Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 17 December 2025

The House is resumed for the extended sitting. I call on Government order of the day No. 8.

I present a legislative statement on Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill.

Kua tāngia taua tauākī ā-ture i roto i te mana o te Whare, ā, ka kitea ki te paetukutuku a te Pāremata.

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

I move, That the Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill be now read a second time.

I runga i te whakatau a te Komiti Mahinga Pāremata, e takoto ana te pire nei mō te pānuitanga tuatoru ināia tonu nei.

[In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, this bill is set down for third reading immediately.]

I move, That the Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill be now read a third time.

E te taumata manukura o Ngāti Rēhia, o Ngāpuhi whānui hoki, e ngā kaitiaki o Kororipo Pā, tēnā koutou. Ko tēnei taku mihi atu ki a koutou katoa i tēnei rā mana nui o Kororipo Pā kia whakahokia a Kororipo Pā. Kia ora, tihei mauri ora ki a tātou.

[To the leadership panel of Ngāti Rēhia, and of wider Ngāpuhi, the custodians of Kororipo Pā, greetings to you. This is my acknowledgment of you all on this powerful day of Kororipo Pā, when Kororipo Pā is returned. Thank you; the breath of life to us all.]

In August, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust and the Crown signed the Tuhinga Whakaae o Te Tuku Tōmua o Kororipo Pā Deed of On-account Vesting of Kororipo Pā. The deed provides for the Crown vesting Kororipo Pā in Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust and acknowledges that Ngāti Rēhia will hold the site as kaitiaki on behalf of all Ngāpuhi. To the members of Ngāti Rēhia and your Ngāpuhi whānui who have travelled to witness the second and third readings in person, and to those watching it online, I extend a warm welcome. We had a very good time together over breakfast this morning. Thank you for coming all this way. This is a special day.

Ngāti Rēhia have long been kaitiaki of Kororipo Pā and have had the mandate from Ngāpuhi to seek the return of the pā site since the 1970s. Since 2002, the Crown and Ngāti Rēhia have been working closely to return the pā site to Ngāpuhi ownership. It has required an immense amount of work and commitment by many, and it is fitting that we take a moment to recognise their contribution, especially the contribution of those who are no longer with us to witness this significant occasion. As with all negotiations, there are compromises required on both sides, and I acknowledge the commitment, integrity, and generosity of the representatives from Ngāti Rēhia, who worked with officials throughout this process. I particularly want to acknowledge Kipa Munro and Whaea Nora for their leadership of this kaupapa. It’s my hope that the return of Kororipo Pā is a clear expression of the Crown’s commitment to addressing your historical grievances and our earnest desire to walk towards a future shaped by partnership, respect, and reconciliation. I also want to thank those from the Crown side who contributed towards the return, starting off with the Hon Andrew Little, who began the negotiations, and Crown negotiators Brian Dickey, Sir Brian Roche, and Belinda Clark for their roles as chief negotiators.

Kororipo Pā is located on the banks of Kerikeri River in what is now the Kerikeri Basin historic precinct, an area that’s rich with history for Ngāti Rēhia and their Ngāpuhi whānau. Because of its location, it was a military stronghold where ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi would assemble before going to war. It’s also where war parties would return and bring the remains of fallen heroes. It’s a place where the rangatira of Ngāpuhi hapū would meet to deliberate on issues of political importance, and it was where rangatira met to discuss the matter of Hongi Hika and Waikato sailing to England. It was from Kororipo Pā that they subsequently departed to England. It’s where Ngāpuhi rangatira met in 1831 to compose a letter to King William IV seeking to build on a relationship developed during Hongi Hika and Waikato’s visit to King George IV. It’s where Europeans came to these shores, and it was a place of learning and trade between Ngāpuhi, missionaries, and settlers.

The early interactions between Māori and Europeans progressed there were often land transactions conducted between people with very different ideas around landholding. This led to misunderstandings and disputes. Before the signing of Te Tiriti, Governor Hobson promised Māori that the Crown would inquire into these pre-Treaty land transactions and return lands unjustly held. The missionary James Kemp claimed he purchased Kororipo Pā as part of a larger land purchase in 1838. The Crown investigated the claim in a process that drew criticism and was challenged both at the time and since. The Crown ultimately granted title to Kemp for the Kororipo Pā in 1859. Ngāpuhi consistently challenged that decision, rejecting the sale ever since, and they’ve challenged successive land transfers, including the transfer to the Crown on 24 May 1957.

The House first read this bill in September this year. Since then, the Māori Affairs Committee have heard submissions in Kerikeri and visited the pā site to see and feel for themselves the significance of the whenua, and I acknowledge members of the committee for their work. This bill will vest Kororipo Pā in Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust, the governance entity for Ngāti Rēhia. The pā will have historic reserve status, and public access will be maintained. It will remain on New Zealand’s tentative UNESCO World Heritage List, reflecting its international importance.

This is the first redress to be provided to Ngāpuhi as part of a potential Treaty settlement process. Providing redress on account of a future comprehensive Treaty settlement is not the usual approach taken by the Crown; however, in 2022, the Crown agreed to progress this negotiation on an exceptional basis as a gesture of good faith. Ngāpuhi hapū groupings are moving and coming together for settlement purposes, and I look forward to the day that we begin the wider Treaty settlement negotiations as partners committed to redressing the wrongs of the past.

Once this bill is passed, Kororipo Pā will transfer to Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust on 23 January 2026, following Royal assent. I very much look forward to celebrating the return of the pā with Ngāti Rēhia on the whenua next year. Manaaki whenua, manaaki tangata, haere whakamua. [Care for the land, care for people, and advance.] I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ko te mihi tuatahi ki te Atua nāna nei ngā mea katoa. Ko te mihi tuarua ki te Whare e tū nei, tēnā koe.

Āpiti hono, tātai hono, te hunga mate ki te hunga mate. Āpiti hono, tātai hono, te hunga ora ki te hunga ora. He mihi mahana ki a koutou, Ngāti Rēhia. He mihi mahana ki a koutou i tēnei rā whakahirahira. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, huihui mai tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. The first acknowledgment is to God, to whom all things belong. The second acknowledgment is to the House that stands here; greetings.

That which is joined remains an unbroken line, the deceased with the deceased. That which is joined remains an unbroken line, the living with the living. Warm regards to you, Ngāti Rēhia. Warm regards to you on this auspicious day.

And so, greetings and thanks to you, to all of us assembled here.]

Labour supports the bill before us today because it reflects the values of fairness, partnership, respect for people, and respect for the whenua. It recognises that, when the Crown has taken land unjustly, the response cannot be delay or denial; it must be restoration and restoration that is taken in good faith.

This bill is about doing the right thing even when it has taken far too long. Kororipo Pā, as we know, overlooks the Kerikeri Basin. I remember visiting there when I was much younger. My mother and my father were school teachers at Ngataki and we would visit that area. I remember being taken up and admiring the great outlook and having explained to me the strategic location of Kororipo Pā. I will always remember the explanation of the meaning of Kororipo being swirling waters and watching those waters below. It is a beautiful place which has real significance.

We know that it was strategically significant because it controlled key inland routes in those times when rivers were roads. It served as a place where decisions of great consequence were made, and it also functioned as a defensive stronghold. During Hongi Hika’s residence from 1819 to 1826, the pā was associated with the launching of significant taua and the protection of the region.

Also I’ve just recently learnt that back in 1831, this is the place where 13 rangatira composed a letter to King William at the time, one of the first recorded formal engagements between Māori and Pākehā. This is Ngāti Rēhia history, but it is also New Zealand’s history.

This bill gives effect to the matters contained within the Tuhinga Whakaae o te Tuku Tōmua o Kororipo Pā, that deed that was entered into between the Crown and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust. It was signed, as mentioned by the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and also this morning in our celebrations and commemorations, on 1 August. It provides for the vesting of Kororipo Pā Historic Reserve into Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust on account of a future comprehensive Ngāpuhi Treaty settlement.

Labour supports this approach because justice should not be put on hold while larger negotiations continue. Where the case is clear, where mandate exists, and where cultural harm is long standing, we believe that action should be taken, and this bill does exactly that. The Crown’s decision to return Kororipo Pā did not emerge overnight, and we heard that this morning. As Ngāti Rēhia chair Kipa Munro said, while this moment is welcome, it must be acknowledged that many of the kaumātua and the kuia who began the fight for the return are no longer here with us to see that. We recognise that justice delayed compounds that harm, and every year of inaction has come at a cost not only to iwi and hapū but to our Treaty partnership. This bill acknowledges that history and responds with action.

It is my view that this bill is a practical example of the Treaty of Waitangi in action, not as rhetoric but as a responsibility. Treaty negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith and conservation Minister Tama Potaka announced the initialling of the deed at Waitangi, noting that it represents the first redress provided to Ngāpuhi and an important step towards settlement. We support this direction, but we also want to say that Treaty redress should be progressed with care, with good faith, and regardless of whichever party is in Government.

