Parliamentary debates: Thursday, 13 November 2025

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.

Next week, the House will consider the Retail Payment System—

Sorry, could the member speak into the microphone. I couldn’t hear that.

The House will consider the Retail Payment System (Ban on Merchant Surcharges) Amendment Bill, the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill, and the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill.

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that update. Everyone seems to be talking about urgency next week. Could you just confirm to the House whether that’s happening?

I have gone through what the business of the House will be next week.

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

2024-25 annual reports of:

Heritage New Zealand

New Zealand Symphony Orchestra

2025-26 statements of performance expectations of:

Heritage New Zealand

New Zealand Symphony Orchestra

Government response to the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the inquiry into banking competition.

Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Four select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the Patents Amendment Bill

report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Retail Payment System (Ban on Merchant Surcharges) Amendment Bill

report of the Health Committee on the petition of Lisa Er: Halt the Gene Technology Bill and set up a Commission of Inquiry

report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2).

The bills are set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill, introduction.

That bill is set down for first reading.

Members, I have received a letter from the Hon Jan Tinetti seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the gazetting of a notice announcing the Charter School Agency was entering into a contract with a charitable trust that did not exist. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. However, the big hurdle to get over in an application for an urgent debate is whether the matter has reached a stage where the House business should be set aside. I do not think this matter has reached that stage. The application is declined.

to the Associate Minister of Justice

How will recently announced changes to the Arms Act 1983 benefit licenced firearms owners?

The Arms Act 1983 is an outdated and confusing piece of patchwork legislation. The policy changes which I announced on Tuesday will rectify this. They will replace unnecessary regulation and ambiguous clauses with clarity and common sense. For the first time in 40 years, licensed firearm owners can have hope of a truly workable arms regime. Licensed firearm owners go above and beyond to comply with the law, and I can’t wait to present a bill to the House this year which will make it easier for them to do so.

How will separating the police from the Firearms Safety Authority benefit licensed firearm owners?

Removing police from the Firearms Safety Authority is critical for restoring trust and confidence between licensed firearm owners and the regulator. My reforms will remove blue shirts from the Firearms Safety Authority, remove the Commissioner of Police and police staff from all operational decision-making processes, and establish an independent licensing review committee to stop police from marking their own homework.

How will these changes allow licensed firearm owners to understand their obligations?

Since 2019, licensed firearm owners have had to jump through unnecessary hoops just to comply with the law. No law should be so complicated that it stops people from doing the right thing. That’s why the new Act will be written in plain English and structured logically so licensed firearm owners can clearly understand what is required of them. The regulator will also be able to issue guidance documents ensuring people know exactly what steps they need to take to comply with the law.

How will these changes help businesses which use or supply firearms?

The new Arms Act will provide significant benefits for businesses. Firearm dealers with a good track record will be able to renew their licence every five years instead of annually. Importers will benefit from 12-month import permits. Pest controller licence durations are doubling to five years. Time-consuming licence endorsements will no longer be required for business employees. These are just some of the many benefits for businesses.

What other changes will benefit licensed firearm owners?

There are many more changes that will benefit licensed firearm owners. Secure storage will be able to be kept at any premise approved by the regulator, helping students and renters. Visiting hunters and competitors will benefit from a new 12-month multi-entry visitor licence. Licence extensions will help deliver more consistent processing times, and clear limits will be set on what information can be stored in the firearms registry. I’ll finish by encouraging anyone interested to visit the firearms page on the Ministry of Justice website to get further info.

to the Lead Coordination Minister for the Government’s Response to the Royal Commission’s Report into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions

Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said, when asked whether he would implement all royal commission recommendations, “Yes, this is a Government that’s working its way through the 207 recommendations. We’ve already accepted or partially accepted 85 of those”?

As the Prime Minister stated, we are working our way through the 207 recommendations, in the royal commission’s redress report and the final report, that are relevant to the Crown. The full breakdown, as set out in the Crown response plan, published earlier this year, is: “accepted the intent, or partially accepted, 85 recommendations”; “I need to consider a further 99 recommendations”; and “declined 23 recommendations”.

What are the specific Government policies that go against the royal commission of inquiry recommendations?

Well, I’m not responsible for all Government decisions. I’m only responsible for those ones that are in my area. So it’s a very difficult question for me to answer.

Point of order. I’d just like to seek some clarification. If the Minister is the lead coordination Minister for the Government’s response to the royal commission’s report, would she not have delegations for, at least, knowing which of the Government’s actions go against the response towards this, in the recommendations themselves?

How questions are answered and by whom is the Government’s choice. The answer should be given if it can be given, consistent with the public interest. If the answer can’t be given, then the Minister doesn’t give an answer.

Is survivor Ihorangi Reweti-Peters correct when he said, “If this Government truly cared about survivors, they would have listened to survivors and the royal commission recommendations, and implemented a new, independent, single redress system.”?

I’ve said on many occasions that the thing that was most important to this Government and to survivors was to give certainty and surety around the Government’s response to redress. We knew that implementing an independent redress entity would take years and multiple millions and millions and millions of dollars. We wanted to prioritise certainty and surety to survivors now, which is exactly what we’ve done. We have said that all the current steps we are taking, you would have to have taken in order to get to an independent agency anyway, which is something that can be reconsidered when we do the review in 2027.

Should survivors expect to see a further announcement about redress, since the Prime Minister, yesterday, said yes to implementing all Government-centred recommendations of the royal commission, and, if not, should survivors understand that the responsible Minister and Prime Minister—apologies, could I please start that again, Mr Speaker?

I think it’d be advisable.

Thank you. How can survivors trust the Minister to oversee meaningful response to the royal commission when she is not introducing a new redress system despite the Prime Minister stating in his apology to survivors last year, “But I want to assure you it is our intention to have a new single redress system operating next year.”?

Well, in answer to all of those parts of the question, if the member goes to the Crown response website, she will see three documents that have been published on that website. One of them is around our Government response. But what I would say to those survivors is that the most important thing for me right now is that they get the exact details of what is available. What is really unhelpful for those survivors is when they hear things that are not true, because it upsets them and it makes them think they’re not eligible for redress. For example, when they hear things like, “But the fatal flaw in the redress system is that if you have committed a crime or have been convicted of a crime, you’re not eligible. How crazy is that?” Now, that was deliberately misinforming—

Yeah—short answer.

—survivors, causing a huge amount of pain. It is not true, and it was said online by Tamatha Paul.

Is survivor Karl Tauri from the New Zealand Collective of Abused in State Care Charitable Trust justified in saying, “Why would you want to go back to the place … you were perpetrated [for redress]? It should never happen.”; and if not, why not?

I’ve already answered this question today and on multiple occasions when we said this Government have ensured that we are looking for consistency and certainty and surety now, rather than a process of an independent system that would take years and millions of dollars. It’s not to say it’s out of the question, but at the moment we are on a track that would probably take us there anyway; we would have to take these steps. The most important thing for survivors right now is to know what the current redress system delivers them and what it delivers them quickly.

Does the Minister accept the findings of a Horizon Research poll commissioned by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission showing clearly that nearly three-quarters of New Zealanders want the Government to fully implement the abuse in care inquiry recommendations; and if not, why not?

I haven’t seen that poll.

Sorry, I didn’t hear that answer.

I said I have not seen that poll, so I can’t comment on it.

Given that only 22 percent of New Zealanders believe the Government is doing enough, what immediate actions will the Minister take to rebuild trust and honour the inquiry’s recommendations?

Over the last 18 months, we have taken more actions to redress and support survivors of abuse in care than any other Government: $750 million in this year’s Budget by this Government to make sure that we are topping up payments. We are raising the payments from just over $19,000 to an average of $30,000. We’ve paid out over $1,100 top-ups to people who have come forward. We are on track to deliver redress to more people than we have said we would in this financial year. We have provided certainty and surety at a rate that no other Government has.

to the Prime Minister

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

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, particularly our decision and policy to pass a regulatory standards bill. For the first time, people will be able to truly and visibly see the costs of laws and regulations placed upon them and will be able to place pressure back on politicians not to make overzealous regulations, such as the earthquake laws that cost billions of dollars, only to be repealed by a more sensible Government later.

Does he stand by his Minister of Internal Affairs’ direction to Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ), in December 2024, to cut millions of dollars from their budget at a time when firefighters say they don’t have the staff or equipment they need?

Yes, I do. I note that the costs of the fire service comes from levies added to people’s insurance bills, and our Minister of Internal Affairs is doing a very good job of working on years of neglect, and poor asset management and procurement in order that firefighters can be properly equipped and that people who pay insurance premiums on their home can have some relief from relentless rises in cost of living pressures.

Does he stand by his Minister of Internal Affairs’ decision to restrict Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s funding, leading FENZ to state that their funding is “less reliable” and that they must now plan “for the possibility that our funding will continue to go down”?

You see, every Government restricts the funding. We actually—like previous Governments—have to decide how much of a levy can be put on people’s insurance premiums to pay the fire service. So she has not made a decision to restrict it. A restriction has always been there, and if the people on that side of the House had been a bit more restricted in their spending, maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess now.

Will he guarantee that Fire and Emergency New Zealand’s proposal to cut up to $70 million of spending a year—10 percent of their annual budget—will have no impact on the safety of New Zealanders; if not, why not?

Yes, I most certainly do, and here’s how—and it might enlighten members on the other side. Throwing money at a problem is not the same as solving it. It is possible to solve problems by working smarter, putting in place more competent people, and making better use of resources. This is what households and businesses have had to do, year after year, while a previous Government threw money at every problem, but didn’t actually manage to solve them. So, yes, we absolutely can, and, as a great New Zealander once said, “If you don’t have a lot of money, you have to think.”—the member should try it.

The acting Prime Minister will withdraw and apologise for the last comment.

I withdraw and apologise.

Why, in the same week that a massive fire broke out in Tongariro National Park, has Fire and Emergency New Zealand been forced to cut specialist wildfire roles?

They have not been forced to cut specialist wildfire roles; they have been asked to manage within a budget. They are an autonomous Crown entity, and if you think for a moment that they have made that choice because there was a wildfire—which is the implication of the member’s question—well, that’s just crazy.

What impact will the loss of 140 jobs, including key fire prevention staff, have on firefighters’ ability to respond to emergencies quickly and safely?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, it won’t have an impact if the resources available to the fire service are well managed, which is precisely the Government’s objective.

Will he guarantee that there will be no pause on the hiring of more professional firefighters?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, as I said in my answer to an earlier question, decisions such as whether to hire in a Crown entity are not actually made by the Minister. So you would be asking me, as the Prime Minister, or on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs—or whoever you think it is—to actually break the law by interfering in a Crown entity. This Government does not break the law—that’s what other people do.

When will he back our firefighters by giving them the additional staff and equipment they need to do their jobs safely, rather than making massive cuts to Fire and Emergency New Zealand that, effectively, put us all at risk?

Well, we back the firefighters every day. We listen, we treat them with respect, we visit the stations, and we do things like having an asset management plan. In 2017, when the Fire Service was merged, there was no asset management plan, and so it was very difficult to know if the assets were reliable to keep firefighters safe. Now, for the further six years, I don’t know what was happening, but for some reason their asset management plan was not put in place. Then, in 2023, I don’t know what happened, but there seemed to be some sort of change, and since we’ve had Minister van Velden in charge of Internal Affairs, an asset management plan has been put in place. I don’t know if there’s a coincidence or a string of them here, but I do know that that member is not the right person to be asking these questions; in fact—

Good.

—I would give up completely—

That’ll do.

to the Minister of Education

E tautoko ana ia i āna kōrero me āna mahi katoa?

[Does she stand by all of her statements and actions?]

Yes, in the context in which they were made.

E mōhio ana ia ki ētahi atu whenua e whakaako ana i tētahi o ngā reo whaimana, āpā anō ka tonoa e ngā mātua. Mēnā, āe, kei whea?

[Does she know of any other countries which teach an official language, only if being requested by parents; if yes, where?]

Could I ask the interpreter to start that interpretation again so that we’re certain we know what was said. [Interpreter repeats interpretation]

In answer to that question, the member is referring to one of the points we’re making in section 127 where we’re asking school boards to ensure that teaching and learning is available in te reo Māori for parents who ask for it. That is a clause that has been in the Education Act since, I think, about 1989—for a very, very long time. It’s important to make sure that there is demand for the thing that you are providing, otherwise, schools would, essentially, be opening rūmaki classes for nobody. It is an important part of the Act, to make sure that there is a demand for the thing that you are providing, and there is plenty of demand.

Does she stand by her statement “The Treaty is the Crown’s responsibility, not schools”; if so, how is removing Te Tiriti obligations without consultation with hapū, iwi, and Māori education experts acting responsibly as a Treaty partner?

I do stand by the statements that I made that the core obligation of the Crown is to uphold the Treaty and not to be delegated to a school board. That is the case for many Crown entities. Core Crown is defined by Ministers and departments. Crown entities don’t necessarily have Treaty duties, and the boards of trustees are the furthest away you can get, almost, completely, from the Crown in terms of their independence.

Who does she think is more committed to Te Tiriti o Waitangi: her coalition Government or the coalition made up of 88 iwi, over 95,000 teachers, principals, schools, and kura opposing her repeal of section 127 subsection(2)(e) of the Education and Training Act?

Well, the person who is committed to the Treaty is the Minister of Education. The reason that I can say that is the core tenet of upholding the Treaty is ensuring that Māori children achieve at school, and they haven’t been for so long. Here we are, having a debate about the Treaty of Waitangi and a school board’s responsibility, when we should be talking about Māori achievement, because that’s what this Government has been doing. We are raising Māori achievement, unlike the last lot.

What action is the Minister taking in response to the more than 180 New Zealand schools who have signed an open letter to continue to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi in education delivery and, also, in response to the iwi chairs’ petition to protect Te Tiriti in education?

In response to the second part of the question, I am actively seeking a meeting with iwi chairs to discuss the responsibility that the Crown has for the Treaty, our obligations, and how we’re delivering on those.

Can the Minister confirm that those 180 schools remain free to teach as much te reo Māori, tikanga Māori, and as much about te ao Māori as they like; nothing has been taken away from them, but they are obliged to respect the choices of others to run their schools their way?

I can confirm that is the case. There will be those schools who wish to do that, and I look forward to seeing the results. But it is the rights of other schools to have different opinions. I have recently been written to by a principal who says, “Thank you for your courage in streamlining responsibility for Treaty obligations at a national level and for refocusing schools and the Teaching Council on core outcomes for learners. Your clarity and commitment to equitable achievements gives strong direction in a challenging time. Be strong and don’t bow down.”

Supplementary question.

I think the independents may have used their whole allocation today?

No, we’ve got one more.

No, I don’t think so. I think your bench mate took two, and there was only one allocated your way.

Do you think a Government is committed to the Treaty, to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, when they let attendance at schools slide to below 35 percent?

Hold on. Wait on. That’s a question of the nature that we’re not having more of in the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Finance and asks—

Just hold on. Just wait for the House to give you the respect of their silence while they listen.

to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on Government support for families?

In July, I announced an expansion of FamilyBoost to further assist families with the costs of early childhood education. Households can now claim larger rebates on the fees they pay, and more households are eligible. FamilyBoost is paid quarterly, so after 30 September, households were able to go to IRD’s website and claim these larger amounts. I’ve seen a recent report showing that the average payment relating to the September quarter currently equates to just under $100 a fortnight, significantly higher than the average payment of $57 a fortnight for the quarter before. An average payment of $100 a fortnight is welcome support for New Zealanders with young families.

How many more households are now receiving FamilyBoost?

As a result of the changes I announced in July, thousands of families who couldn’t previously claim FamilyBoost became eligible. That’s borne out in the figures. The latest report shows that the number of households receiving FamilyBoost has so far risen to more than 78,000. That is 10,000 more than at the end of the last quarter. We know many families are doing it tough. These changes will help more of them deal with the cost of early childhood education, particularly families where both parents are working.

What difference have these FamilyBoost changes made to households?

Well, that does depend on a household’s particular circumstance: the income it brings in, how much they pay in early childhood education fees. But what I can tell the member is that the number of families receiving FamilyBoost payments of $150 a fortnight or more has increased markedly. In the September quarter, 11,584 households have so far got a payment equating to $150 a fortnight or more.

How many got $250? How many?

I encourage all households who think—

If any?

—they could be eligible to go on Inland Revenue’s website and register for FamilyBoost. Mr Speaker, in reply to the interjection—

No, no, you’re not replying to that.

What feedback has she received on FamilyBoost?

Well, I get regular positive feedback on FamilyBoost, through emails and in person. A typical email is the following, which I received last month. It says, “I just wanted to say a huge thankyou for the FamilyBoost payments. We’ve found the whole process incredibly easy and impressively fast. It’s been such a positive experience.”

Ha, ha!

“As an ordinary, young, working family with a mortgage, this support truly makes a difference. It’s a real help in today’s climate and we are so grateful for it. Thank you again for making things a little easier for families like ours.” And members of the Opposition cackle at the impact this is having on a real family.

to the Acting Minister for Food Safety

Is he committed to his responsibility under the food safety portfolio to “provide safe and suitable food in New Zealand and for export”?

On behalf of the Minister, yes, laser-focused.

Why is he proposing moving meat inspection services from AsureQuality, the Government’s recognised meat inspection agency, to a model self-regulated by industry?

On behalf of the Minister, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) are consulting on a change to the meat inspection regime—consulting, essentially, on an option that has existed optionally since 2013. Seventeen percent of New Zealand’s meat exports go through this very regime that’s being consulted on, and I would note that it was a regime that was in place when the member herself was the Minister for Food Safety and was clearly comfortable with it then.

How many of the 650 official assessors employed at AsureQuality will keep their jobs?

It’s a hypothetical question—this is a consultation—but I would say that this is a highly critical part of the red meat sector. There’s a sector here that absolutely relies on the quality of their food safety assurance, so they’re not going to be cutting corners. I would put out that there will still be Government oversight at the very start, at the antemortem, at the start, and at the end. It’s a hypothetical question; we’re still consulting, and no decisions have been made.

Is he confident that our trade reputation won’t be put at risk by meat processors doing their own inspections?

