation, but that work must continue. We want to continue to see this Government have a clear plan to resource and implement these capabilities effectively. Passing a law is one thing, but ensuring it works in practice is another. We must also make sure our communities are aware that we are resourcing these aspects, as that is also incredibly important. We must be transparent with the public about the nature of the threat that we face. If the Government wants communities to be resilient, then communities must be trusted as partners in this conversation, not passive recipients of State protection.

Finally, we must ensure that in countering external coercion, we do not become coercive ourselves. National security should never be an excuse for secrecy that excludes scrutiny. Oversight mechanisms are essential to maintaining that level of public trust.

New Zealand’s democracy is one of our greatest assets, built on transparency, fairness, and freedom. Those values are what foreign interference seeks to erode, and those values must also guide how we respond. Labour supports the intent of this bill because we believe our country must be equipped to defend itself from covert manipulation. But we will continue to push for stronger safeguards, resourcing, and oversight to ensure the defence of democracy never comes at the cost of democracy itself. Protecting New Zealand’s sovereignty is not the task of one party or one Government; it is a shared responsibility. In that spirit, we support the bill moving forward, while holding the Government to account for how it is implemented. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I’m grateful to be able to rise in the second reading of this bill, the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill. I’m appreciative of the of the 49 oral submitters and 705 submitters, in general, that expressed their concerns. Some of those concerns were listened to—well, they were all listened to—but there were some amendments that were made as a result.

I’m grateful for them expressing their concerns and I’m grateful that we’re going forward with this bill. I commend it to the House.

The question is that the amendments recommended by the Justice Committee by a majority be agreed to.

I move, That the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I’m pleased to present this bill to the House. The Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill amends the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 to increase the financial jurisdiction of the tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000. The aim is to improve access to quick, low-cost dispute resolution so that people can resolve their disputes about claims of higher value: those over $30,000 going up to $60,000. In doing so, the bill enhances access to justice by providing an affordable forum for resolving more lower-value claims. It’s estimated that up to 2,000 claims a year could benefit from this process.

The bill enhances access to justice for people who either cannot afford to take a claim to the District Court or choose not to because the associated fees would exceed the value of the claim they’re pursuing. In essence, we’ve got quite a good, efficient system that works for smaller claims of up to $30,000, and for a long time that figure hasn’t been adjusted. There has been a lot of inflation, and we think it makes sense to extend that boundary further to $60,000—a practical, pragmatic thing that will make a difference to the many hard-working New Zealanders who just want to get on with their lives and get their disputes resolved in a timely fashion. This increase in the jurisdiction addresses this justice gap, provides benefits for new claimants—new people that would have abandoned it.

The disputes tribunal has one of the fastest disposal rates of all the courts and tribunals in New Zealand and is one of the busiest forums in the civil justice system. I just want to take the opportunity to thank all the people in the court system working across this tribunal for the work they do on behalf of all New Zealanders. I don’t think we take the opportunity to thank the people who work in our courts often, because though sometimes they work in stressful environments, under a lot of pressure, they do their best for the community, and we should acknowledge them today.

The tribunal is resourced through a combination of user-pays and Crown funding. This recognises the tribunal’s public and private benefits. The bill also amends the Disputes Tribunal Rules 1989 to introduce a new filing fee tier of $468 for claims of $30,001 or more to aid with cost recovery and reflect the higher private benefits of using the tribunal for higher-value claims. This is the only fee users pay. Whilst the new fee tier might seem to be a barrier to justice, it’s a very small portion of the potential value of the claim. Disputes tribunal proceedings remain significantly cheaper than bringing proceedings to the District Courts where court and legal costs are incurred throughout the case.

The Government is also separately progressing a proposal through the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill which will give the disputes referees the discretion to order the respondent to repay the cost of filing fees to a wholly or partially successful applicant. This will help ensure the costs of pursuing justice do not fall solely on those who have been wronged.

The bill will ensure the disputes tribunal will continue to operate as an affordable and accessible way to resolve disputes and will improve access to justice for more people. In the justice space, we’re focused on restoring law and order, but we’re also focused on speeding up the wheels of justice so people can get on with their lives, get their disputes resolved, and continue prospering and doing well, like everybody aspires to do in this country. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Labour supports the aim of increased access to justice and supports this bill, and that includes an increase to the financial jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal.

In essence, what this bill does is it amends the Disputes Tribunal Act by increasing the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000. This will mean that people who cannot afford to take a claim to the District Court or who choose not to because the associated fee exceeds the value of the claim would indeed be able to access the disputes tribunal for those claims. The bill also introduces a filing fee of $468 for those claims over $30,000.

We’re incredibly lucky in New Zealand to have our disputes tribunal system. It really enables greater access to justice. That’s why we support this bill. It’s a simple but important reform that will make a real difference to the thousands of New Zealanders who are seeking justice in a fair, affordable, and timely way. It keeps our courts from being clogged up and it enables issues which have become problematic to be resolved more quickly.

The disputes tribunal plays a really crucial role and is often unsung in what they do in our justice system. It is often referred to as the “people’s court”: a place where ordinary New Zealanders can resolve civil disputes without any great cost and the complexity of lawyers or the long delays of the formal court system. Around 11,000 people each year use the tribunal to sort out their issues. While small by the standard of the higher courts, they can be absolutely life changing for those people involved. The tribunal was designed to make justice accessible, and it will continue to do that with this change today.

Over time, the realities of inflation and the rising cost of living have eroded the value of the $30,000 limit. What might once have been considered a substantial claim is now often a modest one, especially when you’re a small business, a contractor, or even tenants trying to recover what they are owed. As a result, more and more people are being forced to give up a claim that they’re wanting to pursue in order to have their case heard, and that is not fair and that is not justice.

We heard of some of these instances where a Master’s student was paid $9,000 for a full year’s work; she was owed $41,000 in total. But to bring her case to the tribunal, she had to forego more than a quarter of what she was owed. She quite literally had to choose between cutting her losses or facing the cost and delays of the formal court process. That instance is precisely what this bill seeks to fix today.

By raising the cap to $60,000, around 2,000 more claimants each year will be able to pursue the full value of their claims before the tribunal. For them, this is not just an abstract number; it is wages owed, work completed, deposits unfairly withheld, or contracts broken. These are disputes that affect people’s livelihoods, their business, their sense of fairness, and their mental health.

Access to justice is the cornerstone of a fair society, and Labour has always believed that justice should not depend on the size of your wallet or your ability to hire a lawyer. The disputes tribunal, with its low filing fees and its straightforward process, embodies that principle. It allows people to come forward and tell their story, to be heard, and to get a decision without being drowned in legal costs. Updating its jurisdiction is about keeping that promise alive in modern and challenging economic circumstances.

This bill also allows referees to order that a losing party reimburse the successful applicant’s filing fee. That might sound like a small change, but it’s symbolically important. When someone wins their case, they should not be left out of pocket for simply accessing justice. It reinforces the idea that fairness should be practical as well as philosophical.

Some have questioned whether increasing the tribunal’s cap will overburden it, but the evidence that we received is otherwise. The Ministry of Justice modelling shows that the system can absorb this change and that only a modest increase in the caseload is expected. The tribunal’s referees are highly skilled and already deal with a wide range of complex and different issues that they resolve. This bill simply allows them to hear more of the cases that are already coming through the door, but which currently fall just outside of their reach.

Labour also notes the recommendation of the Rules Committee last year, which suggested an even higher cap to $70,000 or even $100,000 by consent, along with clearer appeal rights. We support the Government taking steps in that direction and we will continue to encourage a broader look at just how our civil justice system serves ordinary New Zealanders. There is still more work to streamline the enforcement and to ensure that the tribunal decisions can be upheld without the added cost and delay of going back through the District Court.

Today, this bill represents a meaningful and positive step forward. It modernises an important institution and it recognises the economic realities that many New Zealanders are facing today. We should not have a situation where people are deciding whether to pursue a claim or whether to be able to pay their rent or pay their bills, because access to justice is fundamental. This change makes justice more accessible for those who need it the most. At a time where the cost of living is biting hard, ensuring people can recover what they are owed, without spending thousands more to do so, is not just good law; it’s common sense.

This bill is practical, it’s fair, and it’s overdue. It upholds the principle that justice should be available to every single New Zealander, not just those who are able to afford it. It gives more New Zealanders the confidence to stand up for themselves, to know their rights, and it helps keep our justice system working for the many, not just the few. For those reasons, we are proud to support this bill.

Labour has opposed an amendment at Justice Committee to introduce a fees waiver for the filing fee on the basis of hardship, reflecting the existing practice of the District Court. Accordingly, the New Zealand Rules Committee has already referred to increasing that. It’s important to note that we will be bringing some more changes at the committee stage. We think there are further improvements that can me made to strengthen this bill, and it’s important that we discuss those in few. We feel that there has been a missed opportunity, that there have been a number of other improvements that could have been made to the Act. Those include clarifying the subject matter jurisdiction of the tribunal, which is currently limited and could be expanded to include other disputes—for example, those related to land or intellectual property. We know that that could be further strengthened.

We also do have some concerns around the $468 filing fee. We consider that this may well be a barrier to some people bringing legitimate claims before the tribunal. There are legitimate reasons for a filing fee to cover the costs associated with a dispute resolution process; however, $468 is high to many New Zealanders right now—significantly higher than the $260 filing fees for the District Court, and there is no associated fees waiver on the basis of hardship; there is such a waiver for the District Court. We believe it is not right that there should be a fees waiver for the District Court fee but no fees waiver for a disputes tribunal, which would be a lower form.

Sixty-thousand dollars is not an insignificant amount of money. A finding either way in $60,000 could have a really significant financial return for either party. Sixty thousand exceeds the limit in which a no-asset insolvency is available.

So, while we support the bill in principle and we look forward to it going forward, we think it can be strengthened. We will be working to provide those suggestions and those changes—

This is the third reading.

—during the committee stage. Sorry, apologies for that. We think it further could be strengthened, but we agree that in a time that is incredibly difficult for New Zealanders, it is important that we note that the cost of living continues to be a real problem, and we believe that that filing fee is not sufficient.

Does Hipkins know you’re making an announcement?

Apologies on that. I’ve been rushed this morning. But we did put those suggestions through; they have not been made to the bill. We still believe that that filing fee is too high and it will be prohibitive to those who want to pursue justice through the courts. It’s a good change, but it could have been strengthened further. We think, in future, we would like to revise some of those changes to make access to justice even more available to those people.

Policy announcement; check with Hipkins.

No matter how many properties someone might own, everyone should be able to go forward and pursue their claims in the tribunal.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also support the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill. Now, we’ve supported this bill since the first reading because we do think that what the bill is intending to do, in terms of raising the financial jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal from $30,000 to $60,000, is a good one, and we will see that more claims will be made and it will, hopefully, alleviate some of the burden that we’ve seen on other parts of the court system.

In saying that, again, something like this, in terms of increasing the financial jurisdiction, is not new. We have seen numerous increases over the last few decades. However, the threshold that we’re currently seeing in terms of going from $30,000 to $60,000 is probably the most significant increase that we’ve seen in a while.

I just want to touch on a few things that we did discuss during the committee stage. Again, while the bill is not the most substantial in terms of length, there are a lot of implications in terms of the operationalisation of a bill like this and what it means for the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. One of the things that we discussed at length is around, I guess, the policy intent in the first place of the rationale of increasing the threshold from $30,000 to $60,000. One of the things is whether other considerations have been made in terms of other ways to alleviate some of the pressures that we’re seeing in our court system; again, being a key component of the rationale for this bill.

Now, one of the other things that we’ve also mentioned—in terms of the discussions that we had at the committee stage with the Minister in the chair, we are happy in terms of the increase of the threshold from $30,000 to $60,000. But the other thing that we’ve kind of discussed at length during the committee stage is around the increase of the filing fee here from $234 to $468. Now, while on paper it looks like we’ve doubled the existing threshold from $30,000 to $60,000, ergo, it makes sense to double the filing fee, as well, a key challenge is in terms of the significant increase of that threshold. Again, this is the most significant increase in the financial jurisdiction threshold for the disputes tribunal that we have seen in a while. The key aspect here is, if you are making a claim that is $30,001, your filing fee will also be doubled in response to that—and whether we think that that is actually the right setting and whether other things could have been considered that phase in or proportionalise the filing fee. Because, again, for a lot of people now during the cost of living crisis, $234 for a filing fee for the disputes tribunal is not insignificant, but now you are doubling that. That $468 is a lot of money for a lot of people.

While we were at the committee stage, there is an assumption that was made, because there was no genuine evidence of this other than from the Minister, but, also, from the officials—the assumption being that, if you were to make a claim that could be $30,000 and above, theoretically, you would be able to fork out the $468 filing fee; or if you are going to be successful in getting your claim or, either way, you are able to have that filing fee reimbursed. But that still relies on the fact that people need to have that filing fee and that cash up front, and pay for that application in the first place.

While people can now make a claim up to $60,000, there is no sort of, I guess, empirical evidence other than the assumption that we have seen throughout the committee stage that suggests there’s any rationale behind the idea that people making claims above $30,000 naturally have nearly $500 that they’re able to pay for this in the first place, which is one of the reasons why the Greens supported the Labour Party’s amendment from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, in terms of having an opportunity to look at the hardship situations where the filing fee could be waived.

Now, we see that ability to waive filing fees or to waive certain court fees in other jurisdictions, particularly in the higher courts, but we don’t get to see that in disputes tribunal because, again, the assumption is that the smaller courts like the tribunal will remain significantly cheaper for the applicants than bringing proceedings in the District Court. But the District Court has that ability for hardship and for considerations and for waivers of that fund. So we are disappointed that the Government hasn’t decided to consider that particular option of a waiver, because it would be in line with the idea of natural justice and, also, in terms of being a democratic society and having the ability for everyone to access justice as a rule of law here in Aotearoa.

Now, there are a couple of other considerations that were made during that committee stage. One of them is also a lengthy discussion, both in terms of the select committee stage but also in terms of the committee stage, around the fact that, you know, the disputes tribunal being a smaller tribunal and being, I guess, something where lawyers may not always be needed or may not always be represented, and the ability for people—now with the increased financial jurisdiction—to be able to seek additional support if they’re in a situation of hardship, such as legal aid, or other forms of advice, such as using community law centres. So, again, it was something that fundamentally comes down to: with the increase in financial jurisdiction, will we be seeing a more prominent role that’s being played by the disputes tribunal, and how are people able to rightfully access some of those services, now with a higher filing tier threshold? Also, the ability for people to now increase that to claim or make an application of up to $60,000—whether there should be more awareness or more allowances given to access some of the, I guess, universal or free services that we are seeing that are currently being used in other services and other courts.

Overall, like I said in the beginning, the Green Party understands the policy intent of this bill, and we do see this being a good start. Again, there are precedents of increase in terms of the financial jurisdiction, which is one of the reasons why the Greens support this bill. However, we also need to address the broader challenges that we’re seeing in our court system around the ability for people to access justice. We have seen certain improvements that are being made in terms of access to justice across various jurisdictions. But as the Minister himself said right at the beginning, we are seeing an approach—and we’re seeing a bottleneck because of the approach the Government has decided to take—that may not be in line or may not be providing stress relief, I guess, in some ways, to the court system, which is why we’re seeing a bill such as this.

There is a general concern in terms of whether the ability for us to relieve some of the higher courts such as the District Court and above, in terms of having some of that being allowed to be put through the disputes tribunal, actually, in some ways, fails to address the bigger issue we’re having in our court system, which is that we’re not being able to process bills fast enough. Yes, there are other bills that are being introduced in the House, such as the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill, but we’re not seeing that being responsive enough to what our communities really need in this current environment, particularly in terms of the number of judges. Yes, increase the District Court judge by one, increase the High Court judge by two—

Back to the bill.

I’m not going to listen to someone who is a tobacco lobbyist, frankly. So I’m going to keep on going with what I’m saying, which is broadly in line with the bill and the intention of this bill.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. That was clearly a slight to my comment to the member, and suggesting that I’m a tobacco lobbyist is something that he should withdraw and apologise for.

Did you take personal offence to that?

Yes.

The member might want to offer that.

I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

This does bring a broader question, because this is relevant to the bill because this is the intention of the bill, which is to address the bottleneck and the pressure on our court system. So we would seek that the Government actually do more to genuinely fix the court system.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in this third reading of the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill. ACT in Government is about actually fixing what matters, and this is an important bill that adds to everything that the Government and ACT is doing to support our court system and ensure people actually have access to justice.

This is a small but important amendment. We’re increasing the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal—up to $60,000; so that’s the amount that they can look at—and that’s going to improve the ability for people with disputes to be able to get in front of them. So that’s a really important, practical thing. It is actually fixing what matters.

The Minister of Justice, supported by the excellent Nicole McKee, the Minister for Courts, is addressing our issues around our access to justice. We’ve already seen an improvement in court timeliness, and I know Minister McKee is going to continue to work on that throughout this term, because it is very important.

Again, I am very happy to commend this bill. We’re fixing what matters, and let’s just get on with getting this passed.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill at its third reading. I think it’s worth noting that this is the third reading, as we kind of went down a wrong track with a previous speaker.

This is, as has been stated, a very pragmatic and practical step and, again, it’s an indication of how this Government is moving us forward and getting the important tasks done. It is about improving access to justice.

New Zealand First firmly believes in upholding fairness and accessibility to the justice system. The bill aligns to our core values of equity and fairness and ensuring that more people can access an appropriate justice mechanism by increasing the threshold to $60,000. There are mechanisms under which the fees can be addressed through existing processes within the justice system. Therefore, the bill is very effective and will deliver exactly what it’s aiming to do, which is access to justice. I commend the bill for the House.

I call on Government order of the day No. 4. I call the Hon Matt Doocey. Is there a legislative statement?

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It appears to me that there is no item on the Order Paper that is ready to be presented. The Government is not ready to present the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, and they do not have a legislative statement to present, so my suggestion to you is that it would be appropriate to ring the bell and if in 10 minutes the Government is not ready to present that, then this bill should be discharged.

Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker?

Just a minute, I’m going to take some advice because I actually have taken a call. The member stood. But the clock is ticking.

on behalf of the Minister for Energy: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill.

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

I move, That the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill be now read a second time.

Thank you for the opportunity today to talk about the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. I do rise on behalf of my good friend and colleague the Hon Simon Watts, Minister for Energy. I think most people would agree with this bill coming in for its second reading—that its time has come. This is a bill that is supported by many Kiwis. We do know the support it had for the first reading, and it has then gone through the select committee process. What we do know is that the select committee process is an important time for people to have their say. It actually is quite often the time that parties do get together. We’re criticised quite a bit that we’re not as collaborative or cross-party, working on bills like this, so I do want to acknowledge the select committee that has worked quite diligently on this bill as it comes back through for the second reading as well.

Renewable energy generated offshore, including from offshore wind farms, could support New Zealand to meet its long-term energy needs, ensuring the transition to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Let’s be very clear, because what we are going to hear from Opposition parties is the challenging of the Government’s position in this space. Let’s be very clear: we are committed, we know this is important for Kiwis, and we know it’s important for “New Zealand Inc.” Actually, when you think about it—about rebuilding this economy—it is important that we get our energy sector right and our offshore energy sector right, which can support this Government’s focus on reducing the cost of living.

The Offshore Renewable Energy Bill establishes a legislative regime to govern the construction, the operation, and the decommissioning of offshore renewable energy developments. When you look around the main provisions of this bill—and, as I said in my introductory comments, I do want to acknowledge the hard work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, who have worked hard on this bill as well—it starts off with a two-stage permitting regime designed to give potential developers greater certainty and to enable the selection of developments that best meet New Zealanders’ interests.

I suppose you would start with the position of “Why is this bill needed?” It delivers on a commitment to put a regulatory regime in place for offshore renewable energy, and that is important. It’s part of the Government’s Electrify NZ plan. This is something that we have spoken of not only in Government but, actually, in Opposition, when we stood on that policy of electrifying New Zealand, and that is the mandate we got in the last election—to bring bills like this through the House. International developers are exploring offshore wind projects in New Zealand, and this bill will give them certainty to invest. What we do know is that when people want to risk their private capital to invest, it is the role of Government to give them certainty and clarity, and that’s what this bill will give them today. The bill will also enable risks to the Crown and to the public from offshore renewable energy, such as decommissioning of infrastructure, to be appropriately managed.

I suppose, the next point to raise is “What does this bill do?” Well, firstly, a feasibility permit gives the holder certainty that no other offshore renewable energy developers will be approved to develop the same site while they undertake feasibility studies. It does this by giving the holder the exclusive ability to apply for an offshore renewable energy commercial permit, as well as the right to apply for relevant environmental consents, resource or marine, in the permit area. It’s also about how a commercial permit must be obtained before construction begins, and it provides assurance that the project is ready to progress to construction. It will complement the environmental consents and other approvals required to build and operate offshore renewable energy infrastructure.

It also, you might be interested to know, limits the ability for developers to land-bank certain areas or impede other developments. Permits will be “use it or lose it”, which I think is important with the provisions, meaning that if a project fails to start or progress, the area can be made available to other developers. The Minister for Energy will consider commercial permit applications and must have regard to readiness to carry out the proposed development, compliance with requirements in the legislation, conditions of the applicant’s feasibility permit, and the applicant’s ability to put in place an acceptable financial security arrangement.