The Crown’s obligation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi does not change with political cycles. We know that since 2022, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia has formally engaged with the Crown on early vesting. Importantly, before the deed was signed, the trust sought support from its hapū members, reflecting a tikanga-based governance and collective decision-making. Durable settlements are those that are mandated, inclusive, and grounded in community authority. The trust has been clear that it will hold Kororipo Pā as kaitiaki on behalf of Ngāpuhi and for the benefit of the people. The site will remain a historic reserve, protected under existing heritage and conservation frameworks. This bill does not take any of that away. It restores the guardianship and those whose whakapapa is inseparable from that land.

We believe that making sure that this goes ahead is important. We believe that when tangata whenua are empowered as kaitiaki, our heritage is better protected, better interpreted, and better cared for. We hope this bill goes towards doing that. We believe that reconciliation is not just achieved through denial or delay but through honest acknowledgment and tangible action such as this bill and the return of this piece of land. By returning Kororipo Pā, Parliament affirms that historical wrongs can be addressed in ways that unite rather than fracture our society. This bill is straightforward, it is fair, it is principled, and it respects Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It acknowledges those who have never relinquished their responsibility and their connection to this place. Kororipo Pā should never have been taken out of Ngāti Rēhia hands. This bill moves closer to putting that right. For those reasons, we support Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill. I commend it to the House.

He mihi mahana ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Warm regards to you. Greetings and thanks to you all.]

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I stand today representing Te Pāti Kākāriki to speak in support of the bill Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill. Kia ora, Ngāti Rēhia in the gallery today.

This bill provides for Kororipo Pā to be vested to Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust, who intend to hold the site as kaitiaki on behalf of all Ngāpuhi. We were very generously hosted as the Māori Affairs Committee on that striking, iconic peninsula in the North, Kororipo. Thank you very much Kipa and all of the Rēhia people who so generously took us out to the pā on that beautiful day.

I want to acknowledge the decades of effort to activate this vesting of the land. Really, when you read the history, it is a century and more in the making, this day. I particularly recall that, at the first reading, the descendants of those whose fathers brokered this most recent process were present, and I acknowledge those here today who were part of that process for its long time in the making.

At the hearings, we got a very clear message that the land should ideally be vested unencumbered, but I want to acknowledge the generosity, once again, of Rēhia and Ngāpuhi in agreeing to those encumbrances remaining, and maintaining public access. Furthermore, it was very clear to us that this vesting is not to be seen as a certain precursor to a broader Ngāpuhi settlement. It stands alone as a vesting, and if Ngāpuhi decide to settle further, that will be decided through other processes.

Hongi Hika is a profound figure in New Zealand history, and when you recognise the context of Kororipo in that history, it is a powerful mark of what we are achieving today, in rightfully returning that land. I want to remember Turikatuku, who was Hongi Hika’s beloved first wife. She was blind, and he could never travel anywhere without her. It was one of the observances of the early missionaries, the mutual devotion between the two of them. Hika formed relationships with the missionaries and protected them, and it was observed by Thomas Kendall, the gentleness of his manner and his charm and his mild disposition. Because the Bay of Islands is located in the North, where most of the Europeans first arrived, it is formative in our history, and Hika had the vision to recognise the mutual benefit in that relationship. In a sense, through his visits both to the United Kingdom and to see the King, he was one of the crucial pathways that allowed that founding agreement—after his death, albeit—that is the basis of our nationhood today.

On this last day of the Parliament sitting, it would be somewhat remiss to not reflect on the actions of this Parliament over the course of the year as they relate to te iwi Māori and Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Whilst we tend to avoid general controversy in these settlement speeches, I feel it must be said that many of us on this side of the House feel the Government has passed divisive legislation in regard to te iwi Māori that has done harm to the Crown/Māori relationship. But, despite this, the House has maintained that mutuality in keeping the settlements going. The settlements have, over more than a generation, been agreed to by all of the parties in the Parliament, and we support that principle: the core principle of settling and making an apology for and recompense for return of land. Though this is a vesting today, it is in that tradition of those broader settlements.

For Te Pāti Kākāriki, the concept of full and final settlement is inconsistent with the principle of a living and dynamic relationship between the Crown and iwi Māori. What nation regards its constitutional foundation as finished, particularly when that foundation is a bond of relationship which has become, in many senses, a bond of love? Our health as a nation must be predicated on living and fulfilling the meaning of that agreement. Hongi Hika had the vision to know the potential of mutual benefit in a healthy, respectful relationship, and the wiser Europeans in our founding knew that too.

I believe the overwhelming majority of the members of this Parliament, in their better instincts, know that the greatest good can only come for our nation in the cohesion that is embodied in the principle of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is, after all, the cynicism of later Crown actions after the signing of the Treaty that is the uncontested betrayal of that relationship that we know as breaches of the Treaty. This Kororipo site being kept out of Māori hands for so long is one example of that.

Today, we as parliamentarians make some small but vital amends for that breach, in the vesting of Kororipo Pā back to Ngāti Rēhia and to Ngāpuhi. When we centre ourselves in good faith and the deep bond of mutual respect, we can generate the potential for powerful good in our country and our nationhood. So, in this return of this land and of this site, we mark a very important principle of what we as a country must do to be the best that we can be, in the vision embodied in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is good that we do this on this last day of the Parliament sitting—it is great that we do this, I would say. So we, as Te Pāti Kākāriki, commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on the third reading to speak on Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill. I was fortunate to be able to speak on the first reading in support of this bill. In that reading, I laid out some of my understanding of the history that Kororipo Pā has had in the North, but also coming down to Te Moana-a-Toi into the Bay of Plenty.

I feel like I’ve said what I want to say on that, so I’m going to hold my comments on that and not reiterate that. But what I do want to talk about is some of what happened with the Māori Affairs Committee that examined this bill. I’m not fortunate enough to be a member of that committee, and I hear about the wonderful trips and visits that are both emotionally deep but also enriching and wonderful experiences for the committee members on that. Following on from Steve Abel’s comments—I actually ran into Steve in the Auckland Airport on his way up to Kororipo Pā. I was heading back to the bay, and I remember thinking, “Jeez, now I wish I’d got on that trip. That would have been quite an interesting one.” Reflecting on that now, I think, “Jeez, that would have really helped with the third reading speech”—going up and having that that experience. Because as I said in my first reading, I’ve never had the pleasure of visiting Kororipo—the area, the stone house—except for being a kid and seeing it across the river while driving past once.

The select committee that examined this bill heard submitters talking about worry about this early redress in vesting Kororipo Pā in Ngāti Rēhia forming some kind of obligation on behalf of Ngāpuhi to settle. I think we all want to see Ngāpuhi settle, but it was clear from the select committee’s process that that won’t be an encumbrance, an obligation that’s being increased because of the settlement. This is a gesture from the Crown that, if and when that settlement comes, will be part of it, but it is not forming any kind of obligation thereof.

There were also worries about the encumbrance as a historic reserve nature of Kororipo Pā and what will be there. But I think it’s clear from what was heard at the committee, what has been heard since, and what members visiting experienced, Ngāti Rēhia is intending to hold this on behalf of the wider Ngāpuhi—and holding the mana for the area but holding it for the wider Ngāpuhi—but also having it as a historic account, a place where New Zealanders can go and be immersed in their history and understand more of what they should know, which is the New Zealand history. Going to a place, being there and looking around is an important part. Studying it is important and making sure that we don’t just rely—I’m going to say, Mr Speaker—on institutions to pass on that knowledge. It’s important that every Kiwi takes it upon themselves to understand the history, because there’s only that way you can truly understand it.

With that, I thank Ngāti Rēhia for taking on this responsibility. I thank the Crown and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for making this gesture and being received so well, and I look forward to visiting that place in the future with my whānau. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Reo Māori i te tuatahi. Tēnā tātou katoa kua oti te whakarauika ki roto i tō tātou Whare Pāremata i tēnei pito whakamutunga o te tau. Me mihi ahau i te tuatahi ki te hunga nā rātou tēnei kaupapa i mau mai hei whakatutuki mā mātou e mau nei i te kara me te korowai, te poka o te Karauna. Nā reira Ngāti Rēhia, tēnā koutou.

Tō tātou tupuna ko Te Māhia Poake. He mokopuna nā Rāhiri, he tupuna ki a Auhā, he matua ki a Te Wairua. Nā reira tēnā koutou i a Rewa, tēnā koutou i a Tāreha, tēnā koutou i a Moka, tēnā koutou i a Te Wharerahi, tēnā koutou i a Hongi Hika, kāore he hautupua o te ao Māori i tua atu i a ia. Māku, mā Ngāpuhi e kōrero.