On behalf of the Minister, absolutely. MPI are consulting extensively with our overseas trading partners. There is no way we would put in place any regime that would put our gold-standard reputation at risk—so, no.

Why has he not requested any risk assessments on a move to self-inspection given that New Zealand trades on providing good quality, safe food to the world, and one bad shipment would undermine our meat exports?

On behalf of the Minister, I would argue that the risk assessment has been done since 2013, since this option has been available. Literally billions of dollars of meat has been exported under that regime with no noticeable difference between the current Government-only mandated plants and the ones that are running a more flexible system.

Isn’t this consultation just another case of libertarian ideology trumping jobs, safety, and New Zealand’s hard-won reputation for food safety?

OK, the deal is that questions are heard in silence, so we’ll have the question again—but it might be good to start with a question word rather than a statement.

Does this consultation provide another case of libertarian ideology trumping jobs, safety, and New Zealand’s hard-won reputation for food safety?

On behalf of the Minister, no, absolutely not. I would point out, as the Minister, that this is an MPI decision. MPI run this process; it is their decision. This process has been working exceptionally well for 17 percent of our meat exports since 2013, when the member herself was the Minister overseeing this particular regime. She could turn the mirror on herself.

to the Minister of Health

What recent announcements has the Government made to make it easier and more affordable for New Zealanders to access the medicines they need?

From 1 February 2026, New Zealanders with long-term stable conditions will be able to receive prescriptions lasting up to 12 months. This common-sense change means fewer GP visits, lower costs, and greater convenience for patients. It could save patients up to $105 a year and free up thousands of GP appointments. It’s a practical reform that delivers on our commitment to make healthcare simpler, faster, and more affordable.

How will this benefit New Zealanders managing long-term conditions?

People with conditions like asthma, diabetes, or high blood pressure will no longer have to make unnecessary trips to the doctor just to renew a routine prescription. They’ll still collect their medicines from the pharmacy as usual, but with far less hassle and cost. It’s a straightforward, patient-focused change that reduces travel, time off work, and out-of-pocket costs.

How will this support GPs and the wider health workforce?

Freeing up repeat prescription appointments will save GPs and nurses thousands of hours each year. That is time they can spend with patients who need more complex care, and we’re freeing up that time for what matters the most. It is a smart, efficient way to get better results for patients and make the most of our health workforce.

What other steps is the Government taking to improve access to medicines?

Many other steps, including through the Medicines Amendment Bill, and I acknowledge my colleague the Hon David Seymour for shepherding it through the House this week. One of the changes we have made removes outdated ownership restrictions that stopped pharmacist prescribers from owning or investing in pharmacies. This cuts red tape and allows pharmacists to play a greater role in providing care in their communities. That means easier access to prescription medicines and more flexible local models. It is another example of this Government backing innovation and delivering practical improvements for patients.

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

Is there a suitable job available for every unemployed person in this country; if not, should unemployed people live in poverty?

There are job opportunities across New Zealand for people who are ready and able to work. The 160,000 people currently unemployed represents a wide range of circumstances. For example, they might be in between jobs, have recently received a redundancy payment, they might be being supported by their partner or family. This doesn’t mean they are in poverty. Our Government is focusing on work to grow the economy and create more jobs, because we know this is important.

Is it correct that single jobseeker beneficiaries on average have a weekly income deficit of $107; and if not, what does she say to the Zero Hunger Collective’s findings?

As I said, there are a range of circumstances where people are unemployed. Not all of them are on the jobseeker benefit. What we want to see is those who are on the jobseeker benefit being supported to prepare for and get ready or take up job opportunities.

Point of order. I asked a relatively straightforward question in relation to an organisation’s findings, and I don’t believe the Minister actually addressed the organisation’s findings or the figure that I put to her.

Well, I think in her opening statement she said there are many different circumstances that people will find themselves in on the jobseeker benefit. I think that probably covers it as an address to the question.

Was the Ministry of Social Development correct when it advised her that restricting access to benefits for 18- and 19-year-olds would result in more people needing income support and greater demand for foodbanks?

Yes, and the Ministry of Social Development was also right, as the Prime Minister was, saying that we don’t want to see young people trapped on welfare. We don’t want them to see future decades of their lives stuck on welfare. We have higher expectations of them.

So if her answer to the previous question was yes, why did she go ahead with a policy that would result in more people needing income support and greater demand for foodbanks?

Because, as I’ve said multiple times in this House, we believe 18- and 19-year-olds should be starting on the path that gives them the greatest opportunities for the rest of their lives. That means being in education, being in training, or being in a job.

to the Minister for the Public Service

Which is correct, her oral answer in the House on 12 November 2025, in which she said, “a communications strategy is not the same as a paid advertising campaign, which I was not aware of”, or her answer to Written question No. 50726 that “The Public Service Commission later informed my office and asked us to inform the PMO prior of the specific advertising going live”?

on behalf of the Minister for the Public Service: Both statements are correct. The Minister was aware the commission would be using social media to provide facts about the strikes. She was not aware that they were paid advertising.

When she told the House that “a communications strategy is not the same as a paid advertising campaign”, was she saying she was not aware of the specific Facebook posts posted by the Public Service Commission in late October 2025 as part of its communication strategy on the planned industrial action?

On behalf of the Minister for the Public Service, no, she was saying that she was not aware that they were paid advertising.

How does she reconcile the Prime Minister’s public statement on 3 November 2025 that he had not been informed in advance of the campaign with her own written answer, which states that “The Public Service Commission’s communications strategy regarding the industrial action held on 23 October 2025 was discussed with the Prime Minister and myself and our offices prior to the Commission’s advertisements being published.”?

On behalf of the Minister for the Public Service, my understanding is that those answers were in response to questions about paid advertising campaigns which the Prime Minister was not aware of.

Does she accept that irrespective of whether she was aware the advertisements would be paid, she did not object, and signed off the Public Service Commission’s communications strategy prior to the 23 October industrial action?

Can the member repeat that one again, sorry.

Does she accept that irrespective of whether she was aware the advertisements would be paid, she did not object, and signed off the Public Service Commission’s communications strategy prior to the 23 October industrial action?

On behalf of the Minister for the Public Service, I assume she didn’t object, but I’m of the understanding she’s not required to approve of those kinds of campaigns.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s attempt to address the question, but we have a situation here where he has stated he is answering on behalf of and then making assumptions on his behalf, and they don’t quite marry up. If the Minister answering on behalf of the Minister doesn’t know, it would be better for the House’s understanding if he just said that, rather than making assumptions on his behalf whilst answering on behalf of the Minister.

Yeah, it’s not unusual in these circumstances for a Minister to say, “I don’t have that information.” But we’ll just try the question again, and we’ll try the answer again.

Does she accept that irrespective of whether she was aware that the advertisements would be paid, she did not object, and signed off the Public Service Commission’s communications strategy prior to the 23 October industrial action?

Sorry, Mr Speaker, but I think that question was differently worded to the one prior to it, but—

I don’t think so. Certainly—look, I got it.

OK. Well, I don’t have that information to hand, I’m sorry.

What were the Department of Internal Affairs’ objections to the Public Service Commission’s advertising?

On behalf of the Minister for the Public Service, I’m personally not aware of what the specific objections were. What I am aware of is that a staff member from the Department of Internal Affairs raised a query as to whether or not the social media advertising was in line with social media guidelines, which they subsequently found that they were.

Has she or her office since verified whether the Prime Minister and/or his office were, in fact, informed prior to the advertising campaign going live, and, if not, why not?

On behalf of the Minister for the Public Service, I don’t have that information. But if the member would like to put it in writing, I’m sure that the Minister will answer it.

to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology

What steps is the Government taking to support science and innovation to grow the economy and improve the health of New Zealanders?

The Government is committed to supporting research that delivers impact where it matters most. That is why we have, for example, recently announced $75 million to boost New Zealand’s resilience to infectious diseases and pandemic preparedness through the Infectious Diseases Research Platform. We’re currently seeing an outbreak of measles in New Zealand, which has reinforced the need for robust infectious disease research and response systems.

How is the Government empowering our world-class scientists, universities, and research organisations to turn ideas into market-ready solutions?

Today, I announced new rules for managing intellectual property that will ensure our brightest minds are incentivised and supported to turn ideas into impact. Currently, each university and research organisation manages intellectual property differently, and institutions often claim ownership of discoveries made by their researchers. This can limit inventors’ ability to commercialise their work and drive growth. Under our new policy, university researchers will have the first right to commercialise their inventions, either independently or alongside the universities for support. This approach will foster and drive more innovation so Kiwi-made discoveries reach New Zealanders and the world faster, improving lives, creating jobs, and driving economic growth.

What recent announcements has the Government made to explore new areas of scientific discovery?

The Government has refocused the Marsden Fund so that it fosters breakthrough discoveries with the potential to deliver lasting benefits for our economy, health, and environment. With this in mind, last week, more than $80 million was announced for 107 different Marsden Fund research projects. These projects include improved cancer treatments and cleaner energy solutions for industry, which will support established research leaders as well as the next generation of emerging scientists.

How does the science and innovation sector feature in the Government’s plan to deliver greater economic growth?

Innovation, technology, and science is important to the Government’s Going for Growth agenda. As well as the initiatives I have just discussed, we are also investing $42 million for a new biodiscovery platform, $70 million for artificial intelligence, $71 million for new materials and magnets, $40 million for Endeavour Smart Ideas, and $183 million for Endeavour research projects. These will all create new opportunities within our science sector and support high-value jobs for New Zealanders.

to the Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology

How many full-time research jobs have been lost or left unfilled in the last two years as a result of funding cuts or restructuring in the science system?

I am advised that there have been 114 science jobs associated with the disestablishment of Callaghan Innovation. I am further advised that there has been a net reduction of 224 science staff within the Crown research institute / public research organisations from July 2024 to September 2025. However, these are not the result of the current reforms of the science system, but, rather, operational decisions. It is important to note that our science organisations make changes to staffing levels for a variety of reasons as they adjust to changes in emerging priorities and fluctuations in market conditions, including success in contestable funding and commercial revenues.

Has he asked how many of the 200 Kiwis a day leaving the country to find work overseas are scientists?

I value all of the scientists who are currently in the system and who currently may be making a choice to go offshore. I would encourage them to contribute or be a part of the funding I have just announced, but, furthermore, I am encouraged by the biannual StatsNZ R & D survey, which shows that the broader New Zealand science sector has actually grown from 28,200 roles in 2022 to 30,600 roles in 2024, adding around 2,400 full-time roles.

Does he agree with the winner of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize, who last month said that, if the funding doesn’t change, “scientists will pack their bags and move to other countries.”, and, if not, why not?

I agree with the winner of that award and congratulate him on the good work that he was doing, and I can reassure him that during this period of the Government’s restructuring of the science sector reforms, the funding for the science portfolio has not changed.

Will he, instead of cutting jobs, ring-fence or expand support for early-career researchers, to encourage our youngest and brightest to stay in New Zealand?

Early-career researchers are well looked after through a number of funding mechanisms, including Marsden, including the Health Research Council, and including the Endeavour Fund, and we’ll continue to ensure that pipeline of emerging researchers through to later careers.

What is he more proud of: the $10 million invested in the Deep Heat geothermal project or the $11 million he has spent to make scientists redundant at Callaghan Innovation?

If the member is proposing that they should receive no redundancy, he should discuss that with the Public Service Association, and I’m very proud of the $10 million for Deep Heat supercritical geothermal energy in the Taupō Volcanic Zone.

Is the winner of the Prime Minister’s Science Prize right to accuse the current Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, of being “an idiot for running a Government that budgeted more for AI than for the Marsden Fund” and to characterise his Government’s science funding as “batshit” for budgeting 327 times more funding for a single road than for basic science?

I thank the Prime Minister for his support of the science portfolio and would suggest that some accurate numbers actually be done. Marsden was $70 million or more in one year; AI is $70 million over seven years.

to the Minister for Mental Health

What recent announcement has he made regarding the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund?

One of the Government’s top priorities is to improve access to mental health support so all Kiwis can have the help when and where they need it. This morning, I announced that five grassroots community organisations have received second-round funding from the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund. By partnering with organisations such as Barnardos, Netsafe, Plunket, the Graeme Dingle Foundation, and Ki Tua o Matariki, we will deliver more support for young people and expand maternal mental health services. When someone takes the brave step of reaching out, whether it’s your child, a friend or a family member, this Government’s committed to ensuring the right support is there.

How will the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund deliver more youth mental health services?

Good question. This Government is not just focused on ensuring the right support is in place for mental health issues but we focus strongly on preventing Kiwis from getting to that point. The innovation fund will increase services available for children. Barnardos will strengthen the 0800 What’s Up helpline, provide free immediate support to more children, and reduce waiting times. Netsafe will create a digital harm and mental health response network, strengthen its helpline, and train up to 1,000 workers to respond to youth distress linked to online harm. We’ll also support the Graeme Dingle Foundation to expand their Project K programme, helping young people across the Waikato, Western Bay of Plenty, and Christchurch. No matter where you live, this Government is committed to ensuring that faster support is there.

Faster answers would be good too.

What new maternal mental health services will be supported through the Mental Health and Addiction Community Sector Innovation Fund?

The Government’s focus is to strengthen prevention and early intervention. We know the first thousand days of a child’s life lay the foundations for good mental health. The innovation fund will support young mothers, through Ki Tua o Matariki, to run peer support groups for expectant mothers aged 15 to 25 in Auckland. The innovation fund will support Plunket to launch a new online maternal mental health service in the Waikato, providing personalised care plans for parents of children aged zero to five. The Government is committed to ensuring we have the right support in place for mothers and young families.

What are the objectives of the mental health innovation fund, and which organisations have already received funding through this initiative?

Our mental health plan is focused on delivering results, faster access to support, more front-line workers, and a better crisis response. The innovation fund delivers increased access to mental health support, scalable solutions, and increases the workforce. The matched funding for innovative projects improves mental health outcomes. Quite frankly, it gets the money out of the door in Wellington to hard-working NGOs and community providers. The first round of recipients included Mates in Construction, the Mental Health Foundation, Youthline, Wellington City Mission, Rotorua Community Youth Centre Trust, Sir John Kirwan Foundation, Women’s Refuge, and Just a Thought. Behind every one of these new services are thousands of Kiwis, now getting the timely support they need.

to the Chairperson of the Environment Committee

Why did she explain advertising an 11-day submissions deadline for the Fast-track Approvals Amendment Bill on the basis that “Under Standing Order 198, I opened submissions to meet the expectation of the timeframe”, when Standing Order 198 makes no reference to the timeframe for submissions?

It would appear the member, the chair of the select committee, is unable to answer that today. The question is deferred and can be asked again on Tuesday.

We come now to Government order of the day No. 1. Before I call that, can those leaving the House for other business do so quickly and quietly.

I present a legislative statement on the Regulatory Standards Bill.

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

I move, That the Regulatory Standards Bill be now read a third time.

The Regulatory Standards Bill is a good idea that has been a long time coming. I would like to acknowledge the many staff; MPs, including the Hon Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce, and particularly Bryce Wilkinson; the Ministry for Regulation, and particularly Gráinne and Andrew; the Finance and Expenditure Committee, led by Cameron Brewer; and my colleagues in the ACT Party and across the Government, who have all at different times worked to make this possible.

I’d like to start with a thought about Acemoglu and Robinson, two guys that just got the Nobel Prize for their work on institutions and how they contribute to people’s prosperity. Their basic idea is that we benefit from a long tradition that established this Parliament, the courts, and the executive; a strong State capable of stopping anarchy that is none the less restrained by the tension between that Government and the rest of the community. That is the balance required so that people can live free and prosperous lives. In recent decades, our society has continued to build the tension between our civil society and our State so that we can be free and prosperous.

We have, for example, put in place the Public Finance Act 1989 so that New Zealanders can see when politicians are racking up debt on their account or wasting their money. We’ve put in place the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act so that New Zealanders can see if politicians are inflating away the value of their savings, and we put in place the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 so the people can see if politicians are making laws that violate their basic personal freedoms.

These institutions are critical. They don’t restrain Parliament. They don’t stop politicians from making laws. But they do create that critical tension between a civil society that’s informed and can see what politicians are up to and can critique it on the one hand, and a strong State that can prevent anarchy and protect us from violence on the other. But sadly, so far we have not put in place a law that exposes the impacts of politicians putting restrictions on the use and exchange of property. The Regulatory Standards Bill changes that. If you want to pursue some cause, then you need to be open about whether it is going to impact people’s value that they get from their property and the value that they get from their time.

This Government follows too many who failed to do that adequately. The cost of the restrictions are immense and they are felt throughout our society. It is the teachers who say, “All I wanted to do was help young New Zealanders reach their potential and all I actually do is fill out forms and comply with bureaucracy.” It’s the builders who complain that it takes longer to get permission to build something than actually build it, or the financial service workers who say they can’t give financial advice to the people who really need it because, under the rules, they can’t afford it. It’s a generation marching because fundamentally they don’t believe that they will have their own property in one of the most sparsely populated countries on earth because we’ve made it too hard to build the homes and the infrastructure that connects them together.

Sometimes these stories of politicians making laws and regulations are deeply personal. I’d like to tell the story of one such woman I call Robin. She worked for 45 years in the public sector and charity in this country. She said, “I believed in this country until it was all taken away.” What happened is that she had built up a pretty good nest egg. She was looking forward to her retirement and being able to spoil her grandchildren. She owned her apartment where the body corporate decided to knock off some routine maintenance, but unfortunately they ran into the earthquake-strengthening laws and $1 million later, she has no savings and she has to sell her apartment.

Remember she said, “I believed in this country.” She came to my electorate office and she insisted on reading out her story, through tears. People should just think about these human faces sometimes. What happens when people make a law for some worthy purpose but don’t actually ask what the impacts on individuals will be? Robin’s true bitterness and sadness came from the fact that this Parliament has now realised those laws actually never stacked up. We will get rid of them. If only—and here is the really sad thing—the advice at the time had been given more prominence and taken more seriously.

