Parliamentary debates: Tuesday, 18 November 2025

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

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

No petitions have been delivered for presentation. Ministers have delivered 12 papers to the Clerk.

2024-25 annual reports of

Education Payroll Ltd

Climate Change Commission

Health Research Council of New Zealand

Network for Learning Ltd; and

Pharmac

long-term insights briefings on

building New Zealand’s long-term resilience to hazards; and

the future of Public Service integrity

Investment Statement 2025

2025-26 statements of performance expectations for

Education Payroll Ltd

the Health Research Council of New Zealand

Network for Learning Ltd; and

Pharmac.

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

Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the 2023-24 annual review of Te Pūkenga

reports of the Environment Committee on the

petition of Forest & Bird; and

report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Urban ground truths: Valuing soil and subsoil in urban development

reports of the Justice Committee on the

petition of H Hakepa; and the

petition of Jody Hopkinson

reports of the Petitions Committee on the

petition of Carin Robinson; and the

petition of Yasmeen Altaher

reports of the Primary Production Committee on the

Animal Welfare (Regulations for Management of Pigs) Amendment Bill; and the

Briefing on the Queen Elizabeth II National Trust.

The bill is set down for second reading. The reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and briefings are set down for consideration. A bill—

Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct answers I gave during oral questions on 12 November 2025.

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

In answers to oral question No. 10 on 12 November 2025, I advised that neither the Prime Minister nor I had advance knowledge of the Public Service Commission’s intention to pay for advertising to reach audiences affected by the strikes. That statement was correct. Neither the Prime Minister nor I were told in advance. I also note that in answers to a follow-up question on the same topic—question No. 9 on 13 November 2025—my colleague the Hon James Meager also stated that I was not informed in advance. However, late in the day on 13 November 2025, my office discovered that it had been informed, on 17 October, that the communications would include paid social media. Either earlier information Public Service Commission had not advised it would be paid, and the addition of the word “paid” was not noticed by my office, being in an A3. The Public Service Commission also did not highlight the change, as it has used paid social media before, most recently in 2022. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct a vote which was mistakenly given on my behalf on the Medicines Amendment Bill third reading.

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

My vote on the Medicines Amendment Bill third reading was given as one against. It should have been one in favour.

Thank you. A bill has been introduced—

Point of order. Do you recall me raising a point of order about the authority for certain members to have their vote cast the way it was? I was overruled, and here we have got somebody now correcting it. That was only a week ago.

Yeah.

Well, maybe there’s a lesson I would like to hear that we’ve learnt.

Well, if you’re expecting some sort of humble pie exercise from me, it’s not happening. A bill is—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to correct a vote which was mistakenly given on my behalf on the Medicines Amendment Bill third reading.

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

My vote on the Medicines Amendment Bill third reading was given one against. It should have been one in favour.

Thank you. Well, in response to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, I’m starting to back down a little bit. I think that if other parties are being asked to cast votes for people who have Speaker’s leave, they should make sure that the people casting those votes understand exactly what was required.

A bill has been introduced.

Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill, introduction.

The bill is set down for first reading.

Members, I have received a letter from Tangi Utikere seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the decision by the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Finance to transfer funding to fund a bridge in the Hutt South electorate. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. I have considered this matter carefully, recognising that expense transfers do occur. Having weighed the interests of the House and ministerial probity with the high bar for urgent debates, I do not think this matter warrants setting aside the business of the House today. The application is declined.

to the Prime Minister

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

Yes, and can I just personally extend the member a very warm congratulations on his recently announced engagement and wish him and his fiancée all the very best for the future.

I’m surprised it wasn’t a snap debate application.

I can assure the Prime Minister there were no Government actions involved. Does he agree with the immigration Minister that over 200,000 people leaving the country is just due to “normal economic cycles”; if so, how much more exodus of talent do we need to see before the Government will stop treating it as simply business as usual?

Well, as we have discussed in recent weeks, people go overseas to earn more money, and the reality is we have been through incredibly difficult and challenging economic times—not helped by that member’s previous Government that created a huge amount of economic pain and suffering for people—but, as I have said before, if the member really cared about this issue, he would back mining because there are a lot of New Zealanders going overseas to Australian mines for high-paying jobs. I haven’t heard him categorically rule out the Greens’ recent madness.

Does he accept that rising unemployment in New Zealand, including 20,000 fewer jobs in building and construction, under his leadership is one of the reasons that Kiwis are giving up and leaving?

As I said before, it’s been a very difficult time. Unemployment rising is a function of wasteful Government spending, driving up inflation, driving up interest rates, putting an economy into recession, and that’s why this Government is doing everything it can to balance the books and to make sure we have prudent economic management. It’s been good to see commentators reporting that unemployment is now peaking. We obviously want to see that coming down, but one of the ways we do that is we create opportunity for our people here at home. That means supporting fast track so we can create job-rich infrastructure projects, it means supporting mining, and it means repealing the oil and gas ban—good things that create high-paying jobs in regional New Zealand.

Why does he regard infrastructure spending as wasteful spending, given it is one of the areas where his Government has reduced public spending?

I don’t. It’s great to see the infrastructure pipeline has increased, yet again, this quarter. More projects are being financed, more projects are under way, and that’s a good thing.

Why has his Government agreed to a policy on financial support for unemployed 18- and 19-year-olds that, potentially, offers more financial support to low-income parents who reduce the amount of paid work they undertake?

We stand by our policy on 18- to 19-year-olds because we’re not prepared to consign young to a life on welfare unlike the previous administration. At a time when there was 3.2 percent unemployment and 60,000 more people put on unemployment benefit, that is utterly unacceptable. We care about those young people. We love them deeply. We want them connected to work, education, and training.

So how is telling their parents that if they stay home and work less, their families will be financially better off, a way of addressing that issue?

I have greater faith in parents than that member because I think that any parent that actually thinks that’s the way that they advance the interests of their 18- to 19-year-old—that’s not the way forward.

Does he agree with Christopher Luxon that “people skipping meals because they can’t afford food—that’s serious”; if so, why, under his leadership, are one in four households with children regularly missing out on the food those kids need to grow?

Because my comments are about the fact that that is the reality when you don’t run an economy well, when you crank up Government spending by 84 percent, when you add in $43 billion of new taxes, and you triple the debt so that we end up paying $9 billion to $10 billion worth of interest, which is money that cannot be used to support out fellow Kiwis. That is utterly unacceptable.

Does he still think it isn’t “rocket science” for parents to buy bread and fruit for their kids, given that those basics are now too expensive for many families, with the cost of bread and kiwifruit up 50 percent in just the last year?

Again, I’ll just say to the member, food price inflation is up about 4.7 percent. It was up 12.5 percent under his Government. There are global prices around dairy, red meat—that has been well recorded—and coffee that has driven that number, but that is a lot better than 12.5 percent.

What happened to his promise of a “comprehensive plan to rebuild the economy, to end the cost of living crisis, to lift incomes, and to give Kiwis a reason to stay” when, after two years of his leadership, the economy’s shrunk, the cost of living’s worse than ever, incomes have only stagnated under his watch, and the number of Kiwis giving up and leaving is now at a record high?

Well, I’m proud of this Government: a 35-year-low recession that we inherited, and, importantly, a long COVID hangover because of the actions of the previous Government. But isn’t it fantastic that we’ve cut back on wasteful spending? We’ve got inflation down from 7.5 percent down to 3 percent, and we’ve got interest rates having been cut eight times. We’re now growing our economy, and we want to see people put into work.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister continues to claim that the Government inherited a recession. I seek leave to table the Statistics New Zealand data that shows that the economy was not in recession under Labour; it went into recession under National.

I’m sure that that information is publicly available.

Given the overwhelming pushback from more than 200 schools and the Iwi Leaders Forum, does the Prime Minister—

Hang on—wait on. Start with a question word, and ask a question without the statement.

Does the Prime Minister continue to have confidence in his education Minister, given the significant pushback by schools—more than 200—and the Iwi Leaders Forum to retain Te Tiriti o Waitangi in education legislation and delivery?

Absolutely. She’s done more in two years than the previous Ministers in the last six. But I want that member to be under no illusions: if you actually think about upholding the obligations of the Treaty of Waitangi, your first obligation is to get your kids to school and to teach them the basics brilliantly—some maths and some reading—and that’s what the focus needs to be. We make no apologies—none whatsoever—for the number one priority of our school boards to be to get your kids to school and get them educated.

Supplementary. Does the Prime Minister believe—

No, we’ve had enough. We’re moving on to question No. 2.

Supplementary.

Oh, have you got a question?

Can the Prime Minister confirm that the absence or otherwise of the Treaty of Waitangi—we are still seeing an improvement in Māori numeracy, given that some Māoris don’t know how to count?

Well, I’ll just say, I am very, very proud, and I think all members, the independents that are here, Te Pāti Māori—it’d be fantastic to say congratulations. Isn’t it fantastic that five-year-old, young Māori students have seen such an improvement in their literacy in their first 20 weeks at school? That’s something that all members of this House should be celebrating.

to the Minister of Finance

What recent announcements has she made about fair trading?

On Sunday, commerce and consumer affairs Minister Scott Simpson and I announced that the Government is increasing penalties for breaches of the Fair Trading Act. The purpose of the changes is to deter unfair trading that disadvantages both consumers and other businesses that do play by the rules. Common examples of unfair trading include misleading advertising, inaccurate pricing, refund refusals, non-delivery of goods, and subscription traps. Legislation giving effect to the changes will be introduced to Parliament early next year and is expected to pass into law later in the year.

What is the difference between existing penalties and the proposed new regime?

At the moment, the maximum penalty for a breach of the Fair Trading Act is $600,000. The changes we are proposing will increase the maximum penalty to the highest of either three times the value of the commercial gain, the value of the transactions, or $5 million. This means that serious offenders will be liable for fines of up to tens of millions of dollars if they have gained significantly from breaching the law.

Does this mean penalties for all offences will automatically increase?

No. The courts will continue to have discretion to consider a range of factors. These include the nature of the conduct, whether the party has breached the Act before, the size and scale of the party, and the breach it made. The courts seldom impose the maximum penalties, but lifting the ceiling gives them more room for discretion.

Why are these changes necessary?

Well, penalties under the Fair Trading Act were last updated in 2014—so more than a decade ago—and they are no longer fit for purpose. Over the past five years, the number of complaints received by the Commerce Commission has increased significantly to more than 10,000 in the most recent year. Some businesses have breached the Act multiple times. There are circumstances in which the gains to be made from breaching the Act can currently outweigh the penalties for breaching it. The new regime will eliminate those incentives, and these changes will give New Zealand consumers more confidence that they are being treated fairly by the businesses they buy from.

to the Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Does he think it is possible to protect the environment and create new jobs, or is relying on extractive industries the only way to create jobs?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes.

How would he respond to concerns that he is leading a Government that is willing to risk permanent and irreversible damage to our land, oceans, and fresh water through his Government’s courting of policies of offshore mining?

What I’d say to that member is I think their actions are economic vandalism and insanity. I think the recent statement and policy we’ve seen around mining makes no sense. You are literally, as a Labour-Greens coalition, telling regional New Zealand—

Just answer from a Government perspective.

Does he think it’s acceptable that his fast-track process could be excluding the voices of communities like those in Otago, Northland, and Coromandel who don’t want to see their local whenua or moana turned into an ecological wasteland?

Well, I reject the characterisation of that question, but I’m incredibly proud of our fast track. We make no apologies: we are going to get things done and built in this country, and we are prioritising economic growth above everything else.

Is the Government very careful not to do permanent and irreversible damage to New Zealand’s reputation by avoiding even the threat of tearing up consents already issued?

We are. I think that is very dangerous when you send a message to regional New Zealand that “You don’t deserve high-paying jobs; you can go on the benefit.” I think it’s a very dangerous message sent to international investors that creates a chilling effect for all investors. I think it’s a very dangerous thing when you say, “We won’t do those high-paying mining jobs here in New Zealand, but we will do them in Australia, so go over there.”

Is the Government’s message to people in regional New Zealand that their future is in the boom and bust of mining, instead of backing them with long-term, sustainable industries that won’t disappear when all the profits have been extracted from our environment?

Our message is very clear to regional New Zealand: you deserve high-paying jobs, not just being consigned to a life on a benefit.

Does he accept that genuine economic security for workers comes from sustainable industries like wood processing, renewable energy, or Jobs for Nature, and not from gambling the future of our regions on the fluctuating price of gold and coal?

I think job security comes from actually respecting the rule of law and not ripping up contracts you don’t like the shape of. [Interruption]

The Hon Shane Jones.

To the Prime Minister—

No, just wait till the House shows some respect for people who are about to ask a question.

to the Prime Minister

what is his response, given that the message has gone to international and domestic investors that their rights will be expropriated after the next Government, heaven forbid that the last member who spoke should be in a Cabinet?

I think it sends a chilling effect, as we saw with the oil and gas ban. That is what happened. It sounded like a great bumper sticker, but the second and third order implications were not thought through and, as a result, we have a shortage of gas which we desperately need. This just sends a chilling effect to investors—all investors—for a country that struggles to attract foreign direct investment.

Look, I just want to reiterate that the Prime Minister has responsibility for the Government only and that while I did let that question go because of the way it was structured, it’s not appropriate to use supplementaries from the Government to attack Opposition parties.

Could I ask the Prime Minister whether he finds it ironic that the Nordic countries are the world’s leading environmentalists but they believe massively in extraction because you can’t get to being one without the other?

The Minister’s exactly right: if we want to make the transition to clean energy, we actually need mining—we need mining for electric vehicles, we need mining for solar panels—and Norway is a great example of that.

How important does the Government believe confidence, continuity, and certainty are for investment, jobs, and growth?

Absolutely important. It’s important, as I said, to respect the rule of law and to ensure that there is certainty, that there is clarity, because these are investors making long-term investments that end up ultimately creating high-paying, high-income jobs for Kiwis, and that’s a good thing.

to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes.

What process does she undertake to ensure that ministerial conflicts of interests, perceived or otherwise, are managed appropriately when it comes to joint ministerial funding decisions?

The management of conflicts of interest is a matter for the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister.

On what date did Minister Bishop, the MP for Hutt South, first approach her regarding using Kāinga Ora funding for the RiverLink bridge project, and in what capacity did he approach her?

With that question on notice, I’m happy to get a written answer to the member. If the member wants specific questions on a particular line of questioning, she should make it clear the subject of her questioning in her primary question.

Did she, given the ministerial funding decision did not go to Cabinet, seek specific Cabinet Office advice regarding any potential or perceived conflict of interest for Minister Bishop jointly signing off the use of Kāinga Ora funding for the RiverLink bridge project; if so, what did that advice say?

No. I did concur with the advice from Kāinga Ora, who advised that the course of action I agreed to was the right course of action. I am pleased that our Government has actually delivered the funding for the Melling project, which the last Government talked about, never funded, and never started.

Did she seek any advice from Treasury regarding using Kāinga Ora funding for the RiverLink bridge project, given that the request for funding was dated 12 March and she signed it off on 21 March?

I did receive a cover note from my Treasury secondee with their views on the proposal.

How can the New Zealand public have confidence in her decision making, given she sought no Cabinet Office advice, only received a Treasury private secretary cover note, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development opposed a funding transfer, but she proceeded to sign off funding for the RiverLink bridge project with Minister Bishop, given his conflict of interest as the MP for Hutt South?

There are many statements in that long question which are wrong—in particular, the advice that I received was both from the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development and Kāinga Ora, who provided the full advice on this decision; and also, the member’s continued assertion that I am responsible for the management of any perceived or actual conflicts of interest.

Does the Minister not think it’s extraordinarily novel that helping one’s electorate is regarded as a conflict of interest these days in the Labour Party?

No. [Interruption]

What!

The Minister has no responsibility—

She said it.

—for the other side.

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

She may well have alleged that she was—

She threw that into the debate.

Yes.

That entitles me to work on that and use that information. I didn’t introduce it; she introduced it.

That’s right, in context of the Government—the Minister answered it in the context of the Government. But I think—the member’s been here a long time. He knows he’s made his point. The Hon Shane Jones. Did you have a supplementary?

Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s quite clear, in Standing Order 390, that the member of the Labour Party is not allowed to throw those epithets. There is no conflict of interest in looking after the constituency who sent you to Parliament. How can that possibly be admitted?

Well, it’s a matter for debate—that’s the point. I’ve already ruled; it’s not going to be debated further.

Is the Minister aware of paragraph 2.81 of the Cabinet Manual that states that “Where the member also holds the relevant portfolio or is the Associate Minister, further measures” in relation to conflicts of interest are set out in the Cabinet Manual, but “If the matter is more significant, the Minister may instead pass ministerial responsibility for it to another Minister”?

Yes, and I’d suggest that the member really wants to ask questions of someone else and is putting them to me. I can only assume that that’s because she’s afraid of the debating skills of the person she should be putting the questions to.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. During the line of questioning just put to the Minister of Finance, she continued to claim that she is not responsible for managing conflicts of interest. The Minister of Finance has the ability to change appropriations made by the House. It is a relatively serious matter. In many cases, they don’t receive further scrutiny; they simply report it back to the House at some future point. Therefore, the management of conflicts of interest in that process is quite a significant matter that the Minister should be answering questions on and not simply dismissing them out of hand. The matter here concerns a Minister who has two different ministerial portfolios that were in conflict and an electorate responsibility which was also in conflict. There can be conflicts of interest between someone’s ministerial portfolio and their local duties as a member of Parliament. It’s a question of how those are managed. They happen all of the time. Some of them don’t need management, but some of them do need management. When you’re talking about millions of dollars of public money, it can be a very real conflict, and the Minister who signs that off, in this case, is not the Prime Minister; it is the Minister of Finance.

The Speaker’s role, as you know, is not to judge the quality of the answer, but simply to make sure that there is an answer provided in the nature of an address, which is not always satisfactory to all members of the House.

to the Minister of Transport

What announcements has he made about the Hawke’s Bay Expressway?

I’m thrilled to advise the House that construction has begun on the State Highway 2 Hawke’s Bay Expressway project, one of the first new roads of national significance to reach the main works stage, and I thank the local member and her colleague Katie Nimon, who joined me last week to celebrate this occasion. It’s a major milestone for Hawke’s Bay and for the Government’s transport investment programme.

What are the benefits of this critical project?

As the member knows so well, the expressway is a critical lifeline route, linking people to the regional hospital and, indeed, the busy airport and the port. It’s a national freight corridor. It will deliver an average peak-time travel improvement of 21 percent and an average 18 percent improvement in reliability. It’s a very important project for the lovely part of the world that the member hails from.

What does the Hawke’s Bay Expressway construction corridor include?

It includes 7 kilometres of four-laning between Links Road, Pakowhai Road, and Taradale Road, duplicate two-lane overpass at Meeanee Road, a duplicate two-lane overpass at Kennedy Road—

Walking and cycling?

—a duplicate two-lane bridge over the Tūtaekurī River, and a four-lane grade-separated interchange at Links Road and Pakowhai Road. I invite the member who is calling out to go for a cycle or a walk in the Hawke’s Bay and maybe just calm down. She will enjoy—

That’ll do—that’ll do.

—the experience.

That’ll do.

Supplementary. [Interruption]

Just wait.

What are the next steps to the delivery of this project?

Initial construction focuses on the section of road between Taradale Road and the Tūtaekurī River. Four-laning is expected to be completed in 2028. Work on the new overpass on Meeanee Road is planned to start in January 2026. The full project will be completed in December 2029. It has a construction budget of between $600 million and $700 million, and alongside the investment in the Waikare Gorge bridge replacement, it is over $1 billion worth of infrastructure investment in this wonderful part of the country.

to the Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Is his Government committed to contributing to the global effort under the Paris Agreement to limit global average temperature increases to 1.5 degrees?

We are doing everything we can to meet our international commitments, but, of course, our most important one is net zero 2050, and it looks like we’re on track to deliver that maybe a little bit early.

Are our domestic climate targets—especially with the Government’s halving of our methane target—sufficient to meet our Paris Agreement Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius or not?

Look, the NDC target is tough, but we’re going to give it a good go. We’re going to prioritise domestic action. The good news is that NDC2 is now aligned with net zero 2050—that’s a good thing—and, of course, this is a Government that has actually looked at the science and made a very good decision around methane emissions.

Does his plan to untether the emissions trading scheme (ETS) from our Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement mean that the Government is conceding that we will not be able to meet our international commitments through domestic action alone, and, if so, how many billions of dollars is he budgeting to pay other countries to reduce their emissions?

Well, again, linking the ETS to align with our domestic budgets and targets is just a sensible thing to do. It was a domestic policy tool that was created before the Paris Agreement. It’s absolutely critical for us to deliver on our net zero 2050 goals. With respect to NDC1, I just want to reassure the member that we are not sending billions, or jobs, overseas.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the Ministry for the Environment and Treasury have estimated that our country could be liable for anywhere up to $24 billion to pay other countries to reduce their emissions, which becomes more and more likely with every action that his Government undertakes to increase our emissions, such as those policies announced last week?

Well, I just want to reassure the member, in answer to her questions, that there is no way that we will be sending billions of dollars overseas—period.

Is the Prime Minister now telling the House and committing the country to not paying offshore mitigation to meet our NDCs under the Paris Agreement?

I’m saying NDC is tough, we’re going to give it a good go, and we’re going to prioritise domestic action, as I answered in the first question.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specifically about the commitment that this Government is making to meet our NDCs and the billions that need to be budgeted to do so. The Prime Minister didn’t even address the question.

No, your question asked if he was telling the House, and then it made a statement. He responded to that. Is there another supplementary?

to the Minister of Transport

Does he stand by his statement, “It’s part of the Government’s work to ensure New Zealand has a credible pipeline of high value infrastructure projects extending into the future, and that they’re ready to go as funding becomes available”?

Yes. The Government has committed to building a long-term pipeline of transport infrastructure investments to address our infrastructure deficit and build jobs and growth for Kiwis.

How can he stand by that when he used Kāinga Ora funding to push through a bridge in his own electorate, a project his Government had already cut?

I reject the characterisation of that. Firstly, the decision was made in relation to that as Minister of Housing, not Minister of Transport. Secondly, the member asserted, this morning, it was for State housing. The money was not for State housing, even though that’s been pointed out to him at least twice by journalists. The third point is that I have acted in accordance with Cabinet Office advice throughout this.

Did anyone advise him that his involvement in the funding transfer could constitute a conflict of interest, and, if so, who?

I’ve acted in accordance with Cabinet Office advice throughout this process. Right from the time I became a Minister, I have sought and taken, and acted in accordance with, Cabinet Office advice in relation to local advocacy projects. The short story here is actually not a complicated one, which is that the Hutt council asked the Government to allow them to swap some money allocated for water infrastructure into another form of infrastructure. It was not dissimilar to a separate request from the Hamilton City Council made a few months previous, in which they sought permission to transfer money that had been allocated to them in relation to the infrastructure acceleration funding given for a cycleway across the river in Hamilton. Ministers agreed to transfer that money from a cycleway, in that instance, into waste-water infrastructure in the Hamilton CBD.

Can the Minister reference the very credible pipeline of a high-value infrastructure project near Palmerston North, and what did Tangi Utikere say about that?

Well, he can talk about a high-value pipeline, but he can’t reflect on a member of the Opposition.

No, no. I’m talking about the Manawatū-Tararua development, which everybody is saluting.

Well, there are lots of things happening in Palmerston North, particularly around freight, which I know the member asking the question is an advocate for, and I suspect also the member who asked the original primary is as well.

On what date did he seek the Cabinet Office advice on potential or actual conflict of interest management in relation to the decision to redirect $27 million of Kāinga Ora funding, and what did that advice say?

Well, as the member, I suspect, does know or perhaps should know, Ministers have regular meetings with the Cabinet Office, right from the time they are sworn in as Ministers, in relation to conflicts of interest, at least every six months. I had my first one soon after—[Interruption] Just listen: I had my first one soon after being sworn in as a Minister, and I have acted in accordance with Cabinet Office advice the whole way through.

Why did he not recuse himself and delegate responsibility for those decisions, given the conflict arising from the project being in his own electorate?

The member is making an assertion there that is not borne out by the facts. I have acted in accordance with Cabinet Office advice and guidance the whole way through.

How can the Minister maintain that he is ensuring a credible approach to infrastructure while he intervenes in funding decisions for projects in his own electorate without recusal or adequate conflict of interest safeguards?

Well, three points: firstly, I followed the advice from the Cabinet Office; secondly, the decision was made by two Ministers; and, thirdly, last time I looked, that member supports the decision.

to the Minister for Regulation

What does the passing of the Regulatory Standards Bill mean for New Zealanders?

Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

No, just hang on—hang on. Why so much talk? The Hon David Seymour.

It means when politicians bring legislation to this House and officials make regulations that affect New Zealanders’ lives, the impacts on them, on their property, and on their liberties, and the question of whether the law was made properly and thoughtfully will be crystal clear to those New Zealanders so that they can put pressure on politicians and choose better laws for their future.

What are the next steps in bringing the Regulatory Standards Bill to life?

The House passed the Regulatory Standards Act last Thursday. It will come into effect progressively from New Year’s Day 2026. There is work to be done, creating guidance that the Act provides for so that officials and Government departments can make sure that they are properly following its requirements. There is also a Regulatory Standards Board to appoint, who act as a watchdog to ensure the declarations for the public benefit are made properly.

How will the Regulatory Standards Act be helpful to decision makers?

I’m sure I speak for many people on both sides of the House who have been subject to long, ponderous, and ultimately ineffective regulatory impact statements. This will be changed, to a large extent, with the Act’s introduction of consistency accountability statements, which have legislative requirements for what they must contain, and no more, so that decision makers and the public can clearly see what the impacts of a Government’s initiative on the people of New Zealand actually is.

How will the Regulatory Standards Act be useful to public servants developing policy?

Well, right from the beginning, public servants will be required to think hard about what the impacts of rules and objectives they pursue on New Zealanders actually are. I was just reading an excellent opinion piece on The Post about an Epsom electorate constituent we’ll call Robyn, who lost her life-savings and her livelihood because of a totally irresponsible piece of legislation that came out of this House. People in New Zealand will enter an era of transparency and accountability where if politicians want to do things like that to people, at the very least, we as a country will be making those decisions with eyes wide open thanks to the accountability and transparency brought by the Regulatory Standards Act.

to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality

What recent announcements has she made on tourism in New Zealand?

Last week, we announced the first tranche of the successful recipients of the second round of the regional tourism boost. Four successful campaigns will attract more international visitors from Australia and Asia to explore, stay, and dine in our regions. We also announced that we are investing $2 million to extend the Dunedin Tunnels Trail. Tourism is a crucial part of our Government’s focus on economic growth, so these announcements mean more international visitors exploring our regions, which is good news for small businesses, jobs, and the local economy.

What are the successful regional tourism boost initiatives?

Three regional tourism organisations will launch four campaigns focusing on attracting international visitors, between January and March next year. RotoruaNZ, along with other North Island regional tourism operators (RTOs), are partnering with Ctrip to attract travellers from China, Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea. RotoruaNZ, in partnership with 14 North Island RTOs and major airlines, are targeting people travelling from Australia’s eastern seaboard. WellingtonNZ’s Classic New Zealand Wine Trail is promoting wine, food, and star-gazing to Australian visitors across Wellington, Wairarapa, Hawke’s Bay, and Marlborough. Lastly, but not least, the Great South’s Southern Way will encourage Australians from the Gold Coast to explore the southern and lower South Island.

What benefits does she expect to see as a result of these announcements?

The benefits of these investments will reach beyond our cities and into our regions. Our regional tourism boost package is part of a bigger plan to create a thriving, resilient economy. There is an appetite for growth in our regions to encourage more international visitors to explore the special experiences New Zealand has to offer outside of our main tourist hotspots. By investing in the Dunedin Tunnels Trail, we will attract more visitors to the Otago region, helping to unlock the region’s full tourism potential. More visitors means more income for local businesses, more job opportunities for Kiwis, and a stronger economy for all of us.

What feedback has she seen on these announcements?

RotoruaNZ’s chief executive, Andrew Wilson, has said, “We’re really grateful to the Minister for making some further money available to run a few more campaigns.” Fifteen regions, from the top to the bottom, and the breadth of the North Island—we’ve got a bunch of communities that will really welcome the value that tourism brings to them. There will be more to come. These campaigns are about more than promotion; they’re about helping visitors feel welcome, stay longer, and explore further. Every time an international visitor comes to New Zealand and spends money at a local shop, restaurant, or cafe, it’s good for jobs and it’s good for our local economies, and that’s why we’re doing it.

to the Minister of Housing

What are the total proceeds received from the sale of Kāinga Ora properties under this Government?

Kāinga Ora advised me that, so far in 2025-26, a total of $99.5 million has been generated through the sale of 297 homes. In the 2024-25 financial year, Kāinga Ora sold 119 homes, generating total proceeds of $53 million. For the period from 27 November 2023 to 1 July 2024, which is the balance of the time this Government has been in office, Kāinga Ora has been unable to work it out in the available time for this question, as it would require a manual process. From 1 November 2023 through to 1 July 2024, there were 15 house sales. If the member wants the exact balance from the 27 November onwards through to 1 July, that will have to be done through a written question—apologies.

Has this or any other funds administered by Kāinga Ora been redirected to purposes other than housing?

The Kāinga Ora sales programme, as a result of the Kāinga Ora turnaround plan, is focused on selling older properties in high-value areas with the proceeds going to provide multiple other units in different areas. That process is managed by Kāinga Ora.

How can he justify redirecting funds administered by Kāinga Ora towards building a bridge in his own electorate—a project his Government initially declined to fund—when the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development advised him not to?

This is a wee way away from the primary, but the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund used to be administered by Kāinga Ora. We’ve now taken it away from Kāinga Ora because we want them to focus on their core business, which is running the social housing portfolio of the Government. I think I’ve dealt with the issue in relation to the City Link Bridge, in relation to his colleague’s questions.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. In response to questions from Tangi Utikere, the Hon Chris Bishop said that this is a matter more related to the housing portfolio, not the transport portfolio, and now that we’re asking questions of him in that capacity, he’s saying he’s already dealt with those questions. He can’t have it both ways, sir.

No, quite right. You can have another crack.

Well, does the member want to repeat the question?

What day is it?

Don’t be so hard on yourself, sir. I know you’ve been here a while, but I’m sure you know what day it is. How can he justify redirecting funds administered by Kāinga Ora towards building a bridge in his own electorate—a project his Government initially declined to fund—when the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development advised him not to?

There are a couple of errors there. Firstly, the Government didn’t decide to decline to fund it; it did not come up for funding approval by the New Zealand Transport Agency through the Government policy statement, which is a separate decision. As I’ve already said, it was a pragmatic decision. The Hutt council wrote to the Ministers and wrote to the Government and asked for the funding swap to take place. As I said, in relation to Mr Utikere’s question, it’s not dissimilar to the Hamilton City Council asking for exactly the same thing not a few months previous, and Ministers approved that as well. Ultimately, the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund, which was set up by the previous Government, gave money to a variety of local councils for local infrastructure. This is still being spent on local infrastructure.

Is it correct that the total number of Kāinga Ora houses will have reduced by 177 by the end of the year, as confirmed by his responses to written parliamentary questions Nos 39322 and 39321?