Very important for this Government is the focus on consultation and engagement with relevant Māori groups. Applications for feasibility and commercial permits will be required to consult with relevant Māori groups ahead of submitting their applications. The Minister for Energy must consult with relevant Māori groups before granting any permit, and the provisions in this bill relating to upholding Treaty settlements and associated rights and interests align with those in the fast-track approvals legislation. I must say, it was encouraging to hear, through the submissions process, the support for fast track and thinking about how we deal with offshore renewable energy. What we do know is that, under the last Government, the issue was around consents; there was interest, but obviously people were waiting—it was reported publicly—eight years for consents. That can’t be continued, so that’s why this Government, quite rightly, is making a change.

Under decommissioning and financial security, the bill requires all permit holders and owners of related transmission infrastructure to decommission their offshore renewable energy infrastructure at the end of its life. The bill also requires financial security arrangements to be put in place and maintained to cover the cost to the Crown in the event that the permit holder or infrastructure owner fails to meet their obligation to decommission.

When we look at regulation powers, the bill includes regulation-making powers to set out procedural and implementation matters, such as additional matters that the Minister must have regard to when determining whether to grant a permit, and the provision of information. The powers include the ability to set fees and levies to recover the costs of the regulator. Shortly after the bill is passed, I intend to introduce feasibility-permit and cost-recovery regulations so that the regime is operational as soon as possible. That is, really, the focus from this Government: ensuring that we, quite literally, are getting things done, and it’s great to see the focus here of moving at pace and ensuring that we will operationalise this regime as fast as possible as well.

Just to conclude, the amendments will enable the Government to use a new secondary legislation instrument to designate specific marine space where permits could be invited for offshore renewable projects where there is a pause on granting new permits for seabed mining under the Crown Minerals Act. It’s a real privilege to take this opportunity to speak on this bill this afternoon. It’s a bill that I’ve been watching through the legislative programme, one that I’m very supportive of, and I support my colleague the Minister for Energy, Simon Watts. I commend this bill to the House.

As it did at the first reading and as it did during the select committee process, the Labour Party supports this bill at the second reading. This is a timely bill and, actually, it’s a very collaborative one. It builds on work that was under way under the previous Government that was picked up and carried on with by the current Government, and it is much-needed legislation.

When we talk about the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, the obvious application is in wind farms. Of course, we are experiencing, frankly, an over-abundance of wind today, and so I just want to recall in the House today that people in Canterbury, people in Kaikōura, people in Tasman-Nelson, and now people in Wellington are experiencing some pretty severe wind conditions today. Much as we love the energy that can be generated by wind, there is some pretty terrible stuff going on, and so I hope that everyone is staying safe, staying inside, and looking after their neighbours as much as possible, and that we’re generally doing all that we can to get ourselves through this incredibly windy period today.

I’m a Taranaki girl, born and bred in Taranaki—

Whangamomona.

—from Whangamomona, which, to be fair, is right inland. But I mostly grew up in New Plymouth and spent some time in Hāwera, as well, and things like that—there you are, Mr Brewer. It’s a windy place. We think of Wellington as being windy, but something about Taranaki is that the wind offshore is pretty constant.

World class—it’s world class.

It’s a world-class wind, which does make it highly suitable for offshore wind farming, and, of course, we also have an abundance of wind onshore in New Zealand.

One of the interesting things about offshore wind farming is that there is a fairly constant flow of wind and of air so that the turbine is turning maybe about 40 percent of the time, which is actually pretty good for land-based wind turbines. It’s about 40 percent of the time in, say, the Ruahine wind farms and things like that, and the offshore wind farms can turn pretty much all of the time. So it’s a very reliable source of power with offshore wind farms, and it’s a source of power that we need to tap in to if we are going to meet out climate commitments. If we are going to do our bit to meet the existential threat of climate change, we need to move to renewable energy, and this is an excellent way to do so.

There is very good reason for the support across the House for this particular bill. There are some wrinkles in it that I do think we need to have a bit of a look at, and I know that they will be examined quite closely during the committee of the whole House stage.

I want to draw the House’s attention to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee’s report, and to the particular section on managing competing uses. Now, this is quite an important issue that needed to be worked through, and it has been worked through at the select committee. The interesting thing is that sitting in the legislative statement from the Minister for Energy is a really interesting bit, talking about progressing changes to the bill through an Amendment Paper. I’m going to direct the House to paragraph 6 in the legislative statement presented by the Minister, where it says that the Government has actually announced that it has plans “to progress changes to the Bill through an amendment paper. This is intended to address issues raised by submitters and Select Committee in relation to competition for space between seabed mining and offshore renewable energy.”

This is not merely a theoretical concern. We’ve had in the past year or so a huge push for offshore seabed mining off the south coast of Taranaki—the same south coast of Taranaki that would also be an ideal place for an offshore wind farm. Those two uses are going to be particularly difficult to put together, but here we have reports from October 2024—so about this time a year ago—of wind power firm BlueFloat Energy cancelling its plan for wind farms in New Zealand, and the major reason was that a seabed mining firm wanted to mine offshore from the south coast of Taranaki. Those two uses are incompatible.

It’s a bit of a frustrating one, because an offshore wind farm is something that is clearly compatible with our climate goals, but seabed mining for iron ores is not necessarily compatible with our climate goals. We actually need to have a think about which of those projects should go ahead in that really incredibly valuable space off the south coast of Taranaki. So I’m pleased to see that the Minister is intending to bring in that Amendment Paper. We’ll want to have a really close look at it during the committee stage to work out whether it’s going to meet the issues that were raised by submitters during the select committee process and the issues that have been raised in this House right from the start.

It’s also an issue there that I’m sure that tangata whenua will want to be sure is examined closely because, again, it’s an issue to do with Māori-Crown relations there, and how resources that belong to the whole country are used. We’ll look forward to that debate at the committee of the whole House stage.

There is one other set of issues that I wanted to raise around offshore wind farms. It is pretty important that we go ahead with them, particularly around places like Taranaki. Taranaki has called itself the energy province for a long time. I remember, as a girl growing up there, seeing the lights of the oil-drilling rigs offshore, and, of course, there’s still a fair amount of work around fossil fuels that still goes on around Taranaki and there are wells drilling for it, bringing it up, and using it. Now, we are very clear that the use of fossil fuels needs to stop if we are to meet our 2050 climate goals, and that will have to take a transition, but one of the difficulties for us as a labour party is the jobs that are associated with that—the jobs that are associated with mining, with oil wells, and with that drilling for fossil fuels.

There are people who have worked in those industries who have developed really high levels of skill in managing critical equipment and in managing and actually creating the machinery, adapting it to the particular conditions, and maintaining it, and they are valuable jobs. Of course, as we move out of using fossil fuels, that means that jobs go as well, and we do need to find viable industries for people to have jobs in that is good, fulfilling, worthwhile work. It just seems to me that the offshore wind industry is one of those areas where people can work and where there are jobs to be had. They are trade jobs. They are jobs where our sparkies can be employed, where our engineers can be employed, and where workers of all sorts can have work to do that actually really contributes to the country, that is well-paid, and that gives that sense of standing—the sense that when they get up and go to work in the morning, they are doing a job that is worth doing.

So as we move away from using fossil fuels and as we move and transition through to a green and renewable economy, this is one of the tasks we must engage in: ensuring that people continue to have good and meaningful work. Offshore wind farms seem like an ideal place for that kind of work. It keeps people employed and it actually generates good for New Zealand. It is part of the work that we must do to become an energy-independent nation, and that’s a great goal for us to have. Why? Because we do not want to be dependent on overseas fuel suppliers. We actually want to have our own energy independence here, in New Zealand.

For a whole variety of reasons, we support this bill. We support this bill because it has been a collaborative effort, beginning in the last Government and continuing through into this Government. We support this work because it supports our climate goals. We support this work because it will create jobs for people. This is a good bill. There’s stuff we still need to iron out—stuff we want to see at the committee of the whole House stage—but Labour is proud to stand in support of this bill today.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

It is my pleasure to talk to the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, and, as you might expect, the Green Party does support renewables. However, we do have some things to say about this bill given that the Government is promoting fast track as a solution to everything, and we’ve seen what happened with fast track with Trans-Tasman Resources being written into the legislation and BlueFloat floating away. It is time that we focused on the renewables transition we want rather than simply seeking to extract more minerals and destroy our reputation internationally.

You can’t build wind turbines without minerals.

Oh, that’s an interesting comment—you can’t build wind turbines without minerals. Actually, there is so much potential. We see in Scandinavia wooden wind turbine towers. We see so much circularity in wind now, but I am surprised that—

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I just need to check. Is the date 2025 or 1825?

Are you trifling with the House, Mr Court?

That is not a point of order. Sit down.

I did not accept the point of order. He was trifling with the House. Mr Willis, please continue.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We are used to the trivial nature of the Government. However, this is a serious matter. It’s a serious matter that does merit consideration, and I appreciated being able to sit through the submissions at the select committee. We heard concerns from iwi and hapū about the need to be engaged, the need to be consulted, the need to be participating in the offshore renewable transition that we’re seeing. We heard the concerns about Trans-Tasman Resources very strongly.

What I would have loved to have done was spend some time in the Cabinet when this bill was being discussed, because I wonder how the Hon Shane Jones was able to manage the restrictions we require on extraction to enable the offshore renewables transition.

This bill is something we will support because we want to see renewables powering our nation. We want to see our nation fully powered by renewables—not simply our electricity system; our whole energy system. We want to see our mobility powered by renewables. We want to see the end to the de-industrialisation that is under way. We want to see our industry and our manufacturing supported by renewable electricity. In that sense, we certainly will support this bill. What we saw and what we heard through the submissions was the need for hapū and iwi to be involved, and we’re pleased to see some strengthening. It’s not all the way we would’ve liked but it is some strengthening for participation in the bill.

We’ve also heard that there are real risks even though we’ve got some controls. There are still risks if there are multiple uses in that area, and these risks don’t magically disappear when we limit some things, because if we’ve got large boats that are seeking to operate in the area, we have risks to big bits of kit—to our wind turbines. We’re not wholeheartedly pleased with where this has got to, but there are definitely benefits there.

The most important issue, I think, was that we do need to make sure that iwi and hapū are more involved in what happens in the marine environment. This was the most prominent issue that came up through submissions, and I’m not convinced that we have got there yet with this bill. I think we will need to improve it when we take Government in 2026, but at least this gives us something to work on. As my colleague from Labour talked about, this is something that we have worked on collectively across the House through the previous Government to this Government, and we will keep working on it in the next Government as well.

We have a focus to make sure not only that we build the renewables we need but that we involve the communities that are affected in those buildings. And this is where we take issue with fast track, because what fast track is doing is cutting out the community voices, cutting out iwi and hapū voices, and that is problematic. That is why we have taken a position on fast track that will ensure that we revoke those consents that we don’t deem consistent with community interest, with our climate interest.

I also want to address the natural and built environment legislation, the fast track legislation, the enabling legislation, not just the offshore renewables legislation but the lack of legislation for renewables onshore as well, because we had a promise from this Government that by June 2023, 2024, we would have a national policy statement for renewable electricity generation. That still has not been delivered. We had a promise that we would have national environmental standards. That still has not been delivered.

So while it is good to get this bit of legislation through, we’re seeing a real problem with the rest of the renewables transition, the faster, quicker, easier renewables transition, which is onshore, and we don’t have the legislation that was promised back last year. We are still waiting, and I particularly take issue with this because in my pre-parliamentary days I have worked on renewables. There was the Board of Inquiry Report into the Proposed National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation in 2010. It was gazetted and implemented in 2011. Since then, numerous reviews of the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation have made it really clear that it made no impact whatsoever in enabling renewable electricity generation through the Resource Management Act. It’s made no difference whatsoever.

There have been attempts to replace it because it was, I believe, the first national policy statement. There have been attempts to replace it, but they have not been completed, and this is what we’re seeing here—we’ve got one little bit of legislation that has taken quite some time beyond December 2024, when it was going to be delivered, and now we still do not have the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation. We’re still waiting.

This is really problematic because we’ve been told that this Government wants to double or triple renewable electricity generation, yet it can’t deliver on time the legislation we need to meet that target. That’s the problem. We’ve got to get it right. If only this Government did not rush legislation and get it wrong so often. If the Government took the time to do the work instead of trying to fast-track things and causing social disruption, they could choose to do things right and deliver what they promised. Unfortunately, they failed to deliver far too often.

We will support this bill. We’re pleased that it has got here finally—finally. But we also want to see the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation delivered, with national environmental standards, so that we can fast-track onshore wind and solar, so that we can build the renewable nation that we could be if we had a Government that knew what it was doing.

This is really, really important because at the moment, the $10 billion per annum of fossil fuels we import costs us, costs everybody, costs every household heavily, in a cost of living crisis. And that that $10 billion we can wipe off the slate by generating our own electricity here, by powering our households, our industry, our businesses, our mobility with the electrons we generate onshore and offshore here in Aotearoa.

So we will support this bill but we do not feel as though all our concerns have been addressed. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. On a day when Wellington reminds us how much power the wind has, it’s fitting that we advance this bill to turn energy into jobs, investment, and reliable electricity for New Zealanders. ACT supports this bill wholeheartedly at its second reading. The select committee’s work has produced a clearer, faster investor-grade regime, putting flexibility first, commercial second—with transparent decisions, obligations to decommission, of course, and engagement with iwi and hapū being important too, and the ability to manage the safety and coexistence at sea of different types of activities.

This bill fixes what matters. It provides certainty over ambiguity, pace over drift, and, above all, accountability over open-ended process. This bill’s not about slogans; it’s about unlocking billions in private capital and safeguarding the marine environment and other users. Over the mid to long term, offshore renewables, especially offshore wind, will complement hydro, geothermal, solar, and the growing contribution from utility scale or rooftop solar. Together, these resources can lift supply, they can sharpen competition, and they help keep power affordable for Kiwi households and businesses. But we should also be honest. Variable renewables actually need a reliable, firm supply so that they can do their part of the heavy lifting. For the foreseeable future, not just as a temporary measure, New Zealand will need flexible thermal generation powered by gas and, yes, of course, that reliable trusty black nugget, coal. We need to keep the lights on when the wind is low and the sun doesn’t shine, or maybe the rain doesn’t show up either, and that’s why we’ll always need thermal. In fact, proponents of renewable projects have told me—and I know they will have told other members of this House and the Government—that without reliable thermal firming, the type of renewable energy projects like offshore wind simply won’t get off the ground, because those developers cannot sell offshore wind or any other type of renewable to their customers unless they have an insurance policy in thermal firming to back it up.

Now, the committee engaged seriously with the challenge of competing uses in the marine environment. Investors simply won’t commit to a project if they feel that their need to use a space can be undermined by somebody else coming along and getting a consent after they’ve already started planning. It’s important that we make space for different types of activities, and that’s why this bill does provide space for offshore wind projects but also recognises that we do need to get those critical minerals from places like the seabed in offshore Taranaki that the former speaker from the Green Party was so concerned about. While he proposes you can build wind turbines with sticks and bits of wood, I tell you what: the wind turbines coming out of North America, Europe, and China right now are made out of critical minerals; they’re made out of epoxy resins made from oil and gas and coal. You cannot deliver renewable energy without the minerals that go into manufacturing these components. Look, just to reflect back on something we often hear from the Greens, educate yourself greenies, because you can’t have one without the other.

Now, we should also learn from Australia, particularly our cousins in Victoria, where declared areas for offshore renewables and transparent milestones give developers clarity and give communities confidence about what’s coming next. New Zealand must be at least as bankable as our neighbours in Australia because developers will judge whether to invest in Australia, if it’s easier, or New Zealand, if it’s easier. They certainly won’t come and invest in New Zealand if we make the playing field too hard to play on.

Passing the bill is necessary but not sufficient, and the previous speaker from the Green Party alluded to the fact that this Government is getting on with fixing what matters in terms of a National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Generation and for electricity networks. We’ve consulted on those in the past few months—

You promised it in June last year. Where the hell is it?

—and I would have expected that member to know that and, if he was really involved, to actually have made a submission on what should be in those national policy statements. I understand that the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, Chris Bishop, will have more to say about the results of that consultation in the near future, and I’m sure it will address many of the concerns that the Green Party member had, no matter how misinformed. As I said, passing the bill is necessary, but it’s not sufficient. The next action, consistent with my delegation from the Minister Responsible for RMA Reform, is to deliver an environmental management framework for offshore wind that provides a clear and reasonable consenting pathway across the coastal and marine area. Applicants need to know upfront what standards apply, how environmental effects will be managed—for example, on marine mammals, on the sea floor—and how long decisions will take. If we get that right, we move from torque to turbines, from potential to actual projects.

We also need smart coordination on the shore side. I do agree with that member from the Green Party that transmission planning and making sure we’ve got the resource management system coordinated is really important so that we keep pace with new generation as it comes on stream; ports capable of handling the large components, the wind turbines, the towers and the bases; and training pathways so that New Zealanders can take the jobs this industry creates. The wishful thinking of the Labour Party, since announcing a just transition and cancelling an entire industry like offshore oil and gas exploration, is like giving people a pink slip and a pat on the head and a “wish you well”. This Government does not agree with that approach. We believe in making sure that people have the skills and are supported to take a role in this industry.

When consenting, when infrastructure, and when skills and jobs align, costs fall, timelines shorten, and confidence grows. That is what this Government is all about. That is what fixing what matters looks like—targeted reforms that reduce uncertainty, that reward progress, protect the environment, and make private investment do the heavy lifting. That’s why ACT is trusted with important work streams in this Government. We focus on outcomes—

Ha, ha!

—rules that are clear—from the giggling Gertie over there—decisions that are timely, and responsibilities that are enforced. That’s what this Government is doing. That’s what ACT’s role in this Government is to do, again, through the resource management reforms that complement offshore wind.

So, on this very windy Wellington day, let’s harness what we’ve already got. Let’s pass the bill. Let’s deliver the environmental framework next and show that New Zealand can welcome offshore renewables on the same terms and conditions as Victoria, Australia, Europe, and the United States. ACT supports this bill. Let’s fix what matters and secure reliable energy. Let’s get on with it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill in its second reading. As the previous speaker has alluded to, we’re not having a lack of wind across the country today, but probably the wind that we are all experiencing across the country is something that we don’t want to see at the levels they are at the moment.

The previous speaker also spoke about how this bill can create jobs and investment, and another important part is around energy security. I do want to highlight the select committee, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, that’s chaired by Andy Foster, and the work that they’ve done on the bill. I had the opportunity in the first reading to take our first reading speech on this, as well, and there has been a number of changes to the bill by way of amendments. I’m sure that there will be further amendments through the committee of the whole House stage, but it’s good to see the work that’s been done from the chair and the committee members.

Just as I alluded to in that first reading speech, a number of us—I guess it’s almost all of us in this House, at some point in time—get to see the opportunities across the country. I’ve had the opportunity to go to Taranaki and talk to some of these companies that are looking at setting up these wind turbines. I also had the opportunity this year to travel to Taiwan, where they’ve actually got some of these already up and running. Obviously, seeing these structures and how big they are, you actually get a presence of the size of these turbines that we’re talking about and the planning that needs to go into them. It’s not just the rules and the regulatory regime that needs to be set up but the logistics of setting one of these up in different ports. I know they were talking to me about the construction sites—how they would actually even piece them all together was quite a puzzle.

The fast-track bill: I do want to speak about that, as we hear often in the House about the fast-track bill and, at the moment, I think there’s 22 renewable projects in the fast-track bill. Some of them are the hydro opportunities, some of them are solar, but some of them are the wind opportunities. It is disappointing, as we’ve gone through fast track, that the Opposition parties have not realised the potential to actually get some runs on the board, especially in the renewable space. We often hear—

There are already dozens of consents.

Now we’re hearing from the other side that some of these things are consented, but we’re actually trying to create certainty, and when we come to renewable energy, you would think that, across the House, we could come to a bipartisan situation where we go, “Yes, we can see the potential here”, and fast-track and actually take away the red tape and the rules around this stuff, and actually get some runs on the board. So it’s great to see that these projects are included, and, actually, let’s see some of these getting developed.

Through this bill, we see that it’s just a two-stage permitting regime. It’s the feasibility first—we hear, also on my site visit and just discussing with these potential companies that they need to have the feasibility opportunity, and then going into some commercial permits after that. So that, to me, is very, very sensible. I do just really want to say how important it is to see these projects now and developed. I think, across the House, we should just be celebrating the fact that we’re actually getting some of this work done. The bill does see that this will enhance the clarity around the legislation. It does give some flexibility—and again, because it’s a pretty new concept here in New Zealand, we’re going to have to have some flexibility, some understanding, as we get these under way.

But, importantly, we need investor confidence, and I think the previous speaker again touched on that with the oil and gas ban. We don’t want to see people rising in this House saying, “Hey, maybe through fast track this will be consented, but we’re actually going to have another look and maybe we’re going to decline it further down the track.” That isn’t going to give confidence to renewable energy, just as in other sectors when people say things like : “Oh, maybe further down the track, we’ll really look at this and decline things.” That won’t give confidence to investors to come here and invest.

I do highlight, and I think we have heard across the House, the competing interests, and there are obviously things like seabed mining and wanting to use the same kind of areas as the offshore wind. I think that’s an important issue to discuss. I think you could look at it something like spatial planning; in the Resource Management Act, we look at spatial planning on the land, and maybe here we need spatial planning in the sea, so it’s that same kind of concept.