That is what the Regulatory Standards Bill will do. It will ensure that new laws are accompanied by a consistency accountability statement that will largely replace the current but sadly ignored regulatory impact statements. These consistency accountability statements will be based on the principles provided for in this bill, for the first time actually put in legislation, but they will say that we have to identify the cost of people’s liberty being restricted, their property rights being impaired, or fees and levies that are unreasonable, among other principles. We will identify the impacts, and the regulatory standards board will act as a watchdog, seeing to it that the consistency accountability statements are fully accurate and open to the people. The Act will also provide for reviewing already existing laws against those principles. It will empower the Ministry for Regulation to request information from other departments when going about those duties.

Now, I want to say a little bit to the critics who have been many but, in my view, poorly informed. People say that this bill should have, amongst its principles, things such as equity or upholding Te Tiriti or public health or environmental custodianship. The misunderstanding is that any Government can still pursue those collective goals through collective action. The point of the Regulatory Standards Bill and its principles is to identify the costs of those laws and those collective projects on individuals. If you want to identify a significant natural area on someone’s farm, you can, but if the rest of the community really believes it’s that valuable, perhaps they should be prepared to compensate that farmer rather than make them bear all the cost for a collective goal and do so without even acknowledging the cost being put on them.

Where this bill leads us is a more respectful and more civilised society, one where if you want to benefit, if you want to pursue an objective that you think is worthy, and if you want to impose costs on other people using and exchanging their property or you want to take up their time to achieve your goal, then as a start, you have to at least be open and honest about the fact that you’re doing it. Parliament can pass the law if it really wants to, anyway. But just like we have kept in that narrow corridor between a strong civil society and a strong State when it comes to spending people’s taxes, printing more money to devalue their savings, or passing laws that violate their basic personal freedoms with the Public Finance Act and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the Regulatory Standards Bill means that politicians need to at least be open and honest about the impacts that they have on individuals when they pursue their goals.

That is what we need to be doing in this Parliament. It is a movement towards a more civilised society where adults treat each other respectfully. That is something that I look forward to implementing over the next six months as this bill comes into force. I am very proud to stand behind it. I’m very grateful to all those I named at the beginning who have helped make this dream a reality so far and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. I want to explain why, within the first 100 days of the next Labour-led Government, we will repeal this bill.

The first reason is this: there has been no piece of legislation that has come before this House that is less wanted. The Minister said the critics were many; the critics were overwhelming. In the select committee process, less than 1 percent of the submitters supported this bill. Not only that, it was across the board. All of the civil society organisations—the Law Society, the New Zealand Human Rights Commission, the Children’s Commissioner, the Commissioner for the Environment, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee—the list goes on and on and on. They all made thoughtful submissions explaining why this bill was unworkable and did not truly reflect what good regulatory practice was.

What it amounts to is baking in a libertarian set of values into our lawmaking process, skewing the lawmaking process in a particular libertarian, philosophical way. At root—and their words were used by the Minister in his speech today—it’s about the protection of property rights, the protection of absolutely free use and exchange of property, in his words. The rest of the bill is cover, is camouflage, for the genuine libertarian ideal of the promotion of the freedom of property rights above all else.

The second reason we’ll get rid of this bill is because it’s simply wasteful. The number of submitters who understand the legislative and policy development process said that the problem has been mischaracterised. We do not need a new piece of legislation and a new regulatory standards board to undertake this. We have a series of procedures in place, from good policy development and problem identification through to the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee and the Regulations Review Authority, the Regulations Review Committee, the select committee process—and again, the list goes on.

Yes, we can do it better. We can do better regulatory impact statements. We can do better departmental disclosure statements. But what we don’t need is another piece of paper—a consistency accountability statement—that public servants have to go and undertake. We found out that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment projects it will cost them $60 million a year and 25 percent of their policy capacity to comply with this. What did they say? That this risks making their regulatory stewardship worse because of the diversion of resource to this bureaucratic form-filling that the ACT Party pretends they’re against. That’s why it’s cover; that’s why what it really does is try to bake in property rights into, essentially, our constitutional framework.

That’s the third reason why we’re going to get rid of this bill at the first opportunity: it’s fundamentally unconstitutional. This House is where law is made. This House and its committees and its processes are the correct place for scrutiny. That’s why we have the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reports come before us. What we don’t need is a cabal of hand-picked members of a committee that sits outside of this House on the regulatory standards board—hand-picked by the Minister for Regulation—to second-guess what goes on in this House. This is the place for deliberation. This is the place for scrutiny. This is the place for examination. To say that there is another group of people out there who you have no control over—unelected people—it’s fundamentally undemocratic. What we have is, essentially, a politically appointed group of people criticising democratically elected processes and people. It’s wrong.

Here’s the true irony of this bill: it’s procedurally flawed. The bill that is about regulatory quality broke every rule in respect of how to make good rules. Was it properly consulted on? Absolutely not. The consultation was deeply flawed and skewed. The pre-legislative consultation itself pre-empted the decision. It said, “Here’s what we’re going to do. What do you think around the edges?” Did it consult Māori as it should under the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? No, it didn’t. It left them out: “Oh, they can just tack their consultation on to the end.” That’s not good legislative process. And what about hearing the Minister talk about regulatory impact statements and bemoaning how they’re not followed? His own regulatory impact statement for this legislation did not meet the quality standards imposed by Treasury. It was a rubbish regulatory impact statement. It was an absolute shambles. The idea that he stands up and says, “I’ve got this great piece of legislation about regulatory quality.”, when he doesn’t follow his own rules about regulatory quality, is outrageous.

What we have here is a piece of legislation that, let’s face it, has been waiting in the ACT Party wings for this moment for 20 years. You know where it comes from? It comes from a report by the New Zealand Business Roundtable—the mates, essentially, of big corporates. That’s who wants this bill in place. On that side of the House, it’s come from the ACT Party, but let’s not forget: it’s yours as well: New Zealand First, so-called stander-upper for the little guy. Here, you’re standing up for big corporates. The National Party: well, you being absolutely led by the nose by the libertarian ACT Party whilst you undermine the conservative values that you say you represent. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Ultimately, this is a politically motivated bill. It’s a bill which is absolutely libertarian in its values. It seeks to put in place a set of far-right values which come out of a theory of economics that basically says the most important right is the right to private property. It throws to one side every other right we hold dear—genuine rights, about equity, about preserving human dignity, about preserving our environment, about preserving indigenous people’s rights. To say “Don’t worry about it, we don’t need those as principles of good regulatory standards” is to absolutely demean a set of rights that we have worked and fought hard for across centuries. All for what? For profit—for corporate profit, moreover.

We are committed to repealing this bill in the first 100 days of the next Labour-led Government. This is a bill which is deeply unpopular, and it’s a bill which no National-led Government in its right mind would support. It’s a bill that New Zealand First are deeply uncomfortable with, for right reason. But what’s that? That is the cost of the baubles of power, because this is the dirty deal that has been done to pass a bill—a regulatory standards bill, that isn’t about regulation—and it has no standards. It’s a bill about hard-baking into our constitutional system—into the very cogs of the machine that makes law—libertarian principles: the protection of property over person, the protection of property over human rights, and over our environment. That’s what we’ve got here, and that’s why we will get rid of this bill at the first opportunity.

This bill is a bit like a cockroach: we keep stamping it out, but it just won’t die. They tried this three times before, as Duncan Webb just said. They’ve tried this in the past, and every single time it failed. They tried it again with the Treaty principles bill, and what happened with that? It got thrown out at the first reading—it got chucked in the bin—and now it’s come before us again. It’s a cockroach; it just won’t die.

But the danger in this bill is not actually how damaging it will be, although that is a real danger of it. The danger of this bill is how eye-wateringly boring and technical it is, so that most of the general public aren’t necessarily paying attention to the consequences of this bill. They’d be forgiven for thinking that it was just a boring old bill, because the ACT Party can’t get it by standing on what they really want, so they couch it in legal and technical and constitutional terms to try and get their foot in the door—just like a cockroach. That’s how a cockroach lives, isn’t it? In the dark, in the night—not in broad daylight, being clear about the intentions of what they hope to achieve. Or maybe it’s like a rat—maybe it’s like a rat. You see one, you think that’s it; there’s 20 more where that came from.

The intentions—the intentions are the same, no matter how many times they’ve tried to do this. It’s erase Te Tiriti o Waitangi, ransack the environment, and put corporate greed over the public good. Because we used to make things here in Aotearoa: we used to create paper; we used to make wool, timber; we used to manufacture things—cars, clothing. We cared about each other. We understood that in order for people to work hard in those industries—

Wool’s coming back.

—like making wool, Mr Patterson—we needed to provide for them, as well. We knew that if we gave people the basics, that they would be able to live a productive life that benefits our country and our economy—a concept that seems completely foreign to that side of the House. These are the basic tenets of social reproduction: make people happy, give them the basics; they’ll work hard and they’ll make babies, and those babies will go on and be the future generation of our nation. Those are important things.

Everyone could get good healthcare back in the day. A good public education was available to everyone; even university education and training was free. Everybody had the opportunity to live in a house through State housing, and parents could stay home and raise their kids themselves. That was a time when New Zealand understood what mattered the most. That carried on for many decades. People were happy, they had more money in their pockets, and it was easier to be born into a poorer or a working-class family because you knew that if you worked hard, you could transcend class, you could move around. It’s a concept called class mobility. Don’t know if that side of the House has heard about it before, but it used to be a thing.

You could set yourself up, buy a family homestead, and really get intergenerational wealth to pass down to different generations. But then in the 1980s and the 1990s in this country, there was this idea that grew across the world where people decided that they wanted—and felt that they deserved—more than their fair share. They looked at housing and said, “What if we just bought all the houses and made everybody else pay rent to us?” They looked at healthcare and said, “What if we put a price tag on hospitals and GP visits?” They looked at university education and said, “We should put a price tag on that.” That’s the same mindset that would probably sell us back the air that we breathe, if they could. What if they could just get really, really rich? That is neoliberalism, and that is this bill. It’s the mindset that we should put a price tag on everything, and it is the concept of putting private greed of the few before the public good for the many.

Now, the ACT Party are the architects of this bill, because they understand that there are two things that stand in the way of them and their mates getting richer, and that’s Te Tiriti o Waitangi and protections for the environment. But this time, it got through—after many failed attempts—thanks to our Prime Minister. Our Prime Minister, the amateur politician who doesn’t even understand what he signed up to in his coalition agreement, who doesn’t even understand the way that he sold away the founding document of our country in his agreements. Maybe he should just stick to business, because he’s not a very good politician.

In order to serve their agenda of concentrating wealth within the hands of a few people, David Seymour has created his own ministry. He’s put himself in charge of the ministry and he’s made this bill, which on the surface, again, is very boring, but the implications are far-reaching. Now, this right here, this is a regulatory impact statement. Every time a bill is passed in this House, one of these are prepared. It is essentially the pros and the cons of a bill. The reason that the ACT Party and the Government don’t like these is because these are the really annoying things that tell us what the public and the people think. These are the really annoying things that tell us the consequences of what happens when you throw the environment aside or concentrate too much wealth in the hands of a few.

But these are the Public Service’s acts of resistance. Their resistance is a simple thing that might be a bit confronting or a bit mind-boggling to the Government; it’s a simple thing called evidence. Because when all of the political rhetoric and all of the communication lines and all of those key lines that you’re fed by your advisers are brushed aside, these stand as a statement of fact; because when all of the bills—including the fast-track bill, the pay equity bill, the Treaty principles bill—came through, these were the things that provided evidence and truth for us to make a decision. But these are the things that continue to be ignored. So these are inconvenient for the Government, and that is exactly why they want to change these rules.

Now, this bill uses words and phrases that everybody, in principle, might agree to. It takes things like the rule of law above all else but purposefully erases tikanga Māori, the original law of this land. It makes the assumption that everybody is equal under the law, erasing the fact that that is dictated by your race and how much money you have access to. It puts the rights of individuals before collective rights that we all hold: our collective right to safe drinking water; our collective right to good housing, good healthcare, good education; the collective right of future generations to inherit a planet that is livable and breathable; to inherit rivers that they can swim in, clean air that they can breathe in, forests that they can walk in, mountains that they can climb; the collective rights and mana of iwi and hapū to pursue tino rangatiratanga. These are collective rights, which an individualistic theory like neoliberalism could not even begin to comprehend.

This bill will make New Zealand more unequal. The wealthiest 311 families in New Zealand have more wealth combined than the bottom 2.5 million New Zealanders. The Government has made everything more expensive, from the supermarket to the bank, to the GP clinic, to schools. You know what one of the first things they did when they got into Government was? They removed the reporting that IRD does to actually record and track wealth inequality in this country, and then they put through bills like this just so that we can’t see what’s happening right in front of our eyes.

This is the most fundamental breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in modern times. It tramples over and erases tikanga Māori. There was no consultation with Māori, which actively breaches principles of good faith and partnership. When this bill comes into force on 1 January 2026, a few weeks away, any piece of legislation that mentions or honours or gives effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi will be in its sight lines. This is capitalism, and this is recolonisation.

The people who engineered this bill don’t care about New Zealand. The people who engineered this bill don’t have the range to even comprehend te ao Māori or Te Tiriti or iwi and hapū. Their mates are placed in Australia, in Canada, in America. They don’t care about us. Make no mistake, this is capitalism, and David Seymour: you better run and tell your mates in the Atlas Network that we’re going to burn capitalism to the ground, because socialism is about honouring and upholding the dignity of all people.

I want to use this occasion to congratulate the ACT Party on what has been over 20 years of advocacy and hard work by the ACT Party. This Regulatory Standards Bill gives effect to National’s coalition agreement with ACT. We heard and we consulted widely; we heard approximately 30 hours of oral evidence, and received over 159,000 written submissions. Of course, that was on top of over 23,000 submissions last year, after considerable departmental consultation.

But as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, now I want to point to the fact that we have improved this bill considerably with amendments that have seen the tightening up of the board and chair’s independence and separation from the Minister and the Government of the day, consistent with provisions in the Crown Entities Act. So, again, I congratulate the ACT Party.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the third reading of the Regulatory Standards Bill and to bring some context back into the very emotional debate that has occurred and bring it back to some semblance of fact. Again, the trouble with the principles of socialism, as we’ve heard so many times before, is that, eventually, you run out of other people’s money.

We support this bill because, on the fundamentals, it promotes an open and accountable Government that legislates with key principles in mind: the rule of law, efficiency and regulation, property rights, an independent judiciary, and the belief that every New Zealander is equal before the law. That equality relates to your equality of opportunity, that everyone has that chance to achieve their full potential.

So, therefore, we have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.

This call is a split call—Rawiri Waititi.

As I take to my feet, as my people took to theirs a year from today, I remember standing at the edge of Te Rerenga Wairua, thinking of the many people who have sacrificed and dedicated their lives to liberation of our people and to the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, resolute and unwavering in their conviction, whether thousands of people followed them, or only a few.

I remember the ika huirua [two deaths at once] of that time: koro “Bom” Gillies and Ricky Mitai.

Ngā pōito o te hāo kūpenga o te iwi Māori [The buoys of the net of unity]—the buoys of the net of kotahitanga that held our people together during the biggest hīkoi this country has ever seen. I remember the ahi, a righteous, raging inferno in the puku of everybody that walked the hīkoi. I remember the kāpura ahi [burning fire] that was lit in Rangiriri, the declaration of undisturbed occupation—a reflection of the same fire burning in the puku of everyone on that hīkoi; their declaration of undisturbed sovereignty.

Then, I remember Te ahika o Tainui [burning fires], a time when a fire threatened our whenua at Whangaparāoa and it was burnt to smithereens. And yet Te Haika o Tainui, the marker of the landing place of the Tainui waka, remained untouched. In the middle of scorched earth, the pou of our story still stood.

I remember Kiingi Tuheitia. I remember, in recent days, the inferno that blazed on Tongariro Maunga—scorched earth, once again—and still, Te Ririō, that significant pouwhenua, marking undisturbed sovereignty, remained untouched. From the ashes, the declaration remained.

I remember Te Arikinui Tumu Te Heuheu. I remember, on this day last year, coming back to this House during the hīkoi, ki te mura o te ahi [to the lion’s den], our righteous, burning anger, the fire in our puku as we shook the very foundation of this House, and the world, with a haka. A haka led by voices of our rangatahi—a declaration of our resistance.

Again and again, the same pattern appears. First, the land is scorched. The system thinks it has burnt us out—and yet the pou remain. The stories remain. The people remain. And so when I look at the Regulatory Standards Bill, I see it for what it is: another fire. Not the fire of our people seeking justice, but the cold, calculated arson of a Government that wants to burn down the constitutional protections that stand between our people and exploitation. It is no accident that this Government has brought the Regulatory Standards Bill to its final reading one year after the first reading of the Treaty principles bill and during the anniversary of the hīkoi o Te Tiriti. We remember that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the first and highest regulatory standard of this land.

We will repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill. Ahi, in all its forms, means to withstand, to hope, to regenerate, to rejuvenate, to reset. It is a declaration of our occupation and our tino rangatiratanga. This bill tries to smooth that ahi. Our job is to keep it burning. To the day one year ago that our people stood in the streets and reminded this House who we are, today, as this Government tries to pass a law to forget us, we stand again to remember. We remember that Te Tiriti is our standard, our covenant, our fire that does not go out.

We remember those who walked before us, who stood often alone and lit the path anyway. To our people feeling the same fire in your puku: do not be distracted by the noise. Remember the bigger picture. Remember who we are. Remember why we believe. Keep the ahi burning. This bill may pass in the House today, but it will not survive our people tomorrow. We will all rise from the ashes and we will build an Aotearoa hou—not on the scorched earth of deregulation, but on the enduring fire of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill, essentially, embeds a neoliberal cuckoo egg in every legislation. It is a parasite that is going to be wiggling its way throughout everything that this Government and any other Government does. There is no logic, there is no rationality—one can’t find any form of enlightenment here—so what is this bill really, really about? Now, I want to say that I am surprised, but, frankly, I am disappointed but unsurprised at the Government and the Cabinet and the executive allowing such a bill to get through, allowing an ACT-led Government to create a noose around every single Minister’s neck. They are allowing the passing of a bill that probably is one of the bills in history that has a near 100 percent opposition rate during the select committee stage. This shows the naivety of this Government. This shows that this Government will do whatever they can, and trample over whoever gets in their way, to obtain and retain power.