That is probably true at a particular date and point in time. On balance, over the next few years, Kāinga Ora stock will stay at around 78,000 units. At any one point in time, it will be up or down a bit, depending on the sales process, depending on demolitions, and depending on construction timelines. As the member knows, these things oscillate a bit. There was a point, at one point, during the previous Government when there had also been net demolitions and sales compared to construction. But ultimately, over time, you’ve got to look at the smooth glide path into the future.

Does he believe that the growing number of people experiencing homelessness in the Hutt will take comfort from the fact the number of Kāinga Ora houses will go backwards by the end of the year, at the same time that funding intended for housing has been redirected for unrelated projects?

Well, it wasn’t intended for housing; it was funding intended for infrastructure into the CBD. It is, essentially, a funding swap from one form of infrastructure to another, as the member well knows, and, actually, I think all members of the Opposition support that project, so it’s a bit strange to criticise it. I’m also advised that since this Government came into office, the social housing wait-list in the Hutt Valley—as, indeed, it has around the country—has fallen.

Could the Minister please expand on the “smooth glide path into the future”, which he has described for Kāinga Ora?

No, because I used a term most commonly found in the bureaucracy, and I’m regretting using it already.

to the Minister for Building and Construction

What is the Government doing to make building easier?

The Government’s doing a lot to make building easier because that means more affordable homes for families, more economic growth, and more jobs for Kiwis. This includes the overseas building product regime for more affordable, quality building products to enter New Zealand, common-sense changes to insulation rules, and allowing Kiwis to build a granny flat of up to 70 square metres—a single-storey, simple dwelling—without a building or resource consent.

Why is the Government allowing plumbers and drainlayers to sign off their own work?

Today, a bill will have its first reading that will enable plumbers and drainlayers to certify their work. This policy is backed by sector groups such as Master Plumbers and will bring plumbers and drainlayers into line with the work that electricians and gasfitters can already certify. The relevant plumber or drainlayer must meet certain eligibility criteria, and the work must be relatively simple, low-risk, and routine. We know that about four inspections per build are undertaken for plumbing, so this will make a meaningful difference for tradies.

What else is the Government doing to speed up the consenting system?

Well, one of the biggest frustrations that I hear from tradies is that it takes many days and sometimes even weeks for a building inspection to take place. These delays are frustrating, costly, and get in the way of the building of homes that this country desperately needs. That’s why, in August, we introduced a new requirement for 80 percent of building inspections to take place within three working days.

Is the Government doing anything to help encourage greater uptake of solar panels or homes that are more energy-efficient?

Why, yes, we are. We know that, in order to encourage the uptake of more solar, in the name of energy efficiencies and also lower energy bills for families, we require building consents to be issued in half the statutory time frame—that is, 10 working days rather than 20. We will allow that where a building has solar panels in its plans or meets the definition of being a sustainable building such as a Homestar certification. This change will see homes built more quickly, more affordably, with lower power bills and lower emissions—all of which are good for Kiwis.

to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

“Rawiri-no-mates.”

You done? Empty vessel. Does he agree the McSkimming case involved an abuse of power at the highest level and that this abuse of power was covered up by the New Zealand Police?

Well, as I’ve said, there’s been a tremendous breach of trust and integrity, and I’ve made public comments to that effect. But also, this was appalling, this was shocking, it was utterly unacceptable. I’m proud of the Government’s rapid response to put in place an inspector-general; the highest mechanism we have, the strongest mechanism we have, of oversight.

How can he guarantee that the police are not abusing their power in our streets when they are so willing to abuse their power in the office?

Because there are 15,000 men and women associated with the Police who do an incredible job coming to work each and every day to keep this community safe. It’s the same police force that has ensured that we have 30,000 less victims of violent crime, which I’m sure that member appreciates. It’s the same police that has delivered a 16 percent lower level of youth offending, which I’m sure that member appreciates as well. The men and women of the Police force do an outstanding job. They have been tarnished of the actions of a few. This is a Government that is taking serious action against that leadership group.

Has he read the Understanding Policing Delivery report that shows that Māori lodged over half of all complaints to the Police about use of force, and that Māori are more likely to be stopped, tasered, arrested, and prosecuted by the Police than any other group in Aotearoa?

I haven’t read the report, but I would say to that member that I am very proud of our Police force. I think they do an exceptionally good job. I also note that the victims of crime are disproportionately Māori as well. That’s why anything that lowers crime rates, serious violent crime, youth offending—as a result, we are a Government that has put in place tougher sentencing, more corrections officers, and more investments in prisons, because we’d sooner have people there than out in the community bashing and hurting and harming Kiwis.

Is the Prime Minister aware that abuse of power can be seriously contagious and politically infectious?

It is something in organisations that must be stamped out.

Does the Prime Minister accept that last week’s Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) report, alongside decades of findings of structural racism against Māori, shows that the New Zealand Police require systemic reform, and does he support establishing an IPCA that is completely independent of Police and the Government?

Well, that is what the role of an independent IPCA actually does. This is a Government that has taken that report incredibly seriously. It was a very good quality report laying out very, very clearly the hit to trust and integrity at the top of the Police force. Importantly, this is a Government that has acted with tremendous speed to reach for the strongest mechanism possible, which is an inspector-general to have oversight of the Police as we have in intelligence, as we have in defence, and that’s the appropriate action.

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 time frame for submissions?

I was advised by the clerk of the committee that in my role as chair of the committee, I could call for submissions under Standing Order 198. This call for submissions, and the submission deadline, was endorsed by the majority of the committee.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. We’ve got an issue here in the respect that the question asked the chair to justify her decision to call for the deadline for submissions, referring to the Standing Order which does not give her that ability and in the context of her original response to the first question to her, on Tuesday last week, which was that this was done because the Government wanted this bill to pass by Christmas. That was literally the first thing she said. Now, that, in my view, is counter to what she is providing to the House now.

Well, what she has provided the House is the factual authority for her opening the submissions. Whether the second part of it was answered or not is a matter of, perhaps, at least one further question.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a mystery, sir, to a number of us why this question has even been permitted. When you look at Speakers’ ruling—and, already, Speaker’s Ruling 116/3 covers this off: the chair has the authority. This issue was canvassed in Hunt’s time, and I put to you, sir, that the question is actually superfluous, if not inconsistent, with the traditional practices of the House. It’s wasting our time.

The member will know that the question was actually held over from last week, when the chairperson of the select committee was not here to answer it. The question itself is a legitimate question.

Point of order. I seek leave to table advice I received from the clerk of the committee about Standing Order 198 and parliamentary process about calling for submissions.

Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action? [Interruption] Is there an objection? No, there appears to be none.

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

Why, as the select committee chair, is she prioritising Government objectives over instructions from the House?

No, I don’t think that’s a question you can ask. Under questions to members, that’s not a question you can ask.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Questions to members, quite rightly, is relevant only to the roles that they have relevant to parliamentary business, but they also relate to responses that were provided to other questions. Now, that question that was just asked by my colleague is in direct link to responses that that member provided to questions last week. The nub of the issue is that we are not disputing her ability to call for submissions, which is why we are asking why that extended to not only placing a deadline on the call but following the objectives of the Government, despite an instruction from the House to do so.

The member will be—

Point of order.

Just a moment, I’m dealing with one. The member will be aware that the rules for members’ questions are the same as for questions that are asked in a supplementary sense, and that is that the member answering a question can choose to answer one of the legs of that question, which the chairperson of the select committee did.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 116/3: “It is common for the initial advertisement calling for submissions to be placed on the chairperson’s authority rather than waiting until the select committee has met and formally resolved to place an advertisement.”—game, set, match.

I’m sorry, the member is making an awfully strong bid to end up sitting where I am, but can I just say that that’s not in dispute.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, sir. That is indeed correct—Speaker’s ruling 116/3 is not in dispute. My previous point of order was in relation to your ruling that my colleague’s question was not in order. It was simply to point out that it did flow from the responses that the member had provided, which is consistent with the requirements for questions to members, which are actually identical to questions to Ministers, as long as the topic is about the behaviour or decisions made by that member in their capacity as chair, which, indeed, that question was.

OK, I’ll allow one more supplementary question.

The same one?

Try to put it differently.

I’ll do a different one. How can she defend a decision to indicate an early report-back date when Standing Order 198 does not give her that authority?

I was advised by the clerk of the committee that this course of action was appropriate and in accordance with Standing Orders. I’m also advised that as the rules of this Parliament stand, there is no required minimum time frame for submissions.

Thank you. That concludes oral questions. Those who need to leave for other businesses should do so quietly, and without that sort of discussion. It’s an opportunity for people who have other business to move to that business as quickly as they possibly can, Ms Brooking.

I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill.

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

I move, That the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill.

This bill is another step in the evolution in the approach to road funding in New Zealand. Since centralising our roading system in the 1920s, the principle that all users should contribute fairly in proportion to their use of the roads has underpinned how we fund and pay for our roading system. This is not a revolutionary idea. In this House, in 1933, the Rt Hon Gordon Coates remarked that “We should have all motor vehicles contributing more or less on the same basis.” The principle that Prime Minister Coates, as he then was, talked about is fundamentally about fairness. It directly links what you pay with what you use and the benefits that you receive.

Since then, we’ve continued on a pathway towards better transport pricing. In 1977, New Zealand introduced the road-user charges (RUC) system, moving diesel and heavy vehicles to distance-based charging. That system was and still is world leading. Today, other countries are looking at the model that we adopted back then as something that they could adopt today.

In 2008, we moved to a hypothecated transport funding system, ensuring that revenue collected from road users was invested into maintaining and improving the transport system. As we continue on this pathway, we need to ensure that our revenue tools are sustainable, fair, and fit for purpose. This bill focuses on two ways road users contribute to the benefits they receive and the costs they impose: tolling and road-user charging.

The bill makes amendments to improve the current tolling framework. Tolling allows us to bring forward investment and build the roads that New Zealand needs sooner. It means users who benefit from a new road can contribute directly to its cost. There are three toll roads in New Zealand. In Auckland, we have the Northern Gateway, and in Tauranga, there’s the Tauranga Eastern Link and Takitimu Drive. Three more toll roads have been approved by Cabinet and are under construction. The model works, but as we progress the new roads of national significance, the Government wants to improve this tolling framework.

The Land Transport Management Act sets the high-level requirement for establishing a new toll road. Before a toll can be put in place, the Minister must be satisfied that the road is new, that there has been adequate consultation with a level of community support, that a feasible un-tolled alternative route is available to road users, and that the tolling scheme is sufficient and effective. Within this overarching framework, which stays, the bill makes several changes.

First, the bill allows tolling to be applied more flexibly, to include parts of an existing road where users of that road receive benefit from the new investment. Second, the bill allows toll revenue to be used across the entire tolling scheme, not just the new sections of the road. Third, the bill strengthens the fairness principle that underpins the system. We are maintaining the core requirement for a feasible un-tolled alternative route. However, the bill will also allow toll revenue to be used to help maintain that alternative route if the relevant council can’t fund that maintenance itself. The bill will also allow a restriction to be placed on heavy vehicles using unsuitable alternative routes, protecting those local roads and communities. Fourth, the bill makes the common-sense move to require annual inflation adjustments so that the value of tolls is not eroded over time. It also introduces clear principles for setting toll rates, focusing on benefits to users. Finally, the bill updates the rules for toll concessions to make it easier for the private sector to deliver the infrastructure we need. Taken together, these changes ensure that tolling remains an effective tool to help fund our roads, including the new roads of national significance.

There are also changes around road-user charges. To keep the funding system fair and to ensure that all users contribute based on their actual use of the roads, it is the reality that we need to transition 3.5 million petrol vehicles to road-user charges. The RUC system was designed in the 1970s and it charges vehicles based on their weight and travel distance, which is a fair way to charge for road use, but the manual payment processes reflect the world 50 years ago and they need to be updated. The current system is clunky. It’s paper-based. It relies on road users monitoring their odometers, pre-purchasing the paper licences, and displaying them on their windscreens. This is a 1970s solution in a modern world.

Forcing millions of Kiwis to swap the simplicity of paying at the pump for that kind of bureaucracy would be a step backwards. Paying bills and taxes is, unfortunately, a part of life, but it should not consume life itself. The bill removes the requirement to display, carry, or produce a RUC licence. In an electronic age, a paper licence should not be a strict requirement.

The bill also updates the definition of “electronic distance recorder”. The current rules are restrictive, hindering the use of technology already installed by manufacturers in many cars. The change will allow more flexible approaches to recording distance and it will save cost by giving drivers the option to use inbuilt vehicle technology.

The bill takes a first step in enabling new, convenient payment options. Users will be able to choose their preferred method. This could include set-and-forget, post-payment systems, similar to paying for electricity or a streaming service. The current Act provides for alternative RUC payment methods, beyond the default prepay model. None have been created, because they have been restricted to vehicles with electronic distance recorders. The bill removes that requirement for alternative payment schemes.

We also aim to change the RUC retail landscape. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is currently both the main RUC seller and the regulator. Responses to a Ministry of Transport request for information confirm that there is market interest in providing RUC services for the right vehicle fleet, but potential RUC providers see the NZTA’s dual role as a barrier to offering services for road users, and so the bill enables the separation of the NZTA’s RUC retail role from its regulatory role, giving the market certainty that they are entering a level playing field.

There will be the opportunity for providers to innovate and invest in New Zealand. We have one of the world’s largest and most established RUC systems. Having a more attractive environment for private sector participation may position our system as an example for other countries.

These changes are the first step in transitioning petrol vehicles to RUC. As some people will note, the bill deliberately omits a date for transitioning the light petrol fleet from fuel excise to RUC. That date has not been set by the Government. There is much work to do before we do that, and it would be a large transition as we do that. Rather, this puts in place the legislative framework on improving the RUC system for light vehicles, enabling a competitive retail market and improving user experience before that transition occurs.

It is really important that we get this legislation right. The Government welcomes the input and scrutiny that the select committee will provide. The Transport and Infrastructure Committee, in my experience, has done a very good job, and I acknowledge the chair in the House today—Mr Foster—who, I am sure, will run a robust process. My experience so far is that that committee has operated in a relatively bipartisan and collegial fashion, and I’m sure that that will continue.

This is a really important bill. It’s not a long bill, but it is an important bill in the evolution of our land transport funding system. It continues our long history of evolving our system to meet changing circumstances and of upholding the principle of fairness. It makes improvements to tolling and paves the way for a modern RUC system. It cuts red tape and enables new payment options. It is, as I say, the next step in our evolution, and I commend it to the House.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Labour Party and indicate that we will be supporting this bill through to select committee. There are a couple of issues that we would like teased out at select committee, which I will come to in a moment. But I just want to acknowledge the sort of historical link that the Minister has painted in terms of a picture. It’s no surprise that it has been a long time since this House has turned its mind to some of the issues that are addressed, or seeking to be addressed, in this particular bill. The bill itself really has two components: one is a focus on road-user charges; the other is a focus on tolling and the role within which those as tools have within the wider transportation system.

The proposed changes to road-user charges—or RUC—are generally proposals that we are quite supportive of. They seek to, in essence, modernise and bring up to speed the way in which RUC is utilised here in New Zealand—in particular, around how people are required or not required to display the fact that they have purchased their road-user charges.

The issue is that there are huge administration costs currently in terms of the current way in which RUC is administered in New Zealand. It is certainly our hope that with a change to modernise the system that consumers, households will be the ones that will, at the end of the day, benefit from that. Anyone who has a look at their road-user charge admin fees will know that there is a real issue there: there is no inconsistency in terms of how that is applied. The change around separating the RUC provider and the RUC collector—effectively, the regulator and the seller—is one that we would like to explore further at select committee to ensure that there is no over-influence, so to speak, from the private sector, if that was the particular case that’s being followed.

We believe that this component of the bill seeks to look at ways in which technology and innovation can be utilised, and when we’re looking at the in-vehicle electronic distance measuring opportunities, they currently exist in vehicles all around the place. Being able to utilise that, where it brings down the costs for households is a good thing, but we’d still like to have a look at that.

On the second issue, which is around tolls, this is something that we do have some concerns around. Yes, the Minister has made it very clear that the way in which some of the revenue opportunities will be addressed, effectively, is through tolling. Now, we come with some hesitation around this, because, of course, this is a Government that has a track record when it comes to tolling. We just look to Te Ahu a Turanga and the fact that that was a replacement road, the Manawatū Tararua Highway, yet the Government was seeking to whack a toll on that when the community simply didn’t want it.

Some of the questions that we will be posing at select committee will be around ensuring that those issues are addressed and considered. What is actually up for tolling in this particular proposal? It should not be purely around generating revenue. We accept that there are some considerations where tolling is an appropriate mechanism—we accept that—but that is not the case for every single road for every single community in this country. We do have some hesitation around that.

There are some moves in there—for example, ministerial oversight around exemptions for heavy vehicles not being able to utilise alternative routes, when you think about the Saddle Road in the Manawatū and Tararua district where that was really pummelled as a result of huge numbers of heavy vehicles having to utilise that road, yet the council itself was not able to foot the bill in terms of maintenance.

There are some things in here that go some way to addressing some of those concerns, but there is also a number of questions around the generation of revenue from tolling, but where is that actually going to go? We had similar conversations when it came to the congestion charging or time of use charging that this House previously has passed.

We look forward to being constructive in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. We look forward to hearing from submitters around what impact this will have for them and for communities. We are hopeful that we will find some balance between road-user charges and a scheme and regime that is fair to all but is also able to be administratively not as cumbersome as the current one and also that there is a good conversation around tolling and the appropriateness of that.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Green Party policy actually supports that the cost of maintenance and new-road builds are entirely covered by road-user charges, including higher charges for heavy vehicles that have a greater impact, and this includes the introduction of tolls where appropriate. Having more direct and appropriate pricing for road use is something that would lead to better outcomes for New Zealand, but not the way this Government is doing it. I mean, currently, road users do not pay the cost of the roads—nowhere near it. The Minister of Transport, in his speech, spoke about hypothecation, the idea that fuel tax and road-user charges were entirely recycled back into the roading network, but the reality is that road-user charges and fuel taxes do not come anywhere near covering the cost of the roads, and that’s particularly true with local roads.

Local roads are 50 percent—at least—funded by ratepayers. It’s people paying rates that have to pay for the maintenance for the roads that are local, but more than 50 percent of all vehicle kilometres travelled, by light vehicles and heavy vehicles, are on local roads. We’ve had this completely ridiculous situation where central government is taking money, from all over the country, from local roads—where people are driving, they’re paying their fuel excise duties, and they’re paying their road-user charges on rural roads in Southland and Northland and the East Cape—and money is going into the central coffers, and then the vast majority of it is actually being spent on new State highways nowhere near where those people are driving.

The most outrageous thing is, oftentimes, these roads are justified on the basis that they’re needed for freight—for example, highway expansions in Auckland like State Highway 16 east, which goes down towards the port, and the Waterview tunnel connection; oversize and heavy vehicles can’t even use that infrastructure; they’re actually banned from it. You’ll see brand new tractors being driven on Symonds Street, right through an area full of pedestrians because it’s in the middle of the University of Auckland, at peak time. We’ve spent all this money on highway infrastructure that’s supposedly to facilitate freight, and it’s moving on the local roads, damaging the local roads, causing pedestrian hazards and hazards for people on bikes.

I’ve heard members opposite say, “Oh, cyclists aren’t paying the full cost of the road”—you’ve got to be kidding me. Everyone using a bike is saving the country money. Other countries pay people to ride bikes because it saves public money. If we were to truly fully attribute costs and benefits to people using the transport network, we would pay people to ride bikes because they save the country money in the health system, on the transportation system. That’s the numbers; that’s the analysis. I know the members opposite love to talk about numbers—they’ve never actually looked at them; they don’t seem to understand them.

The truth is that while the Minister may want to raise money from tolls, there’s no way they will be able to pay for the roads of national significance through tolls. There’s absolutely no way. Currently, not only do we have 50 percent of the local roads being funded by ratepayers but we have a huge amount of Crown funding going into transport into highways that can’t even cover the current cost, let alone the future costs. This Government has a laundry list of fantasy roads that they say are going to transform the economy. They are not funded, and they will not be funded by tolls. Why can’t they be funded by tolls? Because they have tiny numbers of cars driving on them, and most of those people are not going to be willing—

Let’s get more cars, then.

—to pay the price that it would take to build those roads.

If we want to have a fully hypothecated approach with good pricing, we have to stop building projects that aren’t needed. Do the tolling and the congestion pricing first, then invest in the alternatives. Actually, what would save the country money is people not having to own as many cars, to be able to move more of our goods by coastal shipping and by rail, to be able to move people around cities in buses, trains, and, yes, on bikes and e-bikes. That’s what makes economic sense.

The reason we won’t be supporting this bill is because of the very dodgy provision that allows roads to be leased to private companies for up to 50 years—

Yes!

—for the purposes of providing tolling services that return a profit to private companies. That’s where we come back to the ideology—the blind ideology—of this Government and that ACT Party member, who I know will talk about it. It’s all about funnelling public money into the hands of a small few private investors and big corporations.

Oh, Mr Speaker, I can’t resist that invitation.

Simon Court. Do your call again and I’ll see if I recognise you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

No, no—just call again.

Mr Speaker.

Simon Court.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can’t resist the invitation that the member for the Green Party—Julie Anne Genter—offered to talk about the benefits of tolling and using private finance in infrastructure, but, first, I just want to confirm that ACT supports this bill, because it moves our transport towards something that New Zealanders have been asking for for too long—a system that actually works to fund the infrastructure, that is funded fairly, and that gets things built in a timely manner. People drive every day to work, to school, to pick up groceries; trucks come to Minister Hoggard’s farm to pick up milk. They all need roads without potholes, and that demands a funding model that makes sense, and infrastructure needs to be delivered without years of delays.

This bill helps move us towards that direction. It modernises road-user charges (RUCs), it will encourage competition between system providers, and it updates tolling rules so we can bring in more of this private capital and build roads faster. It enables new technology, like the vehicle telematics that the member Tangi Utikere mentioned, which should be in every new vehicle imported to New Zealand, because the systems we’re talking about are used every day in places like Sydney, in Brisbane, in Melbourne, and, of course in Japan, in the United States, and in Europe. But modern systems must not come at the expense of privacy—that is ACT’s bottom line.

Distance recording should mean distance recording, not building a data set of people’s movements, not GPS tracking of where people are going, not a Government file on where every New Zealander drives. Technology should make life easier, not intrude further into it. Any future RUC system must, therefore, only collect what is strictly necessary, and the regulations that flow from this bill must guarantee that telematics cannot become a back door to broader surveillance of people using the roads. Kiwis should know what data is collected, who holds it, and, of course, how it is protected, and they should be confident it is protected—because, once the State can follow you around, that’s not transport policy anymore; that’s a major shift in power. ACT will not allow that drift.

This bill also deals with tolling. The principle is simple: if you use the new road, you should help pay for the new road. It is more transparent, and it is more efficient than hiding costs in general taxation, isn’t it? With flexible tolling, we get new infrastructure built years sooner, using private investment. We don’t even have to imagine how this works. In Dallas, Texas—I visited there in 2022 and was hosted by the Texas Department of Transportation—they have built, on one of the busiest corridors in the country, a series of express toll lanes to add to the existing lanes. The Spanish contractor Ferrovial built and now operates that route. The project uses private capital to upgrade the existing corridor—including the free lanes—without burdening taxpayers.

The result is faster freight movement, shorter commutes, and a corridor that keeps functioning even at peak demand. It’s a practical example of how smart tolling can solve congestion problems rather than just managing them. If the trade-off is that we actually allow a competent contractor, like a Ferrovial or their equivalents around the world, to take on that responsibility, and we hold them to account in different ways through the contract, then New Zealanders should be confident that they can get better roads, they can drive faster on these better roads, and they can get to where they’re going, and paying a toll will be a small price to pay for that.

Again, modern tolling also raises the same kinds of fundamental questions about how we make sure the system works without becoming intrusive. ACT’s job in this coalition Government is to keep the Government focused on performance, not expanding its reach into people’s lives. New Zealanders want lower living costs, better roads, and infrastructure that’s not bogged down in process. This bill helps. New Zealanders also deserve assurances that a Government—this one, or any Government in the future—will not misuse technology and breach their privacy by stealth. Let’s modernise, let’s innovate, let’s fix what matters, but, as we do, ACT will hold the line. Privacy is the bottom line always.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill. As chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that’s going to be receiving this, I’m looking forward to considering this bill and hearing the submissions. I know we’ll do that diligently because it looks as though there’s going to be quite a number of technical elements to the bill.

There are two key things have been raised already in the discussion: the first one is the road-user charge (RUC) system and trying to make sure that it is modernised—if you look at all the other areas which we’ve modernised in our society, by and large, people have adopted that, and they’ve never looked back on that adoption. They want things that are effective, efficient, quick, and easy to use, but the point that Simon Court has just made around privacy is a strong issue for many of the people who communicate with us as well—not just in this area but across the board—so New Zealand First is very, very anxious about making sure that RUC systems are not an intrusion into people’s privacy and used for anything other than the purpose that they are intended for, which is to support investment in the transport system.

The second one is just to say that we have a huge transport deficit in this country. We’ve already heard, from the other side of the room, that money is taken from a lot of the regions, where it will be needed for investment in maintaining the roading infrastructure, and taken to build some of the roads of national significance. The reality is that we know that there is a big funding deficit. You can only deal with that in a number of different ways. The first one of them is to earn more revenue. Tolling is part of that, potentially, in some areas. The second one of those, of course, is to extend out the time frame in which you make those investments. We don’t want to be undermining the investment that’s actually made in the standard of the roads themselves and the bridges themselves across the country. That means, probably, extending out the capital programme, the roads of national significance. I think the Minister has indicated that that’s exactly what will be happening over time.

Just in terms of some of the comments that have been made around tolling, the Manawatū Tararua Highway has already been mentioned by my friend over there: Tangi Utikere. New Zealand First was also very unhappy with the idea of tolling that road as well and made that very, very clear for two reasons: one, this was not about advancing a road and getting that road built quicker, because the reality was that by the time the tolling idea came up, it was nine-tenths of the way built already. It was sprung on those communities late in the piece. The second one was it was very much a replacement road for the Manawatū Gorge, which, of course, by that stage, failed and had been closed.

Think, in that context as well—the bill talks about this—about the need for having viable alternative routes. I do ask you sometimes to think about where there might well be a road, but if it twists and turns and goes up and down the hills, it is not necessarily a viable alternative route, so we’ve got to be thinking about that. That, probably, is one of the technicalities that there will be in this process.

The second one, in terms of this, is the private sector involvement. I think the experience so far in New Zealand has been somewhat chequered. The private sector involvement in Transmission Gully—was that a success or was that not a success? Well, there have been legal cases, the standard of the delivery and the maintenance has been somewhat chequered, and the price of the delivery has been, again, somewhat chequered. It’s not just simply saying the private sector is going to do it better and can get a return from that. I think Julie Anne Genter, in speaking, also said, “Well, don’t expect the tolls to pay for these roads.” They might well make a contribution towards them, but to think that the private sector would just, without some form of State funding—of course, that’s exactly what’s happened in the example of Transmission Gully; there’s an ongoing commitment by the State to keep on paying for that road. Without that, the tolls on those roads are simply not, by and large, going to pay for them.

An example where they did, for example, going back, would be the Auckland Harbour Bridge, but, by and large, they are not necessarily going to do that. There’s going to be quite a lot of detail to be thought through about those sorts of things. I’m looking forward very much to considering this bill through the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I commend this bill to the House.

It’s a pleasure to rise and make a contribution on this bill. The bill’s purpose is very clear: to modernise the road-user charges system, to update and provide the financing and funding capabilities through our tolling system. As a member and deputy chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, I too, as the chair pointed out, look forward to hearing from submitters, and getting into the weeds of this piece of legislation because it is technical, and there’s already been a number of issues raised in this debate. Actually, we’ve got a really good collegial team environment on that select committee. I don’t agree with the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s contribution about paying people to ride bikes but, other than that, she’s actually a really good contributor to our select committee. I commend this bill to the House.

As has been said, Labour will vote to support this bill through to select committee because our funding tools do need to be updated, and I think we can all agree on that, but we do so with eyes wide open. There are some questions, and a couple of big questions that need to be resolved, I think, before we can have ultimate confidence in what is a final framework. That is important because it is not only important for us as a House to have confidence in the framework but, obviously, the public need to have confidence in how this is going to work, as well.

Modern transport funding, we believe—and has been stated—must be transparent. It should be futureproofed, and it certainly isn’t at the moment. As I said, importantly, it has to be trusted by the public; not a patchwork for various new changes to be made without there being proper safeguards in place. We look forward to being able to tease some of those issues out a little bit more in the select committee process.

There are two main issues that spring to mind, looking at this bill, and those have both been raised by previous contributions but if we take them as two separate items, I’d like to just talk about the tolling issue, and then, of course, the changes to the road-user charges (RUC) reforms. As we’ve heard, tolling is a sensitive issue, to say the least, and this Government certainly has some form—some recent form—on springing the concept of tolling on communities who may otherwise have not factored that into their thinking, so we’re going to be very interested in how that plays out. Any expansion, we believe, must be tightly, tightly justified and, obviously, used sparingly for it to be worthwhile.

The new corridor tolling power is one of the biggest shifts, I think, in this bill and it comes with some real ambiguity about exactly what that means; you know, what exactly is a corridor, how wide can it be stretched, what qualifies as an existing versus a new road? They may sound like simple questions to answer off the top of our head whilst standing here in the House today, but I think there will be a lot more information needed throughout that select committee process to make sure that we are all on board and all able to clearly articulate to the communities that we need to be able to communicate with.

Using toll revenue for alternative route maintenance, again, on the surface sounds fine—certainly might be quite a big help for local councils—but it does raise some fairness questions, I think, especially for communities with no real, realistic alternatives; no routes in place in the first place. I think we will have to be incredibly vigilant about the fairness question, as we go through this process. Automatically increasing tolls each year through Consumers Price Index adjustments, again, might sound good on the surface but it’s actually a significant change. We do need to understand how that’s actually going to land, practically, for households, particularly households that are already under pressure.

We know that this Government’s talked a big talk about fixing the economy and providing relief from cost of living issues, but so far they’ve failed to do that. So this is another piece of legislation that could have impacts on real-life people and real-life households, and we want to understand more about that. Transferring legal liability for tolls to the vehicle owner may very well streamline a process but it also, potentially, has some implications for families—people who use the vehicles for businesses—anyone using a shared fleet. I look forward to asking those questions, as well.

With regard to the RUC, I think we generally do support that, as my colleague Tangi Utikere has laid out, before me, because it’s a modernisation method—or a move towards modernisation—which is good. It is a little bit clumsy and a little bit clunky and we look forward to hearing a little bit more information about that, but we do have to be really, really cautious about that potential for over influence on the private sector, as they carve out those clear separations.

I’m looking forward to the select committee process and, as always, I’m assuming it will be—the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is often referred to as a very collegial committee, and I have no doubt that’s true but that doesn’t mean that there’s a free pass for all sorts of things to go on, particularly if we look at the shortening of bills. Nevertheless, in this particular reading, we support.