Another really important part, as well, is the decommissioning of this infrastructure. As great as it will be to get the infrastructure in, there will be a time and a place to actually have these decommissioned, and to have a plan in place for that. So this is about futureproofing energy security and infrastructure—and on that, I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this legislation and in the spirit of the cross-party comity which has gripped the House in supporting the passage of this bill. I’ll highlight one thing from each previous speaker that I do agree with, starting with the member Deborah Russell, when she pointed out that it was good to see the Government continue the framework that was set up by the previous Labour Government. I say “Labour Government” deliberately, because sometimes speakers across the House call it a Labour-Green Government, but, actually, there has never been a Labour-Green Government. The first term of the Labour Government was a New Zealand First coalition Government, with confidence and supply from the Green Party. The second term of the Labour Government was a Labour majority Government with a cooperation agreement with the Green Party—

Are you trying to distance yourself?

No, it’s not to distance ourselves; it’s just to factually outline the things that have happened.

Then there was the contribution from the member Scott Willis. Of course, like the Government members, I have to say I agree with everything that Willis says.

Oh!

I agree with everything that the Willis on our side says.

The member Simon Court said that we should look to Australia for our energy policy and our wider policy settings. I do agree with aspects of what he said. Australia has set a very aggressive and impressive emissions reduction target of 62 percent to 70 percent. If you contrast that with New Zealand’s, of 51 percent to 55 percent by 2035, I do think there are things we can learn from them in that regard. The member Simon Court also said that ACT exercised disproportionate influence in this Government and was trusted with important jobs, and we certainly agree with them in that regard; they’ve definitely exercised disproportionate influence. If you look at the things like the Regulatory Standards Bill, if you look at the Treaty principles bill, if you look at charter schools—if you look at all sorts of legislation—we definitely agree with him that ACT has definitely been a powerful and driving influence on this Government. We agree with him in that regard.

ACT and New Zealand First

ACT and New Zealand First—yes, definitely. I’ll turn to the contribution by the member Jamie Arbuckle, because he said that it was important to have a security of energy policy and to ensure a stable transition between different energy policies across different types of Government

Look, that’s why we’ve called on them to not reverse the oil and gas ban, because one of the things we need to do is give confidence to people who want to invest in New Zealand. I do believe we are giving them confidence in the House today, because the House is sending a very strong signal that you should invest in offshore renewables and that you should invest in renewable energy policy, because that is something that every single political party in this House does agree on. The message is: invest in renewables.

What we don’t want the Government parties to do is give false hope to people who might want to invest in the sunset oil and gas industries, because that is something that we, in the Opposition, have taken a united stance on in saying, ”No more investments in that regard.” In that regard, we do want to give policy certainty, and the policy certainty we do want to give is partly being granted through this bill, is for investors to come to New Zealand, invest in offshore renewable energy, and invest in renewable energy in general, and not to invest in the declining sunset fossil gas industry, because that’s not something that’s going to be continued and supported across the next Government.

While we do support this legislation, we do feel that this is one step forward and 10 steps back in the context of the wider energy policy taken by this Government. There have certainly been some positive initiatives, like this one, like the wood and biogas energy strategy that was announced, either yesterday or a couple of days ago, but that has to be contrasted with the wider cuts and what has been taken away in terms of clean energy policy. One of the things that they took away when they first came into office was the decarbonising industry fund, which was a really important component. They took away clean energy subsidies, which was also another part of the transition to a clean energy policy. While we do welcome this as one step forward, we do decry the 10 steps backwards that this Government has taken on energy policy.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Speaker. This bill delivers on our Government’s commitments to put a regulatory regime in place for offshore renewable energy, as part of this Government’s Electrifying New Zealand plan. If you let me just provide a little bit of an update: obviously, this morning, the country has seen a significant impact on our electricity network, in particular at the top of the South Island, with the top of the South Island and the West Coast losing power. I’m glad to report—Madam Speaker, you may be interested in this—that Reefton is now back on, and all substations are also back on across the top of the South and the West Coast. I want to recognise those staff who are out there in these conditions, providing repairs to our network, and acknowledge their work.

This bill today is not merely administrative; it is a measure to unlock a significant new source of clean power for our economy. Offshore renewable energy has the potential to help grow our economy, powered by clean energy, and reach New Zealand’s target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. International developers are exploring offshore wind projects in New Zealand, and this bill will give them greater certainty to invest, as well as allow them and the Government to select the developments that best meet our national interests. The bill also enables risks to the Crown and the public from offshore renewable energy, such as decommissioning of infrastructure, to be appropriately managed.

I want to use the time that I’ve got to run through a few of the key features of the bill and feedback that we have received during the select committee process. The bill introduces a requirement for all forms of commercial offshore renewable energy infrastructure to obtain two permits: a feasibility permit and a commercial permit. The feasibility permit grants the holder exclusive rights for a specified site for a defined period. This exclusivity is vital. It provides a secure window for developers to undertake the complexity and costly feasibility studies and apply for the necessary environmental consents. It does this by giving the holder the exclusive ability to apply for an offshore renewable energy commercial permit, as well as the right to apply for relevant environmental resource or marine permits in that area. Feasibility permit applications will be assessed on a comparative basis and awarded to the projects that are most likely to deliver benefits to New Zealand. Secondly, a commercial permit must be obtained before construction begins. This permit provides assurance that the project is ready to progress to construction, and that process incorporates the necessary function that limits the ability for developers to land bank certain areas or to impede other developments. Permits will have a use-it-or-lose-it provision, meaning that if a project fails to start or progress, the area can be made available to other developers. I think that’s pretty sensible.

The bill requires all permit holders and owners of related transmission infrastructure to decommission their offshore renewable energy infrastructure at the end of their life. The bill also requires financial security arrangements to be put in place and maintained to cover the cost to the Crown in the event that the permit holders or infrastructure owners fail to meet their obligations to decommission. This is, of course, as we will all know, consistent with the standard practice internationally. New Zealand implemented similar mechanisms for oil and gas in 2021 through amendments to the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

Other protections in the bill, of course, include the ability to have safety zones to protect the infrastructure and people from intentional or accidental harm. The bill enables safety zones of up to 500 metres to be established around offshore renewable generation infrastructure and substations, and this will prohibit unauthorised people or vessels from entering or undertaking certain activity in that area. The bill enables the administration, monitoring, and enforcement of this regime, and it is intended that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment undertake that role.

The bill empowers enforcement officers and safety zone officers to undertake a wide range of compliance and enforcement activities. The bill also includes a range of offenses and penalties for breaches of the regime, from $3,000 to $10 million in fines, through permit revocation or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. Significant fines and penalties were considered necessary in certain instances to provide an effective deterrent, given the financial capability likely to permit holders. The bill includes regulation-making powers to set out procedure on implementation matters, such as additional matters that the Minister must have regard to when determining whether to grant a permit and the provision of information. The powers include the ability to set fees, levies, and to recover the costs to the regulator.

Shortly after the bill is passed, we intend to introduce feasibility-permit and cost-recovery regulations so that the regime is operational as soon as practical. This bill was transferred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee in December last year. The committee received 71 written submissions and 21 oral submissions. I want to thank those who submitted for their interest and their constructive contributions. I also want to thank my parliamentary colleagues, many of which are here today, for their help and consideration in these matters. The committee recommended changes: greater flexibility for determining financial securities regarding decommissioning, removing the cap on the total duration of commercial permit, and, of course, defining the type of projects that are not covered by the legislation, such as research and demonstration projects. These changes will improve the workability of the bill and increase certainty for developers.

A key recommendation from the select committee concerned the issue of competition for space between offshore renewable energy and seabed mining. To provide necessary investment certainty for both sectors, Cabinet has agreed to an amendment that will allow the Government to use a new secondary legislation instrument to designate specific marine space where permits for offshore renewable projects can be invited. This action would occur while a pause remains granted for new seabed mining permits, under the Crown Minerals Act, in the designated area. This measure will create clear pathways for development, ensuring that our offshore wind potential can be realised without undue regulatory friction. The Amendment Paper, which is currently being drafted, will be debated during the committee of the whole House phase.

We have covered the main features of this bill, and I want to conclude by refocusing the House on the true opportunities that this bill unlocks. This bill does more than set up a regime for offshore renewable energy; it creates an economy that is going to be powered by clean energy. It is a catalyst for high-value job creation across the country, particularly in our regions. The billions of dollars in private investment that this framework attracts will translate directly to demand for engineers, specialised marine technicians, and other high-value jobs.

By providing a clear, robust, and certain regulatory foundation, this bill guarantees that New Zealand is ready to capture this massive economic opportunity. With that, I therefore commend this bill to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As I rise to take a call on this piece of legislation, I reflect on how this House is often slow and often is playing catch up. I’m not targeting anyone in this, because I think successive Governments have dropped the ball or haven’t actually been ahead of the ball. And so we’re here and we support this legislation, but it’s probably something we should have been considering 20 years ago. It’s probably something we should have been considering at the start of the new millennium in terms of what we need to be doing to ensure that we burn no more fossil fuels, that we stop extracting those from the earth, that we find ways to ensure that we meet our Paris climate targets to make sure that we’re doing what’s right for future generations so we can look them in the eyes and say, “We did what was right for you.” But we didn’t, and that’s on all of us in previous Governments to consider. But we’re here and we’re making some movements, and it is the right thing.

As I look and read parts of the legislation, and obviously the impact it has specifically for us who are in Taranaki—it impacts our people, it impacts our environment, and it also impacts our climate. As we went through the process in previous years around looking at decarbonisation, as we worked on the process around looking at Taranaki 2050 and what it could be—a future beyond oil and gas—this definitely has been front and centre in terms of offshore renewable wind or renewable energy and what it could be and what it should be, and how we get the regulations right.

I just have a few comments to make, because we’re happy to support it and move on. But I just reflect on the fact that there are, as was said by my colleague the Hon Deborah Russell earlier, several organisations and businesses that have been working on business cases and on studies on what this could be in terms of renewable wind offshore. Of course, we’ve had BlueFloat who were there, who were in the mix and have pulled out, have moved on, because of the challenges of getting the regime and getting the settings right. Because, obviously, as a business case, you need certainty to make sure that your business case stacks up. But we also have others that are hanging around. We also have Wind Quarry Zealandia—I think they’re called—who I remember meeting with a number of years ago, who had been looking at the possibility of work off the coast of Taranaki. Also, the Taranaki Offshore Partnership, which brings in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, who are still looking at what could be done.

So this piece of legislation, as it makes its way through this House, is part of setting out and laying out certainty, not only for the ocean floor but also for the marine life, for—like I say—the people, the workers, and the economy of Taranaki and of New Zealand, and, as has been said by many people this morning, the fact is that we are in a position where we need to invest heavily in what should be offshore—and any form of—renewable energy to make our country not only more affordable but the greenest country in the world.

My other point I want to make is around decommissioning. I made sure I flicked through and tried to understand what this legislation was doing around decommissioning, because that has been a huge bone of contention for us in Taranaki, in terms of the Tūī Area oil fields back several years ago. But it also has been an issue for this Parliament, or for the Government of the time. It was just under $450 million of taxpayers’ money that was spent in terms of the decommissioning. Tamarind had abandoned the field and had gone back to their home overseas, and it left the uncertainty and the potential environmental disaster of what could have been if the Government of the day didn’t step in, didn’t front up with the money, with taxpayers’ money, for the decommissioning process to ensure it was sealed correctly, to ensure there were no potential environmental issues. We don’t want that to happen again, because we know that the purse strings in the Treasury are tight. We know that we need to be investing money in clean energy, into things like health, into homes, into making sure that we have good jobs. So when the Government had to spend $450 million because a private firm had just abandoned and gone off back home across the ocean, then we need to make sure that doesn’t happen again.

So looking at what this legislation does: there are obligations regarding decommissioning and financial security to ensure the permit holders and owners of those reflected places do the decommissioning and are liable for it, which we need to make sure. And during the committee stage, I’m sure we’ll be asking a lot of questions to make sure we get that right because we don’t want another Tūī oil field debacle. We don’t want another rookie business riding into New Zealand, doing their thing, abandoning, and then the Government and us taxpayers having to foot the bill.

The other one, just finally, is around the purchasing of permits and what that looks like. We need to reflect on that, because we don’t want this legislation to enable someone to be able to buy a patch of ocean floor, hold on to it—you know, invest not in infrastructure, not in building any wind turbines, but sitting on it—to be able to sell in the future and to make a profit, and nothing to actually be done. So we need to make sure, in terms of how that looks when it comes to offshore renewable energy, that we get that right.

Finally, I just want to mention the benefits of offshore renewable energy. Looking around the world, I think there’s a real challenge because of fast track and because of seabed mining and the uncertainty that creates. It’s dangerous and it’s potentially a huge issue for us in Taranaki, but more than that, for our environment, for our ocean floor, but also for our marine life and what is there. I’ve looked around the world at several offshore wind farms and, in fact, where they actually enhance the ecosystem of an ocean bed, where there’s actually artificial reefs. And there’s been even—I forget what they call it, but it’s padding, that when they’re drilling the holes to put the wind turbines in, they have cushions around to protect the different sea life from the vibrations, and what it actually does in terms of the regeneration and the bringing back to life of what is there and what should have been there.

I think we need to take this into the committee stage and ask some serious questions to make sure that it is fit for purpose, to make sure the decommissioning regime is set up to protect us as taxpayers, but also to protect the environment and to protect our workers. We support this legislation, and we look forward to it heading into the committee stage.

Well, this is a good bill, but you wouldn’t get that, necessarily, from listening to the speech of the previous member, Glen Bennett. He brought up so many “if”, “but”, and “what” questions, which made you question whether this is a good bill.

But it is a good bill and it’s a good bill for Taranaki, I say to the MP from Taranaki, and it’s a good bill for New Zealand. This is a bill that’s about saying yes—yes to jobs, yes to economic growth, yes to foreign investment, yes to energy security, and yes to meeting our climate commitments.

It’s been a pleasure to be part of this bill as a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. We had a lot of submissions on this. What was really fantastic was seeing the number of foreign investors that were coming to the table and saying, “Here’s what we need to unleash this sector in New Zealand.” I’m really impressed and proud of the fact that there is a lot of foreign investment that wishes to come to New Zealand, invest in regions like the great Taranaki region, and power this sector up for the future. But there are a number of things that we made in select committee based on the feedback that we had from these foreign investors.

We’ve heard it today—that these foreign investors need certainty and they need to make sure that the economics can work because this is a tough sector to actually make viable for commercial businesses in terms of setting up the infrastructure, setting up the pipeline that’s required to connect to the grid, and then making sure that the commercials actually work. So we did make a number of changes to the bill around the feasibility permits: changing the permitting regime; making sure that the decommissioning obligations were clarified, including being clear about what infrastructure is excluded as part of the feasibility and commission regime; and also dealing with the competing offshore renewable energy applications and how that was to be addressed.

There is, I think, substantial opportunity for New Zealand in this area. I’m looking forward to getting this bill passed as quickly as possible. We know that there are going to be some amendments in the committee stage that deal with the new secondary legislation instrument, and the Minister Simon Watts has outlined that today. So this is a great day for energy security, jobs, the economy, and I commend this bill to the House.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the House to consider the second reading of the Mental Health Bill, if the House concludes consideration of the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill before 1pm today. I note the Opposition spokesperson on mental health will be here to consider that seeking leave.

You’re seeking leave. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. On a day that Tāwhirimātea’s reminding us of his strength and power, I find myself speaking to the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. I had the privilege of attending a hui in Taranaki about three or four years ago, along with the then Minister the Hon Megan Woods, who met with iwi about this very issue.

I wanted to let some of the members opposite, whose characterisation of our position on this side of the House is not entirely accurate, know that we were early starters on this issue and it’s taken a long while for this current Government to get to this date. It was already in train when we were in Government. I can tell the member Mr Court, perhaps as he casts his eyes towards Australia, he can wave the Taranaki workforce goodbye, because, in that time, that’s what’s happened. So we definitely need to do this.

Taranaki iwi want to be active participants in this issue. My advice to any overseas investor that wants to come here is that you beat a path to all stakeholders in Taranaki and make sure that those relationships are strong and that they are active in allowing that investment to move forward. Failure to do so would be a mistake, and, actually, it should not be a tick-box exercise through this legislation. So we will be looking closely at it at the committee of the whole House stage to make sure that we have the best piece of legislation that we can have. There are many communities who will be relying on us getting this right. So that’s my brief contribution to this bill.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much. It’s great to rise in support of the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. It’s certainly good news for my home province of Taranaki—South Taranaki, to be more specific. It’s also good news for the guardians of the New Zealand super fund, which, of course, have in their guardianship over $85 billion. Of course, the super fund is looking at an investment in offshore wind farms, which is well exercised and well under way, as the previous speaker said, with the Copenhagen infrastructure partners. That will pursue the development of significant large-scale offshore wind farms in the South Taranaki Bight.

The guardians of the New Zealand super fund are very excited about this, and they will be pleased that this is progressing through select committee. Incidentally, the guardians of the super fund have also announced that they are looking at other investment opportunities, of course, particularly in infrastructure and particularly pertaining to roads. But I digress. As others have said, this gives greater certainty for developers to invest in offshore renewable energy developments. It’s unlocking that offshore investment, which is fantastic. It also manages the risks to the Crown and the public from offshore renewable energy developments.

So, look, the National Party are committed to this as part of our Electrify New Zealand, which, of course, is all about the goal of doubling renewable energy generation by 2050—we are now delivering. New Zealand has not currently got a regulatory regime for offshore renewable energy, and so we are progressing this legislation to fix that and to enable this new form of energy generation. Again, establishing this regime is an important step to giving those investors the confidence needed—the huge billions of dollars’ worth of confidence—to construct such assets to help New Zealand’s increasingly electrified economy.

Of course, despite what the Opposition may tell you on the black and white tiles, we are committed—National’s committed, this Government is committed—to meeting New Zealand’s long-term energy needs, hence why you’re hearing a lot about the energy sector coming from this Government. That includes transitioning to net zero carbon emissions by 2050. I commend the bill.

I’m really pleased that the House had the opportunity to hear from my colleague the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe to correct the record, really, that this is a piece of work that Labour started because of our commitment to unlocking the potential for renewables, and it has been picked up by this Government, which we are really happy about.

I won’t repeat all the comments made by previous members—I think we’ve got the message loud and clear that this is a pretty good bill—apart from to put into context the importance of the Taranaki wind farm developments, because what it will do with that offshore wind project is generate up to 1 gigawatt of electricity, and that’s equal to 1 billion watts. So what that means is that it’s equal to some of our largest hydro stations and more than eight Harapaki Wind Farms combined. The developers have said that it is really good in terms of bringing confidence back into the sector. So what matters for Taranaki matters for the rest of the country. It means keeping the lights on in Auckland. It will be jobs and growth in regional New Zealand. As has been said, it will help meet our net zero climate goals—although we do have some cynicism about that, given everything else that’s going on.

I think it is important to note, also, the parts of the legislation, and the regime in particular, that Labour will be watching really closely to ensure that this can do what it says on the tin. That is around clarifying how maritime space conflicts will be managed in terms of mining and aquaculture; it’s about strengthening environmental compliance obligations under exclusive economic zone and Resource Management Act frameworks; and as my colleague the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe has said, enhancing Treaty of Waitangi recognition and Māori engagement. That is going to be critical. We will be keeping a close eye on that, given that sometimes we see one side of the ledger enhanced and enabled under Christopher Luxon’s Government without the surrounding protections and safeguards to ensure that the transitions can happen.

We’re also going to ensure that there should be ministerial oversight or guidance for setting decommissioning and financial security requirements, and we want to see improved information requirements and transparency for permit applications and ownership changes. So a lot of that stuff is the devil in the detail of the regime. They are caveats.

However, as we have heard today in the House, it’s a good piece of work, started by Labour, picked up by this Government, and we do support what is happening in the House today. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m very pleased to stand in support of this bill, as everybody else around the House has, as well. I just thought I’d mention it’s rather ironic, with all the wind we have outside at the moment, that a lot of the turbines would not actually be able to operate because they turn off at 90 kilometres an hour or thereabouts, and I think there’s been some wind speeds in excess of 200 kilometres now in the South Island today. So it shows you how excessive the wind actually is.

This, as has already been spoken to, is very important for Taranaki, and I’ve got to support what Adrian Rurawhe has actually said over the engagement with Māori. It’s critically important that, at the earliest possible moment, proposals such as these start with conversations with iwi. It’s a strong start and it’s one that I strongly encourage, as well.

The actual size of this, as the member has just spoken—it’s talked up to maybe even up to 2 gigawatts of generation capability here. Now, if we think about the current stored generating capacity of all the wind turbines in New Zealand at the moment just being north of 1 gigawatt, this one farm can be actually immense—huge, in fact. One of the challenges of it is, actually, when you bring that amount of electricity into the supply stream, what effect that actually has. We spoke about the fact that one of the potential perverse outcomes of Lake Onslow was actually nullifying the potential interests of having other electricity generation occur. Well, this wind farm opportunity potentially has an effect similar to that, in some ways, in itself.

The size of these farms is immense. We spoke about the fact that one of these generators—I think it was Jamie Arbuckle who mentioned that he viewed it overseas in Taiwan. Well, in some of the proposals that have been put forward, the size of the tower of one generator is similar to the size of the Sky Tower. They are immense structures. One of these wind turbine generators is potentially up to three times bigger than the land wind generators. That’s how big these structures are. The distance between these wind generators can be up to 2 kilometres apart. That’s how big the actual span of each of the blade’s diameters are, and for them not to be disturbing each other with the wind flow, etc.