Tēnei kāinga, tēnei pā i tīmata mai i te pakanga i te wā i mua noa atu i a Tau Hēnare I. Ka whiriwhiria tēnei take i raro i te whakahaere a Judge Acheson i roto i te Kōti Whenua Māori. Ka pakangatia i mua noa atu me pēhea rānei tēnā pā e whakapūmautia ai tā te mea ka wehe atu a Ngāpuhi i wāna whanonga ki te tonga, ko te wāhi i huihui ai, ko te wāhi i wehe ai a Ngāpuhi ko te pā e kōrero nei tātou.

Ahakoa te whakapono, ahakoa tae mai te hia noa atu tāngata o rāwāhi, kei te mau tonu wērā kōrero i roto i a tātou, me manawaroa tātou kia ākona tonutia ēnei kōrero ki ā tātou tamariki kia whakahokia mai te pā ki roto i te ringa kaitiaki o Ngāti Rēhia.

Nā reira tēnā koutou. Tēnā tātou i tō tātou kahurangi, i a Nora. I a Nora, ka kite au i a koe, ka kite au i ngā mātua i tautoko i a koe. Kua riro ko koe tō rātou kanohi i tēnei rā. Nā reira tēnā tātou katoa.

[Māori language initially. Greetings to all of us who have managed to assemble within our House of Parliament at this end of the year. It is appropriate for me to first acknowledge the people who brought this matter here to be resolved by us that wear the colours and the cloak, the mantle of the Crown. Therefore, Ngāti Rēhia, greetings to you.

Our ancestor is Te Māhia Poake. A grandchild of Rāhiri, an ancestor to Auhā, an uncle to Te Wairua. Therefore, greetings to you with respect to Rewa; greetings to you with respect to Tāreha; greetings to you with respect to Moka; greetings to you with respect to Te Wharerahi; greetings to you with respect to Hongi Hika—there is no more talented a figure of Māori society than him. Let me, let Ngāpuhi, tell you.

This settlement, this pā, began in the war at a time long before Tau Hēnare I. This issue was considered under the administration of Judge Acheson in the Māori Land Court. A long time before, the debate raged over how that pā would be made permanent, because Ngāpuhi departed due to their morals for the South—the place that they assembled, the place that Ngāpuhi left from, was the pā that we are discussing.

Despite your faith, despite the vast number of people from abroad that arrived, those narratives are retained among us, and we should be determined so that these narratives continue to be taught to our children so that the pā may be returned into the custodians’ hands of Ngāti Rēhia.

And so greetings to you. Greetings to all of us with respect to our matriarch, Nora. Nora, when I see you, I see the elders that supported you. You have become their representative today. Therefore, greetings to us all.]

This pā site reminds us that there is a rich history prior to the Treaty of Waitangi. It is a history that reflects the melding together of the original missionaries and various other traders, and the people who represented the tribes of the North at that time.

So it is a pleasure and a privilege to speak on behalf of New Zealand First, with my leader, Winston Peters, and my other colleagues, because this particular pā site has undergone at least 130 years of to-ing and fro-ing between the native lands department, the Māori Land Court, and multiple commissions of inquiry. Indeed, a cursory study of the history of this pā site brings to life names of people long since gone, not the least of which was the original Tau Henare, who served in this House in the days of Sir Apirana Ngata, and the trust was bestowed upon him to ensure that what became known as the “Pā Committee” of his time would do the right thing for the entirety of the Ngāpuhi tribe. The fact is that we are witnessing today the fulfilment of something that multiple generations before those of us who occupy the House today travailed away with.

In many respects, it is a feature of New Zealand history—the Stone Store, reflective of the early period of colonisation, the pā of the Chief Rewa, whose daughter was betrothed to the younger brother of the first Māori king to make the peace between the Waikato and the Ngāpuhi after the devastating Musket Wars. Those descendants are buried at the little Anglican church at Māngere, and they are the kaitiaki of Te Puea Marae in South Auckland. The other side of the Kerikeri River is Kororipo Pā, and, as I’ve said in Māori, it is a site not only of significance to the local hapū but to the entirety of the northern Māori, and it’s said that when Hongi Hika went with Waikato to meet the King in his trip, and to contribute to the development of the Māori alphabet, they left from Kororipo Pā. That is the tradition that we were reared in, and a great debate and discussion happened, because to undertake such a risky trip in those days was not for the faint-hearted but it reflected the adventurous spirit of the Ngāpuhi ariki Hongi Hika in terms of martial prowess.

So it is a site of significance. It should feature as a key obligation for the current generations to teach the children. We don’t expect Wellington to solve all of our education problems; we can take responsibility, those of us, who have grown up in the culture. But I do want to remind the House that, yes, we are vesting this pā back into the hands of the rūnanga, who will hold it in a type of guardianship.

But not far from this pā site is a well-known marae, and it’s known as a Māori Battalion marae, and it’s near Whangārei, in a place called Pehiāweri. That marae, over 40 years ago, was handed back in a novel, unheard way via a private member’s bill, sponsored by the Rt Hon Winston Peters. That marae is regarded not only for its connection to the signatories of the Treaty, more recently the Māori Battalion, but also the Anglican Church. So we should put today’s event, Minister Goldsmith, in a lineage of important events. But never forget, without necessary fanfare or, indeed, media coverage, there have been steps taken in the North to restore important pieces of land.

I need look no further than Ngāti Rēhia’s cousins across the Bay of Islands to a block of land called Hauai. Hauai was a grievous case of mischief where the owners were to be given some land in a township called Hikurangi, only to find they could never use it, never build upon it, because it was sitting on top of a latticework of old coalmines. They came to the Rt Hon Winston Peters many years ago, and that land was restored back to that small part of the broader Ngāpuhi community, the uri of Moka, Rewa, and Te Wharerahi.

So, yes, this is an important step, and New Zealand First most certainly will support it, but it’s incumbent that we see it as only one step on the journey for the settlement of the Ngāpuhi claim. And on that vexed matter, I will have much to say during the next election campaign. We support the bill.

He kauhau weherua ka whai nei.

[This is a split call coming up.]

Mariameno Kapa-Kingi.

Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Mr Speaker, tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa, e te Whare. Meri Kororipo, tētahi kōrero ka puta mai i te Pīka i te ata nei, ka noho tahi mātou i te whare rā.

[Mr Speaker, thank you, and to the House, greetings to all of us. “Merry Kororipo”—one of the comments made by the Speaker this morning, as we sat together in that building.]

That was a nice thing to hear. Meri Kororipo, tātou mā. [Merry Kororipo, everyone.]

In my previous speech on this matter, I referred to Nora as a tsunami-type water when people were describing her as the kororipo. This morning, she is not in tsunami state; in fact, she’s quite relaxed and loving and all of those good things that Ngāti Rēhia can be. To Kipa, I want to name some things from the current day, following the kōrero from my cousin Shane Jones, because those things are captured in a very particular way of a certain time. Today, I want to think and talk about today, and today going forward. So to Kipa, to be respected and feared at times as well—appropriately so—I’d just like to acknowledge him. Alana, as well, is to be admired and to be watched with interest as she grows and develops.

I’ve listened to the previous speakers and the speeches this morning, and you can hear all the sad tale and the mechanics of all of it, so I’m not going to repeat that. What I am going to bring to this discussion is something less romantic maybe and probably more plain and more pragmatic. What I do recognise in moments when we have these types of discussions is it gets all very—I mean, it’s kind of not unreasonable. It does get soft and it does get nice, and sometimes it can dismiss or nearly disguise some very real and raw feelings that are still very, very current and should not be ignored.

In the description te “whakahokia”, which might plainly be used in English as “to return”, what I understand about that is that is actually not, on a very plain and pragmatic level, what’s happening, because Ngāti Rēhia never left. They never left their post; they never went away. They maintained their space there, and they have managed and loved and looked after this particular place forever, so I’m just wondering who’s returning what. I understand, in a mechanical way, this is what the House is doing, but what the House is doing is not actually what Ngāti Rēhia are doing. They have always, always been there, and they will never ever leave. We’re just satisfying our process.

I’m not saying that it isn’t a bad thing, but I do want to recognise that, in amongst this, this has been a fight to get this back into place. This has been a fight. It’s not like, “Yes, let’s just do this because we’re nice and reasonable people.” This is occurring because there’s been a constant fight, and even my whanaunga Shane Jones referred to this. This fight has been endured for so long, right? What Ngāti Rēhia have had to do really is to tolerate this process, is to endure this process, and to hold the line to this point. I want to acknowledge their efforts and their work, because we should do this. It’s about time. I recognise, in some of the earlier kōrero, that there have been previous efforts in other places, in other spots around the Bay of Islands.