This bill strengthens a fair and sustainable transport funding system: one fare for all users contributing in proportion to their use of the road. We have seen this with the Northern Gateway Toll Road, which has reduced congestion and shortened travelling times. The toll collected will then be invested into maintenance and safety improvements, delivering smoother and safer driving for all. By updating our revenue setting, we can bring investment forward and bring the roads that New Zealand needs sooner. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to make a contribution on the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill. This is an area that I’m not usually involved with, but I have to say, I’m sure that most New Zealanders, when you mention tolling to them or anything which affects their ability to get around in their car, would have a view, and a strong view, probably, on this legislation. I’m no different. I support the comments made by previous speakers on this side of the House, including Tangi Utikere, who is our spokesperson in this area, who outlined that Labour will be supporting this bill, at this stage, because there is a clear need to modernise in this particular area; and, also, Tracey McLellan, who outlined our key concerns around the tolling and the road-user charge changes that have being proposed in this bill. However, this is a bill that is quite complex. In the time that I’ve been preparing to make this contribution, I’ve been looking through the various documents that have been provided in support of this. There are a few that I haven’t been able to look at, including the New Zealand Bill of Rights vet, which, I understand, should be available now that this bill has been tabled in the House.

There is a significant number of considerations. This bill does give a lot of power to the Minister in relation to the decisions that the Minister decides to make around tolling and also around the use of roads by heavy-vehicle users. I think that it is important that we scrutinise this, and that’s why my colleagues have said that we will be supporting this to select committee. But we do have some serious concerns around this.

I suppose the issue with tolling is it will always be a contentious issue for New Zealanders. Our view is that it should only be used appropriately and where clear benefits exist for that tolling as well. We would like to see an effective and modern transport system, but we also need to make sure that equity is considered with that as well. Whenever we look to charges that New Zealanders will be forced to pay, which is one of the main aspects of tolling, we need to be sure that there is fairness associated with the imposition of that toll. There is, usually, an alternative route when there is a tolling made available in New Zealand, and this bill changes those settings, somewhat, in the sense that it may be, as I understand it, that this legislation allows existing roads to be tolled, but not if there is a new route being put in place.

I think it will be very much on a case by case basis. It will affect communities. It’s going to be something that may be quite contentious. There are other important changes, in this bill, relating to the liability for tolls. One of the things that I’ve found is that every time my sister borrows my car, for some reason, a toll is incurred and that toll is sent to my house and is, subsequently, paid by myself and my husband. That is the practice in our family, and it appears that that practice will now be made law by the imposition of this, because it goes to the vehicle rather—that’s correct, isn’t it?—than the actual driver. I’m not sure if she’s aware that some of these roads are tolled, but now—

But, now, we all are!

But, now, we all are. I look forward to informing her of this speech and the fact that she continues to be no longer liable for paying the tolls.

Christmas dinner will be interesting!

Yes, that’s right. That will be very interesting.

However, we do want some more clarity at select committee. There are interesting issues here. I think, for me, the biggest issue is that people need to get around in New Zealand, and if there’s an issue of fairness or if there’s a way that people are unable to get to where they need to go without incurring significant additional costs, then, I think, that would be a downside of this legislation. I’m hoping that won’t be an outcome, but I know my colleagues who are permanent members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee will be looking into that. Hopefully, as we’ve heard it is a collegial committee, they’ll be able to land in an area where the charges that people face are fair and are accepted by the community, and what we are discussing today can be something that can assist with our infrastructure repairs and our infrastructure expansion and that will be enduring.

In defence of the previous speaker’s sister, I invite the previous speaker to step outside to the steps of Parliament where she is not protected by parliamentary privilege and make those same allegations about leaving her sister with toll bills.

It’s great that we’re here on the first reading of the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill. This, of course, amends that landmark piece of legislation: the Land Transport Management Act, which a previous Labour Government put together, and it has been amended and modernised since. Let’s not forget that we did the time of use charging third reading last week. This Government is all about enabling infrastructure to be built. This will help achieve that. I commend the bill.

The question is, That the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

I present a legislative statement on the Building and Construction Sector (Strengthening Occupational Licensing Regimes) Amendment Bill.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Building and Construction Sector (Strengthening Occupational Licensing Regimes) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 19 March 2026.

The Government is making changes with, I will say, with the help of others in this House—I’m pleased to say—to the building and construction control system that will place greater responsibility on building professionals. These changes mean that it is important that building professionals can be held appropriately to account in a timely manner. This bill will make a number of changes across three Acts to ensure the licensing regimes for licensed building practitioners, or LBPs—electrical workers, and plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers—are effective, efficient, robust, and sustainable.

The bill enables more efficient disciplinary processes, and here is how it does it. Currently, the Building Practitioners Board must hear every complaint brought before them, even if the complaint might be frivolous or vexatious. This means that complaint processes take longer and the board’s resources are used on matters that do not require their attention. The bill addresses this by further separating the board and registrar functions, allowing the registrar to assess and triage complaints. An investigator then will be appointed only if the registrar is satisfied that the complaint is not frivolous or vexatious. This will allow the board to focus their resources on complaints that require their attention and will reduce the time that it takes to resolve complaints.

The bill also removes restrictions on the ability for the registrar of the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board and the registrar for the Electrical Workers Registration Board from initiating complaints. This means that if the registrars of these regimes become aware of poor behaviour, they can proactively initiate an investigation, instead of allowing that behaviour to continue unchecked while waiting for a formal complaint to be made.

Madam Speaker, the bill will also make information easier to access—and I knew you were wondering about that. Currently, when a licensed building practitioner’s licence is cancelled for disciplinary reasons, or they become a member of Parliament—Mr Cameron Luxton—their name is removed from the public registrar.

Is it?

Mine’s still on the register, to be fair.

Mr Cameron Luxton’s name is still on at least one register; I think it’s probably the LBP one. This makes it more difficult for consumers to find out information about who has been disciplined and the reasons why. The bill will reverse this so that the practitioner’s name and the reasons they were disciplined will be displayed on the register for three years—kind of like being a member of Parliament; again, Madam Speaker, we’re very much on a register for three years, aren’t we?—and this will improve transparency and help consumers make more informed choices about which practitioner to engage. This is feeling more and more like “Democracy 101”, but anyway. The bill will help to ensure poor practitioner behaviour will be held to account—again, this is getting uncanny!

Unlike licensed building practitioners and many other professions, there are currently no codes of ethics for licensed plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers, or, for that matter, for licensed electrical workers. This means that they are not bound to standards of behaviour when representing their profession and the sector. This can make it difficult to hold them to account for poor behaviour where the behaviour is not directly related to the work that they have done. This bill aligns these professions with licensed building practitioners by including empowering provisions for codes of ethics to be made for these professions so that poor practitioner behaviour can be held to account by the respective boards. This will reinforce the expectations of professional conduct and competence and will incentivise practitioners to consistently deliver safe, compliant, and high-quality building work.

The bill will also reduce the administrative burden for licensed building practitioners, whom I shall just refer to now as LBPs. The Building Act requires LBPs to renew their licence every year. However, they need to complete skills maintenance only every two years. The bill will move the frequency that a licensed building practitioner must renew their licence from the Building Act into the Licensed Building Practitioner Rules. This will allow for greater flexibility to enable their renewal period to be aligned with skills maintenance in order to reduce the administrative burden for both the practitioner and the board.

The bill will also promote consistent complaints processes across licensing regimes, giving practitioners clearer obligations, and consumers a more predictable way to hold them to account. These changes will provide greater consistency for consumers when interacting with these professions and systems, not just for the behaviour they can expect from the professionals they hire but the processes and experiences they have when filing a complaint against a practitioner should something go wrong.

Finally, the bill will have a staged commencement. Most of the bill will commence on the day after the Royal assent of the bill. However, some changes to the LBP regime will commence through Order in Council. This is because they rely on changes to the LBP rules being passed by the Act. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Labour supports this bill at this stage and I’m going to run through why that is, and also run through the questions that we will seek to explore at the select committee stage and with stakeholders, who are very engaged in this bill. It’s important to understand that many of the people working in the sector have been engaging with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and other Government agencies on these changes since 2021. A programme of work around the Building Systems Legislative Reform Programme, as it was known then, had five key pillars. They were about building products; occupational regulation—this issue—risk and liability; the building levy, and, particularly, what it pays for; and offences and penalties.

This bill acknowledges much of that work and seeks to implement some of that, but it’s part of a package of reforms, which means that it is important to make sure that each part has a sensible impact on the other parts. That is why we are going to make sure that those stakeholders who are most engaged in this—particularly the people working in the sector—are able to comply with the new requirements expected of them and that they are getting what they think they have signed up for in a building system which is more efficient because of these measures.

I want to draw members’ attention to the legislative statement because there are some big claims being made for these stakeholders, particularly the claim that the bill ensures that consumers can hold tradespeople to account if things go wrong. That is critically important in our building system, and it is not something that many consumers—particularly mums and dads who are building homes and trying to do that affordably and efficiently—can do at the moment. It is critically important that we improve that for people, and, as electorate MPs, I’m sure many of us have been approached by constituents when things have gone wrong or when they haven’t been able to access the complaints processes or the insurances that they thought they had bought and paid for. It’s important that we ensure that those consumers are getting a fair go in this, and this kind of improvement to the occupational licensing regime is critical to doing that.

To draw members’ attention, as well, to where this fits in with that bigger programme of work, the difference from what was consulted on in 2021 is relevant here. The strengthening occupational regulation regime at that time was about supporting licensed building practitioners to do things faster and quicker. Some of these changes here come from that initiative, and those are a good thing and we support those. The supervision endorsements are something that we will be asking questions around about why those aren’t being progressed in this, because those are important, particularly around some of those higher-risk trades, like, say, internal waterproofing, that were initially included in that programme of work. Instead, we’re seeing a focus here from the Government on a self-certification regime at the lower end of risk whereas you could also very helpfully for consumers advance their interests by improving the situation for higher-risk works, which doesn’t appear to be the focus here.

The industry was consulted on ensuring that non-licensed people aren’t carrying out the higher-risk work unsupervised. That’s important, and there’s an important sort of complaints aspect to that, as well. It’s important that we’re capturing that kind of work for consumers and that consumers understand how to raise issues around that. The penalties are high, but that relies on having proper auditing and proper accounting for the work going on. If we don’t have well-resourced councils and well-resourced regulators, then we can’t say to consumers that that is going to be a part of what the Government says on the tin, which is that they will ensure that consumers can hold tradespeople to account if things go wrong.

The third thing here is around improving consumers’ access to products that spread their risk. Either that’s insurance or it’s something that they pay for in their rates because their council is looking over it, or it’s something that they pay for with their tax dollars because they have a regulator that is tooled up to be able to do this work. It is not fair if consumers are asked to bear extra costs associated with these changes. It is certainly not the intention of the Labour Party to support something like that, and we will be asking questions around that.

In the last 40 seconds, I want to draw the House’s attention to the Attorney-General’s vet of this bill. It’s important to me as well that we make sure that the new investigative processes and information-gathering powers are fair and that the new ability to enter into properties to be investigating is something that is well understood within the industry and it doesn’t penalise the smaller players at the expense of the big ones. We want to make sure that in New Zealand’s building industry, where we back our builders, back our one-man bands, and back our people out there who are doing the job, they aren’t unfairly disadvantaged at the expense of the larger players because of some of these new provisions.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. This morning, I was on a moderating panel at the International Conference on Urban Health. I don’t know if any of the Government members are going to be attending any part of that, but it’s being held for three days at the Tākina Centre, here in Wellington, and there are experts from all over the world. Some of the other speakers on the panel with me are absolute experts in the built environment, and two particularly specialised in housing, and they were all making the same point, which is that with all the research they do—and these are academics who do research in the real world. They work with local government, central government, and the private sector, and they look at the outcomes from different things. They’re saying that one of the key determinants of health and a whole bunch of other things is housing and our buildings.

For most people, 90 percent of our time these days is spent indoors, and the quality of the ventilation of the building has a direct impact on people’s health. It’s no mystery to New Zealanders that we have a problem with childhood asthma and we have a problem with cold, mouldy, damp, expensive-to-heat homes. This puts strain on our health system and this affects productivity, and there are all these ways in which improving our building sector can help the entire country, which is why we should be doing that.

This bill is the first of two bills—obviously, the second bill will be debated directly after this—and this bill the Green Party can support because it’s aiming to ensure that licensed professionals in the building and construction sector can be appropriately held to account through complaints and disciplinary processes that are effective. It’s strengthening the occupational licensing regime, and I think that’s a good thing. It’s far from everything that’s needed to improve our building sector, and I am a little bit concerned that right now, when everyone has such a focus on bringing down the cost of building, we’re not focusing on also lifting the performance of our buildings, because those buildings last for decades. People spend a lot of time in them, and if they’re not built well, they will cost us more in the long run, both in direct costs in terms of heating or cooling but also in costs to society in terms of emergency admissions and long-term chronic health problems which mean that people can’t work.

It just makes so much sense for New Zealand to improve its building sector, and we have to look at whole-of-life costs. The answer is not getting rid of all regulation; in fact, it’s quite the opposite: it’s having smarter, better regulations that are well enforced, and we need to properly resource the people who are doing the vetting, doing the training, and doing inspections. One of the things that was brought up on the panel—and this was from an American context—was how it’s not enough to regulate the quality of the build; we need to have ongoing performance requirements around buildings as they’re being used—for example, a warrant of fitness for rental properties, which is something that I know my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick is very passionate about and has proposed members’ bills on.

We can have a system that ensures that after the building is built, we’re checking and making sure that it has a healthy indoor air temperature, that it doesn’t cost a fortune to achieve that, and that it’s not damp and mouldy. We can make sure that there aren’t unhealthy products being used in those buildings, because we are going to find out that there are a bunch of products that are really, really problematic.

Wool.

Microplastics—oh yes, wool. Wool, yes, and the Green Party absolutely supports wool and we support cross-laminated timber. We support using natural, sustainable products that are produced here in New Zealand, and we can do that—we absolutely can do that. That’s an area where we could find cross-party support, potentially.

This bill, in and of itself, I think is a good step. The next bill we don’t feel so confident about because it is expanding the ability of builders and plumbers and others to self-certify their work, and I think—

We’ll just deal with this bill at the moment.

Yes. I think better regulations that actually measure the performance of the buildings and the things that we need to know are something where if we have that data, it should be possible to do. The Green Party would love to work with the Government on that because it will actually help improve productivity and health in our country.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I rise as one of those LBPs—those licensed building practitioners—who are out there doing the hard mahi on sites around the country, building these houses. The thing that is driving us mental in the construction industry is the untenable delays that we face in waiting for inspections and waiting for things that building professionals—because the people who build our houses in New Zealand are professionals—know how to do. If we are going to be trusting our building professionals, they need to be held to a high account of themselves and of their industry, and that’s what this bill does.

The code of ethics that already exists, I’ve had my quibbles with. It’s got great things in there like saying to take responsibility for your actions and explain risk to the client. However, I’m not sure about whether a code of ethics can really figure out whether you’ve priced work fairly, whether you’ve acknowledged and respected cultural norms, and other such unmeasurables. If it’s going to be subjective, then it shouldn’t be in a code of ethics.

The building professionals in our country want to be held to a higher standard, they want their industry held to a higher standard, and they want the respect that comes with the hard work and diligence that has been acquired over years of gaining a skill, and if someone is taking the mickey, the registrar needs to be able to deal with that. People who are impersonating LBPs need to be held to account. Something that I have seen in the industry is people using LBP numbers. That’s got to stop. LBPs have to be held to a high standard, and that’s what this bill will do. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I want us to consider what it is that we want out of our building system. The first one of those things is we want quality outcomes. That, actually, is the most important thing of all—that we have warm, dry homes that are also durable—and that’s one of the challenges we have.

Wool. Wool, Andy—wool.

Oh, my colleague the Hon Mark Patterson is talking about wool, and he’s absolutely right that it’s a very fine product to use in these buildings. We want quality outcomes that people can rely on because, of course, for most people, the home is the most important investment and the biggest investment they will ever make, and they need to have some surety that what they buy is going to be a quality product.

The second thing is that we also want to have a quick, efficient, reliable system that gets the consenting processes done in a reasonable way, and, of course, it’s always good to speak on building issues after our resident builder—Cameron Luxton—because what you hear time and time again is that the consenting process as it is at the moment is really frustrating people. If you’ve got to wait for two or three or four days, or however many days it might be, to get an inspection at different stages of a building, that costs real money. It’s not just the cost of the consenting but it’s the cost of the delay.

This is all about streamlining delivery processes. We should be able to expect, as we do everywhere else in life, that what is provided by a person who provides you with a service—to look at it in terms of consumer guarantees—is fit for purpose, and that’s really what this is about. It’s saying that when we have somebody who is a licensed plumber, gasfitter, drain layer, or electrician, they know what they’re doing, they’re suitably qualified, and they deliver the product that they are supposed to deliver, and I’m sure the vast majority do exactly that.

What this also does is it says that if there is something wrong with something that somebody does, instead of going to the council, in this particular situation—and, of course, for councils, it’s a bit of a nightmare anyway. When I was on the Wellington City Council, we were on the verge of handing back our warrant, or at least that’s what I wanted us to do because it was just a liability. It’s much better that the liabilities and the responsibilities lie with the people who are actually delivering the product and that they’re doing it well. This bill streamlines the disciplinary procedures and gives more powers to the board that governs those things, and if you’ve got your name there and you’re registered, that means a lot more than if you’ve been deregistered.

The other thing we need to make sure of as we go through this process is that we don’t have these phoenix arrangements allowing people to get around them. In other words, it is you individually—not you, Madam Speaker, but it is the individual who is performing the service who is responsible, and not their 2016 version or their 2017 version or their 2018 version. It is that person, and that person alone, who is responsible for that and who is held accountable for that.

Just to finish up, what we want is a really good process for holding practitioners to account for delivering a quality product and to hold them to account when something goes wrong. I am very much looking forward to considering this in front of the select committee. I commend the bill to the House.

This is one of two bills that we’re discussing in the name of Minister Chris Penk, and I just want to begin by acknowledging him and the work that he’s doing to make our building and construction sector highly productive so that it produces high quality when building homes right across this country. This bill, as the previous speaker, Andy Foster, alluded to, is all about efficient processes for those in the sector. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Building and Construction Sector (Strengthening Occupational Licensing Regimes) Amendment Bill. Now, we know that New Zealand needs more warm, dry, and safe homes, and I don’t think there would be anyone in the House who would disagree with that statement. How do we go about it? We all have different approaches.

This is an interesting bill, and Labour is supporting the bill, but, first and foremost, I think we need to keep front of mind the need to protect consumers—those people who we are building these houses for. We know that we need stronger, clearer licensing systems that can improve efficiency across the building sector, and that will give strength and consumer confidence, the kind of consumer confidence that we know we need.

Now, we’ve always talked in the Labour Party about New Zealanders deserving—as I said at the top of my contribution—affordable, warm, dry homes that are built to last. These need to be good quality homes. They need to be well built, and having stronger licensing will help to lift that quality, but we also have to make sure that it’s fair, that it’s proportionate, and that it genuinely improves the safety of those homes. This bill does aim to introduce broader investigative and disciplinary tools, and so we need to make sure that those are transparent, that they’re balanced, and that they’re not punitive for smaller operators. Again, that’s a role that the select committee needs to pay particular attention to, particularly through the lens of how this bill can be improved to ensure stronger protections for the consumers and, ultimately, for the people who are going to live in those homes.

Now, the other thing that this bill sets out to do—and it’s great to have heard in contributions this afternoon from a member across the way who has been a licensed building practitioner: Cameron Luxton from the ACT Party. The bill needs to support competent tradespeople, and absolutely that’s a focus that the select committee needs to give in progressing this bill: how can it support competent tradespeople?

One of the specific considerations that I think should be given ample time to and on which submissions should be sought is how best we can integrate some of the new technology and technological innovations that can make that process for tradespeople so much better and can speed up what have been some of the traditional administrative and bureaucratic hurdles—speed bumps, if you will—that often interrupt what should be and would be a much more efficient, much more affordable process if there was less administrative load, less burden, and less waiting time for builders and licensed building practitioners and tradespeople during the construction of new homes. Making sure that those technological advancements are investigated fully and prioritised through the development of this bill would ensure that some of the many frustrations that our very talented and very clever workforce face as they go about building the homes that we know New Zealand needs could be eliminated through the use of this new technology.

Now, the other thing that we need to ensure in progressing this bill and which we do support is that we don’t shift the risk down the chain. When we look at protecting and supporting competent tradespeople, we also need to make sure that we’re not doing that at the expense of short-changing, ultimately, the people who end up owning or living in these homes. Again, another focus for the select committee would be to make it a very clear priority to ensure that we don’t simply shift the risk on to, ultimately, the occupier of the home.

The bill has three aims, with the first being to protect consumers, the second being to support competent tradespeople, and the third being strong consideration not to shift the risk down the chain but to instead lift the quality of the homes, which need to be warm, dry, and safe for all New Zealanders. Thank you.

Licensed building professionals in the building and construction sector are doing a fantastic job to ensure the quality of our homes, and this bill strengthens the system that supports their work. This bill will make it easier and more affordable to deliver the new homes that New Zealanders need, while putting stronger checks in place to guard against shoddy work. It lifts accountability across the sector and gives customers a clear, reliable path forward if things go wrong. This is about having safer homes, higher standards, and greater confidence for everyone. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is the second bill in a row that’s going to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, so we shouldn’t have been so complimentary about what a collegial committee it is, because it seems to have no end.

Labour will be supporting this bill, and, as almost everybody has said already, I think that all New Zealanders can take pride in the fact that we have a workforce of tradespeople and professionals who pride themselves on building well and providing quality products. But we can’t take that for granted, and we do need to provide frameworks and make sure that in this House we give them the tools that they need to ensure that the final product—not just for the consumer but for the industry as a whole—is kept safe and is kept efficient and actually amounts to the types of homes that we value and that we want people living in.

We’ll support this bill because clearer licensing systems, we believe, can improve efficiencies across the building sector and can certainly strengthen consumer confidence, which is incredibly, incredibly important. For many people in this House, you wouldn’t have to go back too many years to remember examples when that has gone wrong and there have been large-scale disasters in this sector, and so we need to make sure that we’re on our toes. Electrical workers, plumbers, gasfitters, and drainlayers just by definition operate in high-risk environments, and so having clear, competent standards and clear, consistent enforcement regimes, and modernised complaint systems, are, I think, essential, and that doesn’t feel like too much to ask for.

As my colleague Reuben Davidson has just said, on this side of the House, and certainly within the Labour Party, we’ve always had at our core a fundamental belief that New Zealanders fundamentally deserve homes that are warm, dry, and safe to live in, and therefore stronger licensing that can help lift that quality and do anything towards making that achievable is worthwhile, but only if it’s fair, if it’s proportionate, and if it genuinely improves safety.

The bill introduces broad investigative and disciplinary tools, and, as well as those tools being fair and transparent and with the normal caveats that we put around those things, it is important that they’re not overly or particularly punitive, particularly for small operators. I’m sure that the select committee will ask those appropriate questions and will play a critical role in testing whether the powers that are inherent in this piece of potential legislation actually do protect the public without creating a whole host of unnecessary burdens.

The new levies and compliance costs: as has been said, we do have to be vigilant that it doesn’t just end up being someone else’s problem. I think that the Government, to date, hasn’t really provided sufficient information or sufficient analysis on that affordability and whether there’s potential for those flow-on effects, and so I will also be interested in hearing more about that at select committee.

Ultimately, stronger licensing works only when regulators and the people tasked with keeping on top of how that’s working are actually resourced properly to do that job. They need to be able to act on those complaints and they need to be able to not just do things retrospectively after something has gone wrong but also be really active in supporting the people who work in this sector to make sure that they’re able to comply and monitor those competencies. Again, we will be keeping a close eye on making sure that the requisite information that makes that material and useful comes through the select committee process and affords us a little bit more confidence. It does need to be a robust select committee process, with—

Not four months and one day.

—not four months and one day, as my colleague Tangi Utikere is noting, which has been a common thread going through this House at the moment. It kind of makes a little bit of a mockery of the select committee process if a select committee doesn’t have sufficient time or if there’s some sort of pressure from a Minister to report back on a particular day, and we’ll hear later on in the rest of today’s session, I’m sure, some examples of how that’s happened.

We wouldn’t want that to happen to this bill. We’re up for a decent, robust process that is in itself clear and transparent so that we can assess that this bill provides the clarity and the transparency required.

Our Government is committed to building infrastructure and building homes fast, efficiently, and well. We back our builders and we want to see a high standard of building, and this bill increases both accountability and quality, which is what we want to see. We want to build warm, affordable, dry homes, and, wow, have we got a pipeline of homes in Hawke’s Bay. I would just like to acknowledge our amazing building Minister, who visited Hawke’s Bay recently and who is in charge of these reforms, which are going to achieve a higher standard in building but also get fast, efficient homes built. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is, That the Building and Construction Sector (Strengthening Occupational Licensing Regimes) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

I present a legislative statement on the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill.

No, you don’t—not just yet.

Oh, I move that the bill be referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

No, third time lucky—the report-back date.

I’m out!

Do you have a report-back date?

I move, That the bill be reported back to the House four months and one day from today’s date.

Which would be—I think on my reckoning it would be 19 March 2026.

I, again, present a legislative statement on the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill.

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

I move, That the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 19 March 2026.

Do you?

I really do. Further to that, I wish to point out—as others have commented in the context of the bill that Parliament has just considered, and helpfully passed, at least by way of first reading—that this bill forms part of the same reform package to make it easier, faster, and more affordable to build by reducing the burden on building consent authorities, and moving responsibility to construction sector professionals.

This bill will make substantive changes across two Acts to improve the efficiency of the building consenting system and make better use of regulatory resources. The bill will free up building consent authorities and shift responsibility to professionals, as I have pointed out, and it’s worth starting by noting that the consenting system at the moment can be slow and inefficient, causing delays and increasing the costs to build in New Zealand. Inefficiencies are caused by risk-averse behaviour and lack of capacity for building consent authorities and a system that discourages professionals from taking responsibility for assurance.

The risk aversion is understandable but nevertheless we need to understand, from a systems point of view, the effect of these incentives and think if there’s a way that we can make it possible for greater responsibility and thereby having greater quality, as well as faster processes. To that end, this bill introduces an opt-in scheme, allowing approved plumbers and drainlayers to self-certify that their work complies with the building consent, without the need for a building consent authority inspection. This will save time and money for professionals and building consent authorities—which I’ll, from here on in, refer to as BCAs; mostly being councils and homeowners.

The scheme will be integrated into the existing consent system. Plumbing and drainlaying work will still need to be consented as usual but a declaration will be filed that the plumbing or drainlaying work will be self-certified. Inspections will not be carried out, allowing the professionals simply to get on with their work. Once the work is completed, the self-certifier will issue a certificate of compliance which confirms that their work complies with the building consent. BCAs will be required to rely on the certificate as legal assurance when issuing a code compliance certificate at the end of the building process and will be protected from liability for self-certified work. Instead, the responsibility will lie with the professionals doing the work. The scheme will likely apply to the majority of plumbing and drainlaying work in stand-alone residential buildings, meaning that there is a massive opportunity to remove inefficiencies in the consenting system and make it faster and cheaper to build homes in New Zealand. It will also free up BCAs to focus on riskier work that should be inspected.

A key tenet of the legislation is that the bill promotes efficiency without compromising safety. That’s because safeguards will ensure that efficiency gains are balanced against ensuring safety. Only plumbing and drainlaying work that meets the definition in regulations will be able to be self-certified. The bill limits this definition to work that is routine for experienced plumbers and drainlayers and presents a low risk to public safety.

Riskier work will still need to be inspected, providing protection for homeowners. To self-certify, professionals must meet robust standards, demonstrating the necessary skills and experience. These standards will be set by the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board through Gazette notices, and will be based around technical competency, experience, ability to meet their new liabilities, and their administrative practices like quality assurance—or QA.

These minimum standards will also give consumers confidence that self-certifiers have the right skills to meet their new responsibilities and will protect the public from defective work and the harm it can cause. In practice, I expect that most plumbers and drainlayers who hold the highest licensed class will be eligible to self-certify. Endorsed professionals will be able to self-certify work that they’ve done themselves and work that they have supervised. This reflects the reality that the most experienced plumbers and drainlayers often work in a supervisory role.

The bill also introduces new functions for the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board, which will provide a further level of consumer protection. Certificates of compliance will need to be lodged with the board to be held on a register, parts of which will be publicly accessible so future homeowners, insurers, or other interested parties will be able to see if a property had self-certified work. This will make the scheme more transparent and professionals more accountable.

Failure to lodge a certificate will be a disciplinary offence carrying a maximum fine of $10,000, one of a number of changes to the board’s disciplinary functions. The bill also extends existing offences to cover self-certification, and raises some existing penalties, promoting responsibility and accountability. The bill gives new monitoring powers to the board, including the power to audit certificates of compliance. This will ensure that the work complied with the consent and the building code. Tradespeople who do poor or non-compliant work will be caught and held to account.

This is our crackdown on cowboys, that we’re fond of talking about, and I say that with all due respect to real cowboys, obviously, and cowgirls. The bill will have a staged commencement, something to celebrate, indeed. Most of the bill will commence on 20 June 2026, but provisions relating to powers to make secondary legislation, the functions of the board, and other official bodies, and other transitional provisions will commence on the day after Royal assent. This is to provide time for the necessary operational requirements for the scheme to be developed. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this, the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill. This is a good one. This is an exciting one for Labour to be able to support. I’m going to raise some questions with it, but we are looking forward to getting into this with the people who it matters most to: the plumbers who want to make sure that this is sticky legislation, that we get this right, and that we don’t touch the rules again, because we need to make sure that this is something that both the professionals in the sector and the people who rely on it, the consumers, can have faith in for the long term. That’s why this needs to be cross-partisan. I hope we can work together in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, ably chaired by Andy Foster, to make sure this works. We do have a few reservations, and I’m going to run through them. But, yeah, we’re happy to support this at first reading.

The key for the Labour Party is it will be looking for strong consumer protections and robust safeguards throughout the change that professionals will be faced with here, because we share that goal, that everyone wants more cost of safety or quality or the rights of consumers in this process, the mums and dads who are just trying to build a home affordably and cheaply in New Zealand, because cutting costs is good but cutting corners is not. Plumbers and drainlayers already carry quite heavy professional responsibilities, and if we’re shifting, here in this bill, further liability from, say, building consent authorities on to individuals, we must also ensure that these standards are very clear and that there’s access to the appropriate insurance products and proper support for those regulators who are tasked with ensuring that the system is working.

The industry, at select committee, will, rightly, ask us “Why is liability being put on these individuals and not on, say, the businesses themselves?” It’s important that we understand, here, what’s being asked of these professionals who haven’t had this sort of liability before and whether the appropriate person, legal person—in this case, natural person—is being regulated here or whether it’s appropriate for the business to regulate instead. Why is it that businesses aren’t being regulated under this? Well, simply, Madam Speaker, I would suggest to you that it’s because the programme of work that the Government has long advertised around phoenix companies and around companies in the building and construction sector going under or going out of business and, then, popping up perhaps the next day, perhaps six months later in a new corporate form is a practice that we must stamp out because it really impacts on those consumers, but that hasn’t been done yet and it does not look like the Government will progress that. That’s a problem if you then have the little guy, the new plumber, done his apprenticeship, got his qualifications, now suddenly faced with liability for his large employer that he would reasonably expect was being managed within a corporate setting and a corporate structure. That doesn’t seem right or fair, to me, to the little guy here.