The South Taranaki Bight is a very attractive area, not just because of the world-class wind that they have there but also the immense amount of area with low draft or low depth of water. They need to install the pile-driven turbines in drafts less than 60 metres deep, and the South Taranaki Bight happens to have an immense amount of area. It’s recently been established that you can easily have gigawatts of wind generation and the potential of the Trans-Tasman Resources proposal existing together. They can’t exist on top of each other, no, but there’s so much area out there that you can actually coexist with it as well, and that is actually being looked at as we speak.

So with that—I know that I’m standing between everybody’s lunch in this session here—I’m very pleased with the work that’s been done in this year. It has been a long time coming. We’ve mentioned when this work began, and all of the entities that are looking at these offshore wind proposals have been waiting for this for some time. We’ve got a number of parts still to go within the House here with the committee of the whole House and the third reading, and I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. This is a five-minute Te Pāti Māori call.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. My colleagues Scott Willis and Francisco Hernandez have spoken on why the Greens are supporting this bill. I also want to bring additional perspectives to this as well, which is why I sought this particular call. The Greens understand the importance of offshore renewable energy, and I think, as our energy spokesperson, Scott Willis, has said, when we’re looking at the future of energy generation, this is something that is also in line with our obligations under the Paris Agreement and what is supposed to be our emissions reduction plan.

In terms of offshore renewable energy, I want to mention two additional aspects of that. While, again, in the bill, there are lots of really good operational aspects, particularly around specific requirements for consultation with Māori groups, there are additional things I want to mention in the broader context of offshore renewable energy. One of them is around the way that offshore renewable energy in Aotearoa is being investigated and also invested in. If you’re looking at South Taranaki in terms of the offshore renewable energy and, particularly, if you’re looking at wind energy, one of the biggest supporters and backers of that is actually the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. When we are looking at the potential, not simply in terms of energy generation but also in terms of our ability to use our own sovereign funds to support domestic entrepreneurship and production of renewable energy, we will be able to see compounding effects that benefit Aotearoa on the whole. I think that is something that really deserves mentioning when we’re looking at the opportunities when it comes to offshore renewable energy.

Again, while this bill in isolation is something that is good and is moving towards a direction of renewable energy, it cannot go without saying that the combined effect of what the Government is doing regarding other bills, including the repeal of the oil and gas ban and also the additional, I guess, subsidisation of offshore oil and gas, is preventing or affecting our overall effort of having a renewable and sustainable energy source here in Aotearoa. I think that needs to be said as well because when we are looking at—to give an analogy—making a muffin, even when most of the ingredients are fine but even if it’s just one component in there that is potentially poisonous, it means that the whole muffin is inedible. That, in some ways, also speaks to the fact that while there are good initiatives that we’re seeing being put through in offshore renewable energy in terms of some of the projects around wind energy by the fast-track legislation, the overall intent of things like fast track and the overall intent of the Government to repeal the oil and gas ban are not moving us in the direction that fulfils our obligations under the Paris Agreement. Again, when we are looking at something like this, we cannot simply look at something in isolation. We also need to look at the broader Government agenda when it comes to energy.

The last thing that I want to touch on more broadly—again, all of the things I’m saying would be things that we are really interested to tease out with the Minister during the committee of the whole House stage—is that energy production and renewable energy is a really important aspect. This has been well articulated by a number of people in the House around this bill. One of the things, about this particular bill that should be part of a bigger patch that is also being looked at is the need for us, under the recommendation of the OECD, to start breaking up some of the gentailers and see how we can actually make the energy that we’re producing affordable for the overall population of Aotearoa. At the same time, what initiatives are we also using, on one hand, to produce renewable energy sources but, on the other hand, to support people to make the right decision to make energy consumption more efficient? The Greens do support this bill, and we have a number of questions that we would like to discuss in the committee stage.

The House stands adjourned until 3 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.34 p.m.

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

Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 4 November.

Yay!

Indeed. That week, the House will consider the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2), the Medicines Amendment Bill, and the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill. Wednesday morning will see extended hours for the consideration of Treaty of Waitangi settlement legislation. On Thursday, there’ll be extended hours for Government business, and, in the afternoon, Mike Davidson MP will deliver his maiden statement, and there’ll be a one-hour special debate on the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on its inquiry into banking competition.

No petitions have been presented to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered five papers.

The 2024-25 annual reports of:

the Broadcasting Standards Authority

New Zealand On Air, and

the Registrar of the Environment Court

the 2025-26 statements of performance expectations for the:

Broadcasting Standards Authority, and

New Zealand On Air.

I present the 2025-2030 Strategic Intentions of the Office of the Ombudsman. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Five select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on:

the petition of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan MP, and

the petition of Sophie Liu

reports of the Environment Committee on:

the briefing on BIOFIN, and

the inquiry into seabed mining in New Zealand

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the review briefing on the 2023-24 annual review of New Zealand Green Investment Finance Limited.

The reports on the briefing, the inquiry, and the review briefing are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of two bills.

Deepfake Digital Harm and Exploitation Bill, introduction, and

Social Media Age-Restricted Users Bill, introduction.

Those bills are set down for first reading.

to the Minister of Internal Affairs

How is the Government ensuring that New Zealand’s firefighters are properly equipped and resourced to safely respond to fires happening across Aotearoa recently?

on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs: I answered a near-identical question at great length yesterday, and I would like to refer the member to those answers. I would also like to give thanks to the work of Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) at this very difficult time, with several areas under a state of emergency with fires and severe weather. Their work is always invaluable and deeply valued by New Zealanders on a day like today.

Are firefighters correct when they say they have to work with equipment that consistently breaks down, with no fleet replacement strategy, and are right now across the country putting their safety at risk protecting our communities from severe weather?

On behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs, I don’t believe that that statement is correct. The Government, in the last two years, has seen FENZ introduce an asset management plan, which had not been put in place—for some reason—between 2017 and 2023, after FENZ was formed from the voluntary and professional wings of New Zealand’s firefighting. The replacement schedule for fire appliances I traversed in detail yesterday, but the Government currently has, I believe, 78 appliances on order. They tend to take 18 to 24 months to deliver, because they’re highly specialised equipment; five of those are aerial. In total, FENZ is spending around $20 million to $25 million each year on upgrading fire appliances.

Is it correct that in the past year, the fire truck compliance servicing provider has done 446 emergency call-outs, more than one a day, due to breakdowns of the ageing fleet?

On behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs, I don’t have verification of that exact figure in front of me, but it may well be true. There are thousands of fire appliances in New Zealand. Of course, if there was to be one call-out for a breakdown each day, then that’s something, perhaps, the member could imagine.

Is it correct that the state of the fire appliances is dire and failing, leaving firefighters stranded on the way to calls, at station, or even at incidents without water while internal firefighting?

On behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs, no, that characterisation is not correct. I’ve been advised that, for example, there has only been one recent breakdown that led to a two-minute delay in getting to a fire—that’s in the past several months, at least. So I think the characterisation of routine breakdowns and danger is simply not sustainable. I do note that due to current industrial negotiations, there appears to be a concerted campaign by some in the fire service, and particularly the New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union, to try and emphasise any incident and present it as being routine when, in fact, that characterisation is not true.

to the Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, and I would particularly like to reference the efforts of our Minister for Children, Karen Chhour, in improving the safety of children in residences. That has come down 14 percent in the last two years. It’s the first time that there has been a reduction of harm to children in State care, as we understand it, in the country’s history. That is really quite an achievement, and a poignant one in the wake of the royal commission, which laid bare the history of brutality that has affected so many people and damaged them for life. This is very good news, and it has come because of a precise and deliberate set of actions by the Minister to improve the quality of staffing, to require staff to wear uniforms, to crack down on contraband—for example, by requiring staff to have clear bags so that they couldn’t smuggle contraband in—and by proactively managing behaviour in the sites. All of this has led to a 14 percent reduction in young people being harmed. That is really fixing what matters and is a good example of what the Labour Party should be thinking about.

Does he stand by his statement “We’re ready to meet with the unions at any time.”; if so, why is Fire and Emergency New Zealand refusing to turn up to scheduled bargaining with the Professional Firefighters Union?

I certainly do stand by that statement, and I understand that within 10 minutes of me answering a question on behalf of another Minister yesterday, the Professional Firefighters Union got back in touch, wanting—

You corrected it—you corrected yourself.

I did. Actually, I was so effective at answering the question, praising these backbone firefighters, that they decided they did want to come back to the table 10 minutes after I answered the question. That’s very effective question answering, I have to say.

Why do Government board members deserve an 80 percent pay rise while teachers get an effective pay cut?

The Government’s intention is that when we have serious large assets—for example, I refer to Pharmac; that is something that spends $2 billion a year, nearly, on medicines for sick New Zealanders. Now, we want to ensure that the governance—the board of that agency—are paid at a rate that is at least almost comparable to what the same directors would get for private sector companies. There’s a real contradiction for the Labour Party here: they want the State to do more, they want more Government agencies to do more stuff—to invest in video games, to start sovereign wealth funds—and yet they don’t want to pay the people directing these proposed entities, or even the current ones, even nearly as much as directors get in the private sector. That had to be rectified. In relation to teachers, in the last three years, there has been a 14.5 percent increase in pay for teachers. That is a lot more than many of the New Zealanders who are paying the taxes, making arrangements today around the strikes to have someone look after their kids—it’s a lot more than they’ve got lately. For that reason, the Government needs to balance the interests of Kiwis. There needs to be a sense of realism and a connection between those who are paying the taxes and those who are receiving money from the taxpayer.

Why do tobacco companies deserve $300 million while nurses are being offered an effective pay cut?

It is simply a mischaracterisation for the Labour Party to say that tobacco companies have been given $300 million. That simply has not happened. What the Government has done is say that if there is a nicotine-based product that is safer, has less impact on people’s health, and has less impact on the health system, then it should be taxed in proportion to the amount of harm done. Now, the Opposition know this, because when they were in Government, they said there should be zero tax on vapes, because they too subscribed to the principle—although the problem is that they don’t know it, because they wouldn’t know a principle if they tripped over one.

Why is he willing to spend $44,000 on a helicopter trip for his Instagram—the equivalent of nine months’ base salary for the firefighters he is offering an effective pay cut to?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, this is the problem. You see, the relationship between New Zealand and Australia is one of the most, if not the most, important relationships between two countries anywhere in the world. That’s why we have a meeting and actually invest in our relationship between the New Zealand Prime Minister and the Australian Prime Minister. But the Labour Party says it was for Instagram. You see, that’s why they think people do politics—for Instagram—and that is the problem with the Labour Party today. That is why they’re over there, and we adults are over here.

Should New Zealand workers, doctors, nurses, teachers, and firefighters accept a pay rise below inflation—yes or no?

The Speaker will tell you that you cannot demand yes or no answers. The simple fact is that this Government is balancing the needs of New Zealanders as patients, as taxpayers, and as public health workers. We have to balance all of these, and the offers that have been put on the table are designed to do that—to bring people together and connect the needs and the means of New Zealanders with the demands and the pressures from union organisers.

How can he complain about doctors, firefighters, nurses, and teachers unions not acting in good faith when he is threatening to limit their ability to strike because they won’t settle for pay rises that don’t even match inflation?

Yesterday, the Prime Minister was asked about this precise matter and said he was not aware that that’s what the Government is doing. So, again, this is misinformation from the Opposition.

Why is he not willing to negotiate with teachers, firefighters, and nurses about fair pay but is willing to negotiate a rates rebate on his $10.5 million mansion?

A couple of things about that: first of all, the Prime Minister is absolutely willing to negotiate with the unions. In fact, the Government has been saying, through the Public Service Commission, that we are prepared to meet and work through the weekend to get a deal to avoid these strikes. The Government is here making the offers, trying to get the Public Service back to work in order for people to be served and we can make a balanced Budget on behalf of New Zealanders for all of our economic future. Now, on the comment about the Prime Minister’s personal capacity and his personal residence, there’s no responsibility for that except to say that there is a tone that if someone’s worked hard all their life and done well, they should be dragged down and they should be embarrassed about their success and having a nice place on Waiheke. Well, actually, on this side of the House, we say that success is a good thing and tall poppy is bad.

I’ll just make the point that bringing members’ personal circumstances into the House has not been encouraged in the past, and there are any number of reasons why that would be the case, certainly not the least of which is that we come here to represent constituents and not necessarily attack each other.

to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

On Tuesday, Stats NZ released the latest monthly trade figures, which cover imports and exports of goods. This data release shows how well New Zealand’s exporters are performing. Seasonally adjusted export values were up 0.9 percent in September, following increases of 7 percent in August and 2.2 percent in July. Taking an annual view, in the year to September export values were up 13.5 percent over the previous year. This, of course, reflects the hard work of Kiwis employed across exporting sectors, which support one in four jobs.

What types of exports have been doing well?

New Zealanders going to Aussie.

Dairy, meat, fruit, and wood together make up over half of New Zealand’s goods exports, and these figures are something to celebrate, even though Willow-Jean Prime seems to disagree. New Zealand has a well-deserved reputation for safe, high-quality food and fibre, and in the year to September, dairy exports were up 23 percent compared to the same period last year. Meat exports were up 18 percent, fruit up 33 percent, and wood up 8 percent. Stats NZ notes that a stand-out performer is kiwifruit, now a $4.5 billion a year industry, up from $2.6 billion just two years ago. That is a powerful example of innovation, productivity, and global demand delivering real value for New Zealand.

Which export markets have seen an increase?

Well, export values have risen across almost all of New Zealand’s overseas markets. In the year to September, goods exports to China increased 15 percent, those to Australia increased 10 percent compared to same period a year ago, and, despite higher tariffs, New Zealand’s goods exports to the United States continue to grow. In the year to September, they were up 8 percent compared to the previous year, with an increase in meat exports being the main driver.

What does this mean for New Zealand’s trade balance?

For the past 30 years, New Zealand has typically recorded an annual goods trade deficit—that is, we import more than we export. This deficit reached its highest levels in 2022 and 2023, peaking at a whopping $17 billion. Since then, it has narrowed considerably. This week’s data shows an annual trade deficit of only $2 billion. That improvement is flowing through to the balance of payments. The current account deficit was a record 9 percent in the year to December 2022. It is now down to 3.7 percent in the year to June 2025, and further improvement is expected in the September quarter, driven by continuing strong growth in exports. It’s always a good day to thank the farmers.

What is the Government doing to support the export industry?

The Government is doing a lot to help that sector, including with a very ambitious trade agenda. Since coming into Government, we have concluded a trade agreement with the Gulf Cooperation Council; concluded, signed, and entered into force a trade agreement with the United Arab Emirates; expedited early entry into force of the agreement with the European Union; and launched formal negotiations with India; and we are pursuing new opportunities across South-east Asia. New Zealand makes things the world wants to buy, and the Government will keep backing hard-working Kiwi exporters.

to the Minister of Education

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

[Does she stand by all of the Government’s statements and actions?]

Yes, within the bounds of my ministerial responsibility.

What? We can’t hear.

Look, there is always a lot of noise going on in the House. I will ask—

If you shut up, you might listen.

Why are you talking while I am? I will ask the Minister to speak more clearly into the microphone but not repeat the answer.

Why is she condemning basic requests for decent pay and working conditions when we lose 50 percent of secondary school teachers in the first five years?

I’m sorry, I missed the second part of that question. Could you say it again?

Why is she condemning basic requests for decent pay and working conditions when we lose 50 percent of high school teachers in the first five years?

The simple answer is we’re not.

Does she stand by her statement, “We have so many brilliant teachers, and when we back them we get results”, and, if so, does she think backing teachers means pitting them and unions against whānau and students?

Well, no. What I have been very clear on is the fact that we have been backing our amazing teachers for the last 18 months with the incredible amount of resource that we have been delivering straight to the front line: the three-quarters of a billion dollars of learning support that they so desperately have been asking for; the pathways to principalship, which we have recently announced; the fact that we are paying their teacher registration fees; the professional learning and development opportunities that we have been giving them over the last 18 months—tens of millions of dollars’ worth. We have been at the table; we have delivered good pay offers. But it’s a shame that one of the unions hasn’t even bothered to take it to their members. If they were at the bargaining table, like the Primary Principals’ Collective Bargaining Union, there would be a good outcome, but they’re not.

Is it backing teachers to have 55 percent—well over the OECD average of 33 percent—reporting that their stress is due to keeping up with curriculum or programme changes, especially when schools are already unable to properly staff existing subjects?

Well, that’s exactly why this week and next week we’ve been holding the Curriculum Roadshow, with hundreds of principals and leaders in venues across the country. [Interruption]

Just a minute. You can’t, on the one hand, complain that you can’t hear what’s being said, and then speak over the Minister answering. We’ll hear the rest of the question in silence.

That’s why we have been holding curriculum roadshows up and down the country this week, with the intent of unpacking the new curriculum, talking about all of the supports—

How’s that going?

—and implementation—

Really well.

—that have been offered to schools and teachers across the country. It has been going really well. We have been completely packed out. In fact, in Auckland we are oversubscribed, because teachers and principals and leaders of curriculum can see the value in turning up to these roadshows. But what I would say to the unions is the fact that they told principals and teachers to boycott the very thing that was going to provide them the supports that they needed to implement the curriculum is a real shame.

Rubbish.

Sorry, are people just perhaps looking for the opportunity to leave early, because they don’t have to. The whip is off—

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

—right up until—I’m speaking—6 o’clock, so there’s no need for any theatrics that might see people asked to leave early.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. We were trying to abide by your request not to speak during the answer of that Minister, but the other side started making noise, so you can expect a little to and fro going on when that occurs, Mr Speaker.

Perhaps I’m a victim of being able to hear better from this ear than I am from that one, or perhaps the volume from this side is louder than it is from over here. Either way, we’ll just conduct ourselves in a much more seemly fashion from this point.

Does she think it is fair to teachers, who work on average 6.5 hours a week more than the OECD teachers’ average and just want to do their best for students, to say they’re pulling a stunt by going on strike?

As I’ve already said, we are backing our teachers by making sure that they have the resources and the supports that they need to implement the new curriculum and to have more supports in the classroom when it comes to learning support. Teachers have been asking us and previous Governments for a really long time to help reduce the workload on them. That’s exactly what we’ve been doing with curriculum reforms, with maths books and textbooks being delivered into classrooms, with three-quarters of a billion dollars’ worth of learning support delivered into classrooms. Not everything is delivered through collective bargaining; sometimes you get a Government who listens to teachers and principals on the front line and who delivers for them in other ways, which is exactly what we have done.

to the Minister of Transport

What announcements has he made about the Bikes in Schools programme?

I was thrilled to announce last week, at Wilford School in Petone, that the Government has made a new $3.5 million funding commitment to ensure the Bikes in Schools programme can go from strength to strength. Bikes in Schools was first funded in 2010. It’s a great programme. It provides opportunities for primary and intermediate school kids to learn the basics of riding a bike safely, and it’s fantastic to see this programme rolling out around the country once again.

What will this new money go towards?

Funding of $3.5 million has been confirmed from the New Zealand Transport Agency, from the national road safety promotion programme. It supports the Bike On New Zealand Charitable Trust and, basically, it builds bike tracks in schools, provides bikes and helmets for students, and it enables kids to learn how to ride a bike safely during the school day, and, of course, outside of school hours. I’m informed that, often, these bike tracks become real community hubs on the weekend.

Will you be teaching them to ride scooters?

What’s that? Teach them how to ride scooters?

No, no, no, no. Carry on with your answer.

This will be a good one.

That’s it. That’s the end of that. Is there another supplementary?

Yes. [Interruption]

Just wait until the House is a bit quiet. Can I just say to the Government side, as much as you might think the Minister needs assistance to answer a question, he doesn’t.

What success has the Bikes in Schools programme had?

This is pretty awesome. Since 2010, more than 400 schools have got on board with Bikes in Schools. Thousands of kids have learnt how to practise safe biking in schools. I do want to thank Paul McArdle and the team at the Bike On New Zealand Charitable Trust. It’s a very successful programme, well loved by communities across the country, and I’m advised that $3.5 million over the next couple of years will enable between 40 and 60 more schools to roll out bike tracks and bikes.

Who will benefit from the Bikes in Schools programme?

Well, it’s tempting to make comments around policy wobbles this week, but what I will say is the most important people who will benefit from the Bikes in Schools programme are our young kids who will learn how to ride a bike safely. There’s also a flow-on benefit to tradies in local communities who go out and do this very important work. Some of it’s small work, but it’s important work, none the less.

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

Does she stand by her 50,000 jobseeker reduction target?

Yes, I absolutely stand by that target. We know it’s challenging, but our goal is to grow the economy and help more Kiwis into work, as we had seen welfare dependency balloon when we came into office. Our Government won’t lower our targets just because they’re challenging. Despite global headwinds, more New Zealanders are moving off benefits and into jobs—over 20,000 last quarter alone. Through stronger case management, training, and practical support, we’re backing Kiwis to become workready, independent, and part of our country’s recovery and growth.

How many more job seekers are there now compared to when she came into office in November 2023?

We have seen an increase in the number of people on the jobseeker benefit, which is what we would expect. The good news is, actually, the unemployment rate has not gone up as high as the Treasury forecast when those guys left office. We’ve seen it at 5.2 percent. It’s higher than we would like, but it is the 30-year average. For every person who loses a job, this side of the House knows it’s challenging. That’s why we’re not sitting on our laurels and we’re doing everything we can to help them.

Is it the case that she is now closer to adding 50,000 job seekers than she is to removing 50,000 job seekers, and, if so, will she resign if the target is not met?