But let’s talk about what this bill intends to do. This bill intends to empower the legislature, but we have seen those who proposed this bill having no qualms about pushing through urgency in the House and sending bill after bill into urgency and extended sittings. That’s not empowering the legislature. We have seen a Minister of the very party that proposed this bill pushing through a pay equity amendment bill that got rid of every active pay equity claim in the country without public consultation. How is that empowering the legislature? The sheer hypocrisy is astonishing. We have seen opaque track records of anything that that particular Minister has introduced. We have seen school lunches being harmful for our tamariki, to the point that it’s a health and safety risk.

Back to the bill.

It is back to the bill, Madam Speaker.

When you were talking about the legislation, you were on the bill, but now you’re just deflecting a little bit.

It is addressing the broader context of the principles of this bill, of empowering the legislature and decisions that are made. This bill introduces the Regulatory Standards Board, which is, presumably, there for the people and to be objective. However, the same Minister who will be responsible for the creation of such a board has also created other agencies and ministries that are opaque and do not adhere to what is needed in terms of transparency and the expectations of the people of Aotearoa. We’re seeing the Charter School Agency that has been introduced, signing a deal with a non-existent company when it comes to the creation of new charter schools. We’re seeing the Ministry for Regulation having, on average, one of the highest salaries yet, producing reports that have no evidential basis. So it does beg the question: how is the Regulatory Standards Board going to achieve that, when they respond to one Minister—and one Minister alone—when we already have parliamentary mechanisms that are cross-party in the form of the Regulations Review Committee, which performs the same function? I don’t know about you, but I hear yellow tape in all of this.

So the Green Party sees this as a zombie, Frankenstein of a bill that does nothing for Aotearoa. New Zealanders care about each other and the planet, and they will not stand by this bill, and so the Green Party will repeal it, for sure.

Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. I don’t have time to talk about the fires burning and the ahi mentioned by Te Pāti Māori, even as they engage in their own acts of self-immolation. In a brief contribution, I just want to focus on the comments made by the Hon Duncan Webb alleging some form of democratic deficit.

As the sponsor of the bill has quite rightly pointed out, this is merely an accountability mechanism, such that Parliament can still pass laws, notwithstanding that it will have to account to the people of New Zealand about the way they’re passed and the effects that they will have on ordinary New Zealanders. I’d also point out that Parliament has already given a much more muscular power to the courts, enabling them to declare legislation inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That’s a much more muscular power. That is a genuine democratic deficiency, and this Parliament has already established that it’s happy with it. While courts can’t strike down legislation in the same way as the Supreme Court in the United States—thank goodness—nevertheless, we require of ourselves some kind of response when courts engage in that way.

This is a much more tame, much less muscular power. It’s an exercise in increasing accountability, democratic responsiveness, and I join others on this side of the House in recognising this commitment within our coalition agreement, and I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. When we are elected to Government, we will repeal this bill. We will repeal this bill. It is an odious bill. It should never have come to this House. It has been opposed by the great majority of New Zealanders. Less than 1 percent of the people who sent in a submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee supported this bill. The reputable submitters, people like the Legislative Design and Advisory Committee, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—

The Clerk of the House.

Yeah. So many of our civil institutions opposed this bill. It should not be here, and we will repeal it.

I’ve noticed, in speeches in the House, all too often people fling around words like “common sense” and “ideology”, and they’ve become a shorthand for something that people don’t agree with or that they think is right. I’m going to avoid those words, in this bill. I actually want to dig into the actual principles and talk through why they simply don’t work for legislative processes. I want to start with the concept of principles in the first place. We’ve called them principles. They are, here, really working, in some ways, sitting in here as rights. Now, I don’t follow Jeremy Bentham, I don’t think that rights are “nonsense on stilts”. Nevertheless, I think they are something that we have, as it were, invented or constructed in order that we can live with each other, in order that we can find our way in groups and in society. They’ve become, if you like, heuristics or rules of thumb that we deploy—and for good reason, because we live in complex societies and we want to find ways to live alongside each other.

This bill puts inside it some rights or principles, and they are set out in clause 8 of the bill. They’re called the “Principles of responsible regulation”, but what we are really doing is putting some rights in here. There’s some around the “Rule of law”: “(a)(i) the law should be clear and accessible:”. To be honest, this is not the usual account of the rule of law, but never mind. That “(ii) the law should not adversely affect rights and liberties, … (iii) every person is equal before the law:”, and so on, seems pretty reasonable. There’s an element of individualism going through there that I do want to talk about, later.

Then, under “Liberties”—again, a somewhat foreign word in New Zealand. Though we do talk about freedom and liberty, it’s one of those we don’t normally talk about, the liberties that we have. But it says that “(b) legislation should not … diminish a person’s liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or rights to own, use, and dispose of property”. That’s in clause 8(b).

But then the emphasis of this law, of these principles, on property becomes very clear in clause 8(c), where it talks about the “Taking of property” and that “(c) legislation should not impair” property rights. What this bill does is it reifies property rights above other rights. Now, that’s an interesting step to take, because one of the things about rights or principles is that we actually have a whole lot of them that we’ve said are good things for us to abide by in our society: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association. We do think that property rights are important. But the thing is, these things often exist in tension. They often run up against each other. One person’s freedom of speech runs up against another person’s freedom of speech. One person’s property right runs up against other people’s property rights. There’s a whole lot of tension there, and there is no single right which is a trump card, of which can be laid down and said, “This one trumps everything else.”

Part of the job of Government, part of what we are trying to do here, is to reconcile the tensions between these rights, to find ways through them. It’s actually a hard and difficult job—that’s why Government ends up having to try to do it. It is hard to reconcile the tensions between some of these rights. We actually try to do this, but not by slamming down a trump card and saying that one is the one that matters most.

Now, the Hon David Seymour talked in his speech of a sad case of a person who had lost her retirement savings because of some new obligations that were imposed on property owners in the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes. You know, eight people died on the 702 bus when the facade of a building collapsed on them. The reason, as a Government, the National Party decided—back in I can’t remember which year it was—to put in some earthquake strengthening requirements is because people lost their lives in earthquakes, because many of our buildings are not up to earthquake standards. Yes, people have property rights, and yes, people have a right to be alive, and those things can run up against each other and it can be hard to work out how much we pay where. But property does not trump. It is something that has to exist in tension with all the other rights. Those rights are in tension, and yet this bill says that property is the one that comes first.

I talked briefly before about the right of association. There was a very good reason for that, because some rights exist as group rights. But we are not just some kind of set of individuals, one plus one plus one plus one plus one plus one. We are a society, and a society is composed of groups of people standing in particular relationships to each other. There are some rights that only exist because groups exist—or group rights, as it were. I’m going to give a particular example that might matter to us. If you want to hold and keep and speak a language, it can only be done if other people hold and keep and speak that language too. There is a reason why we think that it is important to have te reo Māori as an official language in this country and to support the teaching of te reo Māori in schools: to ensure that it is used across our society. There is a reason why it is so often that we hear that language spoken in this Chamber. It is because we hold it dear, yet if we can only have te reo Māori spoken by one person alone it doesn’t work. Languages work collectively.

Sometimes, in this bill, it reifies individual rights. It says that individual rights come first. But we actually have to work to hold that tension together. Yet this bill says—and I think I’d have to go to the exact clause—that “clause 8(b) legislation should not unduly diminish a person’s liberty”. Individual liberty matters, but so, too, do group rights, and we should not trump one over the other. Instead, Government should work its way through them.

I had intended to speak a little of Te Tiriti, but our colleague Rawiri Waititi has done that. I want to speak of one further set of group rights, rights that are not in this bill, that we do need to think hard about, and that is environmental rights. Now, there is a sense in which the environment holds its own value, but that’s a hard and complicated one to explain in this speech. But I want to talk about how environment—our environment—affects us all. My trees affect my neighbourhood. The beautiful kahikatea on my property, they matter to my neighbours. But if I chop those trees down, they belong to me. My name is on the title deed, they belong to me, but if I chop them down, there goes the security of our hillside. That’s why those kahikatea matter. No, they are not assets just to be deployed by me; they are trees that belong to the neighbourhood. My using an internal combustion engine car affects us all, through the heating of the earth, through the use of fossil fuels, every time. By myself, just one little bit of me doing that—me doing it wouldn’t matter too much; the trouble is all of us do it, and together we create a problem for all of us. We need to think about the environment as well, and yet the environment is not in here.

Property rights do not normally encompass environmental rights as well. Those things can be in tension, yet this bill does not address those tensions. This bill reifies property rights above all. It says that is what matters most, and, actually, as New Zealanders, we have rejected that for a very, very long time. We will repeal this shoddy legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I’ve listened to some of the contributions, and I think they were debating an entirely different bill in an entirely different time. The Regulatory Standards Bill is very easy to pick up and read. If we actually look at its purpose, it does some of the things that it’s being criticised for, like supporting Parliament’s ability to scrutinise bills, ensuring we’re developing high-quality legislation, and exercising stewardship over regulatory systems—that’s just in clause 3 of the bill. Really, it’s already doing some of the things it’s being criticised for.

Its principles are very straightforward. In clause 8, the “Rule of law”—no one can disagree with the rule of law; even Deborah Russell accepts that the rule of law is important—it sets out what that is. It is very easy to read. “Liberties”: it’s talking about people’s ability to own property and do with it what they will, and, if that’s impinged, that’s what we start to look at in this bill. Again, as the Minister outlined in his excellent introduction, it doesn’t stop Parliament doing anything. What it does is it makes sure that the people entirely understand what Parliament’s doing when they infringe—

You’re going to give it away.

—on their property rights or take them away. I hear Te Pāti Māori yelling out at me from down there. It’s hard to know—I mean, they didn’t even bother to do a differing view on this bill? That’s how engaged they were in it.

You can easily read through the important principles that this bill puts in place. It’s not going to restrict Parliament. It simply provides—[Interruption]

All right, stop the interjections and let the person giving the speech tell us what he wants to tell.

It simply provides more information for the public to judge whether a Minister or Government is doing the right thing, what the costs of doing that thing are, and whether it is supported. This is an excellent bill, and, in fact, members of the Opposition should actually be supporting it because when Parliament infringes Treaty property rights, it will be a useful thing. So I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. If anyone wanted yet another example of how Christopher Luxon is all talk, this bill is the perfect example. He came into the election campaign promising to be the master negotiator, and when it came time to sit down with David Seymour, he gave him everything he wanted. This bill is exactly the sort of thing that happens when that is the approach taken by the Prime Minister.

We’ve witnessed this through the debate. The National Party don’t want to talk about this. They’ve taken very short calls, and they’ve even given one of their calls to the ACT Party. They do not want to be associated with this bill. They are being forced to do this because they didn’t have the gumption to say no when they should have, and they were locked into it. The same can be said for New Zealand First, for that matter: you would think that a party that has signed up to this, that has only got one call and a debate, would take that call. They did not. I think it is very clear to anybody that is witnessing this debate—

Just to clarify, there was a call from New Zealand First.

Oh no, I know. That’s what I said. It just wasn’t very long. No, that’s all good.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you said.

No worries—no worries at all. I appreciate the opportunity to repeat for absolute clarity that New Zealand First, you would think, would want to have an opportunity to explain to all of their voters that have got in touch with their party—and we know that is the case: a large number of New Zealand First voters have got in touch with them and said “Do not support the Regulatory Standards Bill, because it is overreach.”—because there is quite possibly the largest proportion of people opposed to a bill through a select committee process ever: 98.7 percent.

There are many members that have been in this House longer than me and some have not, but I would wager even the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who Christopher Luxon kept going on at in an exasperated state this week—“He’s been here for 50 years, for goodness’ sake,” he said—I guarantee he hasn’t seen a bill that’s come through Parliament that has had this level of opposition. You would think that given that it’s because of the National Party and because of New Zealand First that this bill is passing, they would have the courtesy of explaining to New Zealanders why. They don’t. They don’t want to know about it. They just want to do their cursory, customary comments and sit down, because they know, deep down, this bill is a dud.

This is right-wing ideology in the extreme being enforced on the executive that basically every Minister is now going to have to kowtow to David Seymour for permission to continue. This is the bloke that portrays himself as the one that wants to find efficiencies in Government and saving money, when the cost that this bill imposes will be as high as $60 million a year—and supposedly, that is efficiency.

The ministry, another pet project of David Seymour—the Ministry for Regulation that wasn’t needed in the first place—they’ve advised him that this bill isn’t needed, but he doesn’t care. He doesn’t care because he knows better, and because he knows that he’s got the National Party backed into a corner from day one, because Christopher Luxon didn’t have the gumption to say “This is dumb, we’re not going to do it.” The master negotiator said “Come one, come all, have all you like. As long as I’m Prime Minister, I don’t care.”, and now we’re stuck in this situation where we have to deal with this bill. New Zealand is a country that has a proud history of ensuring that society as a whole is considered when decisions are made. But now, all of a sudden, we are a country that is at the whim of David Seymour.

This bill will be repealed within 100 days of the next Government. That is absolutely ironclad, locked in. This is a temporary experiment of right-wing ideology that will not last the test of time. Like all other ideological berks, this will go down into the history of political science classes at university. That will be the legacy of this bill, because this will not last. This is dumb. This is stupid, right-wing thinking that New Zealand First and National had the opportunity to say no to, but they were more interested in becoming Ministers than actually standing up for what they believe in.

I stand to speak in support for the third reading of the Regulatory Standards Bill. The Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) that I’m part of have worked really, really hard to improve the bill from its original state until now to pass in the third reading. We have tightened the board and the roles and responsibilities for the Minister of the day. The FEC have put in the hours of work to improve the bill. This bill also gives effect to the National-ACT coalition agreement that New Zealanders actually voted for. Therefore, congratulations to the ACT Party, and I commend this bill to the House.

Taku rakau e

Tau rawa ki te whare

Ka ngaro a Takahi ē

Te whare o te kahikātoa

Hei ngau whakapae—ē

Hei whakapae ururoa e hau mai nei

Kei waho kei te moana

Kāore aku mihi—ē

Aku tangi mō koutou

Mau puku ko te iwi—ē

Ka mōwai tonu te whenua

E takoto nei

[I have put my weapon away

Footsteps no longer heard

The house of the red mānuka

Protects me

Shielding against ill-winds

That blow from the sea

No words

No tears my people

But deep sorrow

And a desolate land

Lying afore me]

You can hear my emotion in my voice today when I stand, seven generations from the land takings of Tūhoe that song recalls, as the chair of the Regulations Review Committee that is charged with the review of regulation. That land taking was lawful, and it was made under regulations passed by executive Government that no elected person was accountable for. They were certainly not accountable for the people of Tūhoe, who are largely still landless.

For that member to stand in this House and claim that land takings will be solved by this bill, that property rights will be protected, and that those people who still have no justice in the eyes of the State is a farce. When I think of the role of the Regulations Review Committee, it is more than just a committee that oversees a technical and legalistic area of our Parliament; it is people who care about the function of regulation and the people who it serves. It considers complaints from ordinary New Zealanders who are able to bring something that they care about in their lives, whether it is their electricity bills or the fees that they pay to become a nurse or a doctor; to people who they can meet with at street-corner meetings; people who they elect at the ballot box; people they might not agree with, but who they can go along to a community meeting with and ask a question.

That is a fundamental function of our democracy. It is not one that is guaranteed and it is the one that we must fight for, because seven generations ago, people in New Zealand did not have that right. Many of the names I’m going to read you in my whakapapa of those seven generations—Māori did not have that right. It started with Honewahia o Taihakoa, then his son Tutaka Ngahau, then his daughter Whiuwhiu, then her son Te Amo, then his son Te Wehenga, then his son Hare Mahanga Te Wehenga, then me. These are people who I remember. Their names live on in my children’s names. They are people who have been denied the right to come to Government and have a say, and that is why this debate matters to people.

When I speak of the Regulations Review Committee, it’s a well-loved committee. There are many people sitting in this House today who served on it. They are Parliament’s legislative enthusiasts. They are the public law nerds; they’re the regulatory experts. They are people who care about shaping lives and making a regulation in our law work for us. It’s one of the few parts of Parliament that still works across party lines and requires genuine cross-partisanship. We hear from ordinary people, from businesses, from experts, and we test whether the written rules by Government are fair, proportionate, and effective, with the best legislative council in the country advising it.

I record my thanks now here to the Office of the Clerk for their exemplary public service in that committee. That committee’s cross-partisanship and its cooperation is its strength. It ensures that regulation is grounded in real-world impacts, and that elected representatives are accountable to the people for that. It’s because of that—because of the trust New Zealand has now placed in our democracy—that I’m standing today with that kind of emotion and passion for this area.

This bill weakens democracy. Transparent scrutiny that Parliament provides is important to everyone, and this bill sets up a new framework that elevates narrow interests over the public good and, ultimately, public trust. It makes it harder for this House to pass the kind of protections that New Zealanders rely on: a fair go for those small businesses competing with the top end of the town, and reliable electricity, and phone connectivity, and safe workplaces. It means that ideological ideas enter into our legal system through the executive. That’s destabilising, because it shifts power away from accountable MPs and towards an ideological test that was never asked for by the public.

National MPs on the other side of the House know that, and they should be ashamed of that. They know this is a dark day for our democracy. Everyone in the National Party should be hanging their heads in shame, and they will be, because their names will for ever be attached to this harmful bill. It lays bare just how weak this Government really is. Once again, Christopher Luxon has shown he is too weak to stand up to David Seymour; just like in the Treaty principles bill, and just like legislation last month which confiscated the rights to the foreshore and seabed that people have won in the courts.

This bill is completely out of touch with what people want, and it’s harm that Christopher Luxon is willing to do to New Zealand, just to cling to power. It’s disturbing. National chose a grubby deal to stay in office over standing up for the people that they serve in their electorates. They’re trading away the responsibility to govern in the public interest for the comfort of keeping the seats on that side of the House.

I want to make one thing clear: Labour will repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill. Fewer than 1 percent of submitters supported this bill at select committee; fewer than 1 percent. Christopher Luxon was told loudly and clearly that New Zealanders do not want this, and he pushed ahead anyway. If he or anyone else in the National Party is not willing to take decisions on behalf of the people that you purport to lead, why even be here? The Regulatory Standards Bill puts corporate interests ahead of our communities, ahead of environmental protections, and ahead of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is a grim and visionless idea for a country that is founded on something bigger than any one of us.