We also want to think about when councils reduce oversight, consumers must still have sensible and simple and reliable pathways to get defects fixed. The natural policy response to this would be insurance—either a compulsory insurance scheme, or a State-backed insurance scheme; schemes, like the ones that Australian consumers have enjoyed for many years, they work pretty well in their markets, there is a range of them to choose from, from the big gold-plated consumer-friendly scheme in Queensland, to the slim-lined schemes in, say, New South Wales. We have none of that and yet we are building a policy response as if there is an insurance product in the market that does not exist already, and so we need to make sure that that risk spreading is going to be able to happen for also these companies—you know, when we think about the little guy, we need to make sure that he’s got access to something that will help him when things go wrong for him, as well as the consumer who he’s working for.

The only other question I’d add in my last minute is to make it clear that we should be thinking about the scope of this work. You know, when I think of, say, the corner bakeries in the electorate of Manurewa—the best bakeries in the country—I think why don’t they also—

Aww!

—the best bakeries in the country, Mr Meager—I think about making sure that they have access to a sensible and quick regime where standard plumbing in their shops can also be covered by what is a quick and efficient regime. We should be asking the questions about who is in scope here, because that would make sense to me.

Finally, just on the report-back date: what a grinch this Minister is for not letting the plumbers, the hard-working New Zealanders who want to have a say on this, not submit in the full time frame. They’re being forced to over Christmas. “We want our plumbers out plumbing. Go fix up some kitchens. Go work hard, as you are doing. Don’t have to come back to select committee.” But, unfortunately, that is what they are being faced with here.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. As I outlined in my earlier speech, the Green Party is not supporting this bill at first reading. We absolutely understand what it’s aiming to achieve, but the truth is that New Zealand is lagging so far behind other developed countries in terms of having a level of accountability and oversight over building and construction work that we need to do a whole lot of other things before we start reducing oversight and accountability of our professionals.

I mean, it’s very difficult to trust this Government when so many of the steps that they have taken are actively making things worse for consumers, for residents, and for citizens. When I think of just some of the recent changes they’ve made, they can’t seem to differentiate between good, effective Government regulation that lifts productivity and protects people—that’s the purpose of Government. It’s to protect and empower people, and when we don’t have those systems in place, people get screwed over.

I was talking to a constituent in my electorate not that long ago who had really just wanted to tell me about the experience that he had had with purchasing his first home at the top of the market. He was going to do some basic works which he’d planned on and had budgeted for, and he was finding out that there was a whole lot of very serious structural problems with the building, which was only about 20 years old, and these were due to deficiencies in our building techniques. He has no one to go to. The people who did the building work are long gone, and there’s like no record or accountability of it. He’s got a very large mortgage, and his interest rates had gone up because he happened to buy at the top of the market. He’s a young person, trying to get his first home—

Thanks, National.

—and not—yeah, so I wouldn’t say “Thanks, National.”, because the guy is in serious financial difficulties now because he found out that the building had serious problems with it, which now he has to send a whole lot of money to—

Did he get a building inspection done?

Yeah, he did get a building inspection done. But when it was the top of the market, he was under a lot of pressure because it’s a sellers’ market, and so the people who are trying to buy start lowering their standards and have less money to get the work done.

This is the whole problem—it’s like that’s the point. What this Government doesn’t understand is that the Government is here to protect and empower people, and we work together to do that. That’s what a democracy is for, and we do it because it works—we’re all better off when we work together to get better outcomes. But for several decades, we’ve had a race to the bottom in New Zealand of successive Governments who have cut really important rules, regulations, and investment and funding to different parts of the public system, which has led to the leaky building crisis, and that cost local councils billions of dollars. I mean, it was hugely costly to enable those changes and reduce oversight, and, at the time, Treasury was just like “Oh, they’ll sort it out in the courts.” Well, actually, that’s a very theoretical position, because when people can wind up their business, declare bankruptcy, and then pop up somewhere else and not be held to account, that’s a problem, and, ultimately, it is the public that picks up the cost, one way or the other.

Look, I’m all for better regulation. In my observation in both the building sector and urban planning, there are a whole lot of regulations that are doing the exact opposite of what we need them to do, but just getting rid of that and trying to speed up or simplify the process without actually lifting performance and accountability and without investing in oversight means that there’s a real chance of there being problems down the road that will end up costing us all.

I think there are very good and clear reasons to not support this bill at first reading. We will see what the select committee process turns up, but with the fast-track process and with the changes to the Clean Car Standards—which are going to be rushed through in urgency later this week—it’s a perfect example of the Government doing what’s good for business or for corporates when that’s actually bad for the country. It’s bad for consumers, it’s bad for households, it’s going to cost us more in the long run, and it’s bad for the environment, because they don’t care—they clearly don’t care. I mean, they’ve made it very clear that they don’t care, at all. If it’s good for the donors, if it’s good for the big lobbyists, and if it’s good for the overseas interests, they’re all for it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise once again as a licensed building practitioner (LBP) speaking on a bill that addresses real issues in the construction sector. Currently, if a sparkie or a gas fitter wants to sign off some work and say, “Hey, it’s behind a wall. I don’t want to hold up the progress of this building. It’s perfectly sound, I can certify it myself.”, that’s allowed, but a plumber running pipes or a drainlayer running drains cannot do the same thing. It makes no sense.

I’ve been on building sites where there have been massive holes in the ground waiting—waiting for someone in a high-vis from the council to turn up and tell us “Don’t worry. You can fill in that perfectly good hole. I’ve only been”—this is an inspector speaking—“in the industry two years, but you, you 30-year veteran of the drainlaying profession, you cannot be trusted to make sure that your pipes aren’t going into the sumps, into the septics, and into the soap pits that you have been doing for decades.”

This is addressing a real problem that holds up sites. It’s not a huge thing, but it’s a greatly important thing. Along with allowing a new LBP scheme to do with internal waterproofing—that’ll deal with the waterproofing issues that might come up from allowing people to assess their work. But with drains and pipes, this is not complicated stuff. These professionals know what they’re doing when they’ve been trained; they can do it, they’re licensed. Let them at it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, as I said in the previous debate, the most important thing that we want out of our building system is that we get good outcomes for the people that end up with the end product: the houses, the homes that people live in. This bill, though, is about trust. It’s about trust in the competence—the trust in the competence—of our professional drainlayers and plumbers, as you’ve just heard from our licensed building practitioner.

This allows professional plumbers and drainlayers to self-certify and to certificate their work, and it brings them in line with other building practitioners. This sets up a regime where the board—the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Board—has the power to endorse plumbers and drainlayers. It doesn’t mean it has to; has the power to, which means that they can say, “Well, look, are these people competent to do the job that they are doing to the level which is required to be done so that they can self-certify?” It doesn’t mean that they will self-certify everybody, because, obviously, when you start doing that, if people are not doing the job properly, it comes back on them as a board, saying “What are you doing certifying these people?” So they will do that, I expect, with care and attention to make sure that they are certificating and endorsing the right people to make sure they do the job properly.

Also, it is about self-certifying certain work, so set by regulation. It doesn’t mean every piece of work; doesn’t mean the really, really complicated pieces which you might have a third party have a look over. It means self-certifying certain work. This also means that the self-certification then relies on—in many areas of construction, we already have these producer statements, which, in fact, often, councils as the building consents authority farm those out—it might be to an engineer or whoever it might be—and says, “If they’re happy with it, then we’re happy with it.” Effectively, they’re already doing that in so many complicated areas of the business.

Two final points to make, because we’ve heard these in the debate already. The point’s been made about making sure that if something goes wrong, there is a process and a way in which the homeowner, the recipient of the end product, can actually get satisfaction from somebody who can put it right. In Wellington, the phrase “It’s the putting right that counts” will be familiar to many people. That is absolutely essential.

Finally, I had a lot of sympathy for the point that Arena Williams made about phoenix businesses. We don’t want the situation where people can wind up the business—the 2024 version of a business creates a 2025 version or 2026 version. We want the individual to be responsible for the work that they do, so that if they do it wrong and they don’t put it right, then there is a consequence on them so that I’m sure that they will, as professionals, do the job properly. I commend this bill to the House.

This is the second bill under the name of Chris Penk, and he’s doing a great job as building and construction Minister. It is all in the name: self-certification for plumbers and drainlayers. What a great bill, and it’s getting bipartisan support in the House.

Just to expand on my colleague, that—

Apart from the Greens.

Except the Green Party.

But to expand on what “good” looks like, it’s about an efficient, effective, and low-cost system for consenting. That’s what this bill’s all about.

I look forward to hearing submitters, hearing from people in the public at the coalface in this industry, and about how this will work in practice. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to take a call on the second building and construction bill, this being the self-certification by plumbers and drainlayers amendment bill. We do support this bill but with reservations. As speakers from this side of the House have taken the time to talk about, this bill needs to see robust safeguards and needs to see consumer protections because speed cannot compromise safety, quality, or consumer rights. Another simpler way of putting it is that fast and efficient can’t become quick and dirty, because that’s not what we want in our construction sector.

Now, we’re very proud, on this side of the House in the Labour Party, that we’ve always said that New Zealanders deserve homes that are affordable and that are built to last. When it comes to making sure we can do that affordably and to cutting the costs to do that, that’s all well and good, but it can’t be at the expense of cutting corners. We know that our plumbers and drainlayers—our good tradies—carry very heavy responsibility and liability for the work that they do, so we need to make sure that the standards and the access to the appropriate products are there for those professionals to be able to do the work that they need to do, to be able to do it quickly, but also to have the protections there for them.

Now, I have a story I want to share from an installation that I had at my home where I decided to install gas to have a gas facility in my kitchen for cooking. I brought a professional installer in, and—

Didn’t you hear about the oil and gas ban?

But you cancelled the gas.

This was some time ago. The professional installer came to my home and installed a gas hob in my kitchen, which worked beautifully. I was able to cook fantastic food and have a perfectly functioning gas hob in my kitchen. But what happened when I went to do the washing up was that I pulled the plug out of the sink, and the sink drained, and all of a sudden across my kitchen floor, there was a puddle of water coming from under the skirting board in the corner of the kitchen. This had never happened before. It was a very puzzling situation for me. Now, what had happened was that the water waste pipe from the sink ran diagonally through the wall at a surprising angle—surprising to the gas installer, who had managed to drill the gas pipe directly through the water waste pipe and safely install gas to run to my hob. What this meant was that I could safely operate my gas hub, and I had an airtight, perfect gas installation, but I had a leaky waste pipe draining the sink under my kitchen bench.

Now, luckily, I spotted it pretty quickly, and, luckily, the professional tradesperson took it very seriously and came round and remediated it immediately. But it did make me think: what if it had been the other way round? What if the water pipe had gone through the gas pipe? The result would have been quite different. Now, the point of that story is that we do need to provide very clear protections for our tradespeople but also very, very strong protections for us as consumers in our homes if we are building or carrying out renovations and people are going to be self-certifying their work. We owe it to our tradies to get this right. That is why the support that we bring for this bill does have reservations, because during the select committee process, we need to make sure that the owners or people who will live in homes that will be built under these changed and amended regulations are going to be living in homes that, if they have been self-certified, are safe. But we also need to make sure that, for our tradies—many of whom own their own businesses and are working really hard to make it all balance and make it all work—there are protections in place for them so that they don’t get caught out and get caught short and lose their businesses as a result of carrying this further administrative burden. It is with reservations that we support this bill. Thank you.

It’s very simple: if electricians and gas fitters can self-certify their work, then of course our qualified plumbers and drainlayers should be trusted to do the same, as well. This Government is here to back them up. An open self-certification scheme is a stroke of common sense. Less red tape, stronger accountability, and the same high level of safety. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill. I’m happy to tell the House that I don’t know a whole lot about—

Anything.

—plumbing and drainlayers. Well, thank you for that interjection. I think it says more about the person making the interjection than myself. But I will say that I’m happy—happy—to say that I don’t know a huge amount about plumbing and drainlaying. This is important because I have had the opportunity to employ plumbers and drainlayers. It’s been important to me to be able to rely on their work and also the certification of their work, so that I know that the house that I live in, that I was lucky to be able to have the privilege to be able to build, is safe. It is important for me as a consumer, and for every other consumer out there who has not studied plumbing and drainlaying. We want to be able to rely on the certification by those that know more about these things.

I picked up this bill and thought, “I wonder what sorts of jobs will be able to be self-certified by plumbers and drainlayers under this bill.” It turns out it’s not that clear, and that is because of the mechanisms of the bill. I want to go through those, briefly. You’ll see at clause 4 the definitions of what are self-certifiable drainlaying and self-certifiable plumbing. This is the kind of work that is defined in reference to regulations. We don’t see those regulations here and I’m not sure if they exist yet. It’s important to note that the regulations are where those types of work that I don’t know a whole lot about will be defined.

It is important to note that there are some thresholds for what might be in those regulations. We see that at clause 45 of the bill, and that is where section 172C is amended to insert section 172C(1AAA). These are the “Requirements before making certain regulations”. The Minister may only make the recommendations about these regulations if the Minister is satisfied that the plumbing work will be “(a) … routine work for an experienced drainlayer or plumber;”—so an experienced element is relevant to that threshold. At (b), it “is not complex drainlaying or plumbing”—I presume that the people who know about these things will be able to discuss what is or what is not complex. At (c), it “poses a low risk to the health and safety of the public.” I would hope that there the health and safety of the public is also of the consumer or of the person who’s in the house where these plumbing and drainlaying works might be.

I raise that point because the regulations here are an important part of how this bill will operate. I very much hope that the select committee will spend some time looking at what those regulations may or may not include. I’m assuming that there will be submissions on this particular topic by the people who do know about plumbing and drainlaying. Of course, this bill has to be reported back within four months and one day, I think—so we’re avoiding a debate in the House on when that shortened time frame is. But I do note, like my colleague Arena Williams, that this does mean that the plumbers and drainlayers, the people who know what might be in these regulations and saying what sort of work this bill will apply to, will be making submissions over the Christmas break and that is far from perfect.

As you’ve heard, though, Labour is supporting this bill and will look, at the select committee, for strong auditing requirements, mandatory record-keeping, fair and transparent fees and levies, and clear remedies for homeowners when work fails. It is important to note that this is supposed to be part of a package that also includes insurance and liability, and we do need those settings to be right. If they are not right, then it will cost everyone a whole lot more.

I commend the bill to the House.

The question is, That the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: I move, That the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 19 March 2026.

I present a legislative statement on the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) 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 Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

There is a view of the world that people across the seas are somehow bad or venal or out to get us, and that we should put up barriers and try to keep them out, that when they try to invest in New Zealand with their ideas and their capital, they are out to get something and must be regarded with suspicion.

There is another view, which is that when our friends around the world choose to bring their ideas and their money to our country and make voluntary agreements with people who own property here—whether they be New Zealanders or other overseas investors—that trading of value for value makes us stronger together. That when you see people from overseas who have a better way of doing things, or a different way of doing things, investing in a business and bringing those ideas, we’re all better off. People can be paid more, people can have more interesting jobs, and we can export more interesting and valuable products overseas.

There’s a great movie, from my youth in the 1990s, that summed it up: it is the circle of life. That’s why I’m very proud to be commending this amendment to the Overseas Investment Act, because it carries on the work that we have done to ensure New Zealand is a place that welcomes investment from across the seas. It’s actually the entire history of our country to do this. The history of our country is a history of foreign investment. There was no foreign capital in New Zealand, once upon a time. Then, Kupe showed up with a waka hourua and a few kunekune pigs, and New Zealanders have been importing capital into our country ever since—and we’ve been all the wealthier for it. That’s why, so far, this Government has halved the time it takes to get a consent on overseas investments into this country—we’re very proud of it. That’s why we’re bringing this bill to the House, which will ensure there is a revised purpose statement for the Overseas Investment Act that acknowledges the benefits of investment in New Zealand. We’ve never done that in our legislation before—it’s well-past due.

We will introduce a new national interest test. That, for most consents, will mean that people will be able to get a consent within 15 working days—within three weeks. All this, while maintaining the breadth of what the Overseas Investment Office screens, and intensifying the focus on overseas investment—some of which really is a threat to our way of life, and that means a focus on national security and public order. That is, in short, what this bill does.

It is a vote of confidence in New Zealand when people send their money and their ideas here. It’s when they take it out that you should be worried. Just ask most South American countries what that experience is like when the politics goes wrong—I’m looking at the Green members.

I would like to thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for its consideration of this bill—including considering 3,504 submissions—and for making a series of mainly technical amendments that improve the bill. I look forward to the later stages in committee and the third reading of this bill, should it proceed that far, so that it can make New Zealand a place that stands confidently and proudly in the world, welcoming business from our friends and allies—not afraid, ashamed, or repelling it, but rejoicing in stronger connections that allow all of us to trade value for value and grow stronger, wealthier, and more interesting together.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call on this, the second reading of the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I too, like the Minister, want to acknowledge the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their thorough review of this particular bill, and also to the numerous officials from Government agencies, namely the Treasury and Land Information New Zealand, who supported the select committee during this process.

I’m going to take quite a methodical step through a number of the submissions, as well as some of the changes and the reasoning for there being some changes which were not agreed to by majority in the select committee. I think that’s incredibly important because, for a number of members in this House who are lawyers, if you’ve ever worked on a litigation case, you know how important it is to do due diligence and look at the Hansard in relation to what Parliament’s intention was when passing legislation. I’ve had to do it a number of times in my career and it has been so valuable to go back through the Hansard to understand Parliament’s intention. I want to go through Parliament’s intention today in relation to some of the changes in this bill and the submissions and the reasons why, by majority, the Government members did not accept them, but also some of the reasoning, which is in the actual officials’ advice, because I think it will be helpful for the litigation cases that are coming in the future in relation to this specific piece of legislation.

I also want to acknowledge the Minister’s acknowledgment of the number of submitters who submitted on this bill. The committee received 3,504 written submissions in total—3,450 of those submissions were from individuals and 54 were from organisations. I do want to acknowledge our officials, who supported us in making sure that (1) they coded those submissions, but (2) they also analysed the themes that were coming through out of those 3,504 submissions.

What was incredibly important is that, very similar to another bill that the Minister has enacted very recently—the Regulatory Standards Bill—the majority of submissions were opposed to this bill: 92.7 percent were opposed to this bill, with 0.6 percent supportive and 6.7 percent unstated or otherwise unclear. The opposed submissions included concerns around the potential for negative impact on the environment, particularly fresh water and forestry; the impact on iwi Māori, and the desire for explicit Treaty recognition in the Act; the lack of consultation before the bill was introduced or a desire for specified consultation during consent processes; concerns about foreign investment going offshore—there were about 84 submissions which actually spoke to that or similar concerns; a perceived lack of accountability in decision making under the Act, there were 963 submissions on that point alone; and the potential for international obligations to mean that changes are irreversible, there were 183 submissions on that.

There were a small number of submissions from law firms and industry groups providing nuance and supportive feedback on the bill, and I just want to make sure that I put that on record. Businesses and industry groups were broadly supportive, but several expressed a desire for more substantial change. For the future lawyer that has to do the due diligence in the litigation, have a look at the Treasury officials’ report on the submission. There’s a whole sector at the back of that which actually sets out what those material changes should be, but they were ruled out of scope for the purposes of this bill.

One particular summary from the submissions was on the removal of new section 19C(1)(a), inserted by clause 15, which states that one of the mandatory factors for a national interest assessment is the purpose statement. The reason why the committee agreed not to change this—again, this is for the Hansard, for those future litigation purposes—is because it is not necessary to have the purpose as a consideration factor, as the purpose statement is something statutory decision makers will consider when determining the national interest. That is an important point for future litigation. If for any reason you are litigating against the Crown, you can use that, because it should be considered by the statutory decision maker when considering determining the national interest.

One of the major submissions that came through—and it was from a lot of individuals and, for example, from the Māori Law Society, Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa—was on the impact on Māori. Their response was on the removal of the benefit test. There was a strong environmental theme in submissions for Māori and iwi. Many responders suggested the need for foreign investment screening to continue to provide, enforce, or support environmental standards.

Now, the important part for those future litigators—and I’m hoping that this will save some billable hours in the future—is that the advice that was received by officials, accepted by majority members on the Government benches, and will be the reason why this bill goes through, was that benefits will continue to be considered within the national interest test. Again, going back to that earlier point, I talked about new section 19C; that is an important point for iwi Māori and for the Māori Law Society whenever they come to the future litigation against the Crown. They can look to the national interest test, because that’s Parliament’s intention and therefore that’s where you can find the windows of opening. I think it was really important that I put that on the Hansard.

The officials continue to say, “The test will first assess whether a risk is contrary to the national interest before considering whether the benefits of the transaction offsets these risks. Māori interests may be considered as part of this consideration of risk.” There you have it, iwi Māori. There is your gap in order for you to be able to litigate this in the future, because the advice accepted by the majority of this House when this bill was enacted, and therefore the advice that was accepted by the select committee, ensures that your considerations will be as part of that national interest test. I just wanted to save you some billable hours for the future.

Another issue that was raised during submissions—and this is, again, really important because it was a factor that kept coming up through submissions—is the watering down of decision making from no longer being at the primary legislation level, but going down to secondary legislation with the regulations that could be made. There were some comments here from the Regulations Review Committee, but actually almost to a tertiary level of legislation, which is around a ministerial directive letter, and that’s in clause 22 of the bill. Again, the Regulations Review Committee was concerned that in the absence of a definition of national interest in the bill, substantive policy decisions would be left to the discretion of the Minister to determine by way of secondary legislation, and it sets out why that was.

The advice received by the Government and by the select committee, and which they will be approving through majority in this House when this bill becomes an Act, is that all transactions that require consenting currently can be called for a national interest test. We know that. But the main thing was that the Government wanted to provide some flexibility, and it aims to provide additional transparency and certainty via setting out that expectation in the ministerial decision letter. The use of the ministerial decision letter should shape decision making in a set of factors that must be considered when determining national risk. That is under the new section 19D, which sets out a variety of factors to be considered by the regulator or the Minister when determining the national interest. When you go to litigate this in the future, that is your third door to ensure that the ministerial directive letter is where you can go to.

I’m going to leave it there, because I’m pretty sure a number of our members on the Opposition benches—in particular, the Green Party, who had quite a substantive minority view—will go through some of these openings to where the Government have basically allowed for loopholes to be seen, and that’s why I’m putting them in the Hansard today. The Labour Party considers that this bill shifts the balance of overseas investment away from the principle that investment in New Zealand is a privilege and it undermines the scrutiny of applications. I’ve just shown you some of the doors you can walk through. We consider that removal of the character test and reliance on the ministerial directive letter puts New Zealand at risk from inappropriate foreign investment. It doesn’t have the secure safeguards that we need in this bill, because investing in New Zealand is a privilege. Never once did I hear the Minister ever utter four letters, “jobs”—none.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I have to say that it’s very telling that the Minister in charge of this bill is David Seymour, a person who has extremist views that do not represent the values of most New Zealanders. He’s one of the two tails wagging the dog of this Government. Somehow there are two of them. But, clearly, New Zealand First is missing out because they’re voting for this bill. I think we won’t be able to call them New Zealand First anymore; it’s more like “Overseas Corporates First”. That’s what this Government is about. It’s a right-wing playbook that has been used time and time again. I think the public would be very familiar with it, and we just have to call it out and explain what’s going on here.

What is going on here? They get in, and they say, “We don’t have any money—we don’t have any money. We’ve given it all away to landlords, tax breaks for the rich, tax breaks for tobacco companies.” Then they say, “Oh, we need money from overseas investors. Those very kind, benevolent overseas rich people who are going to come here and build our infrastructure for free.”—no, no—“Believe us; it’ll be fine. We’ll just sell off our strategic assets. We’ll sell them off, and we’ll be fine. It’ll be jobs and productivity.” They just make this stuff up. It’s actually embarrassing to see the Government backbenchers consistently say things that are absolutely ridiculous. They live in a dreamland where wealthy, benevolent investors come and sprinkle their fairy dust and make us all richer. Actually, the truth is it never makes us all richer. New Zealanders lose sovereignty and control of our own natural environment, of our water, of our air, of our forests, and of our whenua, and who benefits? Well, the overseas investors and maybe—maybe—a few wealthy New Zealanders here benefit as well.

By and large, this is not going to be something that delivers for our country as a whole. That’s why we will not support it, and that’s why the overwhelming majority of submissions were opposed. There are some extremely lengthy, well-informed submissions that I would recommend anybody look at and read. Of course, the Government members won’t. I’m not sure they’re capable of reading anything other than their talking points, and they’re probably not capable of understanding the economics. Well, maybe a few of them are, but they’re willing to compromise on their knowledge and principles for this job that they have.

Here we’ve got summary and recommendations from some very well-informed submitters to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I’m absolutely serious. People should read these submissions because they’re thoughtful submissions with references, with evidence, and with analysis to support them from people with PhDs in economics. One of them is from Geoff Bertram, who has a doctorate in economics from University of Oxford. He taught at the School of Economics and Finance at Victoria University for more than three decades. If you read his submission, you will see he makes a very strong argument as to why this bill is mistaken in its overall objective and how it’s weakening the tests of what is actually good for New Zealand. A big part of this is that where overseas capital funds new productive activity that would otherwise not have been developed and the income generated by that activity is retained within the local economy, there could be a case for inflow. But, by and large, that’s not what has happened over the last 30 years. We can see this most strongly with the overseas, Australian-owned banks.

One of the main reasons why our current account deficit, like our balance of payments, is negative is because we have overseas ownership of our debt. That means that the profits just go offshore. I highly recommend the submission from Bill Rosenberg, who also has a PhD in economics. He made the point that, firstly—and this is what’s happening over and over again—there’s very poor process and that things are being rushed through in short time frames without due diligence. But, of course, due diligence doesn’t support the aims of this Government. The aim of the Government is to ram as much stuff through as possible in a short time frame—this is particularly the aim of David Seymour—to undo the role that Government plays in protecting and empowering people.

This is a person, our Deputy Prime Minister, who does not believe in public good and whose entire political career is dedicated to removing the oversight of Government and removing the possibility of empowering those who are not doing as well. I don’t know if he believes in his bizarre ideology or if he just says it because he’s repping for some very strong vested interests, but, either way, the result is the same: New Zealanders will miss out and will lose control, profits will flow to a smaller and smaller number of people, and our natural environment upon which we rely to live good lives and to have a productive and thriving economy will be eroded.

I’d love to quote from Bill Rosenberg’s submission, paragraph 10, “The economics”: “The main objective of the bill is ‘to make New Zealand a more attractive place to invest by speeding up consent for low-risk investments’ based on a concern that New Zealand is not getting enough [foreign direct investment]. 11. … not all foreign investment is … beneficial, even if it’s confined to low-risk investment. A more selective process for [foreign direct investment] is needed … [that] is increasingly being used internationally. The quality of [foreign direct investment] in Aotearoa New Zealand has been low … It tends to be concentrated in non-tradeable sectors and in areas which provide market dominance such as in banking and insurance (which together made up 43% of FDI stock in 2024 according to Statistics New Zealand), and supermarkets.” The very sectors where foreign direct investment is concentrated are sectors where we don’t have good competition and we have excess profits, and that’s where any productivity gains here in New Zealand are being sucked out by organisations and investors that are not contributing at all to that productivity. It makes us poorer as a country, but that suits these guys because they’re just here to enable the very richest to get richer. That’s what they’re all about.

A frontier-firm strategy to raise productivity—as recommended in the Productivity Commission report, New Zealand firms: Reaching for the frontier in 2021—where development in particular areas led by a large productivity frontier firm depends on selecting a few large firms with the required record and characteristics. What is being proposed in this bill is not going to enable that. Bank profits constitute a very large part of the investment income deficit. Only in the pandemic, where trade was severely disrupted, did that pattern change. We’re actually losing income as a result of foreign direct investment that reduces our own sovereignty and ability to invest and get the benefit of those investments. This is incredibly well researched.

Obviously, I can’t read all of these submissions, but just as an example, here’s a 14-page submission with excellent graphs and citations and we compare that to the ideological rhetoric of David Seymour, who says, “Just trust us. Just trust us, mate.” We know whose interests David Seymour is looking out for, and it is not ordinary, everyday New Zealanders, it’s not future generations, and it’s not the natural environment. That person is so disconnected from people and the environment that he has no idea what is really going on. But what he does do very well is dismantle systems that we have set up to protect our country and our long-term future. That’s what Government is for: protecting and empowering.

A pretty good example, in one of these submissions which I read, was about how they’re getting rid of the provision around water-bottling plants and treating water-bottling plants differently on the claim that there haven’t been that many proposals for foreign water-bottling plants. Well, there’s one thing I can tell you: it’s that New Zealanders do not want foreign companies coming here, taking our water, and then making a profit off it and selling it back to us or to anyone else. Water is life. Water is essential. The people who think that big corporations are here to make our lives better really haven’t been paying attention to the last few decades, where corporations have systematically sought to concentrate power, have reaped excess profits, and have eroded workers’ rights, usually through lobbying to politicians. It’s a very old playbook. I’ve seen it all play out in the United States when our democracy is crumbling. It’s just a dire situation because of decades of an ideology like the one that these people represent, which is let the rich get richer, destroy Government services, sell it out of the private sector, sell it off to foreign investors, destroy the environment, and remove regulation. Those are not the values of New Zealanders. I look forward to when we get a chance to vote and get a new Government.

Just before I call the next speaker, the inanity and quality of the interjections will often be reflected in how much leverage a speaker on the other side of the House might get. Everything is a balancing act. I might just ask everyone to reflect on that.

What a lot of Green garbage, what a lot of Green waste and, dare I say, what a lot of Green manure. Let’s get back to what this bill actually achieves and seeks to achieve. This bill simplifies the screening process for less sensitive assets by introducing a streamlined national interest test. The Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill maintains current screening requirements for investments in farmland, the fishing quota, and residential land, recognising the unique sensitivity of these assets. Unfortunately, New Zealand has one of the most restrictive foreign investment regimes in the OECD, and so this updated system brings New Zealand up to speed with other advanced economies, cutting compliance costs, reducing processing time, and restoring confidence that New Zealand is open for business. I commend the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support this bill. Look, New Zealand First, without a doubt, has always had a degree of caution around overseas investment—open slather overseas investment. We’ve got plenty of examples where it hasn’t worked to our advantage—the banking sector being one, and its massive profits that are being sucked out of New Zealand. We go into these bills with our eyes wide open, not from an ideological point of view.

We do have a woeful record of flogging off State assets, but we are not North Korea. We are pragmatic. We do realise that we do need balance if we’re going to turn this economy around; we do need injections of capital. Some of that will be foreign capital—particularly useful where it’s bringing in new investments and new jobs. We’re seeing it down in Otago, particularly, at the moment, in the mining sector. We are bringing expertise, bringing capital, and opening up massive opportunities. They will be very high-paying jobs, and they’re high-paying jobs in New Zealand rather than in Australia, where many of our people are going to the mining sector. They can now come to Otago, which of course is a much better place.

In terms of the scaremongering that’s going on around this, I just want to reiterate that there is a national interest test in this. We’ve made sure that that remains. There is no change for farmland, for fishing quota, and for the residential property considerations. We have held firm on those things—they’re really important to us. As you know, within a coalition there’s a range of views on this stuff, but I think we’ve struck a balance. We’ve used our proportionate influence to make sure those things are protected, through the select committee process and the high interest that there was—3,500 submissions.

This is something that matters to New Zealanders. There’s a certain portion of New Zealanders that represent us that would want to see us protecting those core values that we hold, and we believe we have, and got balance within the wide spectrum of views within this coalition. With that, we continue to commend it to the House.