As I’ve said in this House before, 50,000 is an ambitious target and not one that we will shy away from, because we know the enormous difference that work makes. When we came in, the figures were going the wrong way. It was forecast to peak in December. As I said, the unemployment rate actually isn’t as high as was forecast when we came in, despite the challenges we’ve faced. Every single one of those 50,000 makes an enormous difference—to them, their whānau, the community, and our country. That’s why we’re not shying away from the target.

How many of the 249 people who have lost their jobs recently in Tokoroa are now on jobseeker?

I’m really proud of the work that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) is doing on the ground in Tokoroa, and to be part of Project Phoenix. We are looking at supporting those workers immediately. Some have relocated; others have moved into other opportunities in town. I really feel for the families that haven’t lost their jobs just yet but it is coming in the current weeks. I would welcome that member joining Project Phoenix to help the efforts that we’re doing on the ground on behalf of our community to support those who are in that very challenging position of either having lost or, perhaps, losing their jobs in the coming weeks.

What does she say to the South Waikato Mayor Gary Petley, who said the Government “doesn’t give a toss” about regional New Zealand and, “All that Government [crap] they spin—it’s all a smokescreen.”?

I would just say that I’ve been working incredibly productively, not just with the mayor and the council but also the local union, who values the work that I’m doing on the ground in the community. As I say, if he’s really worried about those workers, I’d invite him to join me.

What does she say to Gilbert Sydney, who was made redundant from Kinleith, found a job next door at the plywood plant, only to be made redundant from that job as well, and who said, and I quote, “There’s literally no jobs around, not locally … we literally have to travel like an hour and a half even to find a job.”—what does the Minister say to Gilbert Sydney?

I have met with many of those affected in Tokoroa and I know how challenging it is. What we are doing is making sure that the welfare system is far more proactive than it’s ever been before. We’ve seen a 60 percent increase in the proactive engagements that MSD is having on the ground. Eighty-three thousand people left benefits into jobs in the last year, despite it being challenging, so we are not shying away from the challenge. Eighty-three thousand left a benefit for jobs—83,000. That’s a good number.

to the Minister for Children

What recent data has she seen on findings of harm in State care residences?

I’ve seen the Oranga Tamariki Safety of Children in Care report, which, for the first time ever in New Zealand, showed a decrease in harm within secure residential placements. There has been a 14 percent reduction in findings of harm since 2024. Any harm is unacceptable, but it must be acknowledged that the significant programme of work across the secure residences is seeing positive results. The introduction of standard operating practices, improved recruitment, training and programming, and a refreshed induction process—among many other things—is resulting in improved safety and wellbeing for those in secure residential care.

What other work has been undertaken to improve the safety and wellbeing in residences?

In addition to the recruitment, training, and induction for staff, additional investment in Budget 2025 for professionalisation of the workforce will build on this work and promote enhanced safety. This will ensure we have a confident and capable workforce with the skills necessary to work effectively with young people in secure residences. We have also committed to significant infrastructure upgrades at residences to make sure that they are safe and secure for young people, with this work getting under way before the end of the year. We’ve also invested in leadership training for our team leaders and resident managers, as it is essential that those at the top have the skills and capabilities to lead and to ensure the culture in residences is one of safety, security, and accountability.

What does the data show about children and young people in return-home placements?

We must acknowledge what is working and where there is still room for improvement. The data shows a disproportionately higher number of children and young people living in return- or remain-home placements experienced harm. These are placements where a child is in the legal custody of the chief executive but has either returned to, or remained in, the care of their immediate family—usually parents. Thirteen percent of children in return- or remain-home placements had a finding of harm. This is one of the reasons why I have always said that the ultimate consideration in decision making about the child must be safety.

Why did you cut funding?

While, ideally, every child would be in a safe and loving home with their parents, unfortunately, we know this is not always possible.

Where’s the support?

In these situations, the needs and the best interests of children must always come first, and I’ll continue to advocate for that.

The Hon Willow-Jean Prime. Have you got a question?

Me?

Yes, you’ve been calling your question out most of the afternoon.

What else does the data show about findings of harm of children and young people in State care?

I acknowledge that the latest Safety of Children in Care report shows that in the 12 months to 31 March 2025, there was an increase of 23 children and young people who had a finding of harm compared to the previous year. It is important to note that the majority—over 60 percent—of this harm to children in care was not caused by the person that was responsible for their care. The harm was caused by someone else, be it by another child or a wider family member not responsible for their care, or by an adult not related or known to them. Any harm to a child, whether in care or not in care, is not OK, and, of course, this is something that I’m really concerned about, and that’s the safety of children, and it will remain my top priority as Minister. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge where progress has been made, such as in residences, and to recognise the hard work done by the front-line staff who are dealing with these issues every day.

to the Associate Minister of Housing

What recent announcements has he made on housing?

Earlier this week, I announced Government support of $34 million for the Bisset Road development in Kaikohe, within contractual arrangements, led by Ngāpuhi. This development will help deliver a hundred affordable rental homes in Kaikohe. The investment shows iwi and Crown in mahi tahi—or working together—in Kaikohe, making it the largest community-led affordable housing project in the Far North, home of hardworking MP Grant McCallum. It’s a great example of iwi-Crown partnership in action—Ngāpuhi leading the project, investing in their own resources, and the Government backing them to deliver at scale.

How does this benefit the people of Kaikohe?

Northland—or Te Tai Tokerau—has some of the highest levels of housing need in the country, due to a range of pressures. This investment directly addresses those challenges with a hundred new affordable rentals. All homes will be retained as affordable rentals for at least 25 years, with rents capped at 80 percent of market levels. Ngāpuhi will also provide wraparound Whānau Ora and hauora support for tenants. In addition, over a hundred fulltime-equivalent roles are expected during construction, supporting local jobs and apprentices—like Tai, who I met on Monday, up there on Guy Road in Kaikohe. We’re creating real homes, local jobs, and opportunities that last alongside, with, and for Māori and all New Zealanders.

When will the homes be ready?

Civil works are expected to start in November 2025, with the full development of a hundred homes expected to be completed by mid-2027.

How does this fit in with the Government’s commitment to partnering with iwi to deliver Māori housing?

Since December 2023, $426 million has been approved in three tranches for Māori-led delivery of around a thousand homes. The new homes are a range of papa kāinga housing, owner-occupied housing, and affordable rentals. Projects are focused, for the most part, where housing pressure is the highest, such as Te Tai Tokerau—or Northland; Rotorua; and Te Tairāwhiti, the East Coast, with suitable typologies and addressing shortages for kaumātua, single parents, and young couples. Through partnerships with iwi and Māori housing providers, like Waikato-Tainui, Ngāti Rēhia, and Ngāti Rangi—

Peeni funded them. You funded no houses.

—hundreds of homes are under way, including some of one of the members over there who’s calling out his father-in-law’s brother. Partnering with iwi and Māori organisations will help deliver housing to support stronger whānau and stronger communities, and to ensure that Māori solutions remain central to how we address housing need across Aotearoa New Zealand.

to the Minister of Education

Does she stand by her statement, “it’s so disappointing that they are playing politics, that they are choosing to go on strike”, and will she meet with the predicted over 40,000 striking educators to address their concerns?

Yes, I am very disappointed with the unions, following their choice to strike. They haven’t prioritised bargaining in good faith, and teachers, parents, and students are paying the price. The member has asked a question in a very odd way—of course I can’t meet with 40,000 people. However, I am meeting with members to address their concerns during the Curriculum Roadshow, where we are unpacking the curriculum, explaining the supports, resources, and professional learning and development available, and explaining how they can implement the reforms in their classrooms. These have been the concerns that the unions have raised, and it’s confounding that the unions have advised their members to boycott the very events that their members were calling for. But due to the professionalism of the sector, we’ve had full events with engaged leaders who see the value of the support that we’re providing.

Does she stand by her statement that she has “hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of friends,” and is that more than the 40,000 educators who are striking?

Well, I do stand by that statement, because the member is referring to a question that she asked yesterday about my Curriculum Roadshow. There are hundreds and hundreds of educators up and down the country who are coming to the Curriculum Roadshow and there are hundreds more watching online, and I would advise that member that she would have more friends if she answered her text messages.

Does she stand by her statement that Sir Brian Roche “is trying desperately to negotiate in good faith” when he’s in charge of a Public Service Commission that ran anti-strike attack ads?

Firstly, in relation to Sir Brian Roche, you can see from the emails that were released under the Official Information Act request in the last 48 hours that there is significant frustration on his part when he is trying to negotiate in good faith and get unions to the table. You can see where, of course, in one regard, he has had extraordinary success with the Primary Principals’ Collective Bargaining union, which is a union that was prepared not to go on strike but to turn up to negotiations, to be open and transparent, to put forward what it wanted to bargain on, and to come to a settlement, and the ads that I have seen are not attack ads. They are simply information ads that the public should have the access to information on.

Why does she choose to undermine unions rather than actually listen to their concerns?

I’m not undermining the unions; I’m just pointing out that they’re not acting in good faith. But, in fact, there is one union that is acting in good faith and has settled, and that’s the Primary Principals’ Collective Bargaining union. I would make the point, again, that their membership grows by the day because principals can see that their own unions are not acting in good faith, and they want to settle.

Why did she claim that unions are bullying when it’s educators who have voted to strike?

Those comments that I made this morning about unions who were bullying were in relation to conversations that I have had with teachers and principals who have spoken out in the media with a different view, and who have then had enormous pressure put on them by the union. In fact, that was backed up by a text message from a principal that I received after I made—[Interruption]

No, stop. Start the answer again, and people will listen quietly.

I made those comments in relation to a question that I was asked this morning, when the presenter, Ryan Bridge, made the comment that perhaps principals and teachers weren’t speaking out because they felt like they were bullied, and I agreed with him. That was from a conversation that I’ve had with teachers and principals who have come out in the media with a different perspective on things and who have had enormous pressure put on them by the union. I would also say that that was backed up by a text message from a principal that I received after I made that comment, saying that my comments were so true—and the word “so” had about five “o”s in it.

Will she apologise to the education sector for promising pay rises when she was in Opposition and failing to deliver them now that she’s the Minister?

Well, if the unions were prepared to be at the table—like the Primary Principals’ Collective Bargaining union—and come to a settlement, then they would find that there are pay rises on the table. Unfortunately, one of the unions hasn’t even bothered to put the offer to its members before striking. If the unions were at the table in good faith, they would find that we are there, ready to negotiate.

to the Minister of Health

Do nurses have safe staffing levels; if so, what evidence does he have to demonstrate that?

As I said yesterday, yes. Since coming into office, this Government has added around 2,000 more nurses to the public health system compared to 2023, alongside hundreds of additional doctors. That’s backed by a record additional $16.68 billion of investment in health over three Budgets. I’m advised that patient safety measures, such as in-hospital deaths, surgical site infections, and in-hospital falls, have been stable or improved over the last five years. Another indicator is hospital capacity. While bed numbers have increased by 175 over the past three years, the number of nurses employed has grown by more than 3,000 during that same time period, strengthening the level of care available to patients. Health New Zealand is committed to safe care. That’s why we’re growing the health workforce and holding the system accountable through clear health targets, so patients get the care they need when they need it.

Is it correct that the Care Capacity Demand Management (CCDM) system data, the tool to measure actual patient need presenting in our hospitals, shows that nurses are facing unsafe working conditions?

Well, as the Chief Clinical Officer at Health New Zealand, Richard Sullivan, says, the CCDM system contains moment-in-time operational data and is not a direct proxy for unsafe or safe staffing. As Health New Zealand has said publicly, using this tool in isolation to claim that wards are understaffed and unsafe is misleading, and, actually, there is a range of factors that need to be taken into account, including those factors that I referred to in my primary answer, such as in-hospital deaths, surgical site infections, and in-hospital falls, which have been stable or improved over the last five years, and also, as I said, hospital capacity. While bed numbers have increased by 175 over the past three years, the number of nurses employed has grown by more than 3,000 during that same time period.

Who is correct: the Minister of Health, who said that nurses have safe working conditions, or Jade Power, a registered nurse, who said, “Many nurses work past their shifts unpaid because there is no one to hand over to. Breaks are missed, exhaustion is growing, and compassion fatigue is setting in. It’s unsustainable.”?

Well, I acknowledge the hard work of our nursing staff and our doctors and all of the healthcare professionals, who work incredibly hard in our healthcare system, but I would also point to the facts, and I think we have to take into account the facts as put to me by the Chief Clinical Officer of Health New Zealand, who looks at a range of factors when it comes to safety in our hospitals, including measures such as in-hospital deaths, surgical site infections, and in-hospital falls, which have been stable or improving in the last five years, and hospital capacity, which shows that 175 additional beds have been built. The number of nurses employed has grown by over 3,000 during that same time period. There is a range of factors we take into account to look at patient safety in our health system, and it’s good to see the increased resourcing going to the front line.

Is he saying that the countless nurses who have raised concerns around unsafe working conditions are wrong?

What I am saying is that there is a range of factors that are taken into account, and the Chief Clinical Officer of Health New Zealand has been explaining it. I’d also point to the comments by the CEO of Health New Zealand, Dale Bramley—

Is he a nurse?

—Dr Dale Bramley, who says, “One of the biggest clinical safety risks in our hospitals right now, for patients, is waiting times.” We inherited long waiting times, and unions which strike continue to extend those waiting times for patients.

to the Minister for Mental Health

What recent announcements has he made about crisis recovery cafés?

Our mental health plan is focused on delivering results, faster access to support, more front-line workers, and a better crisis response. Recently, I opened Whanganui’s new crisis recovery cafe, the first of six cafes being rolled out by the Government across the country. The new crisis recovery cafe is being delivered by Balance Aotearoa, with Government backing to bring the idea to life. Whether it’s your child, a friend, or a family member reaching out for support, we’re committed to ensuring support is there.

What is a crisis recovery cafe?

One of my top priorities is to improve access to mental health support so we can ensure all Kiwis have the help they need when and where it’s needed. Crisis cafes are a peerdelivered service and provide a safe, relaxed, non-clinical setting for people who are in distress and need to talk someone face to face. Sitting in the emergency department or in clinical settings at a time of mental distress can be a very challenging place for people. Crisis recovery cafes provide an alternative, welcoming place to go when people need support. To deliver a better crisis response, we want to ensure there is someone to call, someone to respond, and somewhere to go.

What other areas are receiving Government support for crisis recovery cafes?

Our mental health plan is working, with over 80 percent of people seen within three weeks for specialist services and the front-line mental health workforce growing around 10 percent since coming into office. Earlier this year, I announced funding for the Wellington City Mission’s crisis cafe as part of the Government’s mental health community innovation fund. The funding boost allowed the mission to scale up to 24 hours. Tomorrow, I’ll visit Whakatane’s resilience cafe, who with their funding boost will extend their opening hours, employ more peer support workers, and double their capacity. No matter where you live, this Government is committed to ensuring that timely support is there.

What feedback has he seen on the Government’s roll-out of crisis recovery cafes?

This Government is not just focused on ensuring the right support is in place to treat mental health issues, but we focus strongly on preventing Kiwis from getting to that point. Tony said, “Awesome for Whanganui! Top work by the Government. We have to be open to new ideas to support those with mental illness, and this seems like it has huge potential.” Bobby said, “It’s an amazing experience there for everyone who uses it. Absolutely no bad stigma or to be made to feel bad. I really think the entire concept is somewhat magical.” Behind every one of these new services are hundreds of Kiwis now getting the support they need.

to the Minister for Economic Growth

Does she agree with Nicola Willis that a National-led Government “will rebuild the economy to reduce the cost of living and help Kiwis get ahead”?

Yes. Members of the House will be interested to know that I made that statement in 2023, in a press release titled “Labour in economic ‘la la land’, planning more taxes”. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Of course, at that time, inflation was running at 5.6 percent. It’s now been back in band for more than five quarters. Food price inflation was running at 8.8 percent; it is now down to 4.6 percent. The official cash rate had been rapidly rising, reaching a peak of 5.5 percent; it is now down to 2.5 percent. Of course, also since then, the Government has delivered tax relief to more than 1.9 million households—tax relief opposed by Labour.

How does a pay offer for teachers, firefighters, and nurses that does not keep up with the cost of living help Kiwis to get ahead?

I reject the assertion in that question.

How can the estimated 100,000 Kiwis who have walked off the job today get ahead when they are overworked and undervalued by her Government?

Well, our Government values greatly the work by nurses, teachers, firefighters, and others on the public payroll, and what we would say to them is that they would be able to get a pay rise much more rapidly if their union went back to the bargaining table instead of playing politics.

Why is her Government handing Crown board directors pay rises of up to 80 percent while teachers and nurses are struggling to cope with the cost of living crisis?

Well, I find this an interesting question, because I understand that the member’s party is quite enamoured by Temasek, which, of course, is an interesting model for running Crown assets. Temasek is distinguished by a couple of things, members: one of them is that it often sells assets and purchases others, and another factor is that it pays its directors well because it wants the companies to be run well. Our Government came in to a number of basket cases in terms of Crown entity management, including Kāinga Ora and ACC, and we are determined to run those services and assets better on behalf of taxpayers.

Are teachers, doctors, prison staff, and firefighters wrong to ask for safe working conditions and pay that keeps up with the cost of living?

Obviously not.

Is she surprised that 200 New Zealanders leave our shores each day—each day—when her Government refuses to pay hard-working front-line workers what they’re worth?

Well, I would just like to share with that member a statistic that I certainly find interesting, and it is this: in the 21 months of data since this Government came into office, annual net departures of New Zealand citizens increased by 5,800. This contrasts with the 21 months prior to that, under the previous Government—

Call the fire service.

—through which annual—listen up, Peeni Henare, because annual net departures of New Zealand citizens increased by 38,000—[Interruption]

Sorry—sorry—we’re going to start again. We’re not having that barracking across the House.

Let me summarise my answer, which is this: under the last 21 months of the Government of which that member was in Cabinet, annual net departures of New Zealand citizens increased by 38,000. In the 21 months since this Government has been in office, that number was 5,800, so our record stacks up better than yours on that and many, many other things, including the fact we include numbers in our policies.

That concludes oral questions. Members should be leaving the House quietly while we have the committee change over.

Members, the House is in committee on the Parliament Bill and the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill. We will start with the Parliament Bill.

We come first to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 8, “Preliminary provisions”, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part. The question is that the Minister’s amendment—

Madam Speaker? Madam Chair, rather.

Oh, well, I’m going to make an exception this time because there were a few people wandering around and I did not see the member who ably chaired the Parliament Bill Committee, so I’ll take a call.

Thank you, Madam Chair; I’m out of practice. I just wanted to make a brief call on Part 1 of the bill, basically to say that it’s important and correct and right that these four pieces of legislation be brought together into one new piece of legislation. The only other point that I would make—and it will become relevant later on in the debate—is that it does not include the Official Information Act. Why I say that is because several submitters made submissions on the Official Information Act to bring Parliament’s information under that as well. Those were deemed, by the committee, to be out of scope of this bill. That’s my brief introduction, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. As we begin the committee stage of this bill, I do look at Part 1 and the purpose, clause 3. As it says currently, “The purpose of this Act is to consolidate and modernise the law about operating and administering Parliament.” The reason I’d be interested in the Minister making a contribution is just for the public to understand what this is about, because I very much think this bill is about this place and about the people in this place and how it’s funded, and the goings-on.

We don’t want to labour the committee stage, but we do want to be seen to actually prosecute and to ask some questions to give confidence to the public so that they understand what this bill is about—and it’s not just for us as MPs finding a way, I guess, to feather our nest or to make it easy for us, but it’s to help make the system better.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an important bill. I thank members of the Opposition, and others, for their constructive engagement on this. We had a special select committee on this, which, I think, as duly appropriate, it was well chaired by former Speaker the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe—and thank you for his contribution.

This is an important piece of legislation and probably one that’s a little bit overdue and one that past Governments and past parliaments have looked at. It brings together the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988, the Parliamentary Service Act 2000, the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Act 2013, and the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014.

There are a couple of things going on there. One is that if you want to understand how Parliament operates and how it’s funded and what its powers are and all of the legislation to do with Parliament, there isn’t one place to find it; you’ve got to go and look at those four Acts. This, if it becomes law and the House approves it, will become the Parliament Act 2025 and it will be the one place. Now, people might say, “Well, bringing together legislation, that doesn’t really seem like much of a deal.”, but, actually, it’s important to the rule of law and cogency of the statute book that we don’t have random pieces of legislation that do different things but all actually relate to the same topic—or, in this case, relate to the same institutions: the very important home of our democracy.

The second thing is that some of these statutes are quite out of date. The last time we went through a serious round of kind of parliamentary reform was actually in Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s day, that great reform period of 1987 through to 1990—a bit controversial, in some respects, for some, but, from a parliamentary point of view, quite a lot was done by Sir Geoffrey back then, as Attorney-General and Minister of Justice and Leader of the House, to create, essentially, the modern-day foundations of the Parliament: the select committee system, for example. The Clerk of the House of Representatives got its own Act back in 1988 during that period. The Parliamentary Services Act 2000 is now 25 years old, as well, so it is about modernising this legislation.

In relation to the Parliamentary Privilege Act, Parliament went through an exercise soon after I became an MP—or it might have been contemporaneously when I became the MP—about responding to the judgment of Attorney-General v Leigh, from memory. There was another case as well in which it became, without boring the committee, really clear that Parliament had to reassert the traditional privileges that exist for all members of this House around freedom of speech and put into statute some common law rights that perhaps, at least arguably, contestably at law, didn’t exist or we needed to make clear that they did exist. The Parliamentary Privilege Act was a response to court judgments, and now it’s going to be a part of the Parliament Act.