Laws and regulations that keep people healthy and safe, like requiring landlords to heat homes, will be left to the whims of David Seymour and whether he thinks it’s a good idea or not. It will make it harder to keep our air and our rivers clean and to reduce climate emissions. New Zealanders will remember this day in 2026 when they vote National out, because those are the MPs they can hold accountable; those are the MPs that represent the electorates they sit in. So I want to tell them: the next Labour Government will repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill within our first 100 days.

The strength of these words reflects the strength of the evidence presented to us. Submitters told us this bill would make regulation less stable, less fair, less democratic, less of a New Zealand they wanted to be a part of. Fewer than 1 percent supported it. That alone should cause any responsible Government to pause. Instead, the Government pressed ahead anyway, and in doing so it has ignored the very principle that sits at the heart of good regulation: legitimacy, faith, public trust in the system. For regulation to work, it must be trusted. David Seymour, in his opening speech, referred to the strengths of those institutions as a fundamental principle of any economy that works. That is true. To undermine public faith in this way is not only bad for this place but it’s bad for our economy.

We need a carefully balanced, transparent system, and this bill undermines that trust. It also undermines Parliament. It weakens ministerial responsibility. It shifts decision making to a structure that is not democratically grounded, and it sidelines that cross-partisan, evidence-based work that the Regulations Review Committee can and does still do. It’s work New Zealanders rely on to protect their rights.

Regulation isn’t abstract. It means something to the people who need it, and it affects their daily lives. It’s a patchwork of protections for the things we care about, including Te Tiriti o Waitangi and those places that make New Zealand special. This bill puts all of that at risk, and as the chair of the committee entrusted with scrutinising regulation on behalf of the public, I needed to raise how much of an impact this will have not only on the work of that committee but on all of the systems that this Parliament is proud of and has built up on the world stage for that kind of regulatory scrutiny.

New Zealanders deserve a system that protects them, and not one that basic protections are harder and harder to achieve within. This bill is wrong for our democracy, it’s wrong for our people, it’s wrong for our future, and I’ll be glad when Labour repeals it.

I’ve listened intently to the debate in the House today and there’s nothing new that has come from this debate that I haven’t heard already in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This bill is all about accountability of the executive. On balance, I think this is a positive step forward. I certainly look forward to the day when we see more cost-benefit analysis. I’ve seen far too many bills across this House with very poor drafting, very poor cost-benefit analysis, and I want to congratulate the ACT Party and I commend this bill to the House.

on behalf of the Minister for Media and Communications: I present a legislative statement on the Telecommunications 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 Telecommunications Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee to consider the bill.

Telecommunications services are vital to New Zealanders’ lives, and the sector generally works well. But, as we all know, technology moves fast. This bill makes a series of targeted regulatory changes to ensure regulation keeps up with changes and Kiwis continue to have world-class connectivity services. There is a second bill that gives effect to the rest of the package of telecommunication regulatory changes that Cabinet agreed to, but I understand that this has not been approved across the House for association for first reading.

Beyond the targeted improvements in this bill, we are in the process of making other improvements to regulatory settings for the telecommunications sector. We’re making critical updates to the national environmental standards on telecommunications facilities as part of the Resource Management Act changes—or, rather, replacement—as well as removing barriers from the activities of fibre companies so that they can innovate and expand.

We’re also undertaking a broader communications systems-level review, led by both the Minister for Media and Communications and the Minister for Regulation. Decisions following that review are yet to be made, but I understand that Ministers have worked to avoid duplication between the changes made in this bill and the matters that the Ministry for Regulation has been looking into.

There are three key issues in the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. First, the bill makes permanent the rights that allow fibre providers to access shared property to install fibre. These rights were set to expire earlier this year and have had a short extension until 2028 to give us time to consult on their future. As many of you will know—colleagues, friends—fibre broadband has economic and social benefits that come from Kiwis making use of the high-speed, reliable telco services. But without these rights, some consumers will be at the mercy of an unresponsive or unsupportive neighbour if they want to use shared property to connect to fibre. Making the rights permanent reflects our commitment to supporting New Zealanders to connect to, and benefit from, high-quality telecommunications services.

This Government is also committed to protecting the rights of property owners, and so the bill makes the existing protection mechanisms for these people permanent as well. These protection mechanisms include access to dispute resolution, limits on how much shared property can be impacted, and requirements about how the impacted property is reinstated. The bill also allows for the rights to be invoked when a fibre installation order is placed directly with a fibre provider. At the moment, the rights can only be used when someone has ordered a fibre broadband plan from a retailer.

Developers or landlords are understandably reluctant to sign up to a broadband property for a property they’re not going to be living in just to get fibre installed. But the change in this bill means that a property owner—or, again, a developer—with a shared driveway can use the rights to get fibre installed before anyone moves in without having to sign up to a fibre broadband plan. It will therefore support more properties to be fibre-ready and improve access to fibre for more New Zealanders. The protection mechanisms for affected property owners will also apply in these circumstances, balancing the benefits for consumers who want to connect with fibre with impacts on other property owners.

To the second of the three promised areas, the bill makes it mandatory for large retail telecommunications companies to be part of an industry dispute resolution scheme if they aren’t already. Many of our biggest telecommunications providers have already voluntarily joined a scheme, which is great. However, we’re seeing that as the telco industry evolves, more New Zealanders are finding themselves without access to a telecommunications dispute resolution scheme. Given the number of complaints relating to the telco sector each year, it is important that consumers can escalate their concerns to an industry dispute resolution scheme.

We’re conscious that membership in such a scheme does come with costs for the provider. The bill creates a revenue threshold for when a telco provider needs to join the scheme to balance the benefits for consumers with the impact on the industry. The threshold mitigates the impact on membership fees for these telco providers, meaning that there is still a low barrier to the entry to market, supporting completion, competition, and innovation. The bill widens the type of schemes that can be recognised as industry dispute resolution schemes for the purposes of the Act.

Since providers that aren’t already in the telecommunications dispute resolution scheme will need to join one, the bill ensures that the Act is flexible enough to recognise schemes set up by providers outside the traditional telecommunications industry. Indeed, this change reflects that more Kiwis are buying their telco services from non-traditional telecommunications companies like electricity providers. All industry dispute resolution schemes will continue to be reviewed by the Commerce Commission—fear not—meaning that any poor performance of new schemes can be addressed.

Third and final, the bill creates a new regulation-making power so that telecommunications development levy amounts can be set in regulations. The levy funds non-commercial telecommunications services and infrastructure and has been critical to some of our most successful rural broadband programmes, but the amount of the levy is currently set in the Act. This means that if there is a need to increase the levy to respond to a specific connectivity challenge, a full parliamentary process is required to amend the Act.

If we really want to be able to use the levy to meet its purpose of addressing non-commercial telecommunications challenges—and I think we do—then we need greater flexibility. By amending the Act so that the amount of the levy is set in regulations, we’ll be better placed to respond to connectivity challenges as they arise. To balance this increased flexibility, any regulation that increases the levy amount will need to have consultation with telecommunications providers that pay the levy. This addresses some early stakeholder concern about a lack of checks and balances.

I think it’s important to note that decision making on increases currently need to go through the House, and so we’re engaged in the process of balancing the need for accountability and a robust process, on the other hand, with the ease of being able to do the business of changing that as need be.

The bill will allow for necessary flexibility to set the amount at an appropriate level while keeping regulatory uncertainty to a minimum. The bill also makes minor and technical amendments to improve clarity and make consequential amendments. For example, the bill amends a set of regulations to reflect the Commerce Commission no longer accepts cheques.

At a high level, this bill is about making sure we have the right regulatory settings in place for an important market. The targeted changes in this bill support competition, foster innovation, and help stimulate economic growth. I encourage members and the public to have their say on this bill through the select committee process, and, in the meantime, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s good to have an opportunity to confirm that Labour supports efforts to modernise the regulation of the telecommunications sector.

As we know, there’s a complicated and complex set of physical infrastructure across New Zealand—both terrestrial and satellite infrastructure—that enables the telecommunications sector in New Zealand. Despite all of that, there are still gaps and blind spots within New Zealand where we can’t connect or are unable to connect for various reasons. What needs to happen is that that legislation that governs telecommunications in New Zealand needs to close up the gaps in the same way that we would then be empowered to close up the gaps in connectivity across the country. We know that connectivity is crucial, and we see that no more so than in times of natural disasters or, as someone on this side of the House suggested, Mother’s Day! Yes, it’s very important that connectivity is available at that time of the year as well. We do welcome the move from the Minister to bring the regulatory environment in line with modern industry practice.

What this bill does, as part of a programme of regulatory reform, is ensure that the regulatory environment that the telecommunications sector operates in is fit for purpose and consistent with changes that have occurred in the industry. It’s a very fast-moving industry, which is why the legislation needs to move to not just keep up but to, in fact, get ahead of that. Right now, membership of an industry dispute resolution scheme is voluntary, and the Commerce Commission estimates that 200,000 consumers don’t have access to a dispute resolution mechanism—which is a lot of people who would be unable to progress or raise claims or complains, should they need to, about issues to do with their telecommunications connectivity.

The bill will mandate that telecommunications providers with an annual revenue of more than $50 million must be members of an industry dispute resolution scheme. This is set at $50 million to maintain a lower barrier to entry. The bill makes the rights for fibre internet providers to access shared property to install fibre permanent. These rights were set to expire earlier this year, but that had already been extended through to 2028, and this bill now makes that permanent. It allows the Minister responsible for the Telecommunications Act to set the telecommunications capabilities, like the Rural Broadband Initiative, through Order in Council. It’s currently set at $10 million per annum in Schedule 3B of the Act, and increasing it would require an amendment to the Telecommunications Act through the normal parliamentary process. The bill also empowers the Commerce Commission with a role considering requests for regulatory exemptions for the smaller fibre companies, which is also an important thing for us to see happen as well.

One of the other things I wanted to raise as we discuss the subject matter of this bill and the services that it provides to New Zealanders and connects us with is that, earlier this week, I had the opportunity to attend the Spark Accelerate summit in Auckland, which happened over two days, on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. That was a really impressive showcase of some of the opportunities to innovate and to increase productivity across our business sector and our business community, which is fantastic. It also provides enormous opportunity, through connectivity, for us to empower communities—rural communities, regional communities, isolated communities, and also some of our underserved communities in our cities and in our urban centres who, up until now, haven’t been able to, or, for many reasons, aren’t able to enjoy the level of connectivity and the level of service that they need and deserve to have.

One final note that I really wanted to reference in closing is that there was a request for this bill to be wrapped into the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill on the Order Paper, but I think that it’s very important that, given the differences in the two bills, and the different areas that each of them seeks to address, we need to keep those bills separate, and we need to deal with the issues in each separately because they are separate issues. We do support the bill, but we think it’s important to take the time to get the legislative infrastructure right.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Greens are supporting the Telecommunications Amendment Bill, and we look forward to having a constructive conversation at the select committee stage and engaging with submitters on the issue. As others have canvassed, what this bill does is it sets up a dispute resolution scheme for high-revenue telecommunication providers and makes other minor changes to the Telecommunications Act. I think this is a worthwhile bill to support because enhancing consumer rights and improving dispute resolutions are good things that I think can build cross-party consensus. This shows that, actually, should the Government choose to prioritise its legislative agenda towards the rights of consumers, we could probably be having far more constructive conversations in the select committee stage and in the House, unlike the previous debate we held, which clearly was driven by one party and one party alone.

I think it’s important here to put in context that Chorus was initially set up to provide ultra-fast broadband. That has been quite successful and important to modernise our economy and for access to information and other services. I think it’s good that this bill will also, then, look at the next steps in relation to extending the right for fibre providers to access your property to install fibre. I think there’s other conversations we need to have in relation to the dispute resolution scheme because, in some ways, that, in and of itself, will lead to consumers having better outcomes.

One of the things that I’ve noted in the context of this bill has been the broader political conversation around the purpose of Chorus moving forward. The Government did, effectively, invest in Chorus when the roll-out of the fibre settings were being put in place. I think the services that Chorus provide, in my view, should be a public good, and we should work towards that because access to services like internet are actually becoming essential services. We saw that during, for example, the pandemic. For those entities that help provide that very same infrastructure, we should be empowering them to broaden the services that they can provide but ensure that they are also retained in the public good. While it is good to see that this bill is being introduced to better support consumers and broaden the services that Chorus can provide, I think it’s important also that the Government, in its broader political and economic agenda, enhances the ability for Chorus to remain, as I mentioned earlier, within the public good.

There are also other provisions in this bill that we look forward to examining in greater detail at the select committee stage, which includes allowing a telecommunications development levy to be set through regulations, as opposed to primary legislation, and this would be led by the Minister in charge. This is, I think, something that feels practical. Often things that are set within primary legislation end up not necessarily keeping up with the times or the economic conditions, so having provisions for these levies to be set through regulations by the Minister is a useful way in which we ensure that we can adapt to the different economic outlooks and also what the industry at large looks like. We also have, in this bill, the provision for the Commerce Commission to fulfil roles given to it by the constitutions of Enable Fibre, Northpower, and Tuatahi First Fibre with ministerial approval. All of these changes, I think, are things that are common sense.

We commend the Government for bringing this bill forward. As I said earlier, I think one of the key things that will continue this constructive conversation will be submitters’ engagement with this bill. I look forward to members of the public, people who may have an interest within those industries, participating in the select committee stage, but also, within the select committee stage, to us continuing to honour the accessibility of participation by members of the public. I also reflect on the fact that we’re receiving a lot of submissions to the Standing Orders Committee and on the fact that, I think, bills like this one are a great example where I hope we receive an above-average amount of submissions from the public. It should not always be bills that rally up a lot of outrage—rightfully, in many cases—that get public engagement, and the protections for the public to engage with bills like this one, in my view, should be protected. We look forward to continuing to hopefully support this bill, and we commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise on behalf of ACT and speak on the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. You know, ACT is proud to be part of this well-functioning Government. It’s actually been interesting coming into Parliament and, obviously, being involved in select committees and in part of the Government. A lot of the work we’re doing is actually fixing up areas where things have been neglected for some time. This is another excellent example of where we’re taking a targeted approach to updating the Telecommunications Act 2001, which is actually quite old now, if you think about 2001 and think about all the technology changes that have happened.

Back in 2001, no one would have imagined that we would now actually have a satellite network around the world that can deliver internet to you anywhere in New Zealand. I know members across the House who use phones that are supplied by Parliament will now know that that service is actually available anywhere in New Zealand to actually get communications on your phone even when you’re not near a cell tower. So those are the kinds of changes we’ve seen even in what could be described as a relatively short period of time.

This bill just seeks to make some very sensible updates and actually add to the existing dispute resolution scheme by making it mandatory for certain companies with over $50 million in revenue to have to join the scheme. Our broadband roll-out in New Zealand has been very successful and we want to ensure that where there are these issues around enabling access to shared properties, that can still be done. Actually, if you look in the bill—and if people have got time, there is a great example. Sometimes these bills are great; they have little examples of what they’re talking about. They use the example of a three-storey apartment building and why needing this shared access is appropriate, so that’s a very sensible change.

We’ve got some other minor updates around the telecommunications development levy, and we’re going to set that by regulation. We’ve got a bit of an expansion to the role of the Commerce Commission in relation to very specific companies, and some other technical updates.

All in all, this is actually a very, very sensible piece of legislation to make sure that the Telecommunications Act remains fit for purpose. It’s very encouraging to see that—we’ve already heard all the parties that have spoken so far are going to support this to select committee, which I think is very good, because it is at the select committee that any of the specific details can be worked through. I’m sure this will get a number of submissions, particularly from telecommunications providers and users, I suppose, of telecommunications services as well. They will be able to go through the details of this bill and identify any issues. I know that the select committee will work diligently to make sure that when this is returned to the House, any issues have been identified. This is a very sensible update and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. This is a particular area which I have a lot of interest in as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for communications with the delegation of rural connectivity.

The telecommunications industry provides an essential service—in fact, some would say it’s a critical service. The industry provides the foundation of every modern service that we consume. We, in fact, have high-class digital infrastructure networks in New Zealand—we should be very proud of that. We know that the high-quality digital connectivity drives economic growth; it increases productivity, social inclusion, and access to essential services like healthcare; and, of course, education is enhanced by it. It empowers rural, remote, and hard-to-reach regions to thrive.

Also, whether you’re high-tech farming; whether you’ve got a quarry that needs intelligent quarrying systems; if you’re into gaming development, PikPok—went to visit them this week, doing marvellous work—emergency management, we see that they are increasingly integrating high-tech tools to enhance preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. We have 87 percent of the country covered, now connected, through the Ultra-Fast Broadband Programme, Rural Broadband Initiative as well, and the Marae Digital Connectivity Programme. So we do have, in fact, a telecommunications network that is the backbone of our daily lives in ways that we couldn’t have imagined mere years ago.

I’ll mention a couple of changes in this bill. We’ll be changing to the telecommunications dispute resolution scheme, where we’re raising that threshold—where a telco or an internet service provider being part of that dispute resolution scheme—from $10 million to $50 million; raising that threshold. I’ll give you an example of a Manawatū Inspire Net. They deliver internet services right across the Manawatū to the council, a lot of land area, as well as Massey University. In the last 26 years they’ve had two complaints. Do they need to be part of that disputes resolution scheme? They’re only a small provider; they don’t meet that big threshold. So no. It’s common sense and practical, the changes we are making here.

Access to shared property: we’ve heard others mention that this is a practical and pragmatic change. We’re making sure that the current temporary rights to accessing shared property—so if you live at the end of a shared driveway, your front neighbour can’t block you getting fibre. That’s a great change in this bill; and that telecommunications development levy, also known as the TDL, it’s currently sitting at $10 million. It was $50 million originally when we rolled out the broadband; through regulation instead of through legislation, we could change that up at some point and that regulation will be managed by the Minister for Media and Communications.