A five-minute call, Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As my previous speaker—the Hon Julie Anne Genter—mentioned, the Green Party will not support this bill. There are very good reasons for that. I think, when we hear the Minister who is in charge talking about how we are unkind or we’re not welcoming to foreign investors, that’s not necessarily the case. But where we are unkind and not accommodating to foreign investors is those who come to Aotearoa New Zealand with ill will, with the idea of exploiting our country, and especially those projects that have been rejected in other countries, particularly some of the other OECD countries. I want to point out that while one of the previous speakers mentioned that we have a more stringent requirement than other OECD countries, that particular member also could not name a single one.

When we are looking at this bill, let’s talk about a couple of things that the bill does address and, I think, some of the submitters during the select committee process have explored reasonably well. In clause 8, we do see some of the changes that we’re looking at in terms of the investor test. I think, as the submitters pointed out and we see some changes that have been made as part of the select committee stage, that the investor test will no longer seek—particularly with regards to sensitive land—background checks on some of these investors, particularly when there are investors who may have a criminal record or may have projects or investments in other countries that are illegal, for lack of a better word; some of those adjustments have been changed as part of this legislation. There is a concern that if they do change aspects of the investor test—I acknowledge that some of them have retained things like around farmlands, things around coastal areas; however, there are still sections that remain a concern in terms of the removal of some of the sections when it comes to an investment test, particularly in terms of the oversight of sensitive lands, forests, and water resources.

I think this is one of the issues we are seeing with the weakening of the environmental safeguards, particularly when it comes to water bottling and extraction. This was something that was a huge problem maybe about eight years ago, that we saw this play out in certain areas. Water is—fresh water, in particular—a taonga, and we do need to look after our own resources.

In those kinds of cases, while a lot of people say “Oh, look, investment is good. Investment creates jobs.”, we also haven’t clearly heard the Government side concisely articulate exactly how many jobs they expect it to create as a result of this. We do see a lot of sound bites being created but not a lot of tangible evidence to say, “Look, we are going to be seeing 4,000 jobs in this area, therefore we’re going to be seeing X number of jobs.” At least in the Green Budget, for example, it clearly articulated we’re going to be creating 40,000 jobs, but we haven’t seen some of that being played out by this Government and in this particular bill.

Also, when we are looking at some of these areas in terms of this particular piece of legislation in conjunction with other legislation that has also gone through the House—for example, the Invest New Zealand Bill that was going through the House under urgency without even a select committee process, where we have already said that if we do continue and change the settings to the way we look at overseas investment and things like the national interest test and other matters, we are going to be seeing that Invest New Zealand will, essentially, function as a real estate agency that sells off New Zealand piece by piece. Again, we do ask why certain political parties that presume to put Aotearoa New Zealand first do not look at this bill with a more critical lens.

Finally, I think some of the submitters, particularly Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey, have raised a number of really important questions around the interaction with the free-trade agreement, and particularly when we’re looking from a forestry perspective and how that will affect, in terms of the ratchet clauses that we’re seeing, an ability to relook at forestry and into sort of native or alternative land, as well as certain interactions that we saw with ISDS—that’s the investor-State dispute settlement process.

All in all, we are seeing that this bill is being put across without any sort of genuine understanding or genuine, well-thought-out argument to say that this is something that will benefit Aotearoa New Zealand. At this stage, we cannot—actually, we probably won’t support this bill at all. We are going to still be asking some questions at the committee stage.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was only two days ago that I was speaking to a lady who has got property on the edge of our city, and it’s ripe for development. She wants to offload it, but no local buyers will take it. She’s been dealing with the Overseas Investment Office. It’s too hard and she’s been pulling her hair out. She said that lawyers want tens of thousands of dollars. This bill is all about streamlining and making it easy, and instead of that going on and on for up to 70 days, in some cases, it limits it to 15 working days. It’s a no-brainer, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m no longer on this wonderful committee that we have—the Finance and Expenditure Committee—but I remember my time on it fondly. I absolutely gained deep respect for the work that my colleague Barbara Edmonds did on that committee at the time when she was the chair.

I picked up this piece of legislation, and it’s actually been one of those moments when I look at a piece of legislation and really worry. I worry partly because of the kinds of comments that I heard from the Minister presenting it but also from Ryan Hamilton, who has just stood up. Now, he said very little in that speech, but he did heckle one of the other members when they suggested that some formidable economists had been concerned about this legislation. He said in his statement across the House “Did those people run a business?”, and I thought, “Well, did David Seymour run a business?”

What I am concerned about is that ideology is front-footing this piece of legislation, when in fact this is the very sort of legislation that we should tread carefully with. I looked at the regulatory impact statement and my concerns grew. In the regulatory impact statement, it says that “While the potential benefits of attracting more international investment are clear, there are also risks that need to be managed. New Zealand is facing a fundamentally more challenging security outlook, and an enduring screening regime is required to manage risks to our national interest that emerge over time.”

We are living in unprecedented times. What we are doing in this piece of legislation is easing up the scrutiny that we have on foreign investment, and that’s a very dangerous thing to do. It goes well beyond the skills of running a business, but it is also of concern to those who do, and it’s of concern that that report goes on to talk about the evidence for this and it looks at how there is some evidence from developing countries, but very little from countries like ours, if we do this, in terms of the benefits of it. That was from Treasury, and I am particularly concerned.

Some of the submitters are people I really admire, who have been very worried about this piece of legislation. One is Dame Anne Salmond, who is a national treasure. She’s one of our deepest thinkers, and she stands very much independently. I don’t think that she is a member of any party, but she is particularly concerned about the impact that it will have on iwi, and I share that concern.

What we have here, and have had here until now, are safeguards, and it’s so important that when we look at those things, we don’t look through an ideological lens. We’re trying to balance interests here. Yes, there’s nothing wrong with some foreign investment. In fact, that’s a really good thing, and Labour has put up a proposal to have a future fund so that it can attract that investment but keep it onshore. But it’s a very different thing when we tip that balance and concentrate all the power in a Minister’s hands about where those decisions will lie.

I am concerned about that, and I go to the Labour Party view first here. They have a differing view that they spell out in the report back on this piece of legislation. The members who were representing us, including the Hon Barbara Edmonds, said that “The Labour Party considers that the bill shifts the balance of overseas investment consent away from the principle that investment in New Zealand is a privilege, and undermines the scrutiny of applications. We consider that removal of the character test and reliance on Ministerial directive letter puts New Zealand at risk from inappropriate foreign investment.”

That’s a pretty serious thing to do, to shift that balance, and I have made that point right at the beginning of my speech. I’m particularly concerned about shifting that balance right now, because we have a very different world from the world we had even 10 years ago. We have the conglomeration of power and a lot of autocracy, and, actually, those big, big countries that are not necessarily democratic—they want in to other people’s economies, and that is in fact something that we should worry about. We should make sure that we keep control of our land.

In this country, we’ve been really, really streets ahead in our reconciliation for what happened when we colonised in this country and for the damage that was done. We have had a reconciliation process that’s ongoing, and we have had a lot of iwi ending up with a lot more of the resources than they have had. It is pitifully little, really, given how much they’ve lost, but with those resources, there has been investment in New Zealand, and we have a skyrocketing Māori economy. The businesses that Māori are running in this country are remarkable. It is one our most growing areas, and what we are doing here is we are opening the gate to foreign investment, with very little regard for that.

The reason I’ve been most worried about that is that it’s not the only thing that this Government has been doing. It’s been undermining all the value that there has been in recognising the principles of the Treaty. It’s been undermining that very development, and so this is a worry to me. It’s a worry at a foreign interference level, it’s a worry at a “lack of control by New Zealanders” level, and it’s a worry in terms of a burgeoning economy that is based on, really, a Māori renaissance of economic power.

This is of extreme concern to me, and I was very interested to hear the comments from the Green members when they stood up. I look at their contribution to this report back, and they are talking about things that matter. They are talking about the centralisation of power, they are talking about the weakening of environmental and public safeguards, they are talking about the Treaty of Waitangi and Māori interests, and they are talking about the public and expert concern which rallied against this bill by an overwhelming amount. Those are all things that we need to hear in this Parliament. Even if the position that the Government takes is different, they don’t need to be dismissed as views that are somehow extreme, because they are not extreme. Those are logical concerns that we should all share, and I don’t have to be a member of the Green Party to share those concerns and to listen to those points of view.

We are supposed to be a mature Parliament. We should be able to listen to views on the other side and consider them, and consider a changing world in light of them. Those things that are raised here in the Labour differing view and in the Green differing view—I am worried that those chickens will come home to roost in this area. It is time not to get up and make a 30-second speech, and not to get up and say a 30-second line, but to get up and actually think about this legislation and make a contribution. Even if the Government members disagree with the Opposition, it would be good to hear about the balancing that’s gone on and the checks and balances that are in place.

Now, I’ve heard some of that contribution today, but I haven’t heard enough of it. What I have heard is a lot of people whipping through the agenda and getting this put through with very little scrutiny at all. It is important to me to actually make the point that, on this side of the House, the Opposition is doing its job and it is competent in doing it. That is why those views will stand the test of time, and it is very important that they are not dismissed and they’re not seen as being somehow completely radical when, in fact, the position that has been taken is a pretty reasonable one in a changing world. We should be concerned in this country about losing control over our assets. They’re precious to New Zealanders. We’ve made those mistakes before, and we shouldn’t be making them again.

I am for the Future Fund. I’m for doing these things in a way that keeps assets within New Zealand and which grows our own autonomy and control and power over those assets. That’s where we put our energy, and we keep the safeguards and we’re cautious—we’re cautious and we’re savvy—about the world we now live in before we give up those powers to other people. Thank you.

This bill is all part of the Government’s plan to go for growth. This is all about growth, and how do we get growth? We get it by investment, and either it’s domestic investment or, in this case, foreign investment. You can’t just say you’re all about growth and then not be prepared to actually welcome foreign investment. Countries like Estonia, South Korea, Switzerland, Ireland, and Singapore—much wealthier countries than New Zealand—have all said, “Come, foreign investment.” This is what this bill is about: making it easy and simple to invest in this country so that we can go for growth. I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Otirā kei te tū awau ki te whakahē i tēnei pire, arā te pire Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Indeed, I stand to oppose this bill, the Overseas Investment (National Interest Test and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.]

Last week, it was my privilege to receive a petition from Bevan O’Connor of Ngāti Kahungunu to withdraw the Regulatory Standards Bill, a bill which received 0.7 percent support of submitters. Here we are again, pushing through a bill that only 0.6 percent of submitters supported. What does that tell you, Aotearoa? The Government are deaf to your whakaaro. They want to run the country, they want to run it with you in it, but they will not hear your views on it.

We hear about the amazing success of the Māori economy. We know the Māori economy has got an asset base of $126 billion and contributed $32 billion to GDP. Now, how did they do that?

Isn’t there foreign investment in the Māori economy?

How did they do that, expert on the Māori economy? They did that by recovering, retaining, and protecting assets for the growth not only of iwi, hapū, and their descendants and the ability to stay on their whenua and grow communities, like those you proport to represent. That’s how they did it.

Now, this Government is disregarding that and making statements like, “These are dealing with less-sensitive assets.” What is a less-sensitive asset to an uri of Aotearoa, an uri of hapū, and an uri of iwi? When a woman is pregnant, the child takes sustenance from the placenta, which we call whenua. When we’re born, we continue to take sustenance from the whenua. That’s why we know its value. Then we identify ourselves with our maunga, our awa, and our whenua. That’s its value. A perfect example is the beautiful Whanganui: ko au te awa, ko te awa ko au—I am the river, and the river is me. It sounds like the local MP would be happy to hock it off.

Hoi anō rā, we are talking about less sensitive assets. Once again, this shows a disregard for Te Tiriti o Waitangi. How often do we sit in this House and say, “We all support these Treaty settlements.”? We look up at people who have been disenfranchised from their whenua. We hear about the disgraceful impacts of that. We all say—including that side—“We are so sorry. We’re so sorry we’ve taken that away from you.” Yet here we are again, willing to take that risk. The other reason the Māori economy is going so strongly is a point that my esteemed colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds pointed out: it’s that we understand it is indeed a privilege to invest in Aotearoa.

I just want to acknowledge the people throughout Aotearoa who submitted on this, and many others. Sadly, because we’ve got a tone-deaf Government, people around this country have had to become experts on writing submissions, just for them to fall on deaf ears. People, like Te Hunga Rōia, some of the most impressive minds in this country, were completely disregarded, and people like the Māori Women’s Development Incorporation, who have been directly responsible for contributing to the growth of not just the Māori economy but the overall Aotearoa economy for the investment they make in growing skills.

Heoi anō rā, hei whakakapi i tēnei [Anyway, to conclude this], I reinforce our opposition to this, but I just want to, again, reinforce Labour’s vision for the growth of Aotearoa, a vision, like the New Zealand Future Fund, that will not only ensure economic growth, it will ensure it here in Aotearoa, by Aotearoa, and for Aotearoa—while not closing our doors to the world but making sure that the world knows what we stand for, and that is kaitiakitanga, not just growing the pūtea. Like I’ve said, our kaitiakitanga is forever.

To grow our economy, we need to attract overseas capital investment. New Zealand currently has one of the most restrictive foreign investment regimes in the OECD. This has cost us opportunities and jobs. We need to speed up decision making and improve certainty for investors and say, “New Zealand is open for business”. This is what creates jobs and opportunity. I commend this bill to the House

It’s a line of one of my favourite songs: “Once it’s gone, baby, it’s gone.” Once those assets are gone, it’s gone. It’s probably a bit more modern to many of the members on that side, but I know members across this House have driven by ports around New Zealand and have seen our logs sitting on ports—raw, undeveloped, harvested, but certainly not produced through our mills—and simply going offshore. What value does New Zealand get from that? I can tell you: bugger all. Eventually, New Zealand will go to other countries where these logs are sold and buy that produce back to this country. That was the outcome of asset sales of this kind that went unchecked, unregulated, and now sees the vast majority of our forests in this country owned by offshore investors. That’s not the New Zealand for the future.

When I was a trustee on our tribal forest trust, it worked because of the reasons my colleague here—Cushla Tangaere-Manuel— espoused to the House: (1) we were never going to sell our land or give it away; (2) when we grow those resources on our land, we need to make sure that those resources produce outcomes for the people who benefit from that land. That means jobs, wealth, income, and opportunity. When you sell those assets, they’re gone.

Now, I’m looking this way for a certain reason, because New Zealand First, I know, believes in this. New Zealand First knows that selling off our assets is a bad thing for this country. Yes, of course we want foreign investment. In fact, when the Government held their foreign investment symposium earlier in their tenure of this term, who were the ones that the foreign investors wanted to talk to? Māori. Why? Because Māori have a 100-year strategic view. They’re not flogging off the asset for a short sugar hit; for an income hit that will help them develop their community. No, these investors are saying to Māori, “What you’re looking at is strategic. Let’s work together to make sure that everybody benefits from this.”

From the speeches we’ve heard from the other side of the House, all I’ve heard is, “Let’s get rid of them to the people we like so that we can grow our economy.” That’s just not good enough. The submitters on this bill were very clear; my colleague made it clear that very few people supported this bill. In fact, some of the smartest minds in this country have made it very clear that this bill going unchecked, without the kind of recommendations that could provide a strong platform for foreign investment into this country, have been completely ignored. Those particular amendments that could have been included, I think will come back and bite this Government in the backside.

We know when we hold our assets, when we develop them, when we invest in them, it works out well for this country. There was a motto that was heard bellowed in this House in two previous terms by a member from New Zealand First, who would always say “Billion trees”—“Billion trees”. For those of you who are in this House, you’ll know who I’m talking about. That made it very clear that the strategic goal of the Government at the time was to grow those resources for this country. Why? Because we knew we had a housing shortage, we knew we had an infrastructure shortage, and we knew we could produce the vast bulk of those resources to meet those needs. Trees were one way to do that.

The National Party and the ACT Party, though, saw it as an opportunity to say, “Oh, they’re getting rid of farmland; they’re turning it into forestry, etc., etc.” Sure, they gained the platform through the election by doing so. However, now what we have is fewer forests in New Zealand hands. Those trees that were planted in and invested in to grow carbon credits in this country have, for the most part, been sold off. We also know, too, that when we were in power, Labour invested in making sure we could process that wood and that timber. Sadly, that’s all gone now. Now, we go back to that time I mentioned at the start of my contribution. We drive past ports with raw logs sitting there waiting to be exported to other countries.

The National Party and the ACT Party say, “Look at Singapore. They rely on foreign investment to get going.” Well, guess what! Singapore don’t have forests. Singapore don’t have valuable conservation land. Singapore don’t have all of the resources that we are blessed with in this country. I’ve been to Singapore. You can run the length of that country. Well, I can; some members in this House, Mr McCallum’s one—I suspect he won’t be able to do that. None the less, the point of it is this: they were strategic in their time to make sure that their investment invested in their own human capability. That’s why they have such high technology avenues. That’s why they have such a productive economy: because they invested that way. What this, sadly, does, though, is it continues to—in a concern for all of us—lower thresholds to allow more people to come in and to invest and to buy up assets in this country.

Now, what it also does is something that we’ve seen time and time again from, in particular, the ACT Party, where democracy means nothing or means very little. It’s putting the power in the hand of the Minister of Finance to go, “Nah, today I feel like this and I might do that; or tomorrow—nah, I might not let that one go through.” Now, while I accept that a ministerial post comes with huge responsibility, when we’re talking about the country’s strategic assets, I’m of a mind that those matters should be debated here in this House—somewhere where we can have a full democratic process that says, “These are the views our country have towards the strategic assets that we have either on the market or off the market at the moment.” Now, I think that that’s reasonable. When we continue to marginalise the voice of many and put the power into the hands of so few, I have a problem with that—and we’ve seen it far too many times on this bill.

I’m always concerned when we look towards the erosion of Treaty rights—and there have been a number of legal cases that have been won, hard-fought for, through the high courts in this country, through the local court, through the District Court, and on to the High Court and the Supreme Court, that have continued to reaffirm Māori rights in this country. I’m not just talking about customary title; I’m talking about actual rights to areas that were confiscated by the Crown over many years.

Yet here we are, continually eroding that voice and that part that Te Tiriti o Waitangi offers protection for this country, not just for Māori. It offers protection for this country; for all citizens in this country to say, “These are important assets to all of us, so let’s look after them. Let’s look after them for the benefit of the majority and not for the benefit of the few.” Te Tiriti o Waitangi is not the enemy here; in fact, it is a gateway. I said earlier that the conference that the Government held looking for foreign investment look towards Māori to ensure that long-term investments were the way that everybody wins—and you get that through to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

One of the things I’m proud of, when this House does its settlements, is when we return strategic assets, we look towards allowing iwi to grow that asset for themselves. My colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel sat here and went through the numbers. But I can tell you—it was 30 years ago when Waikato-Tainui settled the first settlement under Jim Bolger and Doug Graham—that it’s taken a long time to grow that pie. A long time: 30 years. That’s called having a strategic view. Elections in this country are every three years, and we’re looking for a sugar hit.

Instead, we need to be taking a longer-term view just like Waikato-Tainui have, just like Ngāi Tahu have, and so many other iwi now. Some iwi—and I know a small handful have looked towards their strategic assets and how they might be able to leverage off them, and some of them have indeed either leased them or sold them. That’s OK; that’s their right. They can do that. However, they’ve continued to maintain an ongoing welfare mechanism; an ongoing outcome mechanism for their descendants and those who have registered with those tribes. Ultimately, though, that supports New Zealand’s economic growth.

Now, if we look towards smarter investments into the future, yes, let’s do what Singapore does. Let’s look towards an economy that is about not just looking at our natural resources but the greatest resource in this country, which is our human capacity, right? That’s what Singapore did, and look what they were able to do. That’s what other countries have done, and look what they were able to do. Instead, we keep coming back to this fight for assets in this country, and I beg the New Zealand First Party to make sure that they stand by what they keep saying to our community: protect our national assets.

I say to the New Zealand First Party that it’s not too late. They’ve got an opportunity through the urgency that we’ll all be going through over the next three days to make it clear that we stand together on protecting national resources of significance and making sure that it produces outcomes not for the rich overseas, but for New Zealanders.

New Zealand has had one of the most restrictive regimes for investment in the OECD countries. This legislation is balanced, pro-growth reform. I commend the bill to the House.

The Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe—this is the Te Pāti Māori call.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. He tino hōnore tēnei ki te tū ake ki te kōrero ki tēnei pire.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a real honour to stand to speak to this bill.]

I’m sure Te Pāti Māori would want me to talk about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, which I’m pleased to do. This bill, to me, is a sign of a weak leadership, of a weak Government that’s trying to look for a shortcut for better outcomes. I’ll give you an example around Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was the New Zealand Māori Council that took the Crown to court over forestry, and it went all the way to the Privy Council. They won, and those lands were put aside for the purpose of Treaty settlements. Imagine today, with this bill, an Act that, if this bill was in place then, probably wouldn’t have happened. A shortcut doesn’t always give the best outcomes for all New Zealanders, because what that did was give an opportunity to grow the Māori economy that my colleague Cushla Tangaere-Manuel spoke about and that my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare spoke about. I speak about that now as a warning, and I support what my colleague the Hon Barbara Edmonds said, who gave some pathways forward in her foresight of what’s about to go wrong with this bill. It’s incumbent on this House, actually, to make sure it’s listening to all of those voices. Shortcuts don’t always mean the best way forward. Mr Speaker, thank you.

Mr Speaker?

Sorry, there are no more calls on this bill.

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

I move, That urgency be accorded to the first reading and referral to select committee of the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill; the remaining stages of: the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill; and the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill; the third reading of the Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill; the remaining stages of: the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill; and the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2); the first reading and referral to select committee of: the Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill; and the Meteorological Services (Acquisition and Policies) Legislation Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill; and the remaining stages of: the Statutes Amendment Bill; the Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill; the Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill; and the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill.

We are going into urgency today to get through legislation before the end of the year. None of the bills progressing this week will skip their select committee process.

The Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill is having its first reading today to send it to a select committee and open up submissions before the end of the year.

The Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill is being passed to mitigate the risks of strikes over the summer break, which would require Parliament to come back early.

The Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill is passing its remaining stages this week, which will allow changes proposed in the Education and Training (System Reform) Bill to make more sense.

The Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill and the Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill are going through their remaining stages; both are part of the Government’s quarter four plan, and this will achieve our commitment to pass them this year.

The Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2) will pass its remaining stages this week to complete a commitment that the Government made about the Clean Vehicle Standard, notably to reduce the charges for 2026-2027.

The Telecommunications and Other Matters Amendment Bill is being sent to select committee. This bill is closely aligned with the Telecommunications Amendment Bill, which had its first reading last week, and the select committee will benefit from being able to consider both bills at the same time.

The Statutes Amendment Bill is going through its last two stages this week. There are minor and technical changes in this bill, including for the anti - money-laundering regime, which will ease compliance costs for reporting entities.

The Game Animal Council (Herds of Special Interest) Amendment Bill is having its second reading. We want to progress this bill to get us closer to making the rules around herds of special interest clearer.

The Meteorological Services (Acquisition and Policies) Legislation Amendment Bill is being sent to select committee in order to begin the process that will provide a single authoritative voice in the case of future weather events.

The Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill is going through its remaining stages, which will improve the integrity of the immigration system.

The Legal Services (Distribution of Special Fund) Amendment Bill and the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill are completing their remaining stages and will give effect to Budget 2025 savings.

I present a legislative statement on the Education and Training (System Reform) 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 Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I would intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 30 April 2026.

It’s crucial that New Zealand has a world-leading education system that encourages every young person to reach their full potential, and the bill introduces a set of fundamental, system-level changes that strengthen the structure and accountability of our education system. The bill establishes a new Crown agent, the New Zealand School Property Agency—“the agency”, I’ll refer to it as—which will have a key focus on maintaining and building the school property portfolio.

Last year, I established a ministerial inquiry into the Ministry of Education school property function. This inquiry was launched after we inherited a school property system that was bordering on crisis. The inquiry found that the current system for delivering school property was not fit for purpose and needs overhauling to give the right level of focus and accountability, improve the decision-making process, and provide transparency.

Since then, we have taken a phased approach to address the inquiry’s findings. Clear focus and accountability are essential to ensure efficient delivery and good investment and asset management practices. This bill proposes to establish the new Crown agent, the New Zealand School Property Agency, with a board that has the expertise needed to achieve these priorities for the school property portfolio. The agency will be responsible for delivering growth requirements set by the Ministry of Education and will also have the autonomy to plan and deliver maintenance across the property portfolio. This will allow the Ministry of Education to focus on delivering essential educational outcomes for students.

I consider this model provides the right balance of flexibility, transparency, and ministerial direction, while creating leadership and board oversight that supports commercial discipline. This bill progresses a package of changes to reform the regulation of the teaching workforce and help ensure graduate teachers can be confident in the classroom.

The latest report from the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International survey shows that 62 percent of graduate teachers of year 1 to 10 students were not confident their initial teacher education (ITE) had prepared them sufficiently in teaching content of all subjects they needed to teach; 54 percent weren’t confident ITE gave them the knowledge they needed about pedagogical approaches on how to teach. This reflects earlier evidence from a 2024 Education Review Office (ERO) report that showed only 50 percent of new teachers found that their ITE—their initial teacher education—was effective. The Royal Society of New Zealand’s 2021 report also noted that nearly half of all year 4 teachers were only moderately confident in teaching any strand of mathematics and statistics in the curriculum.

That is a failure of the system. Initial teacher education is not properly preparing our teaching workforce. The Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand oversees setting teacher standards and setting requirements for teacher training, and it is clear that it’s not working. This bill proposes to shift the responsibility for professional standard setting, and those functions, from the Teaching Council to the Ministry of Education. This includes responsibility for establishing and maintaining the standards and criteria for teacher registration, initial teacher education, ongoing practice, and the code of conduct.

I consider that shifting these functions to the Ministry of Education will allow for better alignment of policy and standard-setting functions and improve overall system consistency and coherence. Separating functions also creates better tensions in the system. This is in line with occupational registration settings in other jurisdictions, such as England and Singapore. The Teaching Council will continue its responsibility to quality assure all ITE programmes. Currently, the Teaching Council has no legislative powers to properly monitor ITE programs. This bill provides it with new legislative powers to power them up—the Teaching Council—to place conditions on new or existing programme approvals and remove approvals following consultation with the Secretary for Education; and monitor and review teacher education providers’ delivery of approved programmes, with the power to require specific information from providers as part of these processes. It’s a new legislative power.

Under these proposed changes, the Teaching Council will continue its responsibilities for registering and certifying teachers, and competence and conduct processes. To support the council’s new scope and ensure it can stay focused on its core functions, the bill will strengthen the council’s role in quality assurance of initial teacher education programmes with these new legislative powers; remove its professional enhancement and leadership functions, as these are system-wide functions supported by multiple agencies; and reduce the size of the council from 13 members to between seven and nine members, with a total of three elected members from the sector. I consider these changes will help to ensure the council operates effectively and efficiently and that it’s focused on its core role: providing good governance and improved initial teacher education and services to teachers.

Quality teaching must be supported by a high-quality curriculum. The curriculum hasn’t been updated consistently over time, which has resulted in infrequent wholesale reform every 20 years. The proposal for curriculum areas to be reviewed and updated regularly over time in an iterative way will keep them current and based on evidence and avoid these large, disruptive overhauls we have every 20 years. This has been long been the case in high-performing jurisdictions we compare ourselves to. Additionally, the proposal combines the separate curriculum statements into one, making the requirements clearer for schools.

The bill also replaces a requirement for schools to consult with their community about the delivery of the health curriculum, with a requirement to inform. Last year, the Education Review Office reported that the requirement to consult often unfairly places schools in the middle of wide-ranging community views, and managing this is very difficult. With the introduction of a new age-appropriate, detailed, and clear health curriculum, year by year, schools will provide parents with better information about what is taught and how, so parents can make informed decisions on whether their child should be involved in relationships and sexuality education or not.

Roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities across the education system can be at times unclear, fragmented, and have confusing overlaps. This bill proposes to transfer the full set of regulatory functions for registering private schools and licensing hostels from the Ministry of Education to the Education Review Office. This will help reduce duplication between agencies, clarify the role of ERO, and strengthen the approach to keeping service providers and education accountable. In line with best practice, the Ministry of Education will retain the standard- and criteria-setting functions for both private school registration and hostel licensing.

The bill also aims to clarify the current complementary roles of ERO and the Ministry of Education in identifying and supporting schools deemed to be of serious concern. It sets out detailed reporting requirements with clear time frames for both agencies. The bill also provides for the Ministry of Education and the Minister to rely on ERO’s judgment and information when determining whether the thresholds for statutory intervention are met. ERO will be expected to provide review reports with the evidence needed to guide the ministry’s approach to supporting a school of serious concern, including the most appropriate intervention under section 171 of the Education and Training Act.

Raising achievement starts with showing up to school. The bill’s aim to clarify expectations and strengthen accountability is also supported by the proposed changes to tighten how exemptions from school attendance are currently used. Under the proposed changes, principals will only be able to exempt attendance on the grounds prescribed in the rules set by the Secretary for Education. The new rules will provide specific requirements for the duration of any exemption that may be granted and the types of evidence required to authorise an exemption. The bill also repeals the attendance exemption relating to the walking distance between a student’s residence and their school.

Finally, the bill makes a number of other changes. A high-performing system relies on good quality data and evidence to guide decisions on how best to meet the needs of the students. This bill requires schools to participate in studies that monitor the performance of our schooling systems, such as the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment—known as PISA. Currently, the assessments are opt-in, which creates real challenges in ensuring the data is robust and representative. Low participation rates currently put us at risk of not meeting the threshold for inclusion in this and other international studies. Making these assessments mandatory will help with ensuring the participation load is evenly shared amongst schools and we get a truer picture of the state of education in the system, as, at the moment, that load falls on a few schools who always say yes.

The bill addresses a gap by enabling NZQA to include micro-credentials in the reporting requirements for education providers, ensuring the completeness of a student’s record of achievement. The bill also supports the next stage in the charter school model by enabling multi-school contracts and creating more certainty for converted charter schools by providing a pathway to close and open as a new State school under circumstances.

This bill delivers a comprehensive package of system-level reforms that clarify roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities, promotes consistency, coherence, and efficiency, and ensures our system is set up to support all students to succeed. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’ve had some terrible bills in the education space in recent times, and yet here we have another one.

But wait, there’s more.

That’s exactly right: wait, there’s more. We’ve got an education profession at the moment that is just disbelieving of how low things are getting in the sector and can’t see that anything’s going to lift anytime soon. This bill is yet another ideological attack on teachers and the education system as a whole. It undermines the independence of the teaching profession.

I want to actually start right now by saying a future Labour Government will repeal this bill. This is a fundamental shift about who has control in education and about who has the power—and guess what! It isn’t the teachers, it isn’t the parents, and it isn’t the kids. The kids who should be at the centre of the system are certainly not at the centre of this particular bill. This is a fundamental shift that puts the power plainly in the Beehive and into the hands of people that know little about the education system, but have reckons on what it will be. Just listening to that speech by the Minister, there wasn’t one piece of evidence—not one piece—that backed up that particular speech that would show a difference within the sector that would raise achievement in our kids. This is, yet again, as I said, another ideological attack on how schools are supposed to operate. The implications for all who are involved in the schooling sector are huge.