This, today, is particular recognition of the work and the effort and the fight that is endured by Ngāti Rēhia for Ngāti Rēhia, for their pā. I want to make those points, and I want to just acknowledge that, as we move forward with the names that I’ve already read out and others that I can see up in the gallery today, it is an important day, and it is important, on this day, that we get our business done. In fact, what we need to do is get out of their way—we get out of their way so that Ngāti Rēhia can progress and do all the things that they should and must do so that they can grow and flourish and they can get on with the Ngāti Rēhia life that they’re entitled to. I certainly love and support this as the MP for Te Tai Tokerau. Well done, Ngāti Rēhia. Kia ora tātou.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka i tēnei wā o te Kirīhimete, me te mihi nui ki ngā whanaunga o Ngāti Rēhia e kanohi mai nei i te mana o ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi mō tēnei take. Kua roa te hīkoi, i tēnei wā mā te Whare Pāremata e mana ai te whakahokinga o tēnei whenua taurikura, o tēnei wāhi whakahirahira mō ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi ki roto i ngā ringaringa o te hapū o Ngāti Rēhia hei kaitiaki mā tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker, at this time of Christmas, and many greetings to the relatives from Ngāti Rēhia that are here representing the authority of the hapū of Ngāpuhi regarding this issue. It has been a long march, and now it is for Parliament House to enact the return of this abundant land, of this important place for the hapū of Ngāpuhi into the hands of the hapū of Ngāti Rēhia as a custodian on behalf of all of us.]

I wish to tāpiri, whai i te kōrero a waku hoa i tēnei ata [add, to follow on from the speeches of my colleagues] and acknowledging the long history, the prehistory, before the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the important role that the pā of Kororipo held within the bosom of Ngāpuhi-nui-tonu. I reflect on tūpuna such as Te Wairua and Auha and Whakaaria, down to Te Hotete and Hongi Hika. As an uri of a few of Hongi’s children, it is a beautiful day to see, finally, the return of these lands that have been hotly contested for 187 years, to return to the hands of Ngāti Rēhia to administer and be kaitiaki on behalf of the descendants of this whenua.

Because Kororipo Pā was a tāhei. Kororipo Pā was taken in old land claims by Kemp. Hapū have maintained and continued to reject the fact that this whenua, through Kemp, was then handed over to the Crown. As mana e te whenua, hapū have had to endure the footprint of the Crown to whakahaere this whenua, to finally getting a bit of a co-management agreement and getting a few trustees on there and finally we get the land back. But it’s full of encumbrances. It’s full of fishhooks.

I query, where is the honourable Kāwanatanga when we return Department of Conservation lands to the people of the land, as to when we get to finally hold the pen, have full mana whakahaere, and the ability to lock it up or whakahaere it on our terms, and to have full administration alongside our whanaunga hapū. That is not the case here. I pay tribute to the graciousness, again, of iwi Māori who accept this land back and have to administer it after being bystanders watching the Crown sit on it and letting us mow the lawns, me kī [I should say].

It’s good that it’s finally here. It’s finally here after years of hui of our own people. I want to reflect on the 1990s—I think 1994—coming into the 2000s, there were hui. Then Ngāti Rēhia rūnanga’s carried it on since 2022 as kaitiaki to continue the battle for the return. This return is merely the start, because to receive it back in full would be the best way to see a full recognition of tino rangatiratanga, and that we as Kāwanatanga can finally be honourable fully in that space.

It was great to hear Matua Shane talk about Matire Toha, who married Kati, and the people of Te Puea Marae, the kaitiaki, because they just had a whakahounga of Te Puea Marae just two weeks ago. So, you know, the weaving of connections and whakapapa to place continue on through the generations. As myself, a mokopuna of Wharerahi, and as of Patuone I think of the 1831 letter that the tūpuna assembled at Kororipo that framed up, and it was good to get a little mihi from Minister Potaka about He Whakaputanga, because those tūpuna, again, Kororipo at the centre, the bosom of Ngāpuhi, met and they sent the letter to King William IV at the time and said, “Hey, haere mai ki te whakatikatika, haere mai ki te whakatikatika i ō tāngata [come and sort it out, come and sort out your people], and come and protect us from those that are coming on to our shores.”

Kororipo will be beautiful, as it is today and it will be tomorrow, but it is better now that it is back within the hands of hapū. We look forward to the full closure of it at Waitangi coming up where we can stand and be honourable Kāwanatanga, because it has been far too long in the journey thus far.

E ngā mana, e ngā reo, e rau rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa. I whānau mai au ki Kaipara. Ko Maungatūroto tōku wāhi kāinga. Ko Ngāpuke te pāmu e noho ana ahau. Ko Grant McCallum ahau. Tino hūmārie ko ahau te mana Pāremata mō Tai Tokerau. Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To those with authority, the representatives, warm regards to all of you. I was born in Kaipara. Maungaturoto is the place I call home. Ngāpuke is that farm where I live. I am Grant McCallum. I am very humbled to be the member of Parliament for Northland. Therefore, greetings and thanks to you all.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today is a moment of deep significance for Te Tai Tokerau, for Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Rēhia, and for New Zealand. Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill is not just a piece of legislation; it’s a milestone in our shared history and a step towards reconciliation. It marks the first tangible redress in Ngāpuhi’s Treaty settlement journey. That alone makes this day historic.

As the local MP for Northland, I’m proud to support this bill. Earlier this year, on 3 February, I attended the initialling of the deed of on-account vesting at Kerikeri Basin. It was a day that reminded us all of the significance of the site and the promise of partnership. In fact, it’s a day I’ll never forget, because it was one of those perfect Northland days. We were standing there overlooking the basin across towards Kororipo, and lined up there to initial the vesting was the Hon Tama Potaka, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, and, of course, we had Nora and Kipa, and it was just really special to be there and to see that. It’s something that I will always treasure as one of the real highlights of my time in this term of Parliament.

Kororipo Pā is no ordinary place. Strategically located at the junction of the Kerikeri and Wairoa rivers, it was once a stronghold of Hongi Hika and other great rangatira. From here, Hongi Hika launched campaigns that shaped the destiny of iwi across the motu. It was a hub of trade, diplomacy, and strategy, a place where decisions of immense consequence were made. The name “Kororipo”, as has already been mentioned, means “swirling waters”, which reflects really well both its geography and its role as a meeting place where currents of history converged.

For Ngāti Rēhia and Ngāpuhi, Kororipo Pā is a wāhi tapu, a sacred place that embodies mana, whakapapa, and resilience. It is where rangatira gathered to deliberate, where alliances were forged, and when the first encounters between Māori and Pākehā unfolded—some of the earliest. Overlooking Kerikeri Basin, it stands as a silent witness to the meetings of two worlds, the Pā gazing down on Kemp House and the Stone Store, some of the oldest European buildings in our land.

This bill gives effect to the deed signed between the Crown and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust on 1 August 2025, as was mentioned this morning by the Minister. It vests Kororipo Pā Historic Reserve, which is 1.8 hectares—not a lot in size, but huge in consequence and importance. It was managed by the Department of Conservation, but it re-vests it now in the Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Rēhia Trust as kaitiaki on behalf of all Ngāpuhi. Public access will remain unchanged, and the site will retain its historic reserve status to protect its heritage and conservation values.

Importantly, this is an on-account vesting, paving the way for a comprehensive Ngāpuhi settlement, when Ngāpuhi is ready. That approach is rare but deliberate—a gesture of good faith that signals the Crown’s commitment to progress. But this is more than a legal transfer; it is an opportunity. With this vesting, we open doors to cultural revitalisation and economic growth. Plans are already under way for Te Ahurea, a living cultural centre at the Kerikeri Basin, and the launch of Waka Hinepārapara, which will be a major attraction. I look forward to this progressing under your great leadership. These initiatives will create jobs, strengthen tourism, and provide a platform for education about Ngāpuhi history and Treaty relationships.

I want to acknowledge Ngāti Rēhia for their unwavering commitment to this kaupapa. Their role as kaitiaki has been affirmed time and again at hui in 1993, 2008, and, most recently, in 2022. This return honours the vision of kaumātua and kuia who began this journey a long time ago.

Kororipo Pā is more than historic reserve; it is a symbol of reconciliation, a foundation for future prosperity, and a reminder that when we work together—Crown and iwi, Māori and Pākehā—we can achieve something enduring and good. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, otirā ka tuku mihi atu anō hoki ki a koutou o Ngāti Rēhia, o Ngāpuhi. Nō reira tēnā koutou, nau mai, haere mai.

[Thank you to the Speaker; indeed, I also offer greetings to you of Ngāti Rēhia and Ngāpuhi. Therefore, greetings to you, welcome, welcome.]

I join together with colleagues around the House to welcome Ngāti Rēhia and Ngāpuhi on this special occasion. Normally, I’d be speaking on a second reading—of course, we just had the third reading motion, so I am going to say a few things that I would normally say at a second reading, and that is a couple of things. One is to acknowledge all of those who submitted to the Māori Affairs Committee and participated in that. It’s very valuable. I want to acknowledge my colleagues on the committee, in particular the chair, David MacLeod, for managing a shortened report-back time. There was a lot of pressure on the committee to get that work done, and we collaborated really well, and here we are today, before Christmas, with a bill.