There are some important changes that the Parliament Bill, this bill, makes in relation to parliamentary security, which, no doubt, we’ll get to. It also, importantly, changes the funding model, and, in particular, it gives Parliament more independence from the executive in relation to the funding of Parliament. In our Westminster system, with our fused executive and legislature, by definition, the Government governs and controls the Budget, but, actually, Parliament is its own separate institution. There’s always been a natural tension there—which, actually, to be honest, you can’t get rid of entirely—between the operation of the funding of Parliament, the legislature, its own institution, and the executive, which, by definition, is only the executive because it has control of the Parliament; if that wasn’t the case, they wouldn’t be the executive.

What this bill does is put in place a more independent process in which the House is in charge of its own budgets. There is some involvement of the executive, but it’s a step forward from the status quo, where I think most people would say it’s more biased towards the Government. That hasn’t really been a problem, to be honest—I hope both sides of the House would agree on that. It hasn’t really been a problem in practice, but there’s always the potential. Law is sometimes not about necessarily solving the problems of today; it’s about futureproofing to make sure we don’t endure problems in the future. That’s the purpose of the Parliament Bill.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.

Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 9 to 39, “Parliamentary privilege”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As the Minister has pointed out, the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014—some submitters thought that it should stand alone. The committee decided that it could be included in there and that it stood on its own mana, basically, in my words. I just wanted to make that comment at the committee of the whole House. I think that it is important that all four of those pieces of legislation are brought together into one document, including parliamentary privilege. Thank you.

The question—

Madam Chair.

I had started voting. Members are going to have to be quick. There are lots of parts to this bill, and I’m sorry, I had started voting. The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.

The question is that the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins’ amendment to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 344 be agreed to.

Members, we come now to Part 3—

Madam Chair?

I’m just going to outline that this is the debate—I know that the Minister knows, but this is the debate on clauses 40 to 56, “Speaker, Deputy Speaker, and parliamentary precincts”, and Schedule 2. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

If the committee will indulge me, or the Chair will indulge me, I do just want to make a brief comment in relation to Part 2, which we’ve just covered, which I know we’ve voted on, but there seems to be a spirit of bonhomie in the Chamber, so I hope the committee won’t mind. The committee has just voted on an amendment from the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins that I do just want to briefly touch on. I mistakenly looked at the amendment and thought it was in relation to Part 7, so I thought we might have a bit of time, but it’s actually in relation to Part 2.

The committee has just voted to clarify that the House of Representatives cannot imprison for contempt, and that is an important change. Well, it could be seen as important. It is not clear, from a reading of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand by David McGee and case law and recent Privileges Committee reports, that Parliament could not, or the House could not, imprison someone for contempt of Parliament. It’s worth noting that this power has never been exercised in New Zealand by the House of Representatives, so the committee has just voted to make it clear that imprisonment is not a punishment for contempt.

Now, what is a contempt? Well, a contempt is a serious breach of the Standing Orders, as judged by the Privileges Committee. It’s laid out in the Standing Orders, and, regrettably, this Parliament, and indeed the Parliament before, has had some incidents where members have behaved badly—I think it’s fair to say that—and people have been referred to the Privileges Committee and people have been found guilty of contempt. There are a variety of punishments that can be laid down for that. What has been discussed is whether or not the extremity of the punishment could extend to imprisonment, and we’ve now decided that that is not the case.

I’m advised that in section 8 of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, which will now become part of the Parliament Bill, the House has the powers exercisable by the UK House of Commons as at 1 January 1865. Of course, back then—someone will have no doubt gone away and researched this—in 1865 in the UK House of Commons, they did have the power to imprison people by committing them into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. It is at least arguable that the New Zealand House of Representatives had that power up until, well, 2 minutes ago, or 2½ minutes ago. I suppose it doesn’t take effect yet, until we’ve received the Royal assent—so, I don’t know, next week or something.

Now that’s been clarified, and I do want to thank the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins for moving that amendment, which the Government has been pleased to support.

Thank you, that’s a very important clarification. Is this in response or is this Part 3?

No, sorry, I’m on Part 3.

That’s all right. OK. That was very important, thank you.

For the record, I thought it was Part 7 as well. I just want to recognise that in Part 3, the Speaker of the House will have the ability to delegate certain functions to the Deputy Speaker, which I think is wholly appropriate, in the same way that a Minister who also has responsibilities under the Public Finance Act, say, might delegate something to an Associate Minister or an under-secretary. I just wanted to just briefly recognise that in Part 3, that is one of the things that has changed in there. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to draw the committee’s attention to what I think is a really good change, but I ask for a couple of clarifications: that is, in clause 61, where we’ve got the “meaning of adult dependant”, and we’re talking about an adult dependant in relation to “a person … means a person who has a disability that means they require ongoing daily care”, and this is going to entitle them to—

Oh, I think clause 61 is in a different part.

Oh, sorry. My apologies, Madam Chair; I’ve jumped ahead.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. Clause 52 is around the “House of Representatives may add … to parliamentary precincts”. Obviously, we have the current precinct where it’s at—well, the three buildings, and buildings that are currently being built. I just want to seek clarification that this, obviously, is around—I mean, the initial purchase of the land back in 1867, or whenever it was, can be dubious, in many ways. I’m just wanting to seek clarification from the Minister that whenever we talk about adding land to the parliamentary precinct, this, obviously, will be in a way that fits in with current laws and isn’t about acquiring land but is around doing right by modern laws.

Also, the ability for members or the Business Committee to look at what the parliamentary precinct is—does that fit into the space in terms of whether Parliament is able to not just purchase more land but actually add to the precinct? For example, Defence House, behind us, is becoming part of the precinct. I just want to clarify that that, obviously, all sits quite clearly and we’re making sure that however land is acquired in the future, it is done in a way that honours current laws and honours our commitment to the Treaty.

Just in relation to a couple of comments made, they’re both really important points. Mr Rurawhe talks about the Deputy Speaker; that is a really important point in Part 3 of this bill. The Parliamentary Service Act 2000 makes it clear that the Deputy Speaker can have the functions and powers of the Speaker, but it’s unclear in the Clerk of the House of Representatives Act 1988. This goes back to the starting point, which is that the Act was written in 1988 and needs updating. This makes it crystal clear that the Deputy Speaker can exercise the functions of the Speaker.

In relation to Glen Bennett’s point around clause 52, this is a bit of a carry-over provision, but it makes it clear that the “parliamentary precincts” in clause 53 are Parliament buildings, including the very important executive wing, of course, and Part 1 of Schedule 2 and Part 2 of Schedule 2 have the indicative map of the land. The key point is that there’s flexibility for Parliament in the future if it chooses to grow and expand. In fact, there’s a process under way around that at the moment, but it just gives some flexibility so that, by resolution, the House can expand the grounds without having to go through a legislative change, because being on the parliamentary grounds has a particular meaning for Parliament, not the least of which is leave. Before any honourable member asks, yes, there would be the ability to extend that to places of ill repute near Parliament, but there is no current proposal on the table to do that and, I hasten to add, for everyone listening, the Government is not intending to do that.

I believe I’m on the right part now, Madam Chair. I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to clause 55. It talks about the Speaker controlling and administering the parliamentary precincts. It talks specifically about the powers that are vested in the Speaker, and then it kind of self-refers, in subclause (2), to subclause (1), but it’s pretty unclear about what the precincts mean.

I’m thinking of a specific example here. For example, is it the Minister’s view that the Speaker has authority and powers under this legislation to direct and control members of various workforces, such as security guards, the parliamentary colleagues or staff working with MPs, and the press gallery? I’m thinking about examples where there could be events happening on the forecourt, and members of Parliament might want their EAs and others present. Can the Speaker, under the legislation as it’s currently worded, make an order to remove the press gallery, for example, or to require staff to go back inside?

The reason I raise this is that in some of those situations, members of Parliament could feel quite insecure, given the volatility at the moment around public protest and polarised views, and parliamentary members may not want to venture on to the forecourt if they don’t feel they have adequate support from staff. Equally, there is a duty for the fourth estate, the media, in this place to make sure that everything here happens transparently, and it is of great public interest when there are large crowds on the forecourt. I’m not challenging anything that has happened over recent times; it may well be that that is the Minister’s understanding, but I question whether the legislation as it’s currently worded actually does make that explicit, and whether, if that is his view and if it was the will of the committee, it should be added. If it was not the will of the committee or if there were not public submissions on these very important points, my view would be that the legislation should be read at face value, and that the clarification should be made via an amendment or we should have it on the record what actually the committee came to conclude here.

These are not entirely hypothetical situations, which is why I am raising them very respectfully, but I do think that the public interest, the media interest, and also the personal views of MPs when it comes to staff and resourcing and support need to be considered when we’re looking at the boundaries that relate to clause 55, which really does confer an awful lot of power on the Speaker, or vest in the Speaker, as is right to have that power, but I think the boundaries need to be extremely clear so that in those situations, everybody is comfortable and clear about what the rules are, and when they could decline or not follow a direction and when they are required to under this legislation.

Hopefully I can be helpful on that particular question. It’s actually a question I asked at select committee. What we need to remember is that under the new set of rules and under this new legislation, which we’ll talk about in Part 7, there’s a clear monitoring role and reporting role, and the direct reporting is with the CEO of Parliamentary Service. The Speaker of the House has overall authority but doesn’t actually carry it out himself or herself.

It’s really important that we recognise that parliamentary security will be operating in a very professional way under clear rules, and, in fact, the regime for reporting such incidents, and carrying that out, is at arm’s length from the Speaker of the House.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m grateful to my friend Adrian Rurawhe for outlining that. Of course, with his experience as a former Speaker, I think he would have been able to go through these issues at select committee, which I’m sure they did.

The member does raise a good point. The Speaker has broad discretion in administration and control of the precincts. That’s what clause 55 means. The easiest way to think about it is that the Speaker is, essentially, the Minister of Parliament. They’re in charge of Parliament. They’re like Parliament’s Minister. It’s not a perfect analogy. It’s an inapt analogy, but it’s close enough to the truth.

But, of course, there are a couple of checks on the Speaker just having unlimited power. One is that he’s subject to the control of the House. I’ve been around long enough to see no-confidence motions, and sometimes they get moved and most times they don’t, but they sit on the Order Paper. Members who have been around for a while will remember some of the back and forwards about those. Ultimately, the House is in control of who the Speaker is, so that is actually a really important check.

Then the other thing I would say is that the Speaker has to act reasonably. Why do I say that? Well, there’s quite a long line of case law around this, most notably the Beggs case which has to do with protest and assembly on the forecourt. And, of course, the Speaker, as indeed the whole of Parliament, is subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 by dint of section 3. Is it section 3? Yes, it is. My friend James Meager is nodding at me.

Section 3 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act makes the legislature, the executive, and the judicial branches of Government subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which means that powers in relation to Parliament have to be exercised in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and so that is an important check as well.

I understand where the member’s coming from, but, of course, clause 7 is the substantive change that we’re making around the parliamentary security officers, which is where I think the rubber hits the road on this stuff.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in view of the incredibly helpful comments from my colleague the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe, and also what the Minister has indicated—and I understand and appreciate the validity and importance of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. What I heard from my colleague was something around due process and the line of communication and direction being really crystal clear and not muddied.

I appreciate these things happen very quickly when they do. I wonder if the Minister can indicate whether he is open-minded about looking at the devil in the detail about how that should happen, so that the reasonableness test—which, we know, is incredibly broad—is not the litmus test, but there is something a little bit more substantial, so that those delegations happen appropriately and everybody is clear about what the rules are and what they do and don’t need to do.

Well, I’m happy to have a look at it. The ship has sailed, somewhat, to be honest, because the committee has reported the bill back unanimously, and, as I understand it, there’s no Amendment Paper from the member in relation to that—but I’m happy to look at it in the future. Until we’ve got evidence that there’s actually a problem, having gone through quite a long process—the gestation of this bill has been many years. It actually spans back to the previous Government. Happy to have a look at it in the future, but I’m not convinced at the moment that there’s actually a problem worth solving.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 3 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.

Members, we come now to Part 4. Part 4 is the debate on clauses 57 to 100, “Salaries, allowances, expenses, and services for members and others”, and Schedule 3. The question is that Part 4 stand part.

I’m just excited to get back to the point that I was asking about previously—it’s not a major one. It is a really good change to the legislation, where it shows some leadership from this place around adult dependency, and a recognition that some members of Parliament have adult dependants and that there should be different provisions made that can ensure that families spend time together. I think this is a good signal, actually, to the wider community about having some flexibility, because, previously, only the dependent children—I think 18 years or under; it might even be under 18 years, I can’t remember—could qualify for travel. That is not to be a perk of the job; it’s really about making sure that children and their parents that work in this place actually remember who each other are, given the long hours. But that did not apply and did not take into account any element of dependency.

We’ve got this changed provision in clause 61, and there is a test in it, and it talks about a disability that means they require ongoing daily care, and then there are a number of things that need to be fulfilled under paragraph (a)—with the member presumably being the one who provides the care—and paragraph (b) about financial dependence and the fact they’re not living with another person in a de facto relationship. That all seems really good.

When I turn over to clause 63 and I see the meaning of a “dependent child”, it’s pretty similar. But we have in there, in paragraph (c), “to whom A provides ongoing care;”, and then a number of the other similar tests. I guess it could be argued, because we’ve got “enrolled at a registered school within the meaning of section 10(1) of the Education and Training Act”, really it’s about the meaning of ongoing care. It could be that there are some people who are in that education who may be living with others but are still relying financially on a parent, they’re not in a de facto relationship, they’re pretty dependent, they can’t get a part-time job, but they may not necessarily be living in the same home—which is not in there; it’s just got provisions about family, ongoing care, and not being in a de facto relationship.

Earlier on, it doesn’t really define what ongoing care is; it defines the meaning of a “dependent child”. But I wonder if the Leader of the House could clarify for the record how he sees the boundaries of this so that we—I don’t think it’s intended to capture people who are very dependent but not living in the same household as the MP. I think it would be good to know that, because otherwise there could be—with some of the clever legal, and other, minds in this place—some pushing up against the boundaries of the rules, and we would need to be really clear about who can qualify.

I appreciate the point that the member is making. Ultimately, the judge of this is the Speaker, and so I appreciate the member’s invitation, but I am not going to seek to define that here, because I would get it wrong and I would not want to mislead people. There will be a range of factual circumstances around this. As, I think, every member knows, people’s living circumstances can be simple and sometimes they are complex, and I’m not judging anyone—I would never seek to do that.

The intent of this, as the member rightly outlines, is to be slightly more progressive around the support that can be provided and, again, to just update it and make sure that we’re keeping pace with the variety of circumstances that some people find themselves in. There is no test, and I suspect that that’s probably deliberate. Ultimately, the judge of this will be the Speaker, and there is a whole range of things in the Speaker’s determinations and the rules around funding allowances and things like that, where, ultimately, the Speaker has the final say. The same checks apply—as I said probably about 10 minutes or so ago—in relation to judgments around that.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.

Members, we come to Part 5, the debate on clauses 101 to 120, “Clerk and Office of the Clerk”, and Schedules 4 and 5. The question is that Part 5 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 5 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.

Members, we now come to Part 6. Part 6 is the debate on clauses 121 to 161, “Parliamentary Service and other parliamentary bodies”, and Schedule 6. The question is that Part 6 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 6 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.

Members, we come now to Part 7. This is the debate on clauses 162 to 190B, “Parliamentary security”. The question is that Part 7 stand part.

Kia ora, Madam Chair. The Minister did allude to this a bit earlier, and, again, we don’t want to labour this, but we want to spend a moment just reflecting. This is around parliamentary security. Again, without expecting the Minister to do everything I say, but you know, I’d like him to explain a little bit what this is about, because I think what we currently have and what this part will do is quite a major change in terms of parliamentary security.

My first question, just to open up, is around Subpart 1, so clause 162 to Subpart 1, just around the actual definition of a security guard. I just want to seek clarification that they are specifically employed by Parliamentary Service, because I know in the past, for example, an electorate office out in the provinces or out around the country, there have been moments when there has been red flag issues and obviously there’s been security things put in place, but actually having a security guard, for example, Armourguard or others, for a set number of days or for a week because of something that’s been heightened in that community.

My question to the Minister is just to clarify that when we’re actually talking specifically—again, Subpart 1—about the actual definition of a security officer, that they are specifically employed by Parliamentary Service, or does that go beyond it to contracted Armourguard-type of services?

I’m advised it does not include contractors; it applies to people employed by Parliament. The member Glen Bennett makes a good point that this is a change, and it is largely to clarify the law and make sure we have a modern approach to parliamentary security. It’s modelled on the Courts Security Act, so the parliamentary security officers—who do a very good job, may I say—will be similar to those of court security officers, who, if you think about it, are the other branch of Government, the judicial branch—they play a similar role in relation to that.

The bill gives parliamentary security officers statutory powers of consent, search, denial of entry, temporary seizure of specified items, and temporary detention. The powers apply in the parliamentary precincts, parliamentary meetings outside the precincts—so, for example, sometimes select committees travel and do submissions in hotels or community halls; actually, I think probably we should do a little bit more of that, to be honest—and electorate and community offices. Of course, if MPs do travel for those, it tends to be—by definition, it’s not Parliament, it’s not the parliamentary precincts, and so because it’s the sort of everyday, run-of-the-mill place, it makes sure that if there is security applied there, then those powers apply.

It also gives security officers immunity for the appropriate exercise of their functions and powers. It’s quite interesting: security officers here currently lack those statutory powers and immunities. They rely on the common law and the rights of an occupier under the Trespass Act 1980. I think we would all agree that parliamentary security here does an excellent job, and it is really important that they have the appropriate powers in order to make sure that people who work in this building—it’s not about MPs, to be honest; far more people who are not MPs work here than are actual MPs, so it’s more about the staff.

We also need to make sure that Parliament is as accessible as possible. I for one think it is a fantastic thing that it is so easy to visit our Parliament and it’s free, and you should never be charged to come to Parliament. As long as you’re not carrying things that you shouldn’t be carrying, you can walk in, sit up and watch question time or you can watch the debates, and you can wander around and you can visit your MP. I mean, I’ve been lucky enough to travel to other parliaments around the world—sometimes even when I’m being a tourist in my own time, I’ve travelled to other parliaments; it’s a slightly sad thing to admit. Other parliaments are not like that. They’re not. The House of Commons in the UK, it’s like getting into Fort Knox, which is sad but it’s the reality. There are other legislatures and congresses and Houses of representatives which are all but impossible to visit as a tourist or even probably an everyday citizen. That is a sad reality, and I hope we never get to that point in New Zealand. But part of making sure we never get to that point is making sure there’s appropriate security, so that’s what this section is about.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have another question for the Leader of the House regarding this section. I’m looking at the bold part of clause 172A to about 175, and I think that’s to do with a definition of a “detected item”. Correct me if I’m wrong; it could be something that I missed here. Would the Leader of the House be able to just clarify what a detected item is, or is a detected item based on the four possible processes and how the detected item needs to be surrendered is very much on the item itself? That’s kind of the first clarification.

The second clarification around a detected item is: does a detected item, in order for it to be handed over to the officer on reasonable grounds, mean that the item itself, for example, may need to be about to commit or have committed or have the potential to commit an offence or is considered dangerous? There isn’t a specific definition I can see on what a detected item is and the different range it could be treated.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I’m going to ask another—[Microphone feedback] Oh, goodness me. I’d like to ask a question in relation to security, again, in Part 7 of this bill. My question is really thinking about the amazing job that our parliamentary security officers do. They have a tough job in what is a really changed environment, particularly in the last three or four years, in terms of some of the risks that are presenting not just to MPs but to other people in the general public who want to come into Parliament. They have an amazing ability to detect and act, and we know that the existing provisions under common law, potentially, compromise their ability to deal with serious incidents, risks that would disrupt Parliament, that disrupt the running of Government. Though parliamentary agencies and members continue to advocate for Parliament’s accessibility—and there is clear feedback, we know, from public engagement that that should continue—we know that that physical accessibility needs to be balanced with security and safety concerns.

We know, as the Minister has pointed out, that the New Zealand Parliament provides more physical access to the public than many, many overseas parliaments, and we do not want to lose that. But its security arrangements are, really, way out of step with our international counterparts. We know, from the review of parliamentary security, that staff regularly have to manage irate, threatening, and problematic individuals—or even groups—and they currently lack the legislative power to respond effectively, safely, and efficiently. They largely depend upon the police to be able to be here, and we see that police do come in here at those times. The review recommended that our parliamentary security officers be provided with legislative powers of detention as soon as practicable.

My question, really, to the Minister is in relation to what training and support will be provided to our parliamentary security officers? If we are providing these additional powers, which I understand is the ability to detain people, they would have the ability to lay their hands on someone, to handcuff them, and to hold them until police arrived. That puts a number of health and safety risks upon the parliamentary security officer. We know, from police experience, that just simply the act of arresting somebody can result in physical injuries for both the arresting officer and the person being arrested. Those things are never as straightforward as you might think they are.

There are a number of injuries, whether it be a dislocated shoulder, an injured finger, other scratching; there are a number of things that could go on if we are expecting our parliamentary security officers to step in and physically put their hands on someone. I think that New Zealanders would like to know that if we are providing this additional power—which we’re not arguing with; we think that there needs to be an increase of security here—those front-line workers who are putting themselves on the line, what training will they be provided to deal with situations that could be volatile and dangerous?