Let’s talk really plainly here about what is at stake. Perhaps the most troubling things that the Minister talked about were the responsibility of the teaching standards, the registration criteria, the practising certificate criteria, and even the code of conduct moving from the Teaching Council to the Secretary for Education. No longer do we have a professional body that is being designed and co-designed with the sector themselves and working within their own professional realm. That has been taken completely away. What does that mean? That means that teaching standards become political instruments. That means that registration criteria can shift with the ideology of the Government of the day. Rather than being independent, as they are now, and being sought over and seen by the Teaching Council, they will be at the whim of the Government of the day. People on the opposite side can shake their head, but all they’re shaking their head on is their own reckons, not on one single piece of evidence at all.

The education system that we have held so strongly in this country—and that, I will say, particularly in the indigenous area, is being held up as a gold standard around the rest of the world—is at real risk, under this particular bill, of actually going backwards. That is a heartbreaking day to see what this Government is doing to our education system, purely based on their ideological reckons.

Curriculum control under this bill shifts directly into the Beehive. No longer do we have a curriculum, according to this particular bill, that will be standardised across the country, because it talks about a differentiated curriculum based on school size, school location, and school type. What is that about? That doesn’t even make sense to what we’ve known in this country for so long. It has obviously been informed by people that know very little about education, full stop. The work that the Minister talked about, taking help and informing parents, is not co-design; that’s being done to. It’s not aligned with anything that we know in this country about curriculum, full stop. It is completely a backward step. This is centralised prescription dressed up as efficiency. Once again, I say that a future Labour Government will repeal all in this terrible, terrible education bill.

It seems like the Minister of Education has not learnt anything from her mistakes, and the mistake that she has made these past weeks is on exactly what it would be like if you piss off the education sector. It seems like we have a Minister who doesn’t understand that the very basic of education is that you learn from your mistakes and you don’t repeat them again. Yet here we are, having this bill, the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill, being introduced to the House. I love the fact that suddenly everyone in this House is a teacher. I would love to see your teaching qualifications. Show us some qualifications! Otherwise, please be quiet.

And what are your qualifications?

I actually think that having spent years teaching in a secondary school in an international school and also in a university would be sufficient, Mr Carl Bates, because, frankly, that is sufficient. You know what? If you don’t like it, get a doctorate. I think they’re great.

In terms of this, we have heard from the fact that the Teaching Council is going to have their power removed. We have seen already in the previous bill that the balance of scale is tipped towards ministerial appointees, but now we’re seeing that has been further reduced from 13 members to between seven to nine members, with only three being from the sector. Most of them are going to be appointed by the Minister, and that is going to politicise the teaching profession. You could dress things up by saying, “We are seeing that things aren’t performing.” We are seeing the Minister using reports like TELUS 2024. Yet we also have a Minister who likes to cherry-pick information. She never highlights the actual issues in some of those reports but will only use certain data so she can push her own political agenda.

She is someone who, again, like I said, has no background in education and has never set foot in front of a classroom yet thinks that she is better than everyone else. I have said it before, and I’ll say it again: it is sheer arrogance.

And now we’ll come back to the bill, because we’re getting a little personal.

When it comes to this bill, there are also other things. We have the New Zealand School Properties Agency. Now, the problem we’re finding with the School Properties Agency—and this is something we will be looking into in the select committee stage—is the fact that the School Properties Agency will come to your school and will make all of the changes and then bill you for it. We are not seeing the Minister increasing the operational fund for schools as a response to this. We’re not seeing the Minister addressing the systematic and the longstanding deficit in the funding we’re providing, so schools aren’t able to do that. If you’re interested, the operational fund this year was only increased by 1.5 percent according to the Budget, yet inflation is at 2.3 percent. Therefore, you’re not actually increasing the operational funding; you’re, in fact, reducing it by 0.8 percent, and that is according to the Government’s own Budget.

The School Properties Agency is going to do all of this, yet we are not seeing them addressing the systematic—the root cause of some of the issues. We’re seeing this open slather allowing the corporatisation, even more than what we’re seeing now, in terms of charter schools. We’re seeing that the Minister can make even more directions around things in the curriculum so that you don’t even need to consult the parents when it comes to health. Well, relationship and sexual education is facing some serious issues because, again, the Minister is being led by other political parties on how they are changing that particular curriculum. We’re seeing an overreach going on with an even more punitive effect being done in terms of the Education Review Office. We’re seeing with attendance that schools can’t have the flexibility of knowing when people are not attending schools. Instead, there is a really prescribed way that you can mark when they are not attending.

I’m sorry, but I’m really glad that the Minister comes from a community that doesn’t have instances where a child is not attending school because their parent is dying from cancer in a hospital three towns away and that’s why they’re not attending. I’m really happy that the Ministers from East Coast Bays and Epsom are not facing those kinds of challenges we’re seeing in rural schools and rural communities. But these are the facts when you’re talking to some of these schools on why students are not attending.

Lastly, just to finish, the Minister wants to use the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), but do you know what? You can do all of that, but 75 percent of people don’t take PISA seriously. Students don’t take PISA seriously. It is not a good measure. The Greens will not support this, because it’s not robust.

I was just listening to that speech, and there’s a lot I could say, but the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan seemed to think it was a problem that the Minister is influenced by other parties in coalition. Now, think about this for a moment: the whole premise of the member’s political party is that one party can influence another in coalition. This shows how a person can be very smart and very stupid all at the same time.

As for his personal attacks on Erica Stanford, our Minister of Education—

Shameful.

—really quite shameful. But let me say this: Erica Stanford is reforming education for the better in this country and being more effective than that member ever will be.

Back on this bill. Changing school attendance exemptions is one of the things it does. It ensures that if a principal wants to exempt a student from attendance, they have to do it under guidelines set by the secretary, because the number one thing you can do to improve education is make sure that students are at school. This Government is serious about it. We have significantly improved educational attendance in the time we’ve been in office, and you ain’t seen nothing yet.

You just cut our service—you just cut it.

Then there’s—oh, Shanan Halbert says, “You just cut it.”; actually, we just increased educational attendance funding by $140 million. Now, for a guy who thinks the solution to every problem is throwing money at it, I would have thought he’d see that as an improvement. But we’re doing more than that: we’re changing the rules, we’re getting people focused, we’re putting in place the Stepped Attendance Response system, and we’re ensuring that students are actually at school.

We’re making more improvements to our wonderful charter school model, which is announcing innovative school after innovative school in order that those who convert to charter standards have a pathway back, because you should be able to choose and the choice should work both ways. I think that is an exceptional improvement.

I’ll make a couple of comments about the property management changes. For too long, there’s been a conflict between managing an education system and managing property within the Ministry of Education. Anyone who’s an electorate MP or takes an interest in their community will know how bad that problem can get. Having a separate agency with the objective of managing the property portfolio, it creates a tension that is natural and sensible.

There are changes to the Teachers Council to make it properly aligned with the objectives of the Government, on behalf of the people of New Zealand. As an electorate MP who has had people blocked from being teachers on spurious grounds, to the detriment of the community, these changes can’t come fast enough.

Finally, this bill transfers functions for private school and hostel regulation from the Ministry of Education to the Education Review Office. However, later this evening, the committee will consider the Education and Training (Early Childhood Education Reform) Amendment Bill, and these two bills together will ensure that the regulation of early childhood education is also moved to the Education Review Office in line with the findings of the Ministry for Regulation’s early childhood education sector review, designed so that we will have a proper tension and separation between the policy shop, which is the Ministry of Education, and the regulator, which is the Education Review Office.

This is a very positive set of changes that a busy Government that has the hearts and minds of New Zealand children front and centre in its agenda is making to ensure that we fix what matters for New Zealand. I just hope that the member on the other side from the Green Party can think a little bit about that, rather than his tawdry epithets that belittle him and this House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Education began by saying that it is essential that we have a world-leading education system. In fact, we’ve just seen that this House has just passed a piece of legislation to say that is now the pre-eminent objective of our education system, and New Zealand First completely agrees with that.

But the problem is—and we’ve heard the opposition coming from the Opposition benches; effectively, a defence of the indefensible, a defence of the status quo. What we know at the moment is that our education system is failing. It’s failing our teachers, it’s failing our students, it’s failing their parents, and it’s failing our future. That is a real, real problem, and we need to do something about that.

New Zealand First has always believed that education is a fundamental right and that every child should get access to quality education and, also, support. We heard from the Opposition benches that no more money’s gone into the education system. What was it?—$750-odd million went into support for the students that actually needed support. That is a significant investment that teachers have been crying out for, and you can bet your life that parents have been crying out for that for years.

Education needs to ensure that our young people learn the skills that they need to be able to inquire, to be taught how to think, but not to be taught what to think. Education needs to prepare young New Zealanders for life, for work, and to be first-rate citizens, not just of New Zealand but first-rate citizens of the world—something that we can be proud of, that they can be proud of.

The Minister has talked through the details of the bill, so I’m not going to go through those at the moment, but I’d really strongly encourage both the Opposition and the people who are going to make submissions on this bill to look in the mirror, to think about this, and to think about our young people, to think about their future, and to think about the future of this country, because, at the moment, our teacher education is failing. The Minister has laid that out very clearly. Attendance levels are poor.

What’s the evidence for that?

Still, they’re improving—great work is being done by the Minister, Minister Seymour, over there. Student capabilities are failing, as well.

Oh, and then, of course, when it comes to property management, how much more efficient now is property management already under this Government to what it was under the last Government? We are making progress. Those are systemic issues, Dr Xu-Nan, that we are working on making improvements to.

The status quo as it is indefensible. We don’t believe that the status quo should stay. This Government and this Minister are making excellent progress, and I look forward to submissions. I hope they are very considered submissions on what is good for the future of this country and our young people. I commend this bill to the House.

E te Pīka, tēnā koe. I’ll get straight to it. The Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill does more than mess around with systems; it reaches directly into the whakapapa of our tamariki and mokopuna. Now, there’s a proverb in te ao Māori that goes like this: “Ko te manu e kai ana i te miro, nōnā te ngāhere; ko te manu e kai ana i te mātauranga, nōnā te ao.” In English, that translates to: “The bird that consumes the miro berry, theirs is the forest; the bird that feasts on knowledge, theirs is the world.” Our babies’ access to knowledge determines the world that they will inherit.

That is why I must speak clearly and courageously to all New Zealanders about the consequences this bill holds for Māori futures. The Minister and this Government claims that this bill is about improving the education system, but those in the sector—the whānau that we’ve been speaking to on the daily and those who are succeeding in the current education model, especially Māori—say otherwise. When we look closely, it is obvious: this bill tightens rules, centralises power, expands privatisation, and pushes Māori voices further to the margins. It claims to strengthen education, but for Māori, it strengthens the barriers.

One of the first changes they talk about is strengthening attendance expectations. That might sound simple, but we all know what this means for our whānau: more pressure, more monitoring, and more judgment. Our whānau are not keeping kids home because they don’t value education. They are dealing with unstable housing, multiple jobs, overcrowded homes, transport costs, mental health pressures, disability barriers, and schools that often have no reo, no tikanga, and no cultural connection. Supported by research, tamariki attend and succeed in education when they feel safe, recognised, and valued. Attendance is a symptom, never the cause, but instead of supporting whānau, this bill leans further into punishment. Once again, Māori become the target and not the priority.

Another major change is the creation of a new national property agency to control school buildings and land. Most people will skim over this, but Māori providers—including kōhanga reo, puna reo, iwi-led learning centres—know exactly how significant this is. Property access is already the single biggest barrier for Māori early learning. Our whānau struggle to secure buildings, to make compliance, to upgrade facilities, because the system was never designed around Māori needs. Just ask Te Kura Kaupapa Māori ā Rohe o Māngere, who are still waiting for their support and finances to renovate their buildings.

Property access, as I said, is already the single biggest barrier for Māori and early learning. Instead of empowering Māori to own, grow, and protect their own educational spaces, this bill creates yet another layer, another gatekeeper, and another Crown-controlled body that stands between Māori and the land we need to teach our kids. For us, a learning space is not just a building; it is a tūrangawaewae, it is whakapapa, it is identity, and this bill shifts that power even further away from our hands.

Last week, the Government removed Te Tiriti o Waitangi from our education system. They put profits over the wellbeing of our mokopuna with their ECE reforms, and passed the Regulatory Standards Bill to sideline Te Tiriti o Waitangi from all future legislation. What we’re seeing here is a staged approach to the roll-out of the Regulatory Standards Bill in education by targeting the most vulnerable—and who are they? Our tamariki.

Te Pāti Māori believes that the role of education providers is to educate—not to operate a business, clipping the ticket on the future of our mokopuna, based on right-wing ideology. We know that true success begins with knowing who you are, where you come from, and standing proudly in your reo, culture, and whakapapa. Te Pāti Māori will repeal this bill and will centre Te Tiriti o Waitangi in all aspects of our education system here in Aotearoa. All tamariki deserve high-quality education wherever they go to school, for them, for their future, and for all of our mana motuhake. We oppose this bill. Tēnā koutou katoa.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. For parents and caregivers and whānau listening at home, one of the things that they ask, that teachers ask, that principals ask when I go into schools is “Can we make education non-political?” Watch this, this evening, and you can understand why we can’t, because we have an Opposition that, regardless of the quality that we put forward, stand up to oppose. Māori education this year got $60 million for property development from a National-led Government.

For two terms, the Opposition couldn’t sort out initial teacher education. We have 62 percent of teachers coming out of initial teacher education saying they don’t feel equipped to teach. Did they do anything? No, they didn’t. It is a National-led Government, once again, that is fixing education in this country. It’s about time the Opposition got on board. I commend the bill to the House.

I think we might just turn the volume and the tone down a wee bit.

Might have to ask the man in the box!

Ha, ha! Thank you, Madam Speaker. I wanted to just make a few comments about the approach that has characterised this Government’s stewardship of education in the two years that they’ve been in office. This bill has a lot in common with a number of other reforms that we’ve seen come through in recent times. It signals a shift in approach in our education system, from local control to centralised decision-making; from a system that is led by the teaching profession, by educationalists, to one that is led by politicians and the public servants and policy makers who report to them; from a system that is flexible to one that is highly prescriptive; from a spirit of partnership to one of compliance; from public to increasing privatisation; and from a value base of holistic wellbeing to, increasingly, one of measurable outputs.

It’s very clear from the education policies of this Government that they regard teachers and the education sector as their ideological enemies. They are implacably hostile to the people who run our education system and who teach our children.

The effect of what the Government is doing with these reforms goes far further than centralisation. I’m not someone who always instinctively argues for decentralisation; in fact, I’m probably more—and have been—of a centralist than most people in this Parliament. But the effect of the provisions in this bill and a number of other reforms that we’ve seen from the Government recently are not just centralisation; they veer towards politicisation, and I’m not sure that this country wants to see the education system that’s responsible for teaching our kids increasingly politicised, where politicians are designing our curriculum, where politicians are setting the standards for how our children learn and what they learn. I think that is a dangerous road for us to go down.

No one in this House pretends that the education system is perfect. Yes, there are challenges. We probably differ on what the precise challenges are and what the solutions are. But we have benefited enormously from a public education system in this country that is led by the experts, the people who do the work, the people who get up every day and go to school or university or polytechs, or any number of other educational institutions, who teach for a living and who love teaching and who feel passionate about creating the best learning experience for our students. The philosophy that has underpinned our system for a long, long time is that they are the ones to be trusted and empowered to make the best decisions they can for our system.

This bill, like so much else that we’ve seen in this House recently, has the opposite philosophy. It is pulling key decision-making into the bureaucracy of central government, and, in a number of cases, into the Minister’s office. I don’t think that is something that the people of New Zealand generally want to see.

This Government’s approach to education more and more resembles a kind of Punch and Judy cartoon where the Government vilifies teachers, and paints itself as being the defender of the interests of parents in the system. It is a gross distortion and oversimplification. I would really urge the National Party members to think twice about these kind of reforms, because I don’t think they are taking our country’s education system where we want it to go.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak on the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill. There are many elements to this bill that have been well traversed. The thing that I am so excited to see is the property changes because, in my own electorate, I’ve seen how long it can take to advocate for the right kind of property that’s needed. Thankfully, thanks to a listening Minister, we now have 14 more classrooms coming to Cashmere High. I’m very pleased with that. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s disappointing, tonight, to have to speak again on another education and training bill that doesn’t achieve better outcomes for learners. In the politicisation of Minister Stanford’s approach to mātauranga education, at every step along the way, tamariki, ākonga, learners have not been at the centre of the debate in this House. Whether we look back to last week, when, suddenly, Te Tiriti was removed from boards of trustees, to charter schools—that, in fact, when the Government says that they’re all about achievement, their approach to education and training and legislative change does not achieve the outcome that they’re talking about.

This is a Government that talks down our education system in this country. We have a great education system. Yes, we have areas that we need to improve, but anyone who thinks that our education system is at fault is actually factually incorrect. When the Associate Minister of Education, David Seymour, says that the way to raise achievement is to get our kids back to school, what does a community like mine do when in fact this Government just cancelled our attendance contract? It just cancelled it.

The behaviour that we see from Government members tonight really shows that this is a Government under pressure. They’ve got their backs up against the wall. I’ve never seen a Government that hates teachers so much that they would take away their powers, that they would take away the rights, the acknowledgment of the profession, the capability, the evidence that educators provide, and say to them, “We know better—and not only do we know better; we are going to change legislation to take it away from independent organisations, like the Teachers Council, and we’re going to put it more into the Beehive.” More decisions in our education system will be made by the Director of Education and by the Minister of Education, not by the profession themselves.

This is a Government that has taken away localism from our education system. This is a Government that removes the relationship and sexuality guidelines that schools asked for to create safe and inclusive schools for children that need that support, and communities that require it. I have to say, tonight, I am very clear that I will do everything that I can to ensure that Labour repeals this bill. It is an absolute attack on the profession—an absolute attack on the teaching profession. It is ideological, it is politically motivated, and it does not have learners at the heart of their decision making, nor does it have any evidence.

In fact, in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), if Government members take the opportunity to read the RIS, it clearly says that there is a lack of evidence to support what’s been put forward in this legislation—a lack of evidence. There’s no information there. There hasn’t been any time for anyone to confirm and provide information to say that this is going to achieve the desired outcome. To the Government and Ministers: why are you rushing? Why are you not bringing the sector with you? That is very clear: because in their heads and in their approach—and they’ve demonstrated it tonight—they think National knows best.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take the final call on the first reading of this bill. I think that we just need to remember who the education system is actually there for. It’s not there for the teacher unions, it’s not there for teachers, and it’s not there for parents. It’s there for the students. What we’re here for is to help provide an education system that delivers for the students. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is, That the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill be considered by the Education and Workforce Committee.

I move, That the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I’d like to thank Tim van de Molen, chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and, indeed, the entire committee for their careful consideration of this bill. After careful deliberation, including a review of 37 submissions, the committee has recommended that the bill be passed with no changes.

The committee raised some important points in their report, which I will address in a moment. But, first, I would like to remind the House of the reasons why this bill is needed. In a deteriorating strategic environment, New Zealand needs a defence force that can respond quickly and with agility; a force that is combat-capable, interoperable, and ready to do whatever is asked of it, whether that be to respond in the aftermath of a natural disaster or to deploy offshore with our partners. To do this, we rely on the Defence Force’s hard-working, highly trained sailors, soldiers, and aviators, who together make up the armed forces, but we also rely on the New Zealand Defence Force’s (NZDF’s) professional and skilled civilian staff. This is a common-sense bill. Its focus is on ensuring national security and the delivery of core defence outputs is maintained if civilian staff in the NZDF take industrial action.

This bill makes two sets of changes for two different groups. I want to be clear about these differences in order to avoid any misunderstandings. The first set of changes relates to when the armed forces are used to conduct the work of NZDF civilian staff—that’s their colleagues within the Defence Force itself. In this area, the bill makes the more substantive change. When the NZDF civilian staff take industrial action—which they are entitled to do—that can cause gaps and pressures which can stand in the way of the Defence Force, as a whole, being ready and able to deliver whatever New Zealand needs whenever it needs it. The Defence Act 1990 allows the Minister of Defence to authorise the armed forces to conduct the work of striking NZDF civilian staff, but the current mechanism is too limited and impractical. The current mechanisms do not account for the breadth of tasks that NZDF civil staff undertake and the potential impact on New Zealand’s defence and security if these activities are stopped.

The bill amends the Defence Act 1990 so that the Minister can authorise military personnel to conduct the work of striking NZDF civilian staff, but only when (a) there is industrial action taking place, and (b) there are reasonable grounds to consider that an authorisation is required, either to avoid prejudice in national security or the ability to deliver core defence outputs, or (c) where necessary because of health or safety. The Minister must specify in writing the period of the authorisation, which cannot extend beyond the period of the industrial action. To support parliamentary scrutiny, Parliament would be notified that an authorisation had been given and the reasons for giving it. Effective members of civilian staff and their union would also be informed.

The second set of changes relate to when military personnel are used to conduct the work of Public Service employees outside of the NZDF. This provision already exists in the Defence Act 1990, and the bill makes only procedural changes. Clause 4 amends the Defence Act to increase the number of days an authorisation for military personnel to perform the role may last, from 14 days to 30 days. An extension beyond this would still require a resolution of the House, and so the opportunity to debate that extension remains. A minor amendment is also made to ensure that if an authorisation expires when Parliament is not sitting, it will automatically extend to the next sitting day, when Parliament is able to consider whether an extension is merited.

Now, I’ll turn to some points considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Firstly, the committee considered whether the changes would reduce Parliament’s oversight. The bill does remove the requirement for the House to debate the extension to an authorisation when the military personnel are conducting the work of NZDF civilian staff. I do not shy away from this. I consider this as akin to the process of an employer being able to use other members of their own staff to cover the work of striking colleagues.

Members of the armed forces and the NZDF civilian staff work alongside each other every day, working together on the common goal of protecting and defending New Zealand. I do not know of any other employers that have to go through the hoop of parliamentary approval simply to use one member of staff to conduct the work of another who is striking for an extended period of time. It is simply not necessary for the House to have a role in approving extensions of this kind of authorisation. It is not a good use of limited House time for something which in any other organisation is routine.

I accept that some members may continue to hold strong views about this, and so I want to reiterate that the bill does maintain parliamentary visibility of authorisations and to do this by requiring the Minister to notify the House if an authorisation is given and the reasons for giving it. Members will have the information they need, should they wish to raise this with the Minister of Defence at oral questions or to bring it to the attention of the House in another way.

To clarify again, the bill maintains the current role of Parliament in approving an extension to an authorisation for the use of the armed forces to conduct the work of Public Service employees. This is important because the use of the armed forces outside military settings should never be taken lightly, and so maintaining an approval role for Parliament here is appropriate if the armed forces are undertaking this work for a sustained period.

Secondly, the committee considered whether the bill should define certain terms, particularly “national security” and “core defence outputs”. I will discuss these in turn. Defining “national security” would be inconsistent with our existing statutory approach. New Zealand has typically adopted an approach which aligns with many of our closest partners, who also do not include a definition in legislation so as not to constrain the ability to respond to new or emerging threats. Instead, we take the view that the interpretation of “national security” should rely on formulations that sit outside of legislation in key strategic documents, such as the New Zealand National Security Strategy.

The committee also considered the criteria of “core defence outputs”. This criteria stated in full is “to avoid prejudicing … the ability and/or readiness of the Armed Forces to perform specific operational activities that are integral to core defence outputs;”. This contains multiple elements that must be satisfied before it can apply. This could include activities essential to maintaining the NZDF’s ability and readiness for deployment or operations, such as responding to expected or unexpected events in New Zealand or overseas requiring military capacity tasks under security treaties or UN agreements, or emergency management.

Finally, the committee considered whether the bill would negatively impact the collective bargaining and industrial action of the civilian staff. Let me be clear: industrial action by members of the civil staff absolutely has an impact on the NZDF, now and in the future. Using armed forces to conduct the work of civil staff means that they are not able to perform their regular duties. The Chief of Defence Force does not have enough staff to take these decisions lightly.

I know that the NZDF will continue to work hard through negotiation discussions to avoid industrial action coming about in the first place, but if it does occur, let there be no doubt that any disruption imposes a cost to the NZDF. This bill does not prevent industrial action. What it does is balance the right of NZDF civilian staff to take industrial action with New Zealand’s very much defence needs.

Separately, the bill makes minor changes to the existing process for allowing the armed forces to undertake the role of striking public servants. It safeguards national security and operational readiness. The Chief of Defence Force needs the flexibility to manage the NZDF workforce to ensure that those core defence activities can continue to take place where necessary, even when parts of its workforce are taking industrial action, and the bill makes sure that when the military personnel are required to take on essential tasks during industrial action, provisions are practical and fit for purpose.

In these increasingly challenging times, we need to make sure that legislation that supports our soldiers, sailors, and aviators to protect and defend New Zealand’s interests is sensible and pragmatic. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I start my contribution in the second reading of this bill, the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill, by acknowledging our New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel here and abroad who continue to work hard, represent our country well, and serve the communities here and around the world. They do a fantastic job, not only in the day-to-day operations that they involve themselves in but also flying the flag for New Zealand as ambassadors of our country and ambassadors of a highly reputable New Zealand Defence Force in our communities at home there. I want to start by acknowledging our NZDF personnel.

I want to make very clear that we can do this while also continuing to represent the clear views of the Labour Party, which is around the rights of the worker, which is around making sure that those people who work in the civilian roles—as highlighted by the Minister; the crucial civilian roles—continue to have the opportunity not only to take civil action in representing themselves through making sure that they receive a fair go, if you will, but also in making sure that they can continue to be acknowledged for the important work that they do with the NZDF. We are the Labour Party; we stand up for those people. We want to make sure that those people can have that opportunity, and the Minister has set out a few matters that I’ll come to throughout the entirety of my speech and understand that we will be going through the process of the committee of the whole and into the third and final reading of this bill.

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, a very good and hard-working committee, generally look at the vast majority of its work in a very multipartisan way. We all tend to try and be rather collegial and look towards making sure we advance the best interests of this country, so I want to acknowledge the committee. The Minister did, rightly, point out that we in the Opposition offered a number of opportunities or avenues for the Minister to consider. That might be a way of making sure that we continue to work together on something so important but also trying to be helpful and making sure that we can strengthen this particular bill moving forward.

I want to be very clear. When this Government signalled its Public Service cuts, we asked not just this Minister but this Government whether or not those cuts would have a significant impact on the NZDF and its operations. At the time, we were told no, yet here we are amending a bill, making it very clear that the Government is looking for a “get out of jail free” card—a plan B, if you will—to say “Oh well, we’ll change the law to make it easier”, just in case industrial action is taken not only by those NZDF civilian staff but also by the wider public sector who, as we’ve already seen, have continued to protest many of the actions of this Government. We’ve had a number of bills already in the House looking at our teachers. We know our health sector is under pressure and on its knees and have continued to protest against the actions of this Government. And now what we’re doing here today in this bill is saying that, for certain parts of those sectors who do take industrial action, it’ll be OK for the NZDF to backfill those roles.

Now, let me just remind the House again, we asked this Government whether or not it would have an impact—we were told no. Yet here we are changing the law, making it somewhat easier, or the process easier, for those decisions to be made. I made a contribution earlier in this House too, today, about one of the things that we’re always keeping an eye for on this side of the House, which is, in our view, minimising democratic processes. We’re very clear when there’s a reason for matters such as this to come back to the House, for the House to have an opportunity to debate these matters. It’s there for a reason. It’s there to make sure that for such an important sector in our country, such as NZDF and the civilian staff that support them, this House gets the opportunity to debate that. It gets the opportunity to continue to make sure that we are all in support of the crucial role that our NZDF people play in our country and how they might be able to support this country’s aspirations.

We’re also very clear, too, as the Minister pointed out in her speech, that there are some areas where we talk about the national security interests, also health and safety. We were quite clear on this side of the House, asking the Minister and members of the committee, “If we know what those provisions are, and we’re very clear on what they are, let’s make sure we are clear on that” so that it isn’t just an open door to be able to allow them to backfill in positions or in roles that actually they shouldn’t be doing.

We’ve got a number of amendments that we’ll look towards putting for the House’s consideration during the committee of the whole House, to make sure that it isn’t just a carte blanche approach to making sure that NZDF personnel can just backfill any old position. We’ve heard the Minister speak towards national interest and health and safety. We want to explore that a little bit more and be very explicit about saying, “OK, that’s fine, but make sure that they can’t do what would otherwise be termed as clerical or administrative roles.” If that’s the purpose of this bill, to make sure that we can continue to remain operationally ready, we can continue to support health and safety, we can also continue to support the national security interests of this country, that’s fine. We support that too, but we want to make sure that it isn’t just pushing people into administration or clerical roles, because we don’t believe, for the most part, that is in the best interests of the NZDF personnel or this country.

We also will be promoting a number of other amendments that will speak to some other smaller, minor, technical bits that the Minister has spoken to in her speech. But I want to make very clear that on this side of the House, we do support the rights of workers. We are the Labour Party. That’s who we stand for, and those who did submit, those unions that did submit on this particular bill were very clear about that. They were very passionate about making sure that those rights continue to remain. Let’s be very clear: it was their view that the rights of workers right across this country have been beat down, have been kicked in the guts, and been taken for granted by this Government. They made that very clear in their submission, and we sat through those submissions. We engaged with the unions. I want to point out that the NZDF, in the consideration of this particular bill, did not proactively engage with the unions. In fact, it says it in their report here—they give a reason for it in the report—that it wasn’t in the interests of those who might consider taking industrial action. To my view, that’s just not good enough.

We know that these people are represented by unions, have been for a long time and in fact those unions, for a number of years, even in my time as a defence Minister, were keen to engage with either the Minister or other members of the House—and, in particular, the NZDF leadership. We’ve seen already that those submitters could only find their voice during this particular process. One would have thought that, in order to support those important NZDF civilian roles that we’ve heard the Minister speak of this evening, they might be a bit more open to engaging with the union on important matters that affect them.

We do oppose this bill, and I can say as a former defence Minister, having looked across the wide scope of what it is that the NZDF does, one of the other concerns that I do have is it was raised with me and a number of my predecessors that the Defence Act of 1990 is like that beach bach where you keep putting a lean to on a lean to, on a lean to. All of a sudden, you think that it’s going to cater for everybody, and then there’s a leak. The point of that is the Defence Act does actually need, in my view, a considerable overhaul. We can’t keep just making these amendments or these, you know, changes to the Act just here and there. As I said, it’s just putting a lean to on a lean to, and before you know it, it’s leaking and the carpet’s wet, and we’ve got a bigger problem.

That’s something I want to leave on the floor for the Minister and this Government to consider—

On the soggy floor.

On the wet carpet, if you will, to make sure that we have a look at making sure that legislation is fit for purpose. There are lots of things that have changed, but what we do know about the NZDF in this country is they always stand ready to serve. They serve our communities well, even when it’s unexpected, such as the weather events and other matters, such as COVID, that impact this country. The NZDF have always served our country well. Let’s make sure they can do that with an Act that supports them well and isn’t simply just a piecemeal approach to supporting them in the important work that they do.

We oppose this bill. We will be putting forward some amendments for the Minister and this Government to consider, and we look forward to the next stages of this bill in the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill. I think, through the journey of this bill as it came through the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, there were a lot of learnings that I personally had—and, I think, this committee, as a whole, had—as we began to understand exactly what the conditions are of the workforce. I think a number of us were surprised at the number of civilian personnel that are employed in these roles; I think the numbers were around about 3,000, and around 1,000 of those are unionised workers.