We made a couple of minor changes. One of them was to change the commencement date so that we had an actual date rather than 20 days after being signed by the Governor-General. We made a specific date so that we ensured that the transfer could happen early in February. So that’s what the committee did.

I want to acknowledge the Hon Shane Jones for his deep knowledge and understanding of the history of—well, it seems to me that when he makes contributions to this House, it’s the history of the whole of Aotearoa but in particular on this piece of land. I found it fascinating. As uri of Ngāpuhi myself, I’m very proud to stand and contribute to this debate.

I take on board what other members have said—Hūhana Lyndon. There is a real truth to what Hūhana has said about settlements in general. This, like many others, is actually an act of generosity by those who are receiving this land back. It’s an act of generosity for all the reasons that Hūhana spoke about. It’s an on-account settlement for Ngāpuhi and will be looked after by Ngāti Rēhia. So you’ve got many layers of generous actions that help the Crown to satisfy its own processes.

I remember when these settlements started and people suggesting that iwi should be a lot more grateful for what they’re getting back. One of the responses—I won’t name the person, but it was a National Party MP—defended their right to be not so grateful, and he said, “It’s like when someone steals your car and you get a tyre back and you’re told to be thankful you got that tyre back.” That is what it kind of feels like for the people sitting in the gallery when we pass these pieces of legislation.

Of course, if it was an actual Treaty settlement, there’d be a lot more in it. There would also be an apology. There’d be an historical account. I mention the apology because of what my colleague Steve Abel spoke about, because that apology would say, “We won’t do this anymore. We’ve done all these things to you, Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Rēhia, and we’ll never do that again.” Go and ask anyone who settled before 2023 if they feel like the apology in their settlement has been upheld. I challenge any member of the House to do that—because the actions that have taken place in the last two years, such things as removing a book with five Māori words, which is an act against te reo Māori. Something as small as that should have been covered by the apology to all of those who have been settled since their settlement, but it does not stop the Government from continuing down those sorts of tracks, and, yes, we’re not going to stop talking about it. Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai. E ngā tāngata o Ngāti Rāhiri, o Ngāpuhi nui tonu, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the people of Ngāti Rāhiri, of Ngāpuhi the Great, greetings and thanks to you all.]

I’m very pleased to speak, as many of us always are, on the third reading of such a bill, with this one being the Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill. Although it’s not a settlement bill itself, as the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe has talked to, nevertheless it’s a very, very important bill, and it’s a special occasion for it to finally get to this stage.

I say “finally” because if one looks back in the history, which is clearly articulated within the bill, this all started way back in 1838, some 187 years ago. That’s when it started, and that’s two years prior to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and so just think about that. It’s also an area that has huge historical context, and I particularly enjoyed reading that history and learning about some of the history of Ngāpuhi, of Ngāti Rēhia, and also of particular rangatira, such as Hongi Hika and others. They’re names that many New Zealanders know of, but, potentially, they don’t know, particularly, what they did. It is indeed a very colourful history.

The timeline of this bill, as I’ve said, started in 1838, when James Kemp claimed to have purchased the land. Now, this whole tyranny from that date forward to when the title was contested by Ngāti Rēhia—and also the Crown ended up granting the title to Kemp in 1859—is littered with anguish for Ngāti Rēhia. The Crown actually ended up taking on the ownership of it in 1957, with, most recently, the Department of Conservation (DOC) managing it. I note that from the actual deed itself that the one thing that didn’t transfer across to the bill, because it didn’t need to, was the relationship agreement that’s asked upon within the deed between the Department of Conservation and Ngāti Rēhia.

With regard to the select committee process itself, as Adrian Rurawhe has briefly talked to, we had the first reading on 10 September of this year. It did have a very quick report-back date, all for very good reasons—that was agreed upon with the trust—and we did receive 101 submissions. Notably, a good percentage—84 percent, in fact—of those submissions supported the bill, with the others talking to just a couple of particular points that the Māori Affairs Committee had heard of in the hearings that we had at Kerikeri, and we took that into account in our deliberations.

When we reported back to the House, as Adrian Rurawhe has said, there were two amendments, with one being the change to the definition of “vesting date”. Usually, it is 20 working days after the Act enters into force, but that did have some risk for Ngāti Rēhia and we wanted to make sure that this did indeed come into law and was concluded in all matters, and so we have put the particular date of 23 January 2026 as the vesting date.

The second amendment was a very minor one—in fact, it’s the type of amendment that is made on just about every, if not all, settlement bills—and that was the legal description of Kororipo Pā. The legal description is always put in there after the absolute survey has been conducted for itself.

Kororipo Pā was registered as a wāhi tapu on the New Zealand Historic Places Trust register in 2005, and having such status protects public access to the particular piece of land. That continues within this bill, and I think that we should be thankful that at the conclusion of the negotiations, Ngāti Rēhia allowed that, because I think there was some discussion over whether this should come back to them totally unencumbered. I think that there was recognition by Ngāti Rēhia of that important point, and I acknowledge that.

There was large, Ngāpuhi-wide support—and when I say “Ngāpuhi”, Ngāpuhi nui tonu—of Ngāti Rēhia actually being the kaitiaki of Kororipo Pā. It is a pā site that has a deep interest and a deep connection for many hapū of Ngāpuhi, and I acknowledge all of the hapū but I also acknowledge the fact that they’ve put their trust and their weight behind Ngāti Rēhia as kaitiaki of this particular place.

In 2015, the trust and DOC held the negotiations, and that’s when it started its serious journey, in my opinion, with regard to getting to this point of the bill being before us today. I’d like to thank many people, including the trust and the current day’s trust of Aroha Herewini; Justin Parangi; Kipa Munro, the chair; Nora Rameka, who has been spoken of on a number of occasions—and I acknowledge you, Nora—Rachael Monks; Rachael Te Toko; and Whati Rameka. Thank you to all of those and to those who came before you for all the work that you did in this mahi itself.

I’d also like to acknowledge and thank the Ministers, plural—clearly, this has had some time frame here—but particularly the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Minister Paul Goldsmith, for bringing this to fruition in a timely fashion in order to allow our people of Ngāti Rēhia to get on and do what they want to. Next, I understand, we have a little bit of an occasion coming up in March. I think that perhaps people might hear of that, although I won’t pre-empt anything there, but that sounds pretty exciting. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, e te Māngai o te Whare. He hōnore tēnei mōku, te tū ki te kōrero ki te panuitanga tuatoru o tēnei pire i roto i te Whare i tēnei ata.

Tuatahi māku e mihi kau atu ki ngā whanaunga o Ngāti Rēhia kua tae mai ki te Whare Pāremata i tēnei ata ki te whakarongo ki te pānuitanga tuatoru me te whakataunga o tēnei kaupapa.

Nō reira e te whaea, e Whaea Nora, e te pāpā, Matua Kepa, te kaiwhakawā, Alana, me ngā whanaunga katoa, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou.

I kōrero ahau i mua i te tono atu i tēnei pire ki te komiti, me te whakamōhio atu ki te Whare ētahi o ngā kōrero, ētahi o ngā hītori o tēnei pā rongonui i roto i a Ngāpuhi. I kōrero ahau, i whakamōhio atu hoki i tērā taha o te Whare, tētahi mea nui i te tau 1831 i tonoa atu tētahi reta ki te Kīngi i Ingarangi e pā ana ki ngā Pākehā noho ture-kore i roto i Tai Tokerau e tutu ana, e haututū ana, e mahi tūkino ana.

Nō reira i tonoa atu tētahi reta kia whakatikatika i ō rātou tāngata i roto i Aotearoa. He reta rongonui tērā, he mea nui hoki nā te mea ko tērā he reta i mua tata i te hainatanga o te Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Niu Tīreni, arā ko te Declaration of Independence, me te Tiriti o Waitangi hoki.

Nā, he mea tika ka oti tēnei kaupapa i roto i te Whare i mua i te Rā o Waitangi ā tērā tau, me te whakanui i te kaupapa mō tēnei ā tērā tau. Ahakoa tēnā, e takatakahi tonu ana te Kāwanatanga i te Tiriti o Waitangi. He rongo pai tēnei mō tēnei kaupapa engari e kite tonu ana mātou i tērā takahitanga. Kātahi anō ka tango i te Tiriti o Waitangi i ngā poari o ngā kura i roto i te ture mō te mātauranga. Engari ka hoki mai anō ki tēnei kaupapa, me te mihi ki a Ngāti Rēhia.

Kua rongo tēnei Whare kua roa ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi e pakanga atu ana, e whawhai ana kia hoki mai te mana o tēnei pā, te mana whakahaere, me kī, i roto i te ture, ki ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi. Nō reira e mihi ana ki a Ngāti Rēhia. Ko koutou ngā kaitiaki o tēnei pā mā ngā hapū maha o Tai Tokerau e whai pānga ana ki tēnei pā.