Secondly, what support—additional to that training—will be provided? We know that if someone has been assaulted or abused, that weighs upon a worker in the days and weeks after the incident has occurred. We know very well most of our parliamentary security staff here as our colleagues and friends, and we would like to be reassured that there is a plan in place to make sure that they are safe at work and that sufficient consideration has gone into how this will play out for their work safety on a day-to-day basis. I’ll be interested to know the Minister’s response to those questions.

I need to clarify my answer from a few minutes ago in relation to the contractor point. The answer is that clause 136(1)(b) makes it clear that there can be contractors appointed if the chief executive considers it necessary and desirable, but they have to be qualified and trained to the equivalent standards. Sorry about that.

Members raised a couple of other really good points. I thank them for that. In relation to Mr XuNan’s point around detected items, any item found by a parliamentary security officer during a search, the security officer can ask to examine it and determine such matters such as whether it may have been used for an offence, for example, or is dangerous. It’s slightly convoluted to get there, but, in a way that he’s become known for, he’s managed to find a tricky section of the tricky clause, and the references, for the member’s notification, are clauses 172A(2) and 173(1)(b) and 173(1)(c). That, I think, deals with that.

Ms Andersen makes, I think, a really good point around quite broad powers given to security officers. The section is modelled on the Courts Security Act. Broadly, with some modifications for the parliamentary environment, the powers of security officers will be the same as those of court security officers. I can’t exactly remember when the Courts Security Act was passed, but no doubt the courts went through a similar exercise to what Parliament’s gone through, which is realising that there needed to be a bit more statutory tram lines and, you know, rules around security at courts. This brings Parliament into line with that, which I think is wholly appropriate. I’m advised that there is already training and there will continue to be training for security officers who are here at Parliament, who, as the member says, do a great job.

I would also draw, just more broadly, while we’re talking about this part, on some of the quite careful drafting that’s been gone through in relation to these powers. It’s power to use reasonable force, but then there are a variety of checks and balances in the section as well. For example, clause 190B, the “Chief executive must report annually on the exercise of specified powers”—parliamentary security officers must report the exercise of certain powers; powers are not generally applicable if the police is involved. Yes, there are powers around detention and reasonable searches and things like that—they’re all there for good reasons—but there are also checks and balances in place as well. I think that’s wholly appropriate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This question is really for listeners at home who might be wondering how this new legislation is going to impact their ability to protest and what the lines are there. I refer to the Minister’s previous comments about the areas adjacent to Parliament—in fact, he mentioned a couple of watering holes. I’m wondering: what is a test for adjacency? That is going to have practical implications when it comes to electorate offices. There are some things around pavements and footpaths and so on. But is it feasible that if there was a protest or something where the centre of action that contained threat was at Parliament and it spilled over and went to some of those watering holes, would a parliamentary security officer potentially have, on reasonable grounds, the ability to intervene if it was the same kaupapa, if you like?

The other one is the question about reasonable grounds, which is a well-recognised legal test. But I would ask the Minister to consider how that interplays with the powers that are invested in the Speaker that we discussed previously, because I had asked if there could be some kind of clarification around process, and I think the Minister thought I meant through the legislative drafting, but, actually, it was more of a procedural thing. My question is: without a clear process of the Speaker using his or her powers through the chief executive or others—the decisions that a security guard believes that they are making on reasonable grounds, which has a legal objectivity element to it—what is the interplay if the Speaker has given a direction that has not gone through a process that involves the chief executive or if there isn’t, kind of, a clear process?

I’m thinking here about both the ability of the members of the public to protest in a strong way, but also security officers having clarity about what is reasonable grounds, because the Minister has mentioned the safeguards in a retrospective element, which is annual reporting, and so on. These are decisions that have to be made in very quick times—split seconds—by individuals weighing all these things up.

Again, they’re not conceptual or imaginary, because the very vexed questions that led to this legislation, in my view, were probably what we saw on the steps of Parliament and the lines that were crossed. There isn’t a single view in Aotearoa New Zealand about how those lines were crossed. Many people had many different views about what was and wasn’t appropriate. I think most people would agree that burning down the children’s playground was not appropriate.

It is so important to have clarity, and I’d just like to get an understanding from the Minister about that reasonableness test. Should it be considered alone, or how does it interplay with the Speaker’s powers? Would, for example, a security officer be able to rely on action taken by the Speaker? Presumably, if it was pursuant to a recognised process, that would be fine, but where the Speaker has just said something and then that influences a security guard who may or may not have reasonable grounds, will that Speaker’s direction form part of the reasonableness objective test legally? It is quite a technical question, but it has real-life implications for when people protest and for the very difficult job that our security officers have to have in making judgments in the moment.

The member makes good points, but if I could summarise what is reasonable, the answer is: it depends. That’s the beauty of the word “reasonable”, and it’s why it appears multiple times in the statute book and throughout the common law, because what is reasonable in the circumstances is fact-specific, and it’s impossible, by definition almost, to give a definition, if that makes—for me, it works.

Historically, the common law has talked about the man on the Clapham omnibus. It’s probably inapplicable to New Zealand—the Karori trolleybus, or electric bus these days. What that person thinks is reasonable, that’s the test, and it depends. The short answer is it depends. It’s impossible to judge in advance. Yes, it is true that people have to make decisions. That’s life. What’s important is that there are guard rails and tram lines in place to guide that decision-making process and then, also, that there are checks and balances afterwards.

In relation to the other point the member makes, Parliamentary Service officers can exercise powers only in the parliamentary precinct, a place where select committees are meeting, and electorate offices, where the chief executive has authorised it. Beyond that place, police have jurisdiction and the necessary power. To put this into real terms, when you walk into the gates down the bottom and you walk into Parliament, you’re subject to Parliament’s jurisdiction. When you walk outside and go down Lambton Quay, which is a public footpath or public road, the ordinary laws of the land apply—well, they apply here as well, but you’re not part of the parliamentary precinct at that point.

Madam Chair!

I was just wondering if the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe—you were both standing.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to add, on this section, that the committee considered a number of things. There was, as the bill was originally drafted, a procedure in there that required that when an object was removed from someone, they had to be detained. The committee decided that we wanted to give the security officers as many options as possible. For example, if that object was brought to Parliament unknowingly and not without intention of using it as a weapon, the danger was then considered to be over and detaining the person wasn’t necessary, particularly if they decided they were leaving. Rather than bring police into it, the committee felt that that could be the end of that situation.

It’s relevant to the question that my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan asked, as well. We considered a lot of things and decided that the common law that the security officers currently operate under just wasn’t enough for 2025, and that it was important that we had a set of processes, that we had a set of rules that they could follow—and, as the Minister pointed out, in a reasonable way, whatever that looks like. I think it’s important that this House recognise the gravity of some of the situations that our security people become involved with. I think we owe it to the safe operation of our security and of this Parliament that we give them all the tools that they actually need.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 7 set out on Amendment Paper 362 be agreed to.

Members, the time has come for me to report progress. Just for the House’s record, I’m going to do something a little unusual here. I’m going to ask one of the members to report back to progress to me because our other Speaker is still in select committee.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Parliament Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. The committee also considered the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill and reports it has made progress—

No, I think that one’s supposed to say “no progress”.

—has made no progress on the bill.

“I move”—that’s the last bit at the bottom.

I was going to say that it has made progress, like all of this progress we’ve just witnessed.

Yeah, it has made progress.

No, we’ve made progress on the Parliament Bill. We haven’t made progress on the transport bill.

Madam Speaker, on that basis: I move, That the report be adopted.

Members, as per the agreement of the Business Committee, we now come to a debate on energy, and this has been arranged under Standing Order 80. Would some honourable member care to move that the House take note of issues relating to energy?

I so move. Well, energy powers every part of our economy, from households to high value industries, and will increasingly determine our ability to compete in the global economy, but there is no secret that our energy system has been under pressure for some time.

New Zealand is on the cusp of a renewable electricity boom thanks to this Government. Because of our work to knock down the barriers to growth and investment, more electricity generation has been commissioned in the past 18 months than in the entirety of the last 15 years. In the future, 95 percent of electricity will come from cheap, clean renewables, but there is one major barrier that we must overcome. Our energy system needs reliable back-up options to generate electricity during our driest years, when we cannot rely on hydro lakes or wind to generate sufficient electricity.

At the same time, our electricity market is not functioning as efficiently as it should be. New Zealanders need to have greater confidence that the electricity market has strong regulators and that there is competition sufficient to deliver the affordable prices we all need.

This Government will not kick the can down the road on these issues. This Government is taking action to ensure that power prices come down. We have a clear plan and strong, concrete actions already under way to address energy supply risks and to unleash renewables in order to bring down prices, to give households and businesses more control over their power bills, and importantly, to keep our economy growing.

To manage New Zealand’s dry-year problem and bring down power prices, we need reliable sources that can be accessed quickly and on demand. That is why this Government has commenced procurement for an importation terminal for liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG would booster—I’m sorry. LNG would bolster our domestic—well, it would booster and bolster. It will do both.

That’s a critical definition.

Anyway, let’s keep going. It will bolster our domestic natural gas market by supplying, of course, that fuel for dry years and supporting our electricity system during times of seasonal peak demand—helping to, of course, unleash more renewables as a result.

Alongside this, officials are working very hard at options for other dry-year investments. A decision on the best way forward will be made by the end of this year. The Government has also written to Genesis, Mercury, and Meridian to ensure that they know that the Crown is prepared to support capital funding requests for strategic and commercially rational investments that support energy security. This will ensure a perceived lack of access to Crown capital does not stand in the way of New Zealand’s energy security.

We’re also leveraging the Government’s energy use, like hospitals, to help unlock new investment in different types of energy generation. Instead of using our demand to pay for generation that we already have, we’re going to use it to stimulate new generation solutions to be built and increase New Zealand’s total energy supply as a result.

All this work is underpinned by the progress we have made to supercharge renewable energy through our policy, Electrify New Zealand. The Electrify New Zealand programme includes a wide range of actions to support faster and cheaper consenting of energy infrastructure. It will mean more new wind, more solar, more battery, more energy storage systems, and other generation powering our homes and businesses every year.

The Huntly agreement is also an important step in securing short-term security of supply, but more needs to be done to invest in energy security and build better markets for the long term. To stop these problems from re-emerging, we need to work with industry to develop a regulatory framework to ensure power companies deliver the back-up supply that Kiwis need and deserve. We know that the electricity market must be backed by a powerful regulator. The Electricity Authority should be stronger, more effective, and have harder enforcement tools to ensure New Zealand’s electricity system is reliable and delivers better outcomes for New Zealanders.

We are also carrying out a targeted package of reforms to ensure the Electricity Authority can improve market rules, stand up to pressure, and deliver change that will support security of supply, investment, and, importantly, lower prices.

At the same time, the Electricity Authority is taking action too. New rules will ensure hedge contracts are traded fairly. They will require gentailers to treat independent generators and small retailers the same as their own retail businesses. This will help enable new developers and generators to enter the market, help industrials access firm supply contracts, and ensure independent retailers can compete more fairly on an even playing field.

As distribution charges make up a quarter of Kiwis’ power bills, it’s important that electricity distribution businesses work as efficiently as possible to avoid passing on unnecessary costs to consumers. We’ll be working with the industry to deliver greater efficiencies on how electricity distribution businesses (EDBs) operate. We’re also making it easier for EDBs to invest in new generation projects.

In addition to the energy package, we’re also ensuring the security of our gas and fuel supplies and diversifying New Zealand’s fuel mix. Businesses are struggling to get gas contracts and are facing significant price increases compared to the historically low prices we’ve enjoyed in New Zealand. As a Government, we have prioritised removing barriers to viable alternatives such as biogas and biomass for firms that can and will switch away from gas, and businesses can also access the 2025 Investment Boost policy, a great tax policy by this Government to support fuel switching. Diversifying New Zealand’s energy mix with new fuels and energy sources is an important aspect for our long-term energy security.

Yesterday, I released New Zealand’s first Wood Energy Strategy and Action Plan, setting out a clear vision and objectives for the future of the wood energy sector in New Zealand and outlining current and planned work to support the strategy, including co-funding opportunities. In addition, yesterday we also released a Government statement on biogas, reaffirming the Government’s commitment to the biogas market and setting out key actions that will enable its growth.

In line with that, there is a significant package of work under way across the regulatory system to make installing solar easier and cheaper and our energy use smarter. This includes updating electricity safety standards to make it easier and cheaper to install rooftop solar systems, increasing the voltage range on electricity networks to accommodate higher levels of solar electricity, and electric vehicle (EV) charging across the country. We are also introducing legislative changes to enable standards for smart energy devices, including smart EV chargers.

As you can hear, there is a significant amount of work already under way and in place and that has been delivered by this Government. We know how important energy is. We know the important role that it plays in driving economic growth and it is a fundamental input into our economy. As a country, we should and must desire to have abundant and affordable energy, and that is the opportunity in front of us and that is what we must harness and get on and build the generation that will deliver that outcome.

To conclude, I want to reassure Kiwis that this Government is undertaking comprehensive action to ensure that our energy system continues to meet New Zealand’s needs into the future. We acknowledge the challenges and the difficulty around high energy prices. We have identified the problems causing that and we are now implementing the suite of actions that will resolve those problems. This is a Government of action and we are delivering.

The House has chosen to set aside an hour of its time to debate energy issues; something that says it’s a serious issue for this country, something we really need to work on—hopefully, in many ways, in a bipartisan way, because there is much that we can agree on in the energy space.

What I want to do, however, is to take this debate first back to defining what some of the issues are in the energy space. When I started to think about it, I thought, well, here are the three broad areas of concern around energy in New Zealand. The first is around supply—sufficiency and certainty of supply—the second is around pricing, and the third is around climate. Let me just talk through each of those issues and why they are a particular concern for us.

I’ll start with supply and certainty of supply. Of course, what has been affecting the country today does point to that, in some regards. We know that, right at the moment, around about 90,000 households are without power. I don’t know how many businesses are without power, but given that many households are out, so many businesses will be too. I heard there’s some quite big outages in Southland. There must be some farmers there who are a bit worried about milking and how that’s going to happen.

Of course, the outages today have been caused by the massive storm through the country. I’m sure that the thoughts of everyone in this House are with the people who are affected directly by the storm and with the workers who are out there trying to get the power back on—I know they’ll be working hard out there. But that certainty of supply can be affected not just by storms but literally by whether there is sufficient supply; whether we can rely on the fact that walking into our lounge, our kitchen, our business and turning the switch on means that the lights go on. It’s one thing for the lights to be taken out by a storm, but another if our supply isn’t certain. That’s something we need to do in this country.

We need to make sure our electricity supply, our energy supply, is certain. In particular, we need to think about what’s called firming—making sure that our system is robust. That’s a really important thing. But businesses need to know that their supply is secure. Households need to know that their supply is secure. Hospitals need to know that their supply is secure. Supply is very important to us.

Going alongside the supply of power—just being sure that it actually will arrive when we turn on the switch—is, actually, the price of power. Power needs to be affordable. Energy needs to be affordable. Now, we’ve seen just in this last week new inflation figures have come out, and when we do the calculations, we’re told that inflation in the year to 30 September has been 3 percent. If you go to the actual data issued by Stats New Zealand and look at the actual index and do the calculation, the actual inflation wasn’t 3 percent; it was actually 3.046875 percent, but, of course, the rounding God smiled upon that.

If the index had been one point higher—if the index had been 1320 instead of 1319, a very small difference—the inflation rate would have been 3.125 percent, outside the Reserve Bank’s band. One of the things we know that is driving that inflation rate has been the price of power. In particular, in the Stats New Zealand release, the prices and deflation spokesperson said that, in actual fact, the 11.3 percent annual increase in electricity prices over the last year is the largest since the March 1989 quarter. It’s a little bit hard to comprehend what’s going on. This is the graph which came out in the Stats New Zealand release. This is just this very last year, and in just this last steep incline—oh, I can deliver it to you shortly, if you like, Minister. That very, very steep incline and increase in power prices in that last year shows the increase. It was steep; it was hard. We have seen businesses closing because of that increase in power prices. We have seen jobs lost because of the increase in power prices. We have seen real hardship in households because of the increase in power prices. Not only do we need abundant power and readily available power; we need it available at a price that our businesses and our households can afford. That is the second aspect that we need to think about when we’re talking about energy.

The third is climate—the third is climate. We simply must move to renewable power—end of story. There is no choice about it. We must move to increased use of renewables such as wind and solar. We must move to increased use of geothermal power. We must ensure that we have the appropriate batteries, the reserve supply of power—and, frankly, the South Island hydro lakes that we use right at the moment for our everyday power, they are nothing but enormous batteries. Perhaps we need to start thinking of them as that and then having that reliable source of power from the South Island hydro lakes as a battery, and thinking of other renewables as the regular, everyday source of power.

There’s another reason for going to renewables. It means that New Zealand can be independent in its power. If we are importing coal and gas from overseas, we are not independent. This is where I really disagree with part of what the Government is proposing to do in its energy strategy. If we look at the Government’s energy strategy, one of the things that they have said they would do—if I can find the “at a glance”—is to set up a permanent fuel depot. Got it, got it, got it—they’re going to launch a formal procurement process for a liquefied natural gas import facility, importing gas, permanently.

We actually need to transition away from gas. I mean, there’s a whole rhetoric that says that it’s cleaner than other forms of power, but, to be clear, it is something we need to move away from in the next decade or so. Why set up a permanent fuel facility for something that we actually need to be moving away from? That is one area where we simply need to make a difference there, and I urge the Government to do that. Again, no matter what, using fossil fuels contributes to our greenhouse gas emissions; we need to make a difference.

In terms of what we actually do, well, we do need an affordable, secure, clean energy source for the 21st century. We do need to get away from those fossil fuels. I see the members over there shaking their heads. There is only one area where we may need to continue with some fossil fuels for a bit longer, and that is in supplying process energy—the sufficient level of energy for manufacturing in some of our industries. That could be a reason to maintain some of the fuels that we have for a short time until new methods of providing process of energy eventuate. There’s some really interesting progress being made in that space, reported just in the last few weeks.

Aside from that, if South Australia can have days when all their electricity is generated 100 percent renewable—if Victoria can do it, if Queensland did do it—so can we. We can do it with wind; we can do it with tides; we can do it with solar—solar, which operates in all sorts of weather. Then we need to think about how we build our reserve batteries. If we have sufficient batteries, we have sufficient reserve supply of power, then we can guarantee that secure supply.

Above all, we need to start thinking about power as a utility. We need to stop thinking about it as a commodity that must be sold at the highest possible price. We need to think of it as a utility that enables the rest of our economy. If we change our way of thinking, we can do better on energy.

Everyone deserves to be able to heat and power their homes without breaking the bank. These days, that’s far from a given. Regional industries, sawmills, factories—they’re all closing down because of high power bills. Cheaper and cleaner power—that’s what Kiwis deserve, and it’s all within our reach.

Prior to entering Parliament, I ran a peer-to-peer electricity network. It was a social business, and it was killed off by the power of the large electricity companies, the gentailers who control the market. There was no level playing field. Gentailers want us to be passive observers and consumers who just accept unaffordable power bills, not active participants in the energy system. It doesn’t have to be that way. Kiwis want choice and Kiwis want to participate. We’re fed up with those high electricity prices and the excuses that keep on coming. We seem to get nothing but excuses like the nonsense that the oil and gas ban has resulted in an energy crisis, or that burning fossil fuels is better than clean energy from wind and solar.

The future isn’t with the fossils. Those who keep on proposing that are doing our country a disservice. You can smell the fumes on their breath as they gaslight us. The evidence is really clear that gas production peaked in 2001 and has been declining since 2014, four years before the oil and gas ban. Oil and gas companies have spent billions and come up with nothing—talk about chasing rainbows. The rapid decline in gas in our energy supply is significant. It demonstrates a lack of strategy or planning for our future and no one gains from the oil and gas ban fantasy that this Government repeats ad nauseam.

It’s time to step up and take responsibility for an active role in planning our future. That would mean first addressing energy hardship. Over 100,000 people cannot afford to pay their bills. It’s a choice between heating and eating. Now is the time to resource the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA), and I will support any move by the Minister to ensure Budget 2026 restores EECA’s budget so that Kiwi homes can be made warmer and more energy efficient.

There’s much more that can be done. Reform of the electricity market to provide confidence with stable prices and investment in renewable energy and storage are key. The Government can make a big, positive difference in the lives of Kiwi households if it could just summon the courage to take on the electricity giants and place people over profit. We need to ensure those level playing field measures are implemented, because what we’re seeing is something that looks like they’ve been watered down. My bill, the Electricity Industry (Separation of Generation and Retail Businesses) Amendment Bill, would ensure this, and the Government is welcome to make use of it, because we can’t be afraid to do what’s right for Kiwis, even if it means uncomfortable conversations.

Households all around the motu would benefit from being able to generate their own energy, their own renewable electricity, from solar and batteries; a ratepayer assistance scheme—easy to implement; our Clean Power Payment $6,000 grant, $30,000 interest-free loan—very, very helpful for people who want to implement solar or insulation. Integrating mobility into our energy system will also bring big benefits. We need to develop vehicle-to-grid capability where EV batteries can be used to inject stored energy back into businesses and households so that next winter vehicle-to-grid vehicles will be online when we need them, when high prices are there, when we’ve got stress on our energy system. Australia’s got a model we can adopt. It works in the UK. Why can’t we do it here? The Frontier report showed how to bring the total cost of electricity to consumers down by over $2 billion per year simply by taking control of Huntly and using it strategically by pricing it separately as a system backstop.

This is one thing that we can agree with. The market hasn’t and isn’t delivering. Our energy system is too fundamental to everything we do to sit on our hands and do nothing. A Green Government will act.