It’s important that is understood: that when they’re doing civilian roles, that’s civilian work and they should have all the rights that everybody else has when they’re doing those civilian roles; different if you’re in the military personnel as well. If you’re in the military personnel, as expected—you’re working for the army or you’re working for the air force, or whatever—there’s a strict hierarchy that you have to go through because that’s what you signed up for. I mean, that is clearly understood as well.

I think it’s also really important to understand the genesis of this bill as well. Not only was I surprised at the number of civilian personnel working in our armed forces but also the roles that they did and the expectation that if you do those roles that you should be able to have all of the other rights that other people have, like the right to strike, for example. In 2024, New Zealand Public Service Association (PSA) members, in particular in the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) civilian staff roles, when they were negotiating their pay, what they were offered was a zero pay offer. That’s what they were offered.

We all understand we’re living in the cost of living crisis, right? This House talks about that all the time. Everybody’s feeling the pinch, especially workers, and we just look around this country, the unprecedented number of strikes that we’re seeing. There are firefighters, teachers, nurses, support staff as well. We know that everybody is feeling the pinch and that people are offering pay increases below the rate of inflation. If you show up to the bargaining table and the offer is zero pay, you look around for the different options that you have to be able to—as your right—find different ways to make action. That’s what these workers did. At the time, the Minister of Defence responded by using her powers under section 9 of the Defence Act 1990 to authorise the use of the armed forces to provide services at these NZDF sites.

This is the situation that we’re finding ourselves in. It’s an attempt to stop the ability for workers to be able to access their rights, and I think this is what should be of great concern to this House. We’ve seen that with the partial pay strikes. We’ve seen that with the fair pay agreements going out the window. We saw what happened with the 33 pay equity claims as well. I think it’s important to see this bill in the context of all those things as well.

At the heart, this bill weakens the right to strike by allowing striking civilian staff to be replaced with uniformed personnel, not just when there is a risk to health and safety, when there is a threat to national security, but, effectively, in any circumstance. Workers engaging in lawful strikes are entitled to take effective industrial action and it is an important bargaining tool and a legitimate expression of the industrial power of working people.

Just to remind people: we’re hiring these civilian people to do these, as civilians; they deserve all of the rights that they have. Workers engaging in lawful strikes are entitled to take industrial action as an important bargaining tool and a legitimate expression of the industrial power of working people. The ability for the Government to replace striking workers with uniformed personnel will always be controversial and should only be used in the rarest of occasions, if ever. That is why the law currently provides for clear limitations and democratic guardrails, including parliamentary approval for extended use of uniformed personnel to fill the civilian roles during industrial action.

There were a number of submissions that came to the select committee. I think, as a select committee, we work relatively collegially. I think generally the other side of the House will say something, I don’t agree with it, we agree to disagree and we kind of work our way through it. As opposed to some other select committees, where we don’t agree with each other and it’s all on. I do appreciate being able to agree to disagree, and, in this case, we are disagreeing.

I agree with that.

He’s agreeing to disagree with my agreement.

There are a number of themes that submitters brought to the select committee. One of them was around concerns about removing parliamentary oversight, and I do note that was talked about by the previous two speakers.

There were concerns that the bill would enable the military to encroach on civilian life. One of the submitters—and this is the PSA; I think that’s a really, really, good strong submission. I would encourage the public to go out there and to read that. I remember part of that submission; they said that they had talked to military personnel who, of course didn’t want to be identified in any way, were worried that this would cause friction in the tearoom, right? We can say these military personnel are going to do these civilian roles, but what does that practically look like? When you’re going into the morning tearoom, you’re going to have people that are doing your jobs or this other sort of thing. Some of these people actually spoke to the union; this is part of their submission that said that this would create an awkward situation, this will create friction as well. I think that’s something for this House to be mindful of as well.

I think it’s important that the workers in this particular case were using all the legitimate tools that they could find. They were offered a zero pay offer. These were the actions that they were able to take as well, and they took effective action and they won. Winding back those rights, I think, is the wrong thing to do.

A couple of the other submitters brought up potential breaches of New Zealand’s international obligations. Submitters raised concerns that the bill would undermine or frustrate or breach New Zealand’s obligations under the International Labour Organization conventions 87 and 98, which relate to freedom of association, the right to strike, and the ability to organise and collectively bargain.

Just noting the contribution from the Council of Trade Unions, who commented that the right to strike should not be disturbed unless there are clear and good reasons for doing so. They cited the Employment Court judgment in Secretary for Justice v New Zealand Public Service Association. I think that’s an important point, because we get the arguments around our national security; the arguments around emergencies as well. But there was another component that is part of this legislation which also involves core defence outputs, I think it is. Maybe one of the other side could correct me on it—no, it is core defence outputs as well, which is basically anything.

Previously, there’s an argument about what national security is and I think that’s an important discussion for us to have: what is in the national interest, what isn’t in the national interest. Let’s discuss what that is and whether we should be withdrawing the right to strike from those particular workers as well. Emergency situations; I can understand that as well. But what is actually core defence outputs? Well, it could be anything, actually, and that, I think, is a problem. I think we should have discussions about that through the committee of the whole House stage as well, to really figure out: what does that actually mean? Is it clerical work? Is it—who knows? That was one of the other core concerns that submitters brought up as well.

Submitters have also talked about how this would negatively impact morale and the effectiveness of the NZDF as well. Who wants to be a strikebreaker? You’ve got your mates that you work with, civilian or military. I mean, those are the labels that we give them, but if they’re all walking down the same hallway, the next thing you know: “Well mate, I’m just—they’ve given me a zero offer here and I’m trying to feed my kids, to keep the lights on, and you’re not going to allow me to do this strike.” It puts them in an awkward situation. That’s what this does as well. I think this is what the House needs to turn its mind to.

Therefore, on that basis, the Greens will not be supporting this bill. This bill is another example of strikebreaking. It is an example of this Government not taking workers seriously. It fits right into the context of all the work that they’ve been doing undermining workers’ rights, whether that’s getting rid of fair pay agreements, bringing back 90-day trials. The workers can see that for what that is, not to mention all the mucking around with the Employment Relations Authority as well. This bill is not a good bill and I do not commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hope this is better.

Oh, thank you.

I would also like to give a shout-out to the men and women in the Defence Force that do an excellent job at keeping us safe. Really, this bill is about keeping us safe. It’s very sensible that we would expect our sites—our Defence Force sites—to be secure and safe. In no way, shape, or form does this actually stop the ability for industrial action. Anyone at home might think that may be the case, but that is not the case. Any type of industrial action is actually highly disruptive to the Defence Force; there’s a lot of planning and time that goes into that. That alone is still there, and there is still an ability for people to take that action. It’s a really small change; it’s just extending the time frames for the Chief of Defence Force, and the Minister, to make sure that we cover periods when this House isn’t sitting. It’s really sensible, so I commend this bill to the House.

I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in favour of the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill. I thank the member from ACT—Laura McClure—who brought us back to reality around the fact that this is not removing the ability to take industrial action, and perhaps we need to repeat that again: it does not remove the ability to take industrial action. It is very simple that we have—particularly in the current climate; a highly volatile global environment where we expect defence to be able to do its job at all times.

For those of us who have worked with sworn and non-sworn personnel, there is no conflict. There is a common goal. There is an ability to work together and understand differences, and to take industrial action does not undermine the relationship between defence personnel and civilian personnel. They have a common objective, and they work for defence because they believe in their common objective of serving their country. To suggest that this bill would in any way undermine the relationship between civilian and defence personnel is just a total fantasy. This is about ensuring that New Zealand can continue to protect itself, allow civilian action to be taken when they need to take it, but, at its core, it is about ensuring defence can continue to do its job.

Defence personnel don’t want to fill civilian positions, but they will always and ultimately put the defence of this country first. That is what we need as a nation, and this is a practical, obvious step to ensure that we can do this. As the Minister of Defence has pointed out, any other organisation has the ability to shift staff around to manage through industrial action. It is common practice. It does not undermine the ability of any organisation to have industrial action taken. This is exactly what this bill is doing: it is allowing defence to do exactly what every other organisation does in times of industrial action.

It is a practical, common-sense piece of legislation. It will ensure that our defence facilities and our borders and our personnel can remain protected and looked after, which is a priority along with our assets—our expensive defence assets—being able to be protected no matter what the situation with industrial relations. It is absolutely disingenuous to stand here and say that we really stand up for our defence personnel and we thank them for the wonderful job they do and then deny them a tool to actually continue to do what they do in the period when there’s industrial action. It is just disingenuous to say that we’re standing up for defence personnel but we’re not going to let them defend their assets or defend their staff or defend their personnel or defend their functions in times of industrial action. This is a quick and easy remedy to resolve that situation. It does not remove any opportunity to take industrial action. Therefore, New Zealand First commends the bill to the House.

This is a split call—Ricardo Menéndez March.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know what’s disingenuous? It’s Government politicians thanking the New Zealand Defence Force for their work, while, at the very same time, pushing forward legislation that literally undermines their bargaining power when it comes to their pay and conditions.

The reality is that this bill is about undermining bargaining power for the New Zealand Defence Force, particularly civilians within it. While the member prior to me, the Hon Casey Costello, may have said that this is not about preventing those civilians within the Defence Force from striking, the bill does take away one of the most effective tools when it comes to workers fighting for decent pay and safe working conditions, which is the withdrawal of labour. Effectively, the Government is creating a tool, with less accountability for them, to put military personnel in place of civilian staffers in the Defence Force when they often will be seeking better pay and conditions.

I think those Government politicians defending this bill may want to query as to whether the civilian Defence Force, that have raised issues in relationship to their pay and their conditions, were wrong. It’s quite different to say, “Well, there may be a bargaining process that needs to be undertaken.” Sure, we recognise—even in the Greens, who are often out there supporting striking workers—that those decisions to strike are not taken lightly; it’s different to say that we have a process for those workers to fight for decent paying conditions. To then go and push forward with a bill that—effectively, what it does is it removes a democratic check on decisions by Government to basically have the military Defence Force fill in those civilian roles.

I took part in the debate, not that long ago, when the Minister of Defence chose to extend the period in which the military Defence Force would be filling those civilian roles as a result of industrial election. What was clear to me is that it is important, in our democracy, when we have military personnel filling civilian roles, that we actually take the time to debate it, for the public to be adequately informed, and for those checks and balances to be put in place.

I also want to raise the issue, in the current context, that the civilian Defence Force does play a really important role in protecting us when, for example, natural disasters strike. The reality that we have right now—

They can’t deploy.

They can’t what?

No, they don’t. You don’t understand what the Defence Force does.

OK. Well, I’ll wait for the member who made famous YouTube videos on it.

Civilians don’t deploy.

But they don’t necessarily—did I use the word “deploy”? No.

How are they going to help if they’re not deploying?

Well, according to the National member, they don’t seem to help at all, so I’m looking forward to the member talking about the contributions of the civilian Defence Force and how important they are.

Effectively, what this bill does is that it allows the Minister to have one less level of accountability in Parliament. I think what was really telling, as well, throughout the debate, is that members could not identify the problem with the status quo; they just talked about how this is a common-sense bill. But, for example, the member prior to me was not able to articulate what the problem is with having an adequate parliamentary check for when the Minister chooses to extend the time in which those roles are going to be filled with military personnel.

We did hear from the unions and the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee about their concerns of how this would undermine the bargaining process, and I think that is an incredibly fair point. I think the Government members, in this House, who seek to actually justify this bill need to explain how exactly this does not undermine—in any way, shape, or form—the ability for civilians within the Defence Force to actually bargain for better pay and conditions.

The other issue that we have, as well, is that if the Government wasn’t ramming through so many pieces of legislation via urgency, I don’t think they would find the current processes that we have in place so onerous or such a big barrier. The reality is that in terms of time in Parliament that these most debatable moments take, it’s not huge or substantive. If the Government wasn’t seeking to ram through so many pieces of legislation through urgency, it would not take such a huge proportion of time within Parliament.

The reality is that this bill only seeks to undermine workers, and it’s part of a trend of Government actions that have sought to undermine the pay, the conditions, and the bargaining power of workers across the country; the latest ones to be affected by a piece of legislation are the civilian Defence Force. I commend the words of my colleague Teanau Tuiono, who explained, through his participation in the select committee, as to why the Greens are not supporting this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think anyone watching this will realise that was a typical Green Party contribution where the wokeness comes through. They dislike the military being able to do military functions and would rather have them disbanded until it comes to the point where they actually need some support and then they’ll be crying foul and wanting help. That member’s contribution showed that he was clearly out of his depth in terms of the content of what he was talking about. In fact, he’d be out of his depth in a car park pothole, I suppose. Ultimately, it’s quite clear that this bill makes simple changes to ensure, primarily, we can maintain national security at all times, a critical function of our Defence Force, and, indeed, to ensure that operational readiness is maintained as well.

I want to take a moment to thank all our current serving personnel in the Defence Force for the work they constantly do—turning up day in and day out. Now, this does not take away the ability to strike. We’ve heard that; we’ve covered it in detail. Ultimately, it’s a practical change that ensures we can maintain national security. That is the critical factor here. The rest of it is just garbage. I commend this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just like my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare, I’d like to take the opportunity, in the start of my speech, to acknowledge our New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) members both here in New Zealand and overseas, and the fantastic work that they do to support us and to support our national security. We are very fortunate to have a well-thought-of defence force in this country, who are pretty world leading in many respects, for the work that they do, and it would be remiss of me if I didn’t take the opportunity to acknowledge that.

As my colleague has pointed out and said here earlier, we as the Labour Party find ourselves in a position where we won’t be, at this point, supporting this bill. There are so many grey areas that are in the bill as it stands at the moment. I’ve read through the bill, and I know it’s only a short bill. It seems like it’s only a few pages. Maybe that’s the problem: that it is only a few pages long and that it hasn’t actually highlighted enough what some of the phrases mean within the bill.

Those people that have read it from the other side of the House and other parties on this side of the House might think that they know what is in there and what it’s talking about, but, from our perspective, we might have a different viewpoint and it’s really important that we actually come to the same conclusion on what some of those phrases mean. I know that my colleague has, as he said to the Minister of Defence in his speech, some amendments that he will be putting forward in the committee of the whole House stage for nothing other than to actually clear up the grey areas that exist in the bill at the moment.

I read through the departmental report from the select committee process and, as this is the second reading of this bill, it would, again, be remiss not to talk about what happened in the select committee. I do acknowledge the work of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, giving the analysis and looking at this bill with the seriousness and the depth that they did. I noticed that they had 38 written submissions on the bill. Three submissions were received from non-governmental organisations and 35 were from individuals, which I thought was a pretty amazing ratio, there, of individuals to organisations. Out of those 38, one submitter supported the bill and 35 submitters opposed the bill. One submitter expressly stated that they neither supported nor opposed the bill, and one submitter did not provide a clear view about supporting or opposing the bill. That’s come directly from the departmental report, and I thought that we haven’t actually heard that here this evening, but seeing as we are talking in the second reading, it is important that we do bring this up.

Some of the reasons why so many submitters did oppose this bill have been outlined by other speakers here this evening, but some of the ideas that came through were about the restrictions that could be put on civilian members and their right to strike. As my colleague has already pointed out, we are the Labour Party, so the name is on the tin. We do actually stand up for workers and we do hold very, very clear to that, so we need to make certain that is not being taken away and that is clearly something that is of right, and that the backfilling that happens in those areas by the Defence Force is authentic and that is not something that is happening because of job losses that have happened.

As my colleague pointed out—we’ve asked the Minister multiple times—when there were job cuts, would that have a meaningful impact on the NZDF personnel to either deploy or to do their job? The Minister said it wouldn’t, but now all of a sudden the Government’s trying to backfill those civilian roles with NZDF personnel to make sure that they can continue the very basics of those functions. Those are things that we will be prosecuting through the committee of the whole House stage as well. I know that’s something that we haven’t had a clear steer on in the select committee process, so it’s really important that we make certain that we discuss that.

One of the areas that I was really concerned about when I read the bill coming through from the select committee was when I talked about those grey areas earlier. It talked about areas such as the most important roles of the Defence Force—but what does that mean? Maybe that’s the people that are in the civilian areas and it’s important that they’re working to deploy the ship—but what are those roles? They’re not being highlighted out. It’s really important that we know exactly what they are, because there’ll be others in there that aren’t quite so important, but it’s kind of been left up in the air as it is at the moment in how it’s been written in that particular bill, so it’s really important that those are the sorts of things that are highlighted.

Then it goes on about backfilling when public servants from other areas outside of defence go on strike. One of the areas that has been used as an example in this is Corrections, but it doesn’t narrow it solely to Corrections; it actually could be anything within the Public Service. We’ve got people in the Defence Force that would be crossing that picket line of any of the areas. It could be teachers. It could be health workers. It could be any of those roles. I heard a member say earlier that the civil side of the Defence Force and the active service people don’t stand against each other, but, actually, you could be putting them up against public servants overall, so those are areas—

No, no—section 9.

—that we would like to prosecute during the committee of the whole House stage. I do hear the people on the other side saying, “No, no, no.”, but that’s what the committee of the whole House is for: to actually prosecute that. I would hate to think that they were undermining the democracy within this House, because the democracy in this House says that we have the right, as Opposition, to actually prosecute this bill a bit more. It would be a very unusual and upsetting day if we had that side of the House thinking that we couldn’t do that. It would be a sad day in this House, overall.

The other aspect around this is—and it is actually the second piece of legislation that I’ve spoken on this evening that I do have concerns about—where we are narrowing the power down to a very narrow group of people. It seems to me that this bill is giving far more power to the Minister and the Chief of Defence Force than what we’ve seen before. Those are areas that I would like to prosecute when we do get to that committee of the whole House stage because, again, it almost feels like, in several areas here, we’re starting to narrow to the Beehive solely, and I don’t think that’s very good for this country. I feel that there needs to be a much wider and broader view here. That is something that, again, we would like to take forward.

Just going back to when I talked about going into other Public Service areas such as education, such as health workers, that is something that we saw over COVID. Again, like my colleague, I acknowledge those Defence Force people who supported our country over that time and did an amazing job. But the Minister herself said then that being deployed into civilian roles such as providing security to managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) facilities is not what they signed up for. She said, “I don’t think the COVID MIQ duty made many people in defence that happy and I think people just wondered if this is what they are going to be used for.” Again, this is something that they seem to be saying, on one hand, is a bad thing but, on the other hand, this is what this bill is enabling this to do. Again, those are areas that we need to prosecute further because it feels like those are questions that we still have after this bill has come back from select committee.

Again, I want to acknowledge our Defence Force. I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee team who brought this back. But I do look forward to the committee of the whole House stage where we can ask those questions to make sure that the rights of workers are upheld across all areas in this country.

If this is the level of illiteracy that we’re going to see in the Opposition—not just about this bill but about what the military does—you know, I feel sorry, on the one hand, for one of the members who spoke earlier, who I actually think would like to support the Defence Force. But they stand there with their crocodile tears: “Oh, we acknowledge what they do.”, and then they just want to oppose anything that’s going to help the military to do their job.

I thought the unions were terrible when they came to select committee. They didn’t even understand what civilians do in the military: that they guard main gates or bases. They did not understand that military people who normally do that—we used to do this. Like, how fundamentally can you not understand your job? Then the Green Party stood up, and if you thought the unions were woeful, listen to Ricardo Menéndez March—absolutely awful, this kind of anti-military rhetoric we hear.

It didn’t get any better with Jan Tinetti, as she stands up and says, “Oh well, you know, the military had to help in managed isolation and quarantine.” That’s right, uniformed personnel had to do it. That’s not the job that they wanted to do; this is people doing the job they would normally do, and military security force personnel filling a civilian role. They don’t understand it.

It’s a good bill, I support it, and I commend it to the House.

The Hon Phil Twyford—five minutes.

It wasn’t that long ago that a National Government got the troops out and deployed them to keep the ports operating during a major industrial dispute in New Zealand. Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel were used to load and unload cargo on the wharves to keep essential goods moving. Troops, effectively, were used to replace striking watersiders on the docks to guard strategic infrastructure and goods, and the ports were, basically, militarised during that dispute. It was highly controversial at the time. The country was divided.

It was clear at the time that the National Government of the day got the troops out on the streets and on the ports as a way of framing the dispute as a challenge to State authority, rather than it being just an industrial conflict; much in the way that Donald Trump has been getting the National Guard out on the streets of major American cities for his own political purposes. That dispute on the waterfront in 1951 was an unprecedented level of State coercion in 20th century New Zealand industrial relations. It’s worth remembering that—

That’s a long time, Phil.

It may seem a long time ago for some people—the 1951 waterfront lockout—but, actually, in the world we live in right now, that sort of undermining of democratic norms and democratic institutions is happening all over the world as we speak at the moment. That’s what is most disturbing, actually, about this debate: that this bill is, essentially, a charter for State strikebreaking. That’s what it is. By loosening the parliamentary and the democratic oversight that for a long time has been a cross-party consensus in New Zealand—a recognition that, from time to time, it may be in the national interest for the uniformed armed forces to be used to provide essential services during, for instance, a prolonged Public Service strike. The consensus has been that that is something to be done very sparingly, very carefully. If misused, it is, potentially, a threat to our democracy, and that is why we have careful parliamentary oversight.

What this bill does is that it loosens that oversight so that in the case of the defence forces being used to break a strike in the Public Service, the Minister doesn’t have to come and get a resolution of Parliament—no; and the time periods are significantly longer. In the case of armed forces personnel and uniformed personnel being used to break a strike by the civilian employees of the defence forces, the details are slightly different, but the effect is the same: it removes parliamentary oversight and gives the defence Minister sweeping powers to deploy the armed forces to break strikes. Now, New Zealand has been a party to international law for a long time, provisions of the International Labour Organization that preserve the legal right to strike. It is a very important part of our democracy.

I’ll say to colleagues that it’s really distasteful, actually, when Tim van de Molen and then Tim Costley got up and, really, responded with abuse when people like Ricardo Menéndez March, quite legitimately, pointed out that this bill is undermining important democratic norms and protections in our system; and for doing that, they are accused of hating the military and not understanding what the defence forces do. I say to members on that side of the House: you should be better than that. Have a proper debate—

Oh, cheer up. It’ll be ok.

Have a proper debate. This bill is about strikebreaking; there’s no two ways about it. It is about breaking industrial action, and defence members of the defence forces will be asked to cross the picket lines of striking workers. That is not the way we’ve done things in New Zealand for a long time, and there’s a very good reason. No evidence has been provided that gives any sort of justification for the changes in this, other than some perfunctory reference to a deteriorating strategic environment.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think it is important to bring it back to reality. This bill does not mean that no one can strike in the Defence Force—in the civilian workers in the Defence Force. They’re still entitled to strike. This bill continues the ability for the Defence Force to carry out its vital activity in the security of our nation, and anything to the counter is just absolute rubbish.

Gobbledegook.

It really is gobbledegook. This is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

How do I respond to that speech? That was outstanding. I think the summary of that in its entirety was: “That was gobbledegook, and this is a good bill.” I think you could say that about anything, really—but, never mind, we’re here to discuss this piece of legislation, which is a direct consequence of the cuts that this Government has driven right across the public sector and right across New Zealand’s front-line services. This is yet another one that’s being cut.

We asked the Minister multiple times if cutting civilian roles would have any meaningful impact on New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel to either deploy or to do their job. The Minister said that they wouldn’t allow it, but then, all of a sudden, we hear that the Government’s trying to backfill those civilian positions that we’re discussing today to make sure that NZDF personnel can continue to do those very basic things of their work. That is a real concern on this side of the House, and we’ve heard some strong arguments in terms of why this doesn’t work well. This Government has a long track record of assaulting workers’ rights, right from the get-go of when they took office, and this is yet another notch—

Tell us about assaulting workers.

—on the list of what’s happened in terms of workers’ rights. Those members opposite might think it’s funny that workers’ rights are eroded; they might talk about this being a two-stage economic recovery, but the reality is that all New Zealanders know it is two stage—one’s for them, and the rest of it is for us.

These workers who are trying to pay their rates and their insurance and their weekly grocery bills and their rent and trying to put clothes on their kids to go to school all day don’t think it’s funny. They’re not cracking a joke, Tim Costley, because they’re struggling every week to pay for bills, and people in the Defence Force are no different. They’re struggling to be able to pay as well, and you coming in here and assaulting workers’ rights and having a laugh about it with your mates is just adding insult to injury to the New Zealanders out there who know that this Government has well overspent its time, and it’s about time that they took a check on what’s happening out there.

It is undermining those taking industrial action to protest the Government cuts, and it’s making it even harder to bargain for fair pay and fair working conditions. It is actually quite disgusting that we have this elitist mentality to laugh at people who are struggling and are struggling for their rights. The Act currently requires the Minister to take the decisions to Parliament for debate and resolution, but this bill gives that power to the Minister directly. She has said herself that New Zealand Defence Force personnel being deployed into civilian roles and providing security to places like managed isolation and quarantine facilities is not what it was designed for, but we stand with civilian staff undertaking industrial action, and that is the point of difference.

We’ve seen coverage in the media in terms of the perceptions of what this bill does; it hasn’t been picked up as much as we potentially would have liked, because it is quite important that we have fair working conditions right across the Public Service. Restricting the right of civilian defence force workers to strike is completely unjustified, and it represents an escalation of this Government’s undermining of fundamental workplace rights. We think this is yet another slight against workers in New Zealand, and it’s completely unacceptable. There’s no doubt about it: this legislation will make it harder for defence personnel and their families to be able to achieve fair pay and to be able to pay their weekly bills and afford things—like many other New Zealanders right now.

Last year, we saw that Public Service Association members in the Defence Force were offered a zero pay increase and were only able to achieve a better offer by, in fact, taking strike action. Strike action is an incredibly important tool for workers to be able to stand up for those rights, which are currently under assault. It is absolutely no coincidence that introducing this legislation at the same time is restricting public sector workers’ rights to strike for better pay and better conditions—and that’s not fair. That’s not fair for people who don’t have that right to fight back. It’s taking advantage of having power, and it’s making those in a weaker position suffer more, which is emblematic of the actions and the legislation that this Government has put into practice from day one.

We know that many, many of those who are in the military will be quietly uncomfortable about being required to cross picket lines if civilian staff take action, and these kinds of divisive tactics by the Government within the Defence Force really undermine morale in general. It’s not right. Public sector workers face exactly the same rising costs as everyone else, so instead of restricting their fundamental democratic right to strike, the Government should show them some respect and pay them fairly. Instead of giving tax cuts to landlords and tobacco companies, you should be paying the people who work hard every day for the State. Instead of calling public servants “wasteful” and “a waste of time”, we should acknowledge that they give their lives and their careers to serving our country, and that is an incredibly important role. These people are public servants who deserve that recognition.

I think it’s important to put on the record that we have a Government that has completely disrespected the value of public servants, not just in Wellington but up and down the country—people who choose to take a job that, quite often, pays less than one they could get in the private sector, but they do it because they believe in New Zealand and they want to build a country that we’re proud of, where we work hard and we look after each other. Acts like this—taking away a basic right to strike for fair pay conditions—undermine the fabric of what New Zealand is. It stops people from having that ability. Public sector workers face the same rising costs as others, and that is completely unfair. When we have members opposite speaking for 32 seconds and saying, “Your arguments are gobbledegook, and this is a good bill”, it’s absolute rubbish. This is an absolute direct consequence of those choices to cut Government spending and not to pay people what they’re worth. We know that it provides the ability for that Minister to have additional powers when that’s not required.

We know, from the ministerial statement provided by the Minister, that the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill means the Minister of Defence will be able to authorise the Chief of Defence Force to redeploy uniformed personnel to carry out the roles of New Zealand Defence Force civilian staff. Currently, the Defence Act allows the Minister to authorise the redeployment of uniformed personnel in situations where health and safety is compromised or if work is not carried out by the armed forces. We know that this is not a good move for the New Zealand Defence Force. We know that they’re worth more than that, and it’s unfair of this Government to actually subsidise their cuts into other areas by causing this to happen. We do not support the bill.

My son is a 19-year-old in the Defence Force. He was one of the youngest to graduate, as an 18-year-old, last year. He would be ashamed of hearing the ramble, the Labour lies from the left-hand side right now. This bill takes away the vulnerability of the status quo. It takes away the—

Can he make a minute? Do one minute. I dare you! Do a minute! Come on!

Longer doesn’t mean better, Ginny. You think you would have learnt that in your career by now. I commend this bill to the House.

Glen Bennett called first, so Glen Bennett for the Te Pāti Māori call.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

Point of order.

You’re not disputing my call, I hope. Don’t dispute the call.

I’m seeking clarity on the clear Standing Order that makes it specifically clear that it’s not about who’s first to their feet. It’s about the proportionality and who gets the call in that instance, which is the largest party—the National Party.

The Chair will make the decision. The Chair has made the decision. Do not challenge it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Terrible.

Who said “Terrible.”? Who was that? Was that you, Mr Costley? Who said “Terrible.” then?

The other side of the House.

No, no. Someone there said “Terrible.” If the member who said “Terrible” doesn’t—

I withdraw and apologise.

Leave the House. Basic rule: do not comment on Speakers’ rulings here. Leave the House, Mr Brown. You should know better; you’re a Minister.

Right—Glen Bennett.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. As with the New Zealand Defence Force, this is around rules and regulations and what a sworn member of the New Zealand Defence Force should be able to do and shouldn’t need to do.

I heard a comment just before from the previous speaker, Mr Hamilton, in regard to his son. I considered this as I was looking through the notes and having a flick through this piece of legislation and spending the evening listening to the debate on all sides of the House. As I reflect on this, I think of my husband, who joined the New Zealand Defence Force many years ago. The reason he joined was not to not to fill gaps when it came to civilians within the New Zealand Defence Force striking; he came in to serve his country, to be a peacekeeper around the world, to do his part whether it be a disaster, whether it be a rescue situation, or whether it be serving internationally, which he got to do and he was proud to serve New Zealand as a peacekeeper on several tours of duty. As I said, the reason he joined was not because he thought he would have to jump in and deal with issues around civilians within the New Zealand Defence Force taking strike action; he joined to serve and to make a significant difference.

As I’ve listened to the debate tonight, as I’ve listened to the short and long contributions, it’s become very clear to me that again we have to look at this legislation not just as one piece as we go through the process of the House; we’ve got to look at it in the context of other legislation that comes through or that has come through and has changed it.

No—on the bill.

I am on the bill, thank you very much.

The context you guys are giving is totally wrong.

You haven’t listened to any of my arguments, so if you’d just listen up, Buttercup, that would be really cool.

This is around our workers, and this piece of legislation is around our workers, and that’s why I bring that up. Look at things that have come through around the pay equity challenges, around the introduction of pay deductions for partial strikes. What this Government has done against our workforce is why we stand up against this legislation this evening. It feels like the bigger picture you look at is an attack on workers. We need to make sure we stand strong and make sure that our New Zealand Defence Force are standing up and doing the work that they must do as those who have been trained to serve our nation and to serve our world.

What I find interesting about this piece of legislation—and my colleague the Hon Peeni Henare, who was a Minister of Defence, and a very good Minister of Defence—

Ha, ha!

We get a laugh from across the floor there, as we always do, and we really appreciate the laugh track in Parliament.