Kua kite ahau i ētahi o ngā tono me ngā kōrero i roto, me te kōrero kua puta mai i te Whare i tēnei ata, e pā ana ki te whakahokinga here-kore. Tēnei rā, kahore. E here tonu ana ki te Kāwanatanga, ki ngā ture, nō reira e mihi ana ki a Ngāti Rēhia me ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi i whakaae ki ēnei here tonu i runga i tēnei pā, nā te mea e whakaaro nui ana rātou ehara mō Ngāti Rēhia, mō ngā hapū o Ngāpuhi anake, engari mō Aotearoa whānui. Nō reira me mihi ka tika ki ngā hapū, ki te iwi Māori mō tērā momo whakaaro nui mō te katoa.

E hiahia ana ahau ki te mihi hoki ki ngā kaitono. Kua rongo, neke atu i te 100 ngā tono e pā ana ki tēnei pire, te nuinga i tautoko i tēnei pire. Nō reira e mihi ana ki ngā kaitono katoa, me te mihi hoki ki te komiti i haere mai ki roto i tōku kāinga ki te whakarongo ki ngā tono e pā ana ki tēnei pire. He mahi nui mō te komiti ki te whiriwhiri i ēnei take, te āta whakarongo ki ngā kōrero, me te whakatau tika i te ripoata. Nō reira e mihi ana ki a koutou, ngā mema o tērā komiti.

E te Māngai o te Whare, hei whakakapi ake i taku kōrero, he hari te tae atu ki tēra pā, ki Te Awa-o-ngā-rangatira ki te noho me waku kōtiro, ki te pā i ngā āhuatanga katoa o te hītori, te mana o tērā wāhi. Nō reira e Ngāti Rēhia, e mihi kau ana ki a koutou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is an honour for me to stand to speak on the third reading of this bill in the House this morning.

First, I would like to acknowledge the relatives from Ngāti Rēhia who have arrived at Parliament House this morning to listen to the third reading and the settlement of this matter.

Therefore, ma’am, Ms Nora, and sir, Uncle Kepa, the judge, Alana, and all of the relatives, I acknowledge you.

I spoke prior to this bill being sent to committee and informed the House of some of the narratives, some of the histories, of this famous pā within Ngāpuhi. I spoke, and I informed that side of the House that one of the significant events in 1831 was that a letter was sent to the King in England regarding the Pākehā who were living lawlessly in Northland, making mischief, being troublesome, and being abusive.

Therefore, a letter was sent so that they might discipline their people in Aotearoa. That is a famous letter, and an important one also, because it was a letter prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and the Treaty of Waitangi also.

Now, it is appropriate that this issue is resolved in this House prior to Waitangi Day next year, and to celebrate the matter regarding this next year. Despite that, the Government continues to trample on the Treaty of Waitangi. This is good news for this matter, but we continue to see the offence. The Treaty of Waitangi has just now been removed from school boards within the education legislation. However, I will come back to this matter and acknowledge Ngāti Rēhia.

This House has heard that Ngāpuhi has been battling and fighting for a long time for the return of the authority over this pā—the authority of management, I should say—to the hapū of Ngāpuhi. Therefore, I congratulate Ngāti Rēhia. You are the custodians of this pā on behalf of the many hapū of Northland that have interest in this pā.

I have seen some of the submissions and the statements within them, and the comment that has been made in the House this morning regarding an unconditional return. Today, not at all. Conditions still exist to the Government, in legislation; therefore, I acknowledge Ngāti Rēhia and the hapū of Ngāpuhi who agreed to these conditions on this pā, because they have consideration, not for Ngāti Rēhia or for the hapū of Ngāpuhi alone, but for wider Aotearoa. Therefore, it is appropriate to acknowledge the hapū and the Māori people for that type of consideration of everyone.

I would like to also acknowledge the submitters. We have heard that over 100 submissions were made regarding this bill, the majority of which were in support of this bill. Therefore, I thank all of the submitters and also acknowledge the committee that went to my home to listen to the submissions about this bill. It is a big job for the committee to consider these issues, to carefully listen to the comments, and appropriately prepare a report. Therefore, I thank you, the members of that committee.

To conclude my speech, it was a happy arrival that that pā, at Te Awa-o-ngā-rangatira, to sit with my girls, to touch on all of the features of the history and the power of that place. Therefore, Ngāti Rēhia, I congratulate you all.]

Tuatahi ki te mema o mua, te mutunga kē mai o te reka o te reo ka rere i te Whare nei. Ka huri te wairua i tēnei Whare i ngā wā katoa. Tēnā koe e hoa.

Ki a Ngāti Rēhia, tēnei te wā—tēnei te wā. Nōku te maringanui, nōku te hōnore, nōku te whiwhi ki te tū ki konei ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire, te whakahokinga o tō pā ki tō koutou tiakanga mā ngā hapū katoa o Ngāpuhi.

Ki te tīmatanga o te mihi whakatau i tēnei ata, kua kōrero a Papa Kepa, ka kino tō moe inapō i mua i tēnei kōrero.

[First, to the previous member, how amazing was the beauty of the language that flowed in this House. It always changes the spirit of this House. Thank you, my friend.

To Ngāti Rēhia, this is the time—this is the time. It is my good fortune, it is my honour, and it is my good luck to stand here and speak about this bill, about the return of your pā to your care on behalf of all of the hapū of Ngāpuhi.

At the commencement of the formal welcome this morning, Papa Kepa spoke: your sleep last night before this discussion was very bad.]

He had a good sleep.

No, he had a troubled sleep.

I huri ōu whakaaro e pā ana ki tēnei kōrero, e pā ana ki tēnei taupatupatu i tēnei ata. And pēnei tāku moe hoki. Ia ata ka tīmata te rangi mā te pānui i te Paipera Tapu i te reo taketake. I tēnei ata, ko te whiti o te rā nō te reta mā te Āpotoro Pāora ki te hāhi Epiha nō te upoko tuawhā. “Kia pāpaku rawa te ngākau, kia māhaki, kia manawanui, kia āta hanga tētahi ki tētahi i runga i te aroha.” E whakawhiti i te kōrero Pākehā.

[Your thoughts about this discussion were swirling, regarding this debate this morning. My sleep was much the same. Every morning, the day starts with reading the Holy Bible in the indigenous language. This morning, the sun shone on the epistles of the Apostle Paul to the Ephesian congregation from the fourth chapter. “With all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another with love.” I will switch over to the English text.]

“With all humility and with gentleness”. This was the verse of the day in the reading of Te Paipera Tapu this morning—“with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love,” Or I like this translation: “With tender humility and quiet patience, always demonstrate gentleness and generous love towards one another, especially towards those who may try your patience.”

Who are you thinking of?

Ha, ha! Ko te kupu o te rā, ākene pea.

Tēnā koutou Ngāti Rēhia, mō te whānui, mō te roa o tō manawanui i tēnei tukanga. Ahakoa te roa, ahakoa te mamae, ahakoa te tāiro o Kupe, ākene pea, kua kōrerotia. Tēnei te wā kua whakahokia te tiakitanga me te tino mana o tēnei whenua ki a koutou.

[The word of the day, perhaps.

Greetings, Ngāti Rēhia, for the scale and duration of your persistence in this process. Despite the length, despite the anguish, despite the intense challenge, perhaps, it has been discussed. This is the time that the protection and true authority off this land has been returned to you.]

I know that a lot has been said, both this morning and in the process, around the fact that this is a stand-alone event, but can I, just for a moment, acknowledge the incredible significance of what this is and what this might, potentially, signal. My favourite quote in the hearing that we had tērā atu marama i Te Kerikeri mō te [last month in Kerikeri for the] select committee hearings was this one here. It said, “This bill shows the Crown is listening and taking action. This builds trust, and it reminds me of a line from a podcast,” said the submitter, “that ‘moments build momentum’. This is a moment.”

This time, last week, almost exactly right now, I was speaking in Dharamshala. I had just met His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and I was given five minutes to speak to the human rights conference that was adjacent next door—there were hundreds of people there. In that moment, I turned to the words of Apirana Ngata, and I said, to the persecuted people of Tibet, the exiles from their land: “Kia mau ki tō reo, kia mau ki tō tikanga, kia mau ki tō whakapono, ahakoa whakangaro i tō koutou whenua i tēnei wā.” [Hold on to your language, hold on to your traditional practices, hold on to your faith, despite being exiled from your land at this time.]—for although they are exiled from their land at the moment, they could hold on to those things, and I used the example of our land. Despite the mamae, despite the breaches of the Treaty, we have made good progress these last 50 years. It is a hope to us, and it is a hope to those people on the other sides of the world. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā rā tātou katoa.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Tuatahi e mihi ana ki a koutou, Ngāti Rēhia, kua tae mai nei i tēnei wā. Rawe ki te kite i a koutou, Kepa, Nora, judge, ngā mihi ki a koe i whakarangatira i a mātou i tēnei wā. Kāre au e mōhio kei hea tō whanaunga, a Seymour, kei te huna pea, engari ko te mea nui kei konei mātou ki te mihi, ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei kaupapa tino whakahirahira i tēnei wā.