Lastly—but not least—local fibre companies (LFCs): we are going to make sure that they can operate in line with the permitted activities of Chorus. This will level up their playing field; this is long overdue. It’ll allow these LFCs to create additional lines of business, expand their networks further into rural communities—which New Zealand First believes is extremely important. They’ve found ways of being creative with their business cases, but this actually will help them to expand further and deeper into rural areas. This is really important to ensure the economics will actually be the right bridge to cross. I just want to acknowledge the local fibre companies, Enable networks, Tuatahi First Fibre, and Northpower—the OG of LFC—for the great discussions that we’ve had. Also acknowledging the team at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment—James and Deb—for the great discussions we’ve had. Thanks for listening. I commend the bill to the House.

This Government has made one thing abundantly clear—its determination is to push ahead and strip away what it calls red tape; rules and so on that it believes hold back the progress of our country. We saw that approach in the passing of the Regulatory Standards Bill, a piece of legislation we unequivocally oppose. Unfortunately, we didn’t get the opportunity to speak to that bill, but let me be clear: progress cannot come at the expense of accountability or the voices of our people, and that rings true even for the Telecommunications Amendment Bill, which I stand to speak to.

At first glance, the Telecommunications Amendment Bill may seem straightforward but it’s remarkable how outdated regulations can stifle even the most basic functions of modern infrastructure. This bill updates the rules for phone and internet providers so they keep pace with rapid technological change. It permanently allows fibre providers to access shared properties, apartment buildings, and multi-owned land to install fibre internet. It also requires large telecommunications companies to join a dispute resolution scheme, giving consumers a simpler path to resolve complaints. It gives the Government flexibility to set the communications levy, it expands the Commerce Commission’s oversight of fibre companies, and it makes technical changes for clarity and efficiency.

These are good things on paper—necessary things. But we must look deeper at the implications for Māori. One concern is how permanent site access might extend to shared Māori land. The disclosure statement assures us that the safeguards under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act apply, and that provides some reassurance, but greater engagement from te iwi Māori is required in shaping these provisions further.

Our position is to support this bill at first reading, not because it’s perfect but because it deserves full scrutiny at select committee, where te iwi Māori can be heard and amendments considered. Progress must never come at the cost of partnership—that’s the principle we continue to uphold. Thank you for the opportunity take this call, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou.

Now, Ms Kapa-Kingi, the requirement would be that that was the Te Pāti Māori call. Did you have the go-ahead from Te Pāti Māori to take that call?

I didn’t have a direct conversation.

All right, OK—probably a mistake on my part but I’m happy that, in future, to take that call that will be a requirement. If you’re taking another party’s call, you’ll need to actually get their permission.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ka pai.

A wonderful speech anyway.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I rise in support of the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. It’s great to hear support around the House for this piece of legislation. Of course, the National Party has a long history when it comes to telecommunication because it was Steven Joyce who rolled out the ultra-fast broadband right across the country—

Such a good project.

—such a great project; thank you, Mr Court—which has allowed so much progress here in New Zealand. Actually, my colleague to my left, Tom Rutherford, the MP for the Bay of Plenty, actually remembers before ultra-fast broadband, when we had dial-up, so, maybe, he’s not as young as I thought he was. But the thing is, there’s been a lot of development in the telecommunications field. I must give a shout-out to RIVIR, based in Christchurch, which has developed world-leading technology when it comes to the Internet of Things over satellites. A couple of months ago, I had the great pleasure of talking in depth with the founder there about the great work that they’re doing and the usefulness of being able to monitor things in far-flung places. It does just highlight how far we have come when it comes to telecommunications.

I do just want to get back to this bill because, really, what it is about is actually modernising our telecommunications legislation to enhance that even further. Of course, we need a reliable high-quality network and digital connectivity to improve our productivity. It’s essential to growing our economy and easing the cost of living. Of course, these days, with artificial intelligence and a range of other technologies, we need that communication. We’ve also heard about smart farming and other options, which are just going to require more data, and we need to make sure that we are up to date with our telecommunications. Of course, this bill introduces regulatory changes to improve telecommunication services, particularly in those rural and hard-to-reach places. I know there are areas in New Zealand which still could be considered hard to reach. Of course, there is now satellite communication with some of our mobile networks, which is interesting and great, because it helps support that innovation and economic growth by enabling better connectivity.

It’s not just connectivity for households; it’s also about businesses and essential services. Regulatory barriers do prevent smaller, maybe more local, fibre solutions or companies from offering a diverse array of services, and, of course, that will be addressed. I know there are companies in Christchurch that are looking forward to that happening.

Rural Kiwis will see improved access to reliable, high-quality digital connectivity. That helps for remote learning, but also we want to have more digital healthcare. This Government, of course, has rolled out telehealth, a great way to maybe see your GP; maybe you can’t get into the local one, but maybe if you have a cold or something like that, you can have digital healthcare, which is really, really important. This bill really supports innovation, investment, and delivery of world-class connectivity services across New Zealand. Of course, that connectivity connects us with the rest of the world. Therefore, I commend this bill to House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a bill that Labour supports because improvements to consumers’ experience of telecommunications in New Zealand is important to everyone, and this is something we intend to work through carefully at select committee, to really understand what the trade-offs were here for the Government. There are a few noted in the regulatory impact statement, like a move from what was consulted on from the option to mandate membership in the industry dispute resolution scheme for retail providers from $10 million, and it’s gone up to $50 million in this bill, and some other changes like a ministerial regulation-making power over the Telecommunications Development Levy, which is important to all New Zealanders.

I want to draw the House’s attention to the information that we’ve been presented with here. It says just at the top of the page, pretty plainly, “A programme of regulatory reform is underway to ensure that the telecommunications regulatory regime continues to support a well-functioning telecommunications market”. That statement suggests that there is more to come, and I would ask the Ministers: what is more to come here? What can the House expect, that might be introduced, say, at the select committee stage or at the committee of the whole House stage, no doubt, that would make this a priority for a Government that has a busy legislative agenda and more to do, when these changes are relatively minor, relatively technical, and make a small change to the improvements that consumers can expect?

I’ve heard from the Under-Secretary, Jenny Marcroft, that this makes a big change to the local fibre companies, and it does. It is important for rural connectivity here that they come within the remit of the Commerce Commission, but that has been a change long-signalled—I think since 2011—and it is pretty well understood in the industry. So what else in here is planned? We know that the Government has flagged up an intention to sell off State assets, and one of those is Chorus. Can we expect other changes that will impact on Chorus’s ability to continue to offer public benefit through telecommunications infrastructure? As the member for Ilam noted, National has a long history of proud State investment in Chorus and the fibre roll-out. That is something to be proud of: National walking back on its State-asset commitment to that important infrastructure, and, also, overseeing, while under the John Key Government, a break-up of the telecommunications sector that was allowed by—quite innovative at the time—competition rules that allowed a third player to enter the market. Can we expect further market consolidation under this Government’s watch, as we have in other important sectors like in energy and in supermarkets?

I want to just highlight, for our work at the select committee, the things that I will be most interested in. The first is the dispute resolution scheme. It’s great to see the Government mandating membership of an industry dispute resolution scheme. It would be useful if other consumers in other industries, where complaints are really important, had a mechanism of accountability. We’ve had that from this Government, but we haven’t seen that in financial services or in consumer credit. So my questions will be around how far this extends, why the threshold at $10 million has been changed to $50 million, which would essentially be the bigger providers, when a huge range of consumers will miss out on those dispute resolution mechanisms if that threshold is changed higher. It is sensible that all consumers have access to a well-functioning dispute resolution scheme, and you would think that it would also be in the Government’s interest to make sure that consumers could raise complaints about fairness and about service quality when that is so important to our economy.

I’ll also be asking questions about the development levy. You know, just for the House’s context, that is a levy that subsidises telecommunications capacity in the public interest, and it has been so since 2011. Things like rural broadband, black spots, telecommunications service obligation-relay services for the deaf and hearing impaired, and connectivity to the Chathams are all things that their levy pays for. Why would we set a new regulation-making power, where the incentives to the Minister were to set that down, when this pays for such important public infrastructure for people to communicate with each other and to do business in Aotearoa? Those are the questions I’ll be asking.

This bill could be dealing with things like bill transparency for consumers; copper withdrawal by Chorus through many of our towns and rural areas; retail-service quality, which is declining in New Zealand for telecommunications customers, particularly over the three major providers; and phone consumer-credit debt, where affordability is a huge issue for most New Zealand consumers. I’ll be asking why in this bill are those things not addressed?

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It’s great to stand up and make a contribution on the Telecommunications Amendment Bill. I was just talking with my colleague Hamish Campbell next to me; he was telling me about a time he can remember when the internet was being created, and I can’t remember a time when we didn’t have the internet available. You’re looking at a bit of chalk and cheese on this side of the House, but it’s great to have both of us contributing on this legislation, because it’s good to have a variety of perspectives on the legislation, and lived experience, Mr Campbell, I think, would be really important. It’s great to stand up and speak about it.

It is an important piece of legislation, as Arena Williams was talking about in her contribution as well. The following piece of legislation that will be coming through the House shortly as well is the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill. Both of these are making sort of targeted changes to the regulatory settings, which, from our Government, is really important because, number one, it supports economic growth; competition, which is really good to have in the telecommunications market; and, ultimately, better outcomes for consumers. These legislative changes seek to ensure that the regulatory regime keeps pace with changes in the market and remains fit for purpose, and I think that’s a really important part around legislation—ensuring that, as I talked about last night regarding Deborah Russell’s companies address members’ bill, it’s really important that legislation is agile and not nostalgic, and actually is prepared to change and adjust as times change and develop. I think this piece of legislation and the supplementary Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill is going to do exactly the same as well.

Let’s talk about some of the key provisions that are included in the legislation. We know that reliable and high-quality digital connectivity both improves productivity and is essential to growing our economy and easing the cost of living. We know that’s really, really important for us. We also know that this bill is introducing regulatory changes to improve telecommunications services—particularly, as Arena Williams also highlighted in her contribution, in those really rural and hard-to-reach areas. It’s really important for those communities to have increased and improved access to telecommunications services, particularly in our rural and hard-to-reach areas.

The bill does also support competition, innovation, and economic growth by enabling better connectivity for households, businesses, and essential services. Regulatory barriers that are preventing smaller, local fibre companies from offering diverse services will be removed, and I think that is really, fundamentally important for competition, and for your normal household, those in rural communities, but also businesses to know that local fibre companies are offering diverse services. The regulatory barriers they have will be removed, which is really, really important for competition. As I’ve been talking about with rural New Zealanders, they’ll see improved access to reliable, high-quality digital connectivity, which is a really good thing for our rural communities—they are the backbone of New Zealand, and to support them in this space is really, really important, and the legislation does exactly that.

It also focuses on better connectivity supports for remote learning, digital healthcare, as Hamish Campbell talked about in his contribution—

So did I.

And so did Jenny Marcroft as well. We are rolling that out as a Government and wanting to take it further, so having access to digital healthcare is really, really important, and this legislation supports it. It enables it to go further, for more Kiwis to get access to digital healthcare, and that’s a good thing. That is a really, really good thing. It also provides economic opportunities for local businesses.

The bill also supports innovation, investment, and the delivery of world-class connectivity services across New Zealand, and it amends the rules governing certain local fibre companies—LFCs—so that Enable Networks, Tuatahi First Fibre, and Northpower Fibre can have more types of activity, sort of similar to Chorus and what we see that they do across New Zealand, encouraging wider service provision.

My last two points are around how it helps to unlock the growth potential of regional fibre companies, which are really important, so that they can actually better serve their communities and compete more effectively and create more competition in the market, which is a good thing. When you have increased competition, what does it do? It drives down costs for households and for businesses. That’s a really important thing to do in the economy, and a really important thing for New Zealand families with the cost of living—drive down costs for households and businesses. This is a great piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. This bill does a lot of things. I’m not sure if it’s driving down prices for households quite as much as the last speaker, Tom Rutherford, said. But, hey, if that does something in this, I guess we’ll support it, because we want to deal with issues such as the cost of living. As I listened across the House to a piece of legislation I know very little about—and it’s in a wheelhouse that’s not my own. It is always good to understand, and here are the experts in the room or those with the good speaking notes from their parties to talk about what this bill is and what it does.

The previous speaker also admitted that he’s only lived in a life where he has known the internet and that kind of thing. It is amazing how quickly the world changes and how often this House doesn’t always keep up with the rapidly changing nature of technology in the world. I don’t want to age you, Mr Speaker, so I won’t, but I remember a time when I used to visit my grandparents and we had great joy in the party line that they had on their street and the ability to—“Was this our ring or was this not our ring?”, in terms of the different rings it had and—listen in to other calls. Obviously, that has changed rapidly over time to everyone having a fixed telephone in their home—generally one, maybe two, but always fixed on the wall—to the fact now that we have telecommunications in our pockets almost anywhere.

I want to raise just a couple of reflections on this bill and, I guess, the autonomy of Aotearoa New Zealand and how we make sure that we’re getting it right. I was reflecting that in Taranaki we have a fibre provider called Primo. Interestingly, about three, four months ago, the Australian Navy came through and, using their Australian navy technology and radar, accidentally knocked out the whole of our telecommunications—well, it was for Primo in Taranaki. It was a complete mistake. It wasn’t intentional, but it definitely was a challenge. Yep, there are challenges with the spectrum space, but the reason I say that is because we have, obviously, international players like Starlink and others that are in the game, but if we can get our telecommunications, our connectivity, right, then I think it’s good for New Zealand and for “New Zealand Inc.” that we’re protecting our own brand and who we are.

As I look through this legislation, I see that it mandates telecommunications industry dispute resolutions, which will mean that yes, consumers are better served. But then I was interested, as I flicked through—where is it? I’ve just lost it now, but it was somewhere here. It was very interesting. Part of the programme is the regulatory reform to ensure that the regulatory environment the telecommunications sector operates in is fit for purpose and consistent with changes that have occurred in the industry.

I was surprised by this part, that the reality that is right now is that membership of an industry dispute resolution scheme is voluntary. If you think that telecommunications is such a key part of our everyday life, the fact that it’s currently voluntary actually staggered me. The fact that this legislation will ensure that the Commerce Commission is able to establish and ensure that the rights of consumers are protected is a good thing.

Finally, it is good to see, as was said, that it is often about the smaller players. The fact is that there is scope and there is space in this legislation for those smaller players to stay in line with the Commerce Commission rules and regulations, but they’ll have exemptions within this. I think that is good because there are small community groups that are engaged and we need to support that.

Finally, we support this bill because it is simple and practical. As my colleague Arena Williams has said, we look forward to taking it to select committee because that is a space where we take something which we agree with, but then we ensure that it is properly pulled apart, critiqued, challenged, we have engagement from industry, from members of the public, and it’s put back together and comes back into this House fit for purpose for the coming years.

Well, that was a long five minutes, wasn’t it, members? Look, there’s a lot to be proud about our telecommunications sector. We have one of the highest rates of connectivity in the developed world, thanks to the previous National Government’s roll-out of fibre by Steven Joyce. I also want to mention the Hon Amy Adams, who also led that effort. We also have a lot to be proud about retail competition. We’ve got lots of players in the retail competition market, and that is, I think, thanks to one of the former Labour Governments who really broke up the sector and encouraged greater competition. There’s also a lot of innovation: satellites, data centres, artificial intelligence—there’s lots going on. I think there’s lots to be proud about. This bill is about making some cosmetic changes to improve the regulations—Rima is going to tug my arm very shortly. I think this is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

The question is, That the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill be considered by the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee.

We come now to the debate on local issues, arranged by the Business Committee under Standing Order 80. Would some honourable member care to move that the House take note of local issues? But before I do that, it is a local issues debate. Anyone listening should be able to tick off geographically around this country, so if it sways on to broader political issues, expect some intervention from the Chair.

I move, That the House take note of local issues. What better place to start a local issues debate than focusing on the beautiful Coromandel. At this time of year, as the beautiful pōhutukawa flower begins to emerge on the Thames coast, New Zealanders turn their minds to their summer holidays. They turn their minds to sand and surf and sunshine, and, of course, whenever they do that, first comes to mind the beautiful Coromandel. But before they get a chance to come to the beautiful Coromandel, there is a little bit of work that needs to be done on our roads.

Over the last couple of weeks, some of the local Coromandel people have been severely inconvenienced, but for a good cause. On the Thames Coast Road just north of a beautiful little township called Tapu—Simon Court knows the pub there well—there has been a bridge called the Boundary Creek Bridge. Now, that meant a new bridge needed to be put in. So the good folk at the New Zealand Transport Authority and their contractors had to close the Thames Coast Road for nearly two weeks. What that meant was a degree of inconvenience for the local people, because it’s quite a long detour around the other side of the peninsula for those folk. But we know in the Coromandel that that was important infrastructural work to be done ahead of the summer break.

Then, this very day, on the other side of the peninsula on what is referred to as State Highway 25A, between Kōpū and Hikuai, that road is currently closed, also, during daylight hours from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. for remedial work to be done on that piece of road, as well. So notwithstanding the inconvenience to local road users, we know that that important work needs to be done ahead of the massive influx of visitors that we will be receiving in the coming weeks and months as we delight at the prospect of a glorious summer of sand, surf, and sunshine in the Coromandel.

Another piece of important infrastructure has been returned to the Coromandel, and that is a piece of infrastructure that involves a ferry service from downtown Auckland into Coromandel Harbour. Now, we’ve been without a ferry service to the Coromandel for a number of years, so to have this service back available, which enables people to go from the ferry terminal, the ferry buildings in downtown Auckland, direct into Coromandel Harbour at Hannaford’s Wharf, is a great delight and it’s been very much welcomed by local Coromandel people. It’s not just the good folk of Coromandel town who benefit from a ferry service like that but, indeed, the whole peninsula. So they have an opportunity to come and visit all the delights of the Coromandel Peninsula.

Let’s talk about what some of those delights are. Let’s start with Coromandel. It’s a place where nature has gone all out on beauty, and we all know that, because when New Zealanders think of the Coromandel they have positive thoughts about not only the quality of parliamentary representation but about the region, the area, the beautiful bush, the white beaches, the sand, and all that goes with a holiday in that beautiful part of the world. Think of Cathedral Cove, where work has been done by the Department of Conservation and others to ensure that that track, which had been closed for a long time since the impacts of Cyclone Gabrielle, is now open again. That is another very favourite tourist spot for so many—not only local domestic tourists but international visitors, as well.