This is around the fact that this bill provides for the Minister to authorise part or parts of the armed forces to perform the work of the New Zealand Defence Force so the civilian staff can take industrial action. Actually, the current legislation requires the Minister to take the decision to Parliament for debate and for a resolution. In this legislation that we are debating tonight, the amendment gives the Minister that power directly without having to come to this House and say, “Hey, I’ve got an argument why we actually need the New Zealand Defence Force to be stepping up and stepping into these spaces.”, because there is a reason and a need for it.

We cannot support this legislation. We stand as a Labour Party with our civilian staff in the New Zealand Defence Force. I just want to finish in reflection on what was said by the Public Service Association: that members of the Defence Force were offered a zero pay increase and were only able to achieve a better offer after taking strike action. They were offered a zero pay increase, and so they took strike action because it was an embarrassment and we need to support our workers.

This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill.

Members, the House in committee on the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill. We come now to clause 1. Clause 1 is the debate on the “Title” clause. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Speaking to clause 1, there were a number of matters that were raised by my colleagues, and certainly this side of the House, with relation to, actually, what is the true intent behind this bill, looking towards whether or not this is simply just as it says on the tin, or something far more sinister; something that actually does detract from the rights of workers. Something more sinister than that actually goes towards looking towards using the New Zealand Defence Force in places where they’re probably not best suited to be used, yet leaving the door open, leaving the bill, naturally, grey enough to make sure that there’s wriggle room for this Government to shoot their needs.

I suggest, then, perhaps, that there could be a better title for this particular bill—something along the lines of “Denigrating Workers’ Rights Bill”. Something like that—that is very clear, it’s quite poignant, it makes out exactly what we believe on this side of the House this bill actually does. If we look towards the title, it seems innocuous in so far as it says it’s just a “(Workforce) Amendment Bill”, but, actually, what’s happening is more far reaching. It isn’t just the workforce in the Defence Force; it’s actually the workforce across the public sector. That’s where we believe that the name of this bill probably doesn’t match, actually, the intent of the Minister or this Government.

We would recommend—and I’m sure that there will be suggestions from others of my colleagues about how this might be better labelled so that those out in the public can understand at least some of the comments made from Government benches about what they believe Labour or the Green Party might think about this particular bill.

I will leave that one as a starter, just to make sure that those out in the public know exactly what it is that this bill does.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to speak on this bill, in particular, looking at Clause 1, the title of the bill. I do take the points made by the Hon Peeni Henare that perhaps we should consider having a more accurate label on the tin. We look at the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill, and, of course, as we heard throughout the discussions of the second reading debate, they were wide-ranging, and there were wide-ranging concerns and, of course, differences that were highlighted between civilian personnel and military personnel. The question is: how does this particular title encompass the differences between military personnel and civilian personnel?

I do make the point around some of those differences, as well, which I think should be more accurately featured in this title, but it doesn’t—that is, with civilian personnel you should have the right to strike. You should have all those abilities to do all the things that you do in civilian life in the same way that other public sector workers are able to do that, as well. It’s different if you’re working as military personnel: you sign up for a particular role, there’s a hierarchy—you can’t just get up and leave, because that’s deserting. You can’t do particular other issues, as well, that you could do within the civilian sphere, because that is what you sign up for and that’s understood and that’s appreciated.

I know that many people across the House, including myself, have relations that are in the Defence Force who have taken that role, have been recruited, and who understand what it is that they are doing, as well. But it is different in this bill, because this bill actually focuses on the civilian personnel. I think there is an argument that we should be having around whether the label on the tin is as accurate as it could be, because we look at it and we think, “Well, actually they must be all talking about the same workers. The workers that are military personnel must be the same as the workers that are civilian personnel.” That is clearly not the case.

I think it’s important to also highlight a number of questions that actually came up in the select committee around why there were so many civilian personnel. There’s around about 3,000; around about 1,000 of those are unionised. Is it a cost-cutting exercise that we’re actually bringing in civilian people to do what many of us would have assumed that military personnel would have done instead? Having that clarity, I think, right at the top in clause 1, as part of that label on the tin, would go some way to giving some clarity about what this bill is actually about—because those differences, as we learnt and as we explored in the select committee, are actually quite profound there. There are actually some differences there, as well.

I did mention that in round one of the submissions we heard that if you are in the military personnel, you don’t get to mouth off; you don’t get to do or say certain things, you just follow orders. But if those orders mean it is you taking roles and preventing a civilian colleague from being able to exercise their right and to actually strike in the fullest sense of the word, then I think that needs to be accurately described in the title.

I did take the point from the Hon Peeni Henare in his suggestion that the title be the “Denigrating Workforce Bill”—a bit harsh, but if he does put it down as an amendment, it’s probably something that we could probably support, as well. But I think it could be more accurate to describe it as the “Impacting Civilian Personnel (Workforce) Bill”. That might be, I don’t know, a nicer way to put it instead.

This opening debate on clause 1 is an important debate, because it sets the tone about what we’re actually talking about and having to make sure that we have those differences laid out. I don’t think those have been laid out very clearly in the title. I’m open to hearing other suggestions, which would help to, at first glance, when you look at this thing, be a lot more clear about what it is. We did hear a number of speeches from this side of the House around strikebreaking, the concerns from unions, and the concerns from workers, as well, while finding a way to be as respectful as possible to the military personnel. We’ve got to find ways to make sure that civilian personnel and military personnel could work together.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, there’s nothing wrong with this title to the bill. It’s accurate and it doesn’t have all that emotional rubbish that I’ve just been listening to. I think it’s very important to understand that the Defence Force is somewhat different from what it was in 1990, when the original Act was first brought through. One of the differences is that there is a higher proportion of civilian staff now than what there was in 1990. What we’ve seen is a drop in the number of uniformed staff and that is because of the decisions over the last 35 years, particularly around civilianising parts of the Defence Force. Those decisions were made for reasons that, no doubt, seemed sensible at the time, but what it has done is that the Chief of Defence Force has fewer people who he can choose to deploy on overseas and other activities.

I take you back to the fact that the New Zealand Defence Force tries very hard to make sure that civilians and uniformed staff are treated in a decent and good manner and that they work together wherever possible. The point is that everyone brings something different to their roles—but it is important that the Chief of Defence Force has more say over where his people are deployed and what they’re doing, and to be able to make sure that he doesn’t have a situation as we had around this time last year when we were looking at the Christmas break in Parliament lifting for the year, with the possibility of the civilian staff, or the union that was representing them, the New Zealand Public Service Association (PSA), deciding that they were going to lift the people who were guarding the armaments supplies.

That was something that, I felt, showed a real lack of appreciation by the PSA union: that they would leave armament supplies unguarded at a time when anyone could have gone in there—not only health and safety but national security issues. We do not live in a benign strategic environment. We do have people who, unfortunately, will steal those sorts of things. It is totally unacceptable. For the Chief of Defence Force to be powerless to actually put in uniformed staff over that Christmas period when Parliament had risen, and we couldn’t actually come back to get Parliament to vote again, was outrageously unacceptable and we’re not going to have it again. I want to make this really clear: mess around with our national security, you’re messing around with something that this Government takes very seriously, and we will take it seriously.

So the title is exactly as it as should be. It is clear, it’s unambiguous, and it deals with the fact that the Chief of Defence Force has to be able to look to his whole workforce and to use them the best that he can for national security reasons. Think, also, of the other work that the New Zealand Defence Force does around civil disasters that we have here, whether it’s volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, cyclones, and everything else. He’s got to be able to deploy people into those sites, in those areas, and he’s got to be able to have the uniformed staff, who are supported by the civilian staff, to help make that happen. It just doesn’t all happen overnight. It’s not just one person who does it; it’s a whole team. The workforce needs to be a team, and it’s incredibly important that we take a responsible situation.

The Chief of Defence Force would be the only employer in the country who has to come to Parliament to get permission to make decisions about who he has working somewhere. That is truly a difficult position—he’s about the only person who does. To have the Opposition that voted against all the attempts we had last year to give the Chief of Defence Force the powers to have his ammunition supply areas guarded, to have camps guarded, to take those measures—how dare they turn up tonight and say this is about workers’ rights. They put the country in this situation by not supporting the Government then; they’re not going to do it again.

Just before I take the next call, I just have to say it’s very difficult to insist on the Opposition keeping very narrowly to the point of the clause when the Minister, basically, gives a general debate speech. Just saying. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Thank you, Mr Chair. You’re spoiling my fun. I thought that the Minister of Defence gave a very emotional and heartfelt speech, and I was going to give the Minister a nice response to that. But I will stick very closely to the first clause, thank you, Chair.

In terms of what the Minister’s referring to, I think my colleague Teanau Tuiono has a good point in terms of whether the “workforce” is actually the best term to use in this case, because while we do see workforce happening if we see subsequent clauses, all of that is referring to “use of Armed Forces” in specific circumstances. I want to check with the Minister if she would consider my amendment, which is “Defence (Use of Armed Forces) Amendment Bill” which is more in line with the subheading and the crossheading of clauses 4 and 5 of this current legislation.

In terms of another potential amendment—and this is something that my colleague Teanau Tuiono hasn’t spoken on, is one of his amendments on the title, because as the Minister mentioned, the main reason that we’re bringing this bill into the House is around instances where there is a strike action. I also agree with the Minister that, when you are looking at why people are striking in the first place, the Government, as the Minister puts it, also has the ability and the responsibility to settle any sort of negotiating, etc., so, that way, staff don’t have to resort to strike. I’m sure the Minister is well aware of the fact that people will strike with a lot of processes and in extreme and dire circumstances where there are no other options remaining.

Finally, just to the Minister: considering that this bill is more about preventing or undermining, as some would say in the select committee stage, the ability for people to strike, I wonder if, quite appropriately, the Minister would consider the title by my colleague Teanau Tuiono, which is “Defence (Counterstrike) Amendment Bill”.

I’m concerned that the bill has a title which we look at and we actually simply can’t tell what the bill does. It’s not particularly descriptive of the bill’s activities, no matter which way we look at this. I appreciate that the Minister comes from a very different point of view from the Labour Party on this, but even the Minister must accept that the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill tells the public nothing. It doesn’t inform them.

We have here a bill that takes a group of workers who sign up to the military to do a job—and they are actually our bravest people—and they’re coming in on one basis, and their labour is being forced to be redirected in another direction. I’ve had several volunteers who have been in the military, and I think about their commitment to the values of the Labour Party. I think about their commitment to issues around industrial labour and striking, and it looks to me like, here, those very people would be forced to take up a role while another worker is striking. It’s not a military role; it’s a very different kind of role that they’re being forced into. They’re not defending the country, as such.

Now, I appreciate there’s also the issue of the extension of the powers not to bring this back to Parliament. I presume that’s why Parliament was there: it’s the check and balance, in a difficult situation—and I appreciate life is messy—but it’s a check and balance that this Parliament put in place because this is a difficult situation, because we sign up our young men and women to do military service, and we redirect them into something that they didn’t anticipate being part of. It does have a political impact, because if you are replacing civilian workers, that is a political act for many people. That is why you have heard such passion tonight, Minister—sorry, for the Minister’s benefit: that is why the Minister is getting such a passionate response from the Labour Party and the Green Party, because it goes against the values of a lot of the people on this side of the House to replace the work of someone who is legitimately using industrial tools, which are narrow anyway. They’re not something that they can do outside of the law; they are restricted enough as it is. It takes away the balance that’s already been built in.

I do wonder about this title, and I’d like a real answer on this: does the Minister really think that this title tells us what this bill does? Is there a possibility of coming up with something neutral? Now, I might not come up with something neutral. I might come up with something which actually talks about the forced labour of the military and forces them into civilian occupations. I might do that, but, actually, even if we pared it back emotionally, I do think there is a need to get the bill aligned with what it does, in terms of its title. I just simply don’t think it happens.

I’d like the Minister to assure me that she thinks this title—Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill—tells the public what it needs to know, and what does she have to say about the forced nature of the labour moving across into the civilian areas? What can I tell my young volunteers who are in the military and have signed up for the sake of their country? What do I tell them about their obligation to cross the picket line and do the work of a striking worker, given that they’ve joined the Labour Party because they believe that these principles are pretty important? Can they tell from this title what, actually, this bill is going to make them do when they sign up? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Speaking on the “Title” clause, we’ve heard a number of impassioned speeches—one from the Minister of Defence, as well—so I’m not planning to use any emotion here, Minister, you’ll be pleased to hear.

But coming to this bill for the first time—it’s not one I’ve looked at before—I looked at it and thought, “Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill; oh yeah, something about workforce.” But having listened to these debates, it does very much seem that this is about uniformed staff or armed forces doing the job of civilians—civil staff—when those civil staff are taking some strike action. I’m happy to be told by the Minister that my listening to the debate is wrong somehow, but I really think that something along those lines would be a much more accurate description of what this bill does.

We will look later, when we come to clause 5—which I’m very interested in—about this relationship to those strikes, with the reference to section 97 of the Employment Relations Act, which is all about striking. I would like the Minister to answer my question about whether or not she would consider some change, to really be clear about what this bill does. From listening to the Minister, and from those very, very brief speeches we heard in the second reading from Government members, it does seem that they’re very much in support of this bill and think that it’s very simple. We heard in the second reading that people who were disagreeing with the Government—we’re told that they are illiterate. So I want to help with the literacy of everybody in this House, and suggest that the Minister respond to me about why it is called the Defence (Workforce) Amendment Bill, when it would be much better called the “Defence (Armed Forces Doing the Jobs of Civil Staff When Those Civil Staff are on Strike) Amendment Bill”.

The existing provisions only cover a situation where the House of Parliament was dissolved or expired. There’s no current provision for when the House is adjourned, and the bill addresses that.

The other question about the workforce amendment bill, and the title, which is what this debate is about: all those other suggestions seem, to me, completely out of line. The bill itself “introduces a new process for the Minister of Defence to authorise the Armed Forces to conduct the work of NZDF Civil Staff taking industrial action when there are reasonable grounds to believe that—an authorisation is needed to avoid prejudicing—national security; or the ability and/or readiness of the Armed Forces to perform specific operational activities that are integral to core defence outputs; or it is necessary for the work to be performed for reasons of [health and safety]”. So it’s not just people striking; it’s all these other things having to be in place.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the title replacing “Workforce” with “Use of Armed Forces” be agreed to.

Teanau Tuiono’s tabled amendment to the title replacing “Workforce” with “Counter Strike” is out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House will resume at 9 a.m.

to the Minister for Economic Growth

What recent reports has she seen on exporters’ access to United States markets?

The Government welcomes the United States’ decision this week to remove the additional tariffs that had been applied to a range of New Zealand agricultural products, including beef, offal, and kiwifruit. These products represent around 25 percent of our exports to the United States, worth approximately $2.21 billion a year. The removal of these tariffs restores pre - liberation day access for exporters and provides some relief for farmers, processors, and rural communities, and the jobs that they support. This is a positive step in the right direction for free and competitive trade.

How will this benefit New Zealand exporters?

The removal of the additional 10 to 15 percent tariffs is expected to save New Zealand exporters around $330 million in duty costs per year. That, of course, represents a meaningful boost for our agricultural sector, particularly beef, offal, and kiwifruit producers, helping strengthen export revenues at a time when international conditions remain challenging. This also contributes to New Zealand’s wider economic recovery, improving cash flow for exporters that underpin jobs and boost regional incomes.

What has industry said about this change?

Well, removing the additional tariffs lowers costs for exporters and strengthens New Zealand’s competitiveness in one of our most important markets. Industry has welcomed the decision. Beef + Lamb New Zealand says, “This returns us to a level playing field.”, while the Meat Industry Association of New Zealand notes that “With US production at 70-year lows, New Zealand’s high-quality, safe food and fibre products are needed in that market. This announcement is welcomed and supports our export-led recovery, allowing New Zealand food exporters to compete and contribute fully to a stronger, more resilient New Zealand economy.”

What other actions is the Government taking to increase trade opportunities for New Zealand?

New Zealand is a trading nation, and this Government set the ambitious target of doubling the value of our exports in 10 years. To progress that, we have expanded work with Gulf partners through the United Arab Emirates and New Zealand Gulf Cooperation Council agreements; launched and progressed free-trade agreement negotiations with India; expanded cooperation with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations; and reduced non-tariff barriers through regulatory alignment, digital trade tools like e-certification, and targeted market access work across agencies. Together, these steps support more predictable access, lower compliance costs, and stronger export-led growth.

to the Associate Minister of Health

What recent data has she seen about smoking rates in New Zealand?

This morning, results from the New Zealand health survey on smoking rates between 1 July 2024 and 30 June 2025 were released. While it’s encouraging to see the daily smoking rate across all populations decreased slightly to 6.8 percent, it’s even more encouraging to see that fewer Pasifika are smoking and that the smoking rate for 15- to 24-year-olds is 3.2 percent, down from 19.1 percent when the survey started 13 years ago.

What do the results tell us about current smokers?

At the broadest level, smoking rates for those aged between 45 and 64 remain persistently high. While Health New Zealand and stop-smoking services have worked to refocus their efforts on this demographic, it takes time to shift the behaviour of people who have been lifelong smokers. The data also show that continued focus is needed to reduce Māori and Pasifika smoking rates, which remain higher than population-wide. To be clear, Health New Zealand and stop-smoking providers continue to work incredibly hard to reach into communities to support those who smoke to quit, through whatever tools work for them, whether it’s gum, lozenges, patches, or vapes.

Supplementary. [Interruption]

Just wait a minute.

What other trends do the data show?

I’m particularly interested in digging further into what’s driving a growing gender gap in smoking rates. Smoking rates for women have been noticeably decreasing more quickly than those for men. We’re also seeing a slower but steady growth in Asian smoking rates, which had previously been amongst our lowest smokers. While these trends highlight the need for us to remain agile in how we target our efforts to reduce smoking rates, what we can’t lose sight of is the tremendous progress that’s been made: we have 280,000 fewer smokers than we did 13 years ago.

What are the next steps she is considering?

As I’ve alluded to, I want to ensure we’re making the best use of our resources, and this includes how best to target the people who are actually smoking. Thankfully, we know young people aren’t taking it up. What we need to focus on is how to shift older smokers, connect with Māori and Pasifika smokers, and reduce the gap between males and females. In addition, I’m considering further regulatory changes that will ensure we have a regime that reflects the harm of products and has appropriate controls on the market. These changes will be informed by recommendations from the Ministry of Health smoke-free advisory group.

Has she seen that due to the success of this programme, there is less tax coming into the Treasury of $200 million; and is that going to the tobacco companies, or is the explanation behind that that someone who says that is an economic moron? [Interruption]

That’ll do—that’s enough. A very brief answer.

Yes, we can confirm that there are no tax breaks, for those who understand the economy. This is about a budget for reduced revenue.

Before I call the next question, I’ll just go back to the drill sheet for a Government motion that I understand was circulated to the House.

Question time interrupted.

to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

When he told Mike Hosking, in July last year, that “food prices are falling really quickly”, which food prices was he referring to, given staples like milk, cheese, butter, and bread have all skyrocketed in price, under his leadership, some by as much as 50 percent?

I was referring to the 12.5 percent under his Government, when he was Prime Minister, versus the 4.7 percent under my Government, when I’m Prime Minister.

So does he regard a 4.7 percent increase in food prices as “food prices falling really quickly”, and does he think that most New Zealand families would feel that way?

From 12.5 percent to 4.7 percent, that is a much better result.

Does he think that the price of an average family’s grocery shop is cheaper or more expensive under his leadership?

Well, the member, hopefully, does understand inflation, which is a thing where prices keep going up. Food prices have gone up 4.7 percent. It’s because dairy and meat prices and global coffee prices, in particular, have been contributing to that result. But what I say is that when food prices go up 12.5 percent, each year, under his Government, versus 4.7 percent under our Government, and inflation is at 3 percent, that is a better result and a better outcome than what he achieved.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that between November 2020 and November 2023, food prices rose a total of 22 percent?

Yes, I can, and that was a function of a Government that increased wasteful spending, drove up inflation, and drove up interest rates. This is a Government that has taken inflation down, has had eight interest rate cuts, and food inflation at 4.7 percent—we’d love it to be lower, but it’s much better than 12.5 percent.

If his Government has fixed the cost of living crisis, as he’s claimed, why are there now 650,000 New Zealanders—one in seven—who cannot afford to go and see their doctor?

Well, I’d just say, under this Government, we have made the biggest investment around primary GP care by capping it at 3 percent and putting $175 million in. Ninety percent of New Zealanders, if they don’t have a community services card, can access a GP for $70 or less. But, again, the member wants to gaslight his record, but under his Government, GP prices went up 30 percent. Again, the simplest thing that the member could do is come on board and support the extended prescriptions, because, of course, that would free up $105 and actually make sure that a 12-month period, rather than a three-month period, means more GP appointments are made available to everybody.

So will New Zealanders pay more for their prescriptions or less than they would have had the Government not scrapped free prescriptions, as they did when they first became the Government?

New Zealanders who have long-term medical issues and who need regular medicines can now extend those medicines out to 12 months, meaning they don’t have to go back to the GP to get repeat prescriptions. That saves them $105. It’s a pretty simple issue. It’s not ideological. Just come on board and support it.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that the Government has committed billions of dollars into filling fiscal holes and funding dozens of new medicines for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders through its careful economic management?

I can confirm that the Pharmac management has got infinitely better. I want to thank the Minister for his contributions around that. We actually did plug a fiscal cliff that was left behind by the previous administration. We put forward $605 million into cancer drugs. We have made a big investment in GP visits. We’re very, very focused on all of our metrics in healthcare, unlike the last Government where it went backwards on everything.

So how does increasing the price of going to your doctor and introducing fees for prescriptions help New Zealanders struggling with the cost of living?

Well, it went up over 30 percent under Labour, under your Government. That’s how much the GP fees went up—over 30 percent. We have capped them at 3 percent. We have put $175 million in. We are simply saying to people who have long-term prescriptions: extend them out to 12 months and save GP visits, freeing up opportunities for other folk to be able to get into their GP much faster.

Does he accept responsibility for the fact that there are now 98,000 more New Zealanders smoking or vaping daily than when he became Prime Minister and that New Zealand has plummeted from second in the world to 53rd in the world, when it comes to the Global Tobacco Industry Interference Index, falling further and faster than any other country on Earth?

Well, first and foremost, if I could deal with the last bit first, the Tobacco Industry Interference Index, which, actually, is not a credible report, because when Brunei is ranked number one in the world and they’re smoking rate is 17 percent, it’s not the best thing I’d be putting my store of knowledge into. But I’d also just say to the member that New Zealand has the third-lowest smoking rate in the OECD, and we are at 6.8 percent. That is very good progress when you consider the UK is at 11.9 percent, the US is at 11.6 percent. When you look at Australia, it’s at about 8.3 percent; Canada is at about 8.2 percent. We are making good progress, but we are now dealing with a small group of hard core smokers that we actually need to continue to work hard at, and, encouragingly, when you look at 15-to-24-year-old smoking rates, they are well below 5 percent—well below 4 percent—at 3.2 percent. That’s a good thing. That’s a generational shift.

If the Prime Minister is correct with respect to that false report that had, for example, Burkina Faso way ahead of us, when their smoking is far higher than ours—

It is an indictment on this Government.

—the question is: why did Morning Report run that rubbish, unchallenged, earlier this week?

I don’t know, but it’s clearly not a credible report.

Point of order, sir.

Point of order. I’ll have to say that I’m tempted to actually ask for the question to be asked again because there was a comment made across the House during that question.

Yesterday, sir, you required a member to commence a question without statement and with a question word. That is consistent with Speakers’ ruling 187/7. We would ask that that direction be applied consistently across all members.

Yes, most certainly. That last question started with the word “can”. Prime Minister?

I’ve answered it.

Oh, you’ve answered that one. I missed that part.

to the Minister for Infrastructure

What reports has he seen on New Zealand’s Infrastructure Pipeline?

This week, the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission released its quarterly snapshot report on the infrastructure pipeline for the quarter ending 30 September. It shows the value of infrastructure initiatives in the pipeline has grown to $275 billion, an increase of $38 billion from the previous quarter. It’s great news for the construction sector and for economic growth. The value of initiatives with a confirmed funding source increased from the previous quarter, up by $56 billion to $181 billion. Overall, the pipeline now contains over 12,000 projects that are under way or being planned.

Why is the national infrastructure pipeline important?

The pipeline signals upcoming activity to the market, helping people plan ahead for major projects so they can hire, train, and retain key staff. We are working hard with infrastructure providers to improve the quality of information into the pipeline and also to raise the visibility of the pipeline itself. It is quite common to hear some people, including commentators and MPs in this House, say, “What we need is an infrastructure pipeline.” I agree. The truth is we have one.

How many infrastructure projects are under construction?

There are 2,500 infrastructure projects under construction across the country, with a further $10.5 billion of initiatives in procurement that will begin work shortly. In the September 2025 quarter, New Zealand was building over 680 water projects, 590 transport projects, 80 school projects, and 35 health and hospital projects. Around 320 initiatives under construction are valued at over $25 million each. We’re looking forward to seeing this grow over time.

How many infrastructure projects are under construction in Auckland?

I know that the member will be very interested in Auckland. The infrastructure pipeline shows there are around 800 projects being delivered in Auckland, with a further 100 projects in procurement that will begin work shortly, including a couple of major transport projects in South Auckland that I know the member will be interested in, alongside his colleagues.

Is the national infrastructure pipeline growing?

Yes, indeed it is. We’re looking forward to seeing it grow further as we address our infrastructure deficit. We’re looking forward to the publication, in the new year, of the National Infrastructure Plan currently under way and under development by the Infrastructure Commission.

to the Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Does he stand by the statement made by his Minister of Climate Change at COP-25 today that “We must keep 1.5 alive, Mr President, and New Zealand is committed.”, and, if so, is he aware that with every action his Government takes to increase our domestic emissions, we will be required to pay more to other countries to reduce their emissions?

In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.

Has the Prime Minister requested, or been provided with, any estimate on the cost of offshore mitigation, which is becoming increasingly necessary to meet our nationally determined contributions (NDCs), as a result of Government decisions to enable more domestic emissions?

Well, as I said to the member yesterday, we know that NDC target is tough, but we are doing everything we can to meet that goal, and, importantly, we’re prioritising domestic action to do so. But, as I said, we’re not going to send billions of dollars overseas.

Why has the Prime Minister not requested information on the potential multi-billion dollar cost of meeting our nationally determined contribution, which he has previously said he is committed to?

Well, we’re doing everything we can to meet that. We’ll continue to do so. That’s why we’re taking domestic action to do so, but, importantly we look at our emissions budgets—one and two—we look at our emissions reductions plan, we look at our track in progress towards net zero 2050, and we’re comfortable with the progress we’re making.

Does he stand by the statement made by his Minister of Climate Change at COP today that “We are committed to transparency arrangements.”, and, if so, when will he be transparent with New Zealanders about our potential $24 billion offshore liability, by recording it in Crown accounts?

Well, I want to reassure the member and all New Zealanders that we will just simply not be spending billions of dollars and sending it offshore.

Will the Prime Minister then commit to transparency and accountability by ensuring that that constructive liability under the Paris Agreement nationally determined contributions is recorded on Crown accounts in May next year?

Well, again, we have a series of mechanisms in place to make sure that we’re delivering on our net zero 2050 goal. That’s what we’re very focused around. As I said yesterday—I keep saying to the member; I don’t know how many more ways there are to say it—we’re going to give it a good go. But I just want to reassure New Zealanders that we are not sending billions of dollars offshore, and we’re not sending jobs offshore, either.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that the reference to a constructive liability is actually mythology and there is no legal, enforceable duty that can be imposed on New Zealand to send $24 billion to the Congo in some green, fanciful pursuit?

That is correct, and I just want to say to the member: we are very focused on delivering net zero 2050. Our plan, which is our domestic plan—we’re doing everything we can to take domestic actions—is making sure that we can deliver that, maybe even a bit earlier. That’s a good thing.

Dreamers! Dreamers!

Don’t say that about Treasury.

Just wait, everyone. Those conversations across the House are not to occur.

to the Minister of Finance

Does she agree with Nicola Willis in March 2023 that “National will take action to get food prices under control once more”; if so, are food prices now higher or lower than October 2024?

Well, in answer to the first part of the question: yes. In the year to March 2023, when I made that statement, food prices had risen a whopping 12.1 percent in one year. That, of course, was the highest annual food price increase since 1989. As the member knows, since then, food price inflation has come, in the year to October, down to 4.7 percent. While that is higher than anyone would like, I will take 4.7 percent over 12.1 percent any day of the week.

Why did the Prime Minister claim last year that food prices were “falling really quickly”, when the price of mince is up 18 percent, lamb 22.6 percent, and bread is up 52.5 percent in the last year alone?

As the Prime Minister already explained in answer to an earlier question, it is because one of the marked things that has occurred in the economy under this Government is that food price inflation has come down from its record highs. To put that into context for members: in the period from November 2020 to November 2023, just three years, food prices rose a total of 22 percent. Since November 2023, just shy of two years, they’ve risen a total of 6 percent. So it is an objective fact that food price inflation is under much better control under this Government than it was under the last.

Why, despite her announcement in March of the “next steps in the Government’s mission to deliver better grocery prices for Kiwis”, has the price of cheese increased by 30 percent, eggs by 18.5 percent, and butter by 27 percent, in the last year alone?

Well, I do not wish to patronise the member, but, of course, she will be aware that tradable food items, including particularly dairy items, have been impacted by the strength of global commodity prices. I’ve been advised by Treasury that with export prices recently levelling off, food price inflation is expected to ease next quarter. It is a fact that a lot of food is imported and is also influenced by global markets. According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, international dairy prices have recently been rising at more than 20 percent a year. The member may also wish to celebrate with me that veges fell by 10.7 percent in price this month. That is the largest monthly price decrease for veges since November 2021.

Why did she claim in July 2024 that “cost of living relief is on the way”, when the cost of electricity is up for the 11th month in a row, 11.8 percent higher than the last year?

Because this is the Government that delivered cash to the wallets of every working New Zealander with tax relief, that would have been denied to them by a previous Government—[Interruption]

No, hang on, stop. There’s interjection and there’s barrage—that’s barrage. Just calm it down.

Because we’ve delivered tax relief, we’ve ensured that families with children in early childhood education are able to get up to 40 percent of their fees rebated, because we’ve ensured that inflation has come back into target, that interest rate reductions have been so significant that it is worth hundreds of dollars a fortnight to many families—that is real cost of living relief.

Well, how many families have actually received the full $250 tax cut that was promised by her in 2023?

Well, I’m pleased to advise the member that more than 11,000 New Zealand families in the last quarter got a $150 payment out of the FamilyBoost. Now, fortunately, many of those families will have also benefited from the full impact of our tax relief plan, which in some cases also gave them $50 a week. So you add the numbers up—a skill I know that is, you know, a little lacking over there—and you get to $250 a fortnight.

How would she rate her cost of living performance out of 10, and would that be higher or lower than the 3.9 the New Zealand public have given her Government?

I would describe our work on the cost of living as work that must constantly be in progress. We are not there yet, and anyone who would sit back on their laurels and say they had got that job done would be the wrong person to be a Minister in this Government because we’re a Government that aspires to a lot more for New Zealanders: a faster growing economy, higher incomes, a lower cost of living, more opportunity.

to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality

What recent reports has she seen on cycle trails in New Zealand?