Nō reira tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, I would like acknowledge you, Ngāti Rēhia, who have come here at this time. Awesome to see you, Kepa, Nora, judge; greetings to you for honouring us at this time. I don’t know where your relative is, Seymour—maybe he’s hiding—but the important thing is that we are here to greet you and to speak about this very important topic at this time. Therefore, greetings to you, greetings to us all.]

This is the last bill and last kaupapa Māori initiative in the House for this year, so before I talk about a few things that I need to talk about, which are incredibly important for te ao Māori, I want to acknowledge our team who’ve come in here, our crew from Ngāti Rēhia, in particular the chair, Kipa Munro, who has done a terrific job in terms of soldiering this through. Mihi nui ki a koe, e te rangatira i kōkiri i tēnei kaupapa, mihi nui ki a koe.

[Many greetings to you, the noble leader that progressed this work; many thanks to you.]

My old friend Nora Rameka, who was a very staunch unionist in years gone by till she became a clear activist with her iwi—we never forget those union days in terms of what her whānau has done; and our judge, who I appointed, who joins us here today—good to have her here. So good to have you here, Judge Alana, who is here for this kaupapa.

I was listening to some of the kōrero—and some excellent kōrero today. The good thing about this is that we as a Parliament can move together on this kaupapa. That’s one thing that we can move together on. But a kaupapa—it’s ironic, as Adrian Rurawhe said, that we go for years and years and years and we don’t even get an apology and we don’t even get pūtea. What are you doing, judge? We need some sort of recognition here of the trials and tribulations that some of the people go through at so much cost, and that’s why I mihi to these individuals who have done so much.

I’ll say to the Minister, Minister Goldsmith, over there—who we regularly debate every week, and he thinks he outpoints me—well done in terms of continuing the work that Andrew Little did, in terms of continuing the work that Chris Finlayson has done. It’s great that we move to this position, but for our people, as I’ve said before and I’ll say again, in terms of Treaty bills and these types of kaupapa, we move these bills and we move these initiatives off the back of a Government that is continually attacking Māori rights, and that’s a problem.

I talked about Mr Seymour, the Ngāti Rēhia whanaunga today, and I cannot leave the House this year without talking about some of their attacks on Māori in terms of the last bill of the year. I know it seems a bit out for some people, but—well, no, it’s appropriate because you’re talking about a party that’s brought in the Treaty principles bill, that set up the biggest hīkoi and protests we’ve seen at Parliament in history. We bring this bill under the shadow of a decision from the United Nations, Mr Goldsmith—the United Nations, who have said that racial equality in Aotearoa New Zealand is getting worse and worse. That decision just came out last week.

I bring this off the back of the bill where—you know, Kipa Munro has welcomed this bill. He says the pā site has significance to the whole of Ngāpuhi, and particularly Ngāti Rēhia. The hapū is looking forward to getting the site back, but I’m sure Mr Munro and others are feeling the pressures of this constant attack from the Government. We’re talking about the Ngāpuhi settlement today. That’s the hope. I don’t even know when Ngāpuhi is going—well, Willow-Jean Prime might know, but we’ll never know when Ngāpuhi is going to settle.

This is an initial move, but it’s very hard to settle when you have a Government constantly attacking. We’ve had the Treaty principles bill, we’ve had the Regulatory Standards Bill, we’ve had the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) (Customary Marine Title) Amendment Bill, and we’ve had the Fast-track Approvals Bill. It is constant.

So when you have the pressures hovering over you all the time, it’s a tribute to this Parliament that we’re able to get this type of bill through. It’s a tribute to this Parliament. It’s good to see Winston Peters and Shane Jones coming in here—and particularly Shane, of course, who can give us a terrific dialogue in terms of whakapapa. There’s no one better in the House, no doubt about that—no doubt about that. But I have to remind my old friend that we need support in terms of fast track. We need acknowledgment in terms of tikanga Māori with regards to fast track. That has been factored out. Willow-Jean Prime needs acknowledgment and support in terms of te reo Māori, which has been factored out in terms of the boards of trustees.

I ask today, “When will this stop?” When will this stop? On the last day of our term when we rightfully put forward a beautiful settlement in terms of Kororipo Pā and the return, the question has to be: will the Government wake up during election year or will this continue? I put that on the table today and say I will not apologise for bringing it to the attention of the House. I will not apologise for reminding our friends from Ngāti Rēhia that one of the big debates in this House was the use of the very word “Aotearoa”—Aotearoa. We had one of our most respected leaders questioning the relevance of the name of this country. I put that on the House today.

But I congratulate everyone for moving this bill through, for moving this kaupapa through—a kaupapa that reminds New Zealanders that we can work together, that we can work together with Ministers of different backgrounds and where injustice is, we will recognise it, we will support it. But the fight in terms of Māori, in terms of kaupapa Māori, is a fight and is a challenge that this Parliament must embrace over the next 12 months; otherwise, we might see another hīkoi of the proportions that we had last year.

To Ngāti Rēhia, ki a tātou katoa, Meri Kirīhimete, me ngā mihi o te Tau Hou ki a tātou katoa.

[To all of us, merry Christmas, and greetings of the new year to all of us.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I left my office probably around 12.37 a.m. this morning because I was in the office, reflecting on how momentous this day is. As much as I’d like to respond to some of the comments made just before me, I won’t because I want to focus on this important, colossal kaupapa that is such an important and beautiful day in our history, that I’m privileged to be standing up and adding some thoughts amongst the thoughts that were conveyed today.

I want to welcome Ngāti Rēhia and Ngāpuhi into the House. I want to say thank you. Thank you for your genuine, authentic, beautiful manaakitanga that you showed us when we were up there in your rohe. Like many of my colleagues have said, it’s indeed unforgettable. What’s that song? [Sings] Unforgettable. But it really was. So thank you very much.

This bill, Te Pire Whakahoki i a Kororipo Pā/Kororipo Pā Vesting Bill, essentially does one thing quite clearly and quite deliberately: it vests Kororipo Pā in the trust that’s going to be a guardian of the land of the pā site for the greater people of Ngāpuhi. What we’re doing here today is one of those technical things where we’re giving legal effect to an agreement that’s already been entered into by the Crown. But it’s important that this legal effect takes place so that then the party that you guys up there in the gallery are organising can also take place, and the real guardianship—well, it has been; you’ve been taking care of it for so long, but on paper, it can take effect.

This is land that’s been disputed for a very long time in history. That dispute was consistent and unresolved for generations. I’m really quietly pleased that, today, this bill resolves finally the status of the land, not in a way that it rewrites history but in a way that it responds and corrects to history.

We’ve heard a lot about what the details of this bill are, but what I’d like to do fast forward a bit to the last couple of months. As we heard, we on the Māori Affairs Committee tried—successfully—very hard to make sure that this bill would pass this year. It was very important to our Minister, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Goldsmith, it was very important to Minister Potaka, and, indeed, it was very important to our Prime Minister—from the conversations that I was blessed to be privy to—that we pass this this year.

[Sneezes]

Bless you.

I want to say that when I learnt that one of the meanings “kororipo” is swirling waters, I remembered a conversation I had with the Hon Marama Davidson when we were on another trip. She explained the word “mokopuna” and how, essentially, broken up, it means blueprint and a spring of water, and how our children are the blueprints of their tūpuna and it continues. I thought about how beautiful it is that swirling waters and mokopuna come into play today, because I know that with our Māori brothers and sisters, your mokopuna are, essentially, the reason, the drive, and the end which justifies your means, over and over, with a lot of your mahi, including this kaupapa today. I found that quite beautiful.

I want to acknowledge our kuia that’s sitting up there today. Nora, thank you very much, again, for your beautiful gentility, but also your strength, your perseverance, and your endurance. I want to also thank you, Kipa Munro, a rangatira in your own right, for what you shared with us that day when we were in your rohe. They say that the kūmara does not speak of its own sweetness, but I hope the Ngāpuhi tūpuna can make an exception today because you deserve recognition for the role that you’ve played in getting us to where we are today. Others painted a picture when we were on a piece of land, but Kipa Munro constructed the picture for us so that those of us that were there, my colleagues and I, could truly imagine, envisage, feel, and understand the magnitude of the Kororipo Pā site, with the terraces and the plethora of homes that once existed there.

There was a lot of conversation, back and forth, about what this vesting bill means in terms of a settlement for Ngāpuhi. All I’d like to say is this: I hope that this bill is a seed for a tree that grows into that long-awaited settlement for Ngāpuhi. The seed could either grow into a rimu, slow growing, with medicinal qualities for the heart, or it could be a mānuka that’s fast growing, but the medicinal qualities are astounding. I hope the seed is a mānuka. I commend this bill to the House.