And then, close by, is the famous and wonderful Hot Water Beach, where people can literally go and dig a hole in the sand at low tide and sit in their own spa pool—and people do it. I’ve not visited there at 2 o’clock in the morning, but I’m told that if it’s low tide over summer, at 2 in the morning there are people sitting in beautifully dug sand Jacuzzis in the beautiful Coromandel.

And then, think about the forest walks, the waterfalls, the beautiful bush setting, the magnificent kauri trees that are there for us all to enjoy, but, also, wonderful creative folk in the peninsula and around the area, as well. It would be remiss of me not to mention the southern part of the electorate, Katikati and Ōmokoroa, a horticultural hub, with murals, beautiful artistic areas, and lovely cultural events, as well.

Because this is a split call with my colleague Suze Redmayne, I’m going to conclude by inviting not only parliamentary colleagues to come to the beautiful Coromandel this summer but all New Zealanders. Do come and pay us a visit. You’ll be welcomed with open arms, and we will be delighted to have you spend time but, more importantly, money in the beautiful Coromandel.

Suze Redmayne—five minutes.

I’d like to share my fantastic morning. Dr Shane Reti and I—our fantastic Minister for Universities and Minister of Science, Innovation and Technology—went to Palmerston North today to the opening of Ngā Huia, Massey University’s newest addition to the vet school. Tāwharau Ora, it’s called. We got a wonderful welcome from Rangitāne and also an outstanding waiata—a series of waiata—from the students at Manukura School. It was a great start to the day. Ngā Huia is the third and final major development in Massey University’s 10-year plan to upgrade their vet science buildings. They’ve come a long way since 1963, when the inaugural class of 32 students began their studies in an old building and World War II army mess huts.

The vet school is the only one in New Zealand that’s earned respect and high accreditation internationally. It was ranked first in Australasia—in fact, first in the Southern Hemisphere recently in the QS World University Rankings by Subject. It’s ranked among the top 20 in the world. It was absolutely brilliant to tour the first-class facilities today with Vice-Chancellor Jan Thomas and Professor Jon Huxley. All of the 120 students a year in the group will reap the benefits of these new facilities. Simply outstanding. Laboratories, specialist equipment—it’s glass, stainless steel, shiny and new machinery, even an array of life-sized animal simulators to test and train our future vets.

Of course, as well as celebrating the magnificent building, I want to acknowledge the skills and commitment of the staff and students—they’re the heart and soul of the vet school—and the contribution they make to New Zealand and especially to our rural and provincial economy. They’re a part of the engine room of New Zealand and they deserve to be celebrated. Just before we left, it was brilliant to see the fifth-year students having just sat their last exam. I wish them all well in their future endeavours.

I also want to take this opportunity to talk about the devastating fire which broke out in Tongariro National Park last Saturday. It has wreaked havoc across 2,800 hectares of this really important part of our country. It was a privilege to spend some time up at the Central Plateau Emergency Management Centre on Sunday along with my colleagues, Ministers Mark Mitchell, Tama Potaka, and our member of Parliament for Whanganui, Carl Bates.

The centre was the hub of the multi-agency and community response being led by Fire and Emergency New Zealand to fight the fires. Together, with the National Emergency Management Agency, Department of Conservation (DOC), the Ruapehu District Council, New Zealand Police, iwi from across the region, and local volunteers, they worked incredibly hard to protect our people and our park. Thirty-five fire crews were operating at the peak: 15 helicopters, five fixed-wing aircraft. They evacuated 120 people, tourists and locals alike, from the mountain.

I was fortunate to have an opportunity to fly over the area with Minister Potaka, which put into perspective the mammoth task. We were watching helicopters filling up their monsoon buckets by dropping into creeks in the bottom of a ravine and then dumping it on to the flames. You could kind of compare it to running from your kitchen out to the garden with a teacup of water at a time trying to put out a bonfire. But these magnificent humans did it. With the help of a timely downpour of rain, they managed to first contain it and then put it out. They also managed to protect a DOC hut and the majestic Pou Whenua Te Ririō, which stands at the entrance to Tongariro National Park. Our beloved Chateau Tongariro escaped the flames. It took a village and the rain to put it out, and it will take a village to restore our park to her former glory.

Of course, as well as the devastating impact on the physical landscape, there’s also a significant economic impact to consider, as well. Our tourism and transport operators, hotel and motel owners, restaurateurs, cafe owners who rely on visitors coming to walk the popular Tongariro Alpine Crossing, the Maungatapu Track, and also the Tongariro Northern Circuit—they’re going to be hurting right now, too. Control of the park has now been handed back to DOC, and I know Minister Potaka is relentlessly focused on restoring the flora, fauna, biodiversity, and economic prosperity of our most famous National Park in the mighty Rangitīkei—

The member’s time has expired. Five-minute call, the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

I stand here today proudly as the member of Parliament for the Kelston electorate. As well as that, I’m a former elected board of trustees member for Kelston Boys’ High School, the parent of a son who has already gone through Kelston Boys’, and the parent of a son who will start his secondary schooling there next year. This school has an outstanding record of achievement. In front of me right now, I have the list of alumni, many of them sportspeople—rugby, rugby league, basketball, soccer, wrestling—many of them with academic backgrounds, many from the business community, from the arts community, and even a few politicians, including my colleague across the House, the Hon Chris Penk.

We have seen how fiercely protective the Kelston community is—how loyal they are, and how incredibly resilient they are—especially in recent weeks, when it was made public that there has been an attempted charter school takeover. The outrage that the community have felt has been evident across social media and in the media. The idea that a trust who do not have the qualifications or credibility to take over a State school and turn it into a charter school is very evident when you just go through the Kelston community or look at any of the social media pages or the media that has been put around it. This is such a clear example of how and why David Seymour’s charter schools model is dangerous, and there are a number of things that we need to point out with regards to what has gone on in this particular instance.

This school has been put under relentless pressure for at least a year. This school has had incorrect information put out there publicly about them, including information about their academic achievement and their roll. They have relentless pressure put on the school in the form of a trust who is attempting to get people elected to the board of trustees so they could effectively take over a State school and turn it into a charter school. That trust was demanding the contact details of the parents of the children at that school so that they could lobby the parents to try and get elected to the board of trustees. This is a State school that has been targeted by, as I said, a trust that lacks credibility and qualification, but this has been allowed to happen because of the David Seymour charter school model, where they have, effectively, set a target for 15 State school conversions to charter schools under their watch. Now, we can imagine that this is not the only school that is going to experience similar pressure, and it’s important that we look at this example so that we can anticipate what could happen across the country.

Alongside the pressure that they have had put on them by the charter schools model set up by that Government, they’ve also had to endure the very messy David Seymour - led lunches in schools programme. Alongside hundreds of other schools, they are also enduring a failed curriculum and qualification change process where they have barely been consulted. Alongside this, and alongside hundreds of other schools, they have been forced to take strike action because of the fact that this Government does not want to meet what are fair pay and working conditions.

I cannot understand why Chris Luxon and Erica Stanford have allowed David Seymour to have so much power in the education portfolio. A man who leads a party who got, what, 8 percent at the last election is making decisions for our children, and he is simply not qualified or equipped to be making any of those decisions. It extends beyond even what the secondary schools are experiencing; it goes to the changes that he has been making in early childhood education—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I didn’t want to interrupt the member, but your direction at the start of the debate was very clear—to stick to local issues and not to stray from them.

Yes, and, if the member had been listening, there was often reference to Kelston Boys’ High School. I’ve written down how many references, actually, so there was sufficient reference locally. Anyone watching would know where Kelston was. That’s the test. Carry on.

This Kelston community is hell-bent on ensuring that this charter school conversion does not go ahead, and believe you me, you do not want to test the Kelston community. Let me just add that it’s not just the community; it is the teachers, it is the board of trustees, and it is the students who are coming out strongly, and this should simply not go ahead.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Kiwis expect a decent public health system, and Westies are no different. In West Auckland, we love our hospital on Lincoln Road; the staff are great, they do their best—but it makes Westies so mad that our hospital is so badly underfunded and understaffed. Patients are waiting too long to get the care that they deserve, because the nurses are too busy to get to them. And why is that? Because this National-led coalition Government is underfunding and understaffing the public health system. The numbers don’t lie. Between January 2024 and June 2025, documents released under the Official Information Act show that 71 percent of all shifts at Waitakere Hospital were understaffed. Three of the wards in the hospital—two of the general medical wards and the maternity suite—were understaffed for one-third of all shifts in that 18-month period. The Huia Ward, a 20-bed acute unit that caters for a range of acute medical and cardiac patients, was understaffed for nearly half of all the shifts in that period. Across the board, these numbers show that Waitakere Hospital has been running short by 20 nurses—20 nurses down on the number needed to deliver the official and agreed safe staffing levels.

It’s a simple equation: underfunding leads to understaffing, and that leads to people not getting the care that they deserve when they need it. Scott, of Te Atatū Peninsula, told me that he turned up at Waitakere Hospital at 4 a.m., on the advice of his doctor, after he started bleeding profusely a week after surgery on his nose. He was admitted but then spent six hours on a bed on wheels in the middle of the emergency room with people working all around him. They told him there was nowhere else to put him, and in all that time, he never got to see a doctor. Judy, another of my constituents, gave birth to a baby girl back in May. Due to some complications, Judy was booked in for a caesarean section at Waitakere Hospital. When the big day came along, it was all go, the contractions were happening, and, suddenly, the clinical staff told Judy that she had to go to North Shore Hospital because there was a lack of experienced staff at Waitakere. Judy also felt let down after the baby was born. She had to go all the way to Warkworth because Waitakere Hospital doesn’t yet have birthing units. West Auckland new mums have to go to Helensville and Warkworth to use their post-natal care birthing centres. In Judy’s words, “It’s woeful.” Craig of Swanson told me he went to Waitakere Hospital a couple of months ago with a broken collarbone. He waited two hours before he was admitted, had an X-ray, and was then told they couldn’t deal with it and he’d have to go to North Shore Hospital. His wife drove him there, and he had to wait three hours before being sent home without seeing a doctor and being told the hospital was overloaded.

These stories are not uncommon, but they are not good enough. Our healthcare workers are exhausted. Is it any wonder they’re leaving in droves for Australia, where they have minimum nurse-to-patient ratios and much better terms and conditions? These people became healthcare workers because they wanted to help people and give people the care that they need, not risk their suffering because of a lack of staff. The people of West Auckland demand a decent public health system that’s there for them when they need it. This Government has made bad decisions and has the wrong priorities. It’s given tax cuts to landlords and property speculators and tobacco companies while it underfunds and understaffs our hospitals. The people that I represent, in West Auckland, demand better.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. There will be no surprise that I rise to speak about our beautiful city Te Whanganui-a-Tara, but particularly the wonderful part of it that is known as the Rongotai electorate, the electorate where I was elected as the MP at the last election.

Wellington is a beautiful city. It is a compact city. It rates high on global surveys of livability, partially because it’s easy to walk and cycle and take public transport. That’s why it has one of the lowest car ownership rates in the entire country. That means Wellingtonians can have a better quality of life, because they aren’t sitting in traffic as long and they aren’t spending as much money—thousands of dollars a year—on owning a car.

Now, 30 percent of the city is covered in greenery, and we’re surrounded by our absolutely phenomenally gorgeous coast. Rongotai means “sound of the sea” or “feel of the tide”. Like so many others, I absolutely love and feel a deep connection to our moana here.

The most bizarre thing to me is that we have recently learnt the anticipated cost of the Government’s priority transport projects here in Wellington, which is right between our Green electorate of Wellington Central and the Green electorate of Rongotai. The Mount Victoria Tunnel projects are now estimated to cost $3.8 billion—that’s $3,800 million. This is an eye-wateringly high amount of money for projects which will do nothing to actually make it easier for people to get around the city.

The Greens would like to see a much more constructive approach that actually takes into account the needs of the local people. This is clearly only a priority for this Government because Government Ministers and backbench MPs get picked up by their Crown limos and their taxis at the airport and get driven to Parliament, and they mistakenly believe that somehow adding less than 2 kilometres of one extra car lane in each direction with seven stop lights in between at a cost of $3.8 billion is going to save time for anyone. It’s outrageous.

Just to help people get their head around the numbers, I have brought some visual aids. [Holds up graph] So this goes back to the year 2000 and it shows some of the cost per kilometre of different motorway projects. A lot of them are projects that we would think of as being extremely expensive. Don’t worry, I’ll send this to members opposite.

One thing you can see that really stands out in this graph is the Waterview Tunnel. The Waterview Tunnel was significantly more expensive per kilometre because it is a tunnel in an urban area. But let’s look at what’s happened with the 2025 investment cases for the new roads of national significance, because of all the projects that have been announced, the Wellington ones are the most expensive per kilometre by far—far more expensive than Petone to Grenada, the Hope Bypass, Mill Road, even, or Warkworth to Wellsford. These are all extremely expensive projects. But if we compare it on a per-kilometre basis, then you see how much more expensive is.

Now, I really have to go back and show you the whole thing in context, because this is the cost per kilometre of motorways. This is the Waterview Tunnel, which is three lanes in each direction. Then over here are the Wellington roads of national significance. I mean, it’s incredibly, incredibly expensive.

Members opposite can sit there and make their jibes and their pathetic little calls out to me to try and get me upset, but it’s embarrassing for them—embarrassing for them—because they’re the ones who are telling New Zealanders they can’t afford healthcare services, that we can’t afford hospitals, that we have to sell public assets, and that somehow it’s unaffordable to pay nurses, teachers, and firefighters what they deserve, to get firefighters the appliances that they need to fight fires, but they can afford to spend $3.8 billion on less than 2 kilometres of one car lane in each direction in the centre of Wellington, the place where people clearly want other options. We know that because Government parties got less than 26 percent of the vote combined. There is no mandate for this project in Wellington. The Greens alone got 50 percent more party votes than the National Party.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to speak tonight in this debate on local issues on behalf of the people that I represent and those like them, from Point Chevalier to the Tamaki River—those residents of the Auckland isthmus who have an interest in Plan Change 120 being imposed by Auckland Council today.

I want to start by saying that it comes from a good place. For too long, the promise of New Zealand has not been kept to younger people. There are too many people who ask the question, “Why should I support a property-owning democracy when I see no pathway to property ownership myself?” And the problem is that we have made it too hard to build a home in one of the most sparsely populated and beautiful countries on earth. That much is true.

But the solution, which is a hangover from the previous Government, of increasing the zoned capacity in and of itself is only part of the solution. We need to ensure that we improve the infrastructure supply, the building supply, and, also, the timeliness of consenting in order that people can actually build the homes that they need in our beautiful city.

Simply zoning more property to go up higher and faster is not in itself going to make housing available to the next generation. That’s why I support the Government’s policy of asking Auckland Council to provide 2 million more dwellings. But I equally ask our Government to listen to people, particularly in Auckland, and particularly in the isthmus: how can they consider the possibility—just the chance—that maybe that 2 million number is too high? That is what people are starting to ask themselves in the area of Auckland that I represent.

It may be that people who go down to the waterfront in Judges Bay or Hobson Bay or out in the inner west see the signs saying, “Don’t swim today because there is sewage on the beach.” It may be that people who are worried about the heritage of their communities, or who saw the sinkhole when a 100-year-old brick sewer collapsed due to intensification, have a point when they say that we’re not going to solve the challenge of making housing abundant by simply zoning overstressed areas to intensify beyond what the market will demand anyway. It may be that Auckland Council needs to think carefully about development in the north-west, about greenfield land, about opening up land and planning infrastructure in areas where there is market demand for the type of housing available, rather than zoning more of the housing that people don’t want.

I’ll give you a perfect example. Near where I live on Manukau Road, you’ve got the best bus service in the country, you’ve got Cornwall Park, you’ve got Newmarket, and you’ve got the best schools—not in the country; in the world, actually. It’s a great place to live, but can a developer take a section that’s developed to go to four storeys and build 28 apartments on it? No. Commercially, that fails, and you can see commercial failures all up and down Manukau Road despite the intense zoning.

What that tells you is that the market demand is not in place for what Auckland Council is trying to impose through Plan Change 120. What that tells you is that people who are giving their feedback to Plan Change 120 have a point—that the plan needs to be changed to spread out, and that perhaps, our Government will be listening to those people and saying that 2 million notional units in Auckland is asking too much too soon from a city that wants sensible planning and coordination of infrastructure and development so the next generation can have a shot at a ladder of opportunity to own their own place in a property-owning democracy—but done much smarter than is being done now.

It might be as simple as saying that we want, perhaps, two-thirds of 2 million homes under law. If we were to make a law like that, I think the people that I represent would be much, much happier. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, thank you. As a list MP, I see my constituency as being from Cape Reinga to somewhere south of Stewart Island. I get the privilege—

Well, that’s fairly local.

—of meeting lots—it’s very local—of wonderful people all over our beautiful country. Often, it’s wonderful to be able to help out some of those at a community or organisational level.

Jamie Arbuckle here and I both visited the Upper Selwyn Huts just South of Christchurch last June. It’s located next to the Selwyn River just south of Christchurch, a short distance from Lake Ellesmere. It’s a beautiful settlement of just under 100 houses—a place and a community to fall in love with; a place where everybody knows and supports each other, the way I imagine New Zealand used to be.

It’s sited on a Crown reserve and managed as a local purpose reserve by the Selwyn District Council as a hut settlement. But the whole settlement, at that stage, was under threat of eviction by their own council. That settlement first began as a fishing village established by the people of Christchurch for fishing. The first fishing box there was in 1888, and it became a reserve in 1895 dedicated for fishing huts. It became a popular holiday spot—built tennis courts and lots of infrastructure; people started over time to live there, albeit for short periods.

What I was drawing on there is that the fishing was so good that in March 1927, the future King George IV and Queen Elizabeth fished—cast a line. The Christchurch Star reported then, “His Royal Highness arrived at the Selwyn Huts at 1.30 p.m., remained there fishing until 6.00 p.m.” So he obviously spent a lot of time there, and it’s understood that though he did not meet with any degree of fortune—I understand that as a failed fisherman—he thoroughly enjoyed the outing.