The member’s time has completed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, as we debate energy policy, we need to ask what matters most to Kiwis. New Zealanders don’t want to hear more buzzwords and see more bumper stickers about a just transition. It’s not ideology; what they want is reliability, they want affordability, and they want certainty. They want their lights to turn on when they flick the switch, they want their homes to be warm in winter, and they want their power bills to be affordable, and that’s what ACT in Government is helping to deliver.

We’ve made massive progress by repealing Labour’s ban on offshore oil and gas exploration. That cost this country billions in dollars of economic vandalism, and it pushed us to burn more imported coal. The ban told the world that New Zealand is not serious about energy investment. It was a political stunt dressed up as policy, and New Zealanders paid the price and they know who’s to blame. Now, with ACT in Government, we’re restoring energy security and investor confidence. Sovereign risk is being replaced with sovereign responsibility.

Just today, I stood in support of Minister Watts’ Offshore Renewable Energy Bill. That bill, improved by the select committee process, is about turning potential into projects. It lays the foundations for private capital to build offshore wind and marine energy developments with clear rules, firm time lines, and proper protections, because if we do want affordable, low-emissions electricity, we need to unleash the full mix of wind, hydro, solar, and, of course, geothermal; gas; and—yes, that trusty black nugget—coal. If we’re honest with the public, they will know that we need thermal firming in the form of gas and coal so that we can continue the renewables build-out.

Now, the Greens and Labour might not agree, but I’ll tell you who knows that. All of the renewable energy companies who have come to my office and, no doubt, to other members here, have said, “If we can’t get a firm thermal contract to underpin our investment in renewables, we won’t build the renewables.” That’s called physics; that’s called finance. Let me be clear: having gas and coal supporting our renewable build-out is not a failure; it’s responsible planning. It’s engineering reality and not living in a political fantasy.

Energy policy isn’t just about generation; it’s about what gets built, how it gets built, how quickly, and where. That’s why ACT in Government is leading the charge to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA) with a system based on property rights that respects environmental limits. For too long, the RMA has choked off investment in energy infrastructure with red tape and runway ideology—

So where’s the national policy statement? In June last year—in June last year. Another broken promise, with nothing there.

If that member, “Switched-on Scott” from the Green Party, wants to contribute further to the debate, he should take another call. But this morning, I heard him say that the solution to wind turbines in New Zealand—which need mined minerals and which need petroleum products to make the resins for the turbine blades—is wooden windmills. That’s what the Green member offered this morning.

Under ACT’s reforms, power stations will get built, transmission upgrades will get delivered on time, and projects that generate value for New Zealanders will get out of the courts and into construction. That’s how we lower bills, that’s how we restore energy security, and that’s how we build a system that is fit for the future.

We’re also working to make New Zealand competitive internationally. Investors can choose to build in Australia or New Zealand, or somewhere else entirely. That means that our rules must be bankable, our time frames predictable, and our institutions that govern the energy sector credible, and I commend Minister Watts for the work he’s doing to reform and strengthen the regulation of the system.

Now, we’re delivering all of that, not by waving a magic wand but by doing the hard work, line by line, regulation by regulation, and project by project, that the Government is providing investment capital for. ACT is ensuring, in our role in Government, that energy remains secure, affordable, and reliable. What that means is that the lights are on, homes are warm, and we have jobs to go to. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Energy is our greatest infrastructural vulnerability, and we’ve had widespread calls—and, actually, we’ve heard in this debate, as well—for a long-term energy strategy, and I completely agree with that. Also, we’re working, obviously, on a bipartisan approach to infrastructure strategy. But these things need to last beyond one Government and into another Government.

New Zealand once had a competitive advantage in cheap, abundant renewable energy, but not anymore. There are three things that we need out of energy: we need cost—for it to be affordable—we need reliability, and we need sustainability; and sometimes, those things are in conflict, especially at the margin. I do not believe what I have heard from the Opposition. What Labour did—of those three objectives—is they went for the virtue-signalling sustainability at huge cost to affordability and security. Every time you pay your electricity bill or your gas bill and it’s higher than it used to be, you can say, “Thank you, Labour!”, because they contributed to that. Every time a factory closes and people lose their jobs, you can say, “Thank you, Labour!”, because they contributed to that. That is what the oil and gas ban did.

People from within the industry tell me that was the greatest act of economic vandalism—economic vandalism—that this country has ever seen. This is from a party that used to be a bluecollar party—it used to be a blue-collar party—that sabotaged Northland, closed down Marsden Point, sabotaged Taranaki with the oil and gas ban, and it’s still going. Central North Island—we heard Willie Jackson earlier today talking about Gilbert Sydney and his difficulty in finding a job. Well, what happened? Kinleith. Why did Kinleith close down? Why did Winstone close down? The oil and gas ban, high energy prices—all part of the same thing. That is the effect of that captain’s call that that party made in 2018, what has been described as “the most catastrophic act of economic vandalism ever seen”—this is a quote from an industry insider—“in New Zealand”. That is a quote.

We lost 1,000 megawatts—1,000 megawatts—of gas-fired power stations; that is the effect of that. Pre oil and gas ban, the price of electricity was around $75 per megawatt, and in 2024, $250 per megawatt. The industry insiders are saying if we had not had the oil and gas ban, it would have stayed at between $75 and $150 per megawatt—

Have you talked to anyone in the energy sector?

That extra $100-plus is the effect of that oil and gas ban, and these people on the Opposition benches do not realise it—

I mean, you know that’s a load of rubbish.

Mr Willis, comments, not commentary.

In winter 2024, what kept the lights on for Kiwi homes was industry closing down. We took 20 percent of all energy use off. That was the Winstones, Kinleiths, Methanexes—all of those kinds of business. That was the effect of that, and that has directly gone to Kiwi jobs, like Gilbert Sydney, who Willie Jackson was talking about earlier today.

Oh, and, eventually, of course, unless we find some more gas, what’s going to happen to roughly a million Kiwi homes that use gas at the moment? They are going to have to convert at the cost of something like $10,000 to $13,000—the current estimate per household. Those are the kinds of numbers which are coming out of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA). Think of the cost of that conversion. That, again, will be “Thank you, Labour, for that!”.

I visited the Glenbrook Steel Mill recently. It’s a very cool, heavy industrial plant. Gosh, we haven’t got too many of those left! It’s great to see some products actually being made in New Zealand, and there’s some good news there—

Thanks, Labour, for the GIDI Fund.

Oh, there is some good news, Labour! I can say well done on the electric arc furnace, because that’s really good stuff. But part of it is the rolling mill, and without that rolling mill, which cost $2 billion back in the day, and it cost that much mostly because of union action—great—it’s now at risk. Why is it at risk? Because it relies on gas—and, again, about 1,400 direct jobs and about 5,000 indirect jobs.

This is what we need: we need an electricity system that actually works for New Zealand. Yes, renewables, but also we need the firming part of that, whether it’s geothermal—just remember that solar energy works, effectively, at about 16 percent of capacity all the time; wind, about 46 to 47 percent; geothermal is about 98 percent, for example. Hydro could be about the same kind of level. That firming capacity is absolutely essential.

Oh, and on geothermal, the other thing that I’d say, buried in Labour’s brilliant—was it the three waters or 10 waters scheme? However many waters it was in the end. It was short consents for geothermal plants. What that meant is they would have had to reapply every 10 years—every 10 years—for a new consent. Basically, as soon as they got the first one, they’d have to start applying for the second one, which imposes on all the vagaries of the consenting process and, often, being held to ransom for those consents.

What that means is that you would not build a lot of those geothermal plants now, because you could not get, under those rules, a consent for long enough. Yes, we need a strategic approach. Yes, we need a mixed approach. One other thing I want to say that is super critical—deep geothermal that Shane Jones is pushing, I think, is a really important thing. The one thing I do agree with the Opposition on is that we do need some firming to sit behind and underpin the whole system, and the State has a role in doing that. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on a matter of national significance: the role of natural gas in New Zealand’s energy future.

As the member for New Plymouth, I represent a region that has long been the cornerstone of our domestic energy system. Taranaki has powered this country for generations through innovation, resilience, and a deep commitment to energy security. Today, as we navigate the complex transition to a low-emissions economy, I say this: natural gas remains essential well into our future. Energy security is not just a luxury; it is a necessity. Natural gas currently provides about 20 percent of our electricity generation, particularly during peak demand and dry years. It is the firming fuel that steps in when the wind doesn’t blow, the sun doesn’t shine, and the lakes are low. Without it, we risk blackouts, price volatility, reduced productivity, and increased reliance on imported coal. That is not the future I think any of us want.

Let’s be clear: renewables are the future, but they are not yet fully capable of meeting our baseload and peak demands on their own. Until we have more renewable generation and large-scale storage, natural gas is our insurance policy—a stabilising force in an increasingly complex energy system. Natural gas is not just about electrons and pipelines. It’s about people. It’s about jobs. It’s about regional development.

In Taranaki alone, the gas sector supports thousands of skilled workers, from engineers and geologists to technicians and tradespeople. Nationally, it underpins industries that are vital to our economy, including food processing, steel, aluminium, glass, and many other manufacturing businesses. In fact, over 19,000 businesses rely on gas every single day. These are the businesses that employ New Zealanders, pay taxes, and contribute to our export earnings.

The Government’s recent commitment to co-invest in domestic gas development is a vote of confidence in our energy sector. It sends a clear message: we are backing New Zealand - made energy. We are facing the challenge of restoring investor confidence, reducing sovereign risk, and ensuring that our energy future is built on a stable foundation. The Government is committed to our climate goals, but we must be pragmatic, not ideological, in how we get there.

Natural gas is the transitional fuel, a bridge that allows us to scale up renewables, develop green hydrogen, torrefy black pellets, and invest in carbon capture and storage. It gives us time to innovate without compromising reliability and/or affordability. Already, we are seeing progress. New Zealand’s first biomethane-to-pipeline facility is in operation in Reporoa, and hydrogen blending trials are under way. These are the building blocks of a cleaner future, but they must be supported by a stable present. Let us not forget: a just transition is one that leaves no region, no worker, and no industry behind. Energy policy must be grounded in certainty. It must be grounded in clarity and also collaboration. This Government has taken decisive steps. We have lifted the exploration ban. We are reforming the Crown Minerals Act, and we are working with the gas industry through the Gas Transition Plan. We are building a smarter, cleaner, and more secure energy system.

In an increasingly uncertain world, energy sovereignty matters. We cannot afford to become overly reliant on imported fuels. Domestic gas production gives us control over our energy destiny. It strengthens our resilience in the face of global shocks. Natural gas is not the enemy of progress; it is an enabler of it. It is the bridge to a future powered by renewables and innovation. Let’s be clear-eyed and future-focused. Let’s invest in what works, while building what’s next—and let’s ensure that New Zealand’s energy future is secure, sustainable, and sovereign. Mr Speaker, thank you.

Before I take the next speaker, Mr MacLeod, you read that speech. Clearly, you have some good knowledge of it. I think you’ve been in the House long enough now to be able to, largely, leave the paper down. For the future, I’ll be in the Chair watching you.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Government promised fundamental change—“fundamental reform”, I think Simon Watts’ words were—for the energy sector. You have so many New Zealanders who are struggling every week to be able to afford their energy bill and you have businesses shutting down. Each month, we see another business shut down because of the cost of energy. That fundamental reform that was promised by the Minister, quite simply, did not materialise.

As well as no fundamental reform, and the disappointment that ensued, there was no actual real plan in place. I think it was Frontier Economics who was commissioned in—Frontier Economics: not known for their supportiveness of renewable energy. They were asked to come in and take a look at market design and market performance. They reported back with a whole range of recommendations. They’ve picked someone who they think is going to give them the answers they want; they don’t give the answers that they want, and so they don’t do any of it. The only thing that happened was to build a container where we can buy some more natural gas at a much higher price than what we’re already paying. That’s not a solution.

The other solution that they’ve come up with is that we’re just going to keep looking for some more natural gas, even though we haven’t found any for—what?—20 years. Is it 20 years since we’ve actually discovered any? Even if we do find gas—this is a debate; I’m interested to hear the answer—in the next while, 10 years to get it online—what’s going to happen between now and when you get that online? What’s going to happen in that time? How many Kiwi families are going to be able to afford their power bill? How many businesses are going to close because they can’t afford? There are no answers provided to that.

The next bit we saw from those reforms was we saw the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, write a letter—another letter; she’s already written to banks and supermarkets, and maybe Fonterra too, or was that just a meeting?—to the gentailers, saying that, “If you want to go and build some stuff, we think that’s a great idea.”

After that announcement, which was nothing apart from a letter, a big tank, and a promise to keep looking, what happened was that the profits and the shared value of all of those gentailers went up several million dollars. Try and explain that to hard-working New Zealanders who can’t afford to pay for their energy bills, have been told this Government is going to deliver on the cost of living crisis, and instead what they do is they serve the big end of town by making decisions that bake in those profits and drive them up even higher. While we can’t afford our bills, those companies’ share prices have gone up. I don’t understand how that works at all. There was a real opportunity to relieve New Zealand businesses and households with a burden of a broken energy system, and they completely dropped the ball.

Fossil fuel companies are happy. They’re happy because they have their beneficiaries from these so-called reforms, but it is not doing anything in New Zealand to save jobs or create jobs. We have a Government that has once again bowed down to those vested interests and failed to deliver for New Zealanders who are counting on them. They promised big. They raised our expectations. If he had half a brain, he would have just played it down, but he said, “fundamental reform”. We all got our hopes up. They promised big and let us down. It reminds us on a daily basis how out of touch this Government is. Kiwis were promised a bold energy plan with immediate action, but thanks to this coalition of absolute chaos, they’ve brought no plans at all but just higher bills.

I would like to hear, in this debate, some solutions, because what we heard from the last speaker, David MacLeod, who did largely read his speech, is that natural gas is our insurance policy. That was the key line we took out of that. That’s their plan—hoping to find natural gas. The question I want to ask is: if the profits that are baked into those gentailers are reliant upon fossil fuels, how does the Government plan to incentivise investment in renewables? That is the question I would love to have answered, and that is the question that New Zealanders would like to have answered as well.

We have an abundance of renewable energy in New Zealand, and as much as you cry “fast track” from the mountaintops, it doesn’t change the fact that you failed to deliver on the cost of living and you simply rewarded the big end of town, whose profits increased by your lacklustre announcement.

Ms Andersen, you were talking about me—you were marginal about your accusation, but, certainly, when you’re accusing the Chair of it, it makes it even more dire, for future reference.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I want to talk about the small but very industrious town of Kawerau and its enormous contribution to keeping the lights on in New Zealand. Kawerau is a great place, an extraordinary little town, wonderful natural resources and a fine community, and I’m looking forward to getting back there next week—home to 7,670 people in the land of Tūwharetoa ki Kawerau.

Today, we’re discussing energy, and I want to link the two together, because we’re talking particularly about the work being done to double our renewable energy generation by 2050. I wanted to bring to the House’s attention the massive contribution Kawerau is making to this objective—clever partnerships and a growth mindset, welcoming industrial development as part of their town. It’s wonderful to see.

Above ground, Kawerau is the industrial engineering epicentre of New Zealand, home to a few mills and various other industrial operations, and a long-term, loyal workforce firing on all cylinders. But below ground is where it all becomes about the energy. The Kawerau geothermal field spans 35 square kilometres. It has fluid temperatures ranging from 250 degrees Celsius to, I think, 310 degrees Celsius. It has an estimated resource available of up to 570 megawatts. That’s a phenomenal amount of energy. It currently produces enough energy for one-third of the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

This is the kind of energy we need in New Zealand: sovereign energy, the kind no one can take away from us; firming energy, sustainable and secure, that secures our supply; and clean energy, because geothermal plants produce 7 percent of the emissions of a typical coal plant. How do we get more of it? Well, Kawerau will do it. In fact, they already are—the little town that could. Eastland Generation, a wonderful community trust - owned company from Gisborne, the wonderful Tairāwhiti, has partnered with a number of iwi-based partners, I guess, in Kawerau, including Kawerau A8D Ahu Whenua Trust and the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Geothermal Assets Organisation. They are doing an enormous amount of work. They are already producing 26 megawatts, 9 megawatts, 24 megawatts, and currently, in work right now, 49 megawatts of geothermal power in the station that’s about to be commissioned in November.

In addition, you will have seen the announcement this week of the Government’s Wood Energy Strategy, a fine piece of work. We are very pleased to say that this week, “Minister MegaWatts” himself announced that wood energy could replace around 40 percent of fossil fuels process heat by 2015 and displace 300,000 tonnes of coal at Huntly. This would reduce reliance of our energy system on imported fuels and domestic gas, and cut down on emissions.

Kawerau already has the solution—one step ahead, again: a torrefied wood pellet project with international company Foresta, which will see the establishment of a patented pine chemical and torrefied wood pellet facility with the capacity to produce 57,000 metric tonnes of chemicals from pine trees and 216,000 tonnes per annum of black wood pellets. Foresta has advance orders for 80 percent of its products from the first manufacturing facility, and its plan is to produce up to 2.1 million tonnes of torrefied pellets every year, which will replace the coal intake needed. This project, along with others, typifies how we create security of energy supply, regional economic growth, emissions reduction, and reasonably priced power for homes and industry.

When the previous Government landed on this notion that we shouldn’t have coal and gas in this country and that we should wage a war on energy infrastructure like Marsden Point, they did it with no solution in hand. The international investment community lost faith in us and they took their money elsewhere, and we were left this winter wondering where the gas would come from and what would power the heaters. It was lazy thinking and tantamount to energy thuggery.

It’s an inspiring time for the Eastern Bay of Plenty, for the little town of Kawerau, and the future that they hold in their hand with geothermal energy, torrefied wood pellets, and the many other things that we can do in New Zealand that come when the rain doesn’t rain, when the wind doesn’t blow, and the sun doesn’t shine. We’ve got to have some other options, and this is where it’s happening. This is the beginning of it all. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Kia ora, Mr. Speaker. I stand as a proud member of the Labour Party and a list MP based in Taranaki who’s lived—for 25 years, actually—in the energy province. I’ve always been very proud that it is the energy province. It has the potential—and we were working on that potential—for it to continue to be the energy province, to be the clean energy province not only of Aotearoa but of the world.

I also stand here as Labour’s tourism and hospitality spokesperson. As I get around the country and as I listen to people—as I meet with small businesses, large businesses, and regional tourism organisations—we often reflect on the picture that New Zealand paints to the world. Now, we look at Tourism New Zealand, and it’s almost 25 years, as well—that’s the “100% Pure” New Zealand brand, which has been in the eyeballs, in the ears, in the stratosphere of the world around what to expect when they arrive in our beautiful and amazing country. I am committed as a member of the Labour Party, and I’m committed as a member of this community and society, to ensure that New Zealand remains “100% Pure”. We need to put a line in the sand. We need to step up and not kick the can down the road but take responsibility for how we can look to our future, how we can be good ancestors and look to our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren, and those who will come after us, and say, “It was hard.”, and say, “It wasn’t easy, and we weren’t popular, but we did what was right so that you have the benefits of ‘100% Pure’ New Zealand in 100 years’ time.”

I stand by the work that Labour in Government did. In fact, I stand by the work that the Labour and New Zealand First Government did when they stood up on the podium and announced the fact that there would be no more offshore permits issued. Onshore was fine, and I think we got the balance about right, because I wasn’t in Parliament then, but I remember all of my conservative oil and gas friends were angry at me. They were angry, because what have we done? We’ve destroyed everything! Then, I remember all of my Green and all of my amazing friends on the left, and environmentalists, who were angry with me because we hadn’t gone far enough. I think sometimes, when you have people on both sides of the argument angry with you, maybe you’re getting it just about right. You’re just trying to find that middle ground to move forward.

There’s a lot more for us to do, but we need to be committed to the fact that we can’t just keep kicking the can down the road on energy. We can’t just keep kicking the can down the road to figure it out maybe in the next Parliament, or the next generation will figure it out. We need to stand up and make a stand. I am grateful for the work that was done by the Hon Megan Woods in the energy portfolio. I’m grateful to her in terms of the investment in Ara Ake, looking at new ways of creating clean energy for the future not just here in New Zealand but around the world. I’m grateful for the work that she did on green hydrogen and what it could look like, what it could do around innovation when it comes to moving heavy freight around the country and around the world. I am grateful that we are looking down at things like people’s households. We’re looking at people’s businesses, we’re looking at factories, we’re looking at hospitals, we’re looking at schools, we’re looking at the corner dairy, at the local bakery, and even at this building—as the lights flickered as we started this debate, earlier in the afternoon.

We need to consider: how we do get our energy strategy right? What do we do to ensure that all New Zealanders have access to decent, affordable, and clean energy so that we continue to be New Zealand, “100% Pure”? We can all do it if we have the will. We can do anything we want in this Parliament, if the Government has the will—they’ll find the money to do what is right to supercharge clean and cheap, affordable energy. If there was the will, they would find a way.

In closing, I think that next year’s election will definitely be fought as the “electric” election. I think we need to consider the fact that the price of electricity, how we set up our grid and what we do, can and will be done. They often talk about bipartisanship or tripartisanship, but you have to lean in, you have to have conversations with each other. We are committed to ensuring that all New Zealanders have clean, cheap, affordable energy into the future.

The time for this debate has expired. I congratulate those hardy souls who have remained to the bitter end after three long weeks of sitting. Congratulations, and make the most of your week off. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 4 November 2025.

The House adjourned at 5.53 p.m.