Now, I understand we will have a waiata.

Karanga

Members, we come now to debate on the quality of life for ageing New Zealanders, arranged by the Business Committee under Standing Order 80. Would some honourable member care to move that the House take note of the quality of life for ageing New Zealanders?

Mr Speaker, I so note, and it is an honour to be able to stand and speak in the first speech on the quality of life for ageing New Zealanders. This is absolutely something that all members of this House, and across New Zealand, will be interested in making sure that we get right, because we all have loved ones that are elderly. We, ourselves, will, hopefully, be elderly one day. It’s in everyone’s best interest that we can act in a bipartisan manner to make sure people of age live with dignity and respect, and in a way that’s also manageable and sustainable for the Government.

I was reflecting, as I was thinking about this—if you bear me some minor indulgence, Mr Speaker—that I’m going into a Christmas with ageing parents, an ageing father. He’s in a retirement village, and I want to make sure that I spend as much time as I can with him over these coming holidays, because you never know when they may not be there anymore.

Look, the Government is very serious about making sure that New Zealanders age well, and you’ve seen a number of announcements in this space recently. We want an integrated approach to reforming the aged-care system. The recent announcement of a ministerial advisory group will take a non-political, independent approach to making sure that we can develop mechanisms to best address and best suit what is needed. There are three key areas that the ministerial advisory group will look at: firstly, the funding model to support sustainable services and the sustainable supply of aged-care beds; also, how the cost of providing aged care can be reasonably shared between those receiving the care, and the Government; and, thirdly, the changes needed to support cohesion and integration between aged-care services and health services, and between aged-care services and the disability sector.

Ensuring a sustainable supply of aged-care beds is critical to ensuring that all New Zealanders have the care they need as they age. The recommendations from the expert ministerial advisory group are expected in mid-2026, with changes to the funding model to be implemented in 2027. They’re significant policy implications and considerations, and they will shape future Governments’ recommendations.

We also need a system that responds and recognises that most New Zealanders do want to age at home, if they can, where feasible. To enable that to happen and to move between the different layers of care as they need—it is essential to ensuring that we can fulfil that. We have had a lot of challenges regarding, you know, we have an ageing demographic. There is no way to get past the fact that we have a significantly higher proportion of New Zealanders over 65 years of age, and that is expected to continue or will continue into the future, and with a relatively low proportion of New Zealanders of working age. The implications to the State are going to be considerable. With advances in healthcare and nutrition, people are also living longer, which adds a further dimension. We are also seeing a number of additional New Zealanders living with dementia, which places more complex needs on our aged-care system.

But around those funding improvements: there was a recent announcement that the aged residential care sector would receive a 4 percent uplift. That will see a total uplift or increase of $96 million this year, coupled with an additional $44 million for the home community and support services—so bringing in additional funding of $140 million. This is on top of the $129 million from the previous year, so, all up, very close to $270 million over that two-year period. These funding increases are aimed at relieving pressure that’s on the sector and improving care services for New Zealanders in the short term, while we work on those longer-term pieces that will come through that ministerial advisory group’s recommendations. Essentially, fixing the basics and building the future—that is something that we are very focused to do.

There’s also been an announcement of a case mix model in the South Island that will be rolled out throughout the South Island, which we believe is a move away from task-based providers paid by the hour for specific tasks to more flexible care arrangements that are more responsive to the needs that people face. We believe that this new service model will deliver better care, with a focus on keeping people independent as long as possible.

We have heard a lot about the number of people living in retirement villages. I have a father who lives in one with his partner, and I was there recently and they have a very good quality of life there. But it’s fair to say that not all New Zealanders enjoy that quality of life. We know that there are a number of New Zealanders who reach the age of 65 with very limited superannuation savings. They may not have a property that they own. They are then out of the workforce, with a number of years left to sustain themselves and not necessarily the means to do so. We need to address a lot of those issues—that there are some significant long-term structural challenges for New Zealand to face in that regard.

We have heard a lot of concerns from people living in retirement villages around the conditions there, or the inequities or the unfairness. There was a recent announcement by Ministers Casey Costello and Tama Potaka in reviewing the Retirement Villages Act, which was a coalition agreement between New Zealand First and the National Party. Some of the key improvements that came out of that are a process for former residents to apply for early access to funds in specific circumstances; interest being paid after six months if a unit remains unlicensed; repayment of funds no later than 12 months when a unit is vacated—and we heard some stories from very distressed family members, where a loved one had left a retirement village and the unit was not sold for a number of years—people want closure in these circumstances, in their estate, and their families want to move on; also, stopping the quite insidious practice of charging fees and deductions to a resident who is no longer with us and no longer at the village.

This bill is expected to be taken to Parliament mid - next year, and then we’ll go through the select committee process. I also want to make mention of the work the Health Committee did—the inquiry into the aged-care sector’s current and future capacity to provide support services for people experiencing neurological cognitive disorders. I can see a number of members from the committee here across the House: thank you all for your participation. It was wonderful that we had a report that we were able to bring back to the House that had unanimous support. Thank you to everyone for your contributions to that.

We made a number of visits up and down the country to a variety of aged-care facilities, and we came out with 14 recommendations. Some of the key ones were around increasing the transparency of funding; looking at a range of incentives to ensure that providers can build or are able to build or are incentivised to build the facilities that are required; the development of more dementia beds, where there’s currently some real financial struggles for providers around providing those; changes to encourage flexibility in the home community and support services contracting, so they can perform a range of tasks, with a holistic view to keeping people out of hospital and keeping them well; and, also, looking at some of the longer-term contracting and national consistency in the Home and Community Support Services provider framework; and setting up a regular respite care programme. There are a number of recommendations there, and I believe the Government will consider them duly—and, obviously, there’s funding challenges and other considerations that need to take place. But I just want to, once again, acknowledge the Health Committee members from around the House for their participation in that.

Look, I’ve covered all the major pieces that I want to, but I just want to reiterate how important it is that we take a long-term, bipartisan approach to this—that we fix what’s in front of us right now, and that we are able to build the systems that we need for the future to enable all New Zealanders to age with dignity and respect, appreciating that there will be cultural variances and challenges throughout New Zealand that also need to be factored in and addressed. But we can do this in a bipartisan and collegial manner, and make sure that we deliver for the long-term challenges that we have in this area. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Now, I understand this is a five-minute split call.

There was a headline from my own electorate of Taieri published by the Otago Daily Times on 31 August, and that headline said everything we need to know about this broad debate: quality of life for ageing New Zealanders. The headline said, “Quality of life dropping for Otago seniors: survey”. That wasn’t a slogan; that was a warning. The survey found that about two-thirds of Otago seniors reported a clear decline in their quality of life, and that decline was caused by the cost of living, health costs, and mobility costs. Most concerning was that almost one in three said they had delayed seeking medical care because of money—one in three.

Now, that is not a failure of personal responsibility; that is a failure of policy. What is happening in Otago is not an outlier. It is the same story being told right round the country. Too often, seniors are being treated as a challenge to be managed rather than an opportunity—an opportunity to honour people who raised families, who paid taxes, who built communities, who served in our defence forces, and, in many cases, are raising grandkids and caring for others. People who now themselves are asking whether they can afford to eat properly, whether they can heat their home, or whether many, like in my electorate, are choosing to stay in bed longer because it’s warmer and cheaper.

To those people, especially in Taieri—perhaps watching this debate—I want to say, “Kia ora, I see you. Labour sees you. This speech is for you.” It is a privilege to stand here as Labour’s spokesperson for seniors, a group far too often invisible in political decision-making. I work with seniors’ organisations across the country, and what I hear is consistent and clear: older New Zealanders are being asked to carry the heaviest burden in a cost of living crisis they did not create.

I feel now like I’m channelling the late, great Jo Miller from Grey Power—from my electorate as well—may she rest in peace. If she was here, she would be saying costs are rising, support is shrinking, decisions are being made about seniors not with them, and the result is a steady erosion of independence, dignity, and security.

Quality of life is not an abstract concept—it is about groceries, it is about power bills, it is about transport, and it is about healthcare. It is about seeing a GP when you need one, whether you can get to hospital safely, whether you can stay connected to your community instead of becoming isolated. Too often, what I hear from seniors is anxiety. Transport, healthcare, and income security are not side issues; they are the foundations of ageing well, and that is why Government choices matter. That is why the choices of this Government matter.

Under Christopher Luxon, every day, life has become harder for seniors—harder and more expensive. Food costs more, power bills keep rising, transport is less affordable, healthcare is harder to access, and rates are going through the roof. These are not inconveniences; they are barriers to independence.

While seniors lie awake at night worrying about rising insurance premiums and whether they will