The community held picnics, sports days, gala days, bonfires, fireworks, concerts, fancy dress racing, rowing, racing, and so on. The huts became baches and by the 1940s there was a shop, tea rooms, and regular deliveries of meat, vegetables, and even a community library. It increasingly became a place to stay for extended periods, which was accentuated after the Canterbury earthquakes. Now, most of those are homes which are permanently occupied.

But in 2019, the Selwyn Council determined that it issue only short-term leases and then require the whole settlement to be removed because the waste-water system was at the end of its life. Jamie and I were asked to visit because the council had published a paper in March of 2024 with no engagement whatsoever with the Huts community that simply adhered to the 2019 decision that says, “You’ve got to go.”, even though the council had fixed or was fixing the waste-water system and the reason for removing them no longer existed. The council decided to issue some pretty Draconian deeds of licence and said, “You’ve got five years. We might give you another couple of five years, and then you are gone.” Now, the reason they gave—not waste water—was the potential risk to the settlement from sea-level rise.

So I wrote, after our visit, at length to the council and challenged them on multiple issues. I said that their reason for removing the settlement had changed, but they hadn’t really looked at whether the removal was still justified at all. They’d been unduly certain about the degree of sea-level rise, they based their position on the most extreme possibilities, and they were acting prematurely to terminate the leases well before there was any risk of sea-level rise impacting on the settlement. They used 100-year projections but said, “We’ve got to get rid of you in 15 years.”

Their own consultants on the matter, on the issue of sea-level rise, concluded that even the most severe flooding event recorded did not result in any inundation of the settlement. The consultants said the main message from this report is that climate futures are highly dependent on emissions scenarios and, therefore, highly uncertain. I proposed to them that they considered triggers, as their near neighbours at Hurunui were doing with the Amberley Beach community.

They’d also failed in their self-acknowledged—and this was the council that self-acknowledged—legislative obligation to protect the welfare and interests of the hut owners and residents. The council itself said there were many vulnerable people resident in the Huts settlement and it expected evicted residents would likely end up on the wait-list for Kāinga Ora or the like. Several residents told us that their limited life savings were wholly tied up in their homes at Upper Selwyn Huts.

When the council then said that the Government was not investing enough in social housing in the Selwyn district, it made their argument look pretty fragile. They’d also mischaracterised the consultation as merely of medium significance, even though they were proposing to take people’s homes away. I said, “I think that constitutes high significance under their own significant policy and the consultation requirements of the Local Government Act.” Their officers also misrepresented the Reserves Act maximum lease term in the council paper, and they failed to tell the councillors about the ability to renew the leases.

Long story short, the council acknowledged that it had got its processes badly wrong. They paused their processes the following month, agreed to engage with the Upper Selwyn Huts community, engaged an independent consultant, and there was ongoing consultation for the next wee while. Eventually, that consultation concluded with a full day of oral hearings in August this year, which I joined by Zoom—would have loved to be there, but I had to be in hospital that day. By that stage, the council’s reason for eviction had again completely changed; it was now fire safety. The residents told story after story about their connection to the place and the councillors would have had hearts of stone not to be moved. I had the privilege of summing up and the council moved 180 degrees. That community is now there, and it has the right to stay there.

Madam Speaker.

We had the pleasure of joining for the 130 years celebration, knowing they would still be there—

The member’s pushing the time.

—for 130 years to go. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s really appropriate that I rise to speak in this local debate on the eve of Canterbury Anniversary Day, a day when we celebrate 175 years of everything Canterbury, everything red and black. Make sure you don’t forget the black, because we wouldn’t be seen dead in red. A lot of us will be celebrating tomorrow at the Christchurch A&P show—actually, it’s the new Royal A&P Show of New Zealand—and it’s going to be great.

Many great things have come out of Canterbury and Christchurch over the last 175 years—

Like Dr Hamish Campbell.

—including myself. I ask a question as I stand here: what do London, San Francisco, and Christchurch all have in common? Well, I will tell you. They’re all cities that have faced devastation, have not only survived, but have come back stronger, bolder, and ready to thrive in the future.

Christchurch, of course, has answered “What sort of place do we want to become?” by saying that we want to be a place with vision and with courage. We have redefined ourselves as a city where traditional meets transformational. We have historical landmarks, and some of these do continue to provide discussion—whether it be the Canterbury Museum or our cathedral—but there are other great buildings, like the stadium, Te Pae, the Court Theatre, and the Youth Hub, which all offer bold responses and fresh opportunities.

Tourism is thriving in Christchurch. Christchurch Airport is preparing for its busiest ever summer season, with international capacity climbing 15 percent above last year and surpassing pre-COVID levels. I do want to acknowledge our outstanding Minister for Tourism and Hospitality or her tireless work to enhance tourism across the country. Just this morning, she welcomed official statistics showing continued growth in overseas visitor numbers. Of course, we’ve had the Tourism Boost package developed in partnership with industry, we’ve had the $7 million events and tourism investment package, and this is all leading to great, great outcomes for Christchurch.

It’s not just tourists that are choosing Christchurch city; our city now has the highest rate of domestic migration in the country—a clear sign that New Zealanders are choosing to work, to study, and to live in Christchurch. This influx of talent and energy is strengthening our workforce and fuelling innovation.

Of course, Christchurch is also the city of choice for students. Enrolment at the University of Canterbury, which sits right in the middle of my electorate of Ilam, has surged to about 25,000 students this year, an all-time high for the third year running and a 12 percent increase on 2024. Of course, further growth is expected next year. I’ll make a quick shout-out to the students. They’re starting their summer break, having finished their exams. Ilam will be a little bit quieter without them, I won’t deny, but we are looking forward to having them back next year. Also, I want to acknowledge one of those students, Lachlan Rountree, who has helped in my Ilam office very capably. I wish him well for his future endeavours.

It’s not just our university students that we’re sending off. We also sent Kevin the giraffe from Orana Park up to Hamilton Zoo. I understand transporting a giraffe is no small feat. There’s a lot of—

Ryan Hamilton will be very happy.

Yeah. Unfortunately, it’s not going to be a breeding programme. All the giraffes in the Hamilton Zoo are males, but maybe future breeding programmes will benefit.

Not many electorates can claim to have an international airport, a world-leading university, and giraffes and other wildlife, but I digress. Christchurch is leading the way. A recent Business Canterbury report shows that 64 percent of businesses expect the economy to strengthen over the next year, the majority of businesses plan to hire more staff, the majority of businesses intend to invest in plant or equipment, and 79 percent are confident in their ability to manage disruption.

Innovation is another major driving force in Christchurch, and I want to acknowledge the opinion piece in the Press yesterday by Nathan Beaumont, talking about Christchurch. He said, “Across this region, businesses are doing extraordinary things. They’re the engine of the South Island—creating jobs, developing world-leading technology, and strengthening New Zealand’s reputation overseas.” Of course, the university has long been a source of world-class ideas, and, now, our Minister for Science, Innovation and Technology has just unleashed a new intellectual property policy that will empower researchers to take that even further. Christchurch is the place to be. I’m looking forward to a great, great show.

Thank you. I want to give a very different kind of advocacy today—from the electorate of Mt Albert, with regard to the plans to build more houses—from the one that was given by the Hon David Seymour. I want to do it, first, by talking about why we need those houses; why they need to be where, actually, it was planned they would be. The first reason I want to give is one where I’d actually refer people to a book called Abundance by Ezra Klein, which makes a really compelling case for the link between not having enough affordable housing in a city and issues like homelessness. There’s a direct correlation, and it is incredibly important that we look at this differently. We need to break through a block that we have had around affordable housing, and it needs to be close to our city, because we need our city to thrive. It needs to be a livable city. It needs to be one where we don’t all take our cars everywhere.

My solution, today, is not to send every new home buyer out to Drury. That is, unfortunately, the message that we heard from David Seymour. He talks a big game, but he’s actually protecting an interest that is very wary of this. It is very wary because it’s actually really nice to live in suburbs full of beautiful houses, close to the city, without many people there. I’m lucky enough to be one of those people. I’m in one of those communities. But what we miss out on, even from our point of view, is our kids moving into those areas. Our kids don’t, because they can’t afford to. I have two daughters and a son. One daughter will go and live in Nelson, because that’s affordable if you’re going to be a teacher. Another one is in Sydney, and it’s really hard to see how she will come home and, if she does, how she will come home and live near me. It undermines my quality of life, too, if she doesn’t get to live close.

This is a really interesting scheme that’s come up. It’s not easy for people in my community to look at it without some fear. There are good reasons to have some fears and to participate in the submission process that’s coming up, to make sure that we get it right. While it has been a long time, it is now a bit of a rush, and the risk of that is that we actually don’t get it right, we don’t engage in the process, we rush the plans, and we make mistakes. This is an area that has been subject to issues like stormwater issues. There was a big issue in the floods. It’s important that the buildings are quality, that we engage our creative powers, and that the people in those suburbs really get stuck in and improve those plans. It is also important we don’t chuck out the baby with the bathwater, because this is a powerful step in creating an inclusive community, if we get it right. There are some beautiful examples. We’ve got a subway that’s going to come right into the area. It’s going to be eight minutes to town. It’s going to be amazing to have a fast train that is eight minutes to town, and it’s going to make a big difference to how that suburb thrives. It’s going to be really important that there are advocates in there fighting for the Government to spend money to actually make sure that things like the rail happens fast, and that there’s grade separation at schools, where the traffic can still flow and the public can still use those places. That’s really important.

What was really a little bit shocking about the Hon David Seymour’s speech was it was like he was distancing himself from this process, when this is the Government’s policy. This is actually a Government policy, and he is, actually, in the Government. He’s the Deputy Prime Minister, so it’s, actually, not something that he can distance himself from or that he should be distancing himself from. That is not appropriate. It’s really important that we fight for what we need in our suburbs and make sure that we get it right, but it’s also important we remember all the generations that live in those suburbs and make sure that they end up being quality communities. I intend to do that. I’ve got a public meeting on this issue very shortly—I think it’s in two weeks. It would be great to see people there. We will make sure people are well served and they can do a good submission. Thank you.

Hello, Madam Speaker. I really enjoyed hearing about Coromandel and Rangitīkei and Christchurch. There were some nice, positive local speeches about the great places we come from around this country, and I intend to talk about the great places I come from like, like Horowhenua and Kāpiti.

I can’t help but notice the contrast on the other side of the House; just the miserable approach that we’ve heard towards a fun and positive local debate. I really wish all people would enter into it with the same spirit, and it’s not too late. There’s one speech left.

I said some positive things.

Oh, the lady doth protest too much right now, while she’s cancelling tunnels and roads, just like the one that got cancelled in Levin. People still remember that, back in 2018 when Labour cancelled it and then Julie Anne Genter said, “Well, you can only have two lanes. One is for buses and public transport.”—there is no public transport, of course. But people are driving on those roads now, up Transmission Gully, through the Kāpiti Coast. They’ll be driving to spend their summer there. I know some people are arguing for Coromandel, but I would say they should come to the Kāpiti Coast and Horowhenua—what a place to come to to spend your summer.

The strawberries are already out. The beaches are heating up. It is, I would argue, the best place to spend your summer in New Zealand—and talking of things like strawberries, they are award-winning. I think of Lewis Farms that took out a Wellington Gold Award this year with their strawberries. Shirley’s Strawberries—also great. I wouldn’t be picking favourites.

You can spend a night on Kāpiti Island with the guys at Kapiti Island Nature Tours. They just won one of our local business awards. You could check out our amazing food and beverage sector, something I’m really proud of. I think it’s fantastic. You can drive from Foxton Fizz down to Whittaker’s for chocolate, and everywhere in between. What a fantastic region to come to.

It’s so good that I’ve run events, and I’m running another one in March in Parliament to celebrate our amazing food and beverage sector that comes out of this region. This time we’re doing it in summer so that those strawberries will be in season. I know some people love asparagus. I’m not such a fan, but some people love it.

What a place to come to and what an area for growth in New Zealand. Some MPs come from places like Dunedin and St Clair Beach; Katie Nimon is from over in Napier, which has Marine Parade—terrible beaches. Can we just acknowledge that these are terrible beaches? They’re popular. I don’t know why. If you go to St Clair, it’s a concrete wall into rocks in the ocean, yet people want to flock there. Come to Paraparaumu where there’s a nice open beach. It’s safe. You can go to Raumati. Every now and then there are a few people in the region we’re not so keen on, but it’s a great place to come. Check out the new surf life-saving club at Waitārere—I was referring to Chris Hipkins—or at Paekākāriki. Matt and Karen have done an absolutely stunning job fund-raising and running that project. Homestead Construction from Levin have built it, and it is something we should be proud of. It is exactly the kind of thing we need.

There are some big ideas for growth. There’s an idea for a gondola on the hills, overlooking the sea; a marina—big things, and why shouldn’t we have them in our region of Kāpiti? It is a fantastic place. It is, I would argue, the only place in New Zealand you can have the authentic mountain-to-sea experience. You can be in the heart of the Tararua Ranges and then, an hour later, you can be in the Tasman Sea. What a great place to come and do that.

Things to attract people in are what our region needs. It’s great to see the growth that’s already happening. In just a week, Rebound will be opening—Rebound Playland & Trampoline Park. This is the new trampoline park and indoor play centre. I put up a little photo on Facebook. It went bananas.

But the other thing opening is Golf for Good, and I want to just take a minute to shout out to Golf for Good. This is the new mini golf course, and you say, “Oh yeah, we’ve had mini golf courses before.” This one is pretty unique. This is a combined project of the local Lions and Rotary clubs. I think it sends a really special message when you see Lions and Rotary working together. I do actually just want to make a special mention of Alistair Beissel, who has chaired this committee; of Vic Hewson, Mal Bird, and Anthony Clouston from the Rotary Club. They’ll be starting their meeting in 10 minutes’ time on a Thursday night. And from the Kāpiti Combined Lions, I want to mention Rex Bullard, who’s done a great job with sponsors Tony Lester, Murray Pringle, and Alan Gibbs. They have done a fantastic job. Not only that but they give these sponsors tickets, family passes, to hand out. They donate them to, say, the local scout group who then raffle them off for auction—you know, hand them out. That generates money directly into these local clubs.

But then everyone that comes to play on the mini golf course also raises money for the local community. This is exactly the kind of thing we do when our community is at its best, our country is at its best, and what better community in this country than Horowhenua, than the Whitby area, and in particular, I have to shout out to the Kāpiti Coast.

Speakers don’t normally inject themselves into the debate, but if they did, you might hear about Raglan occasionally. I call Greg Bennett—Glen Bennett, sorry.

That’ll do. Being accused of being negative on this side of the House—it’s not by choice or for fun. It’s the reality that we have to speak up in these local debates about local issues. They’re important. It’s not this Pollyanna, just, “Life is wonderful and everything is fine.”—

Cheer up.

—as we as we tiptoe and we’re told to cheer up, because I want to talk about homelessness in Taranaki and, particularly, homelessness in New Plymouth.

When you say, “Cheer up.” or “Let’s stop being negative.”, it’s not about being negative. These local issues debates are about shining a light on the challenges and on the things that are going on with our local communities. I’m saddened and broken by the fact that in Taranaki, over the last 18 months—or less than, actually—there has been a 250 percent rise in homelessness—a 250 percent rise in homelessness. That is why we get called negative or for us to cheer up, but the reality is we are here standing in this Chamber to fight for the people who are homeless, to fight for the people who are voiceless. I am here to speak about that this afternoon.

We look at the challenges—and there is many a challenge when it comes to homelessness and why people end up in homelessness, but it definitely is around rising rentals. It’s definitely around the challenges in the economy. It’s definitely around job losses. It’s also about traumatic events and things that go on in people’s lives, but it is also about choices that are made by people in this House and by the Government.

When we look at the housing plan and the State housing initiatives that were in place, there were a number of them. We had more than 600 applications on the social housing wait-list in Taranaki—over 600. They are not individuals; they are families and people in need. They are generations of people and we need to do something to change the state of our housing here in Taranaki and around the country.

I look at the initiatives that were in place and were under way. I look at the 44 units that were built between 2020 and 2023 in central New Plymouth. We often get told about the facts: “We don’t have the right site because it’s one and two bedrooms we need.” Well, they were all one- and two-bedroom units.

We also look at things like the purchase of property to build over 100 Kāinga Ora houses in central New Plymouth, as well. That was paused. That’s just sitting there with nothing else going on. There were more than 100 other houses up in West New Plymouth, in Westown, and in Glenpark Avenue over in Vogeltown. Again, those projects have been paused and are just sitting there while people sit on the housing wait-list, while people sleep in cars, sleep in doorways, sleep in the park, sleep down by the beach, in places where it’s actually not acceptable, because everyone should be able to get a decent night’s sleep in a safe place with a roof over their head.

I think it’s an indictment on Government, it’s an indictment on this House, that we as a nation are allowing people outside these doors, people in New Plymouth and Taranaki, to be on the streets. Then we look at things like—and I’m glad that the New Plymouth District Council has stepped up. They’ll put some money in. Do they need to? No. Have they chosen to because they’ve seen the need? Yes.

I look at the challenges of our men’s night shelter that was established in 1981, I think it was, closing its doors this year because of lack of funding. They were providing housing to our most vulnerable. I do want to congratulate the New Plymouth District Council for stepping up and stepping in and looking at a Taranaki homelessness action plan, supporting the Ngāmotu Street Initiative to support and help those in need.

I need to finish by thanking those who are stepping up and stepping in where Government is failing. I think of the Roderique Hope Trust and what they do around housing people. I think of our iwi providers. I think of church groups. I think of the YMCA, who are stepping into spaces that we as a Government have failed in, because, as I said at the start, there has been a 250 percent rise in homelessness in Taranaki. That is an outrage. That is on us and we must do something about it. [Interruption] Yeah, laugh as you want, or think that we’re just being negative, but we’re here to stand up for people in need. We’re here to stand up for people and say that everyone—everyone—deserves a dry, warm, safe place to call home, that they can share their lives, their loves, and their futures with.

Just before we adjourn the House, I would just like to make mention of Roland Todd, whose mother passed away this week. We’re all thinking of Roland today. I’d also like to thank Kellie Watkins and everyone in the Chamber officers’ team, which has pulled together and helped us do our job as well as we’ve been able to, so thank you. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 November 2025.

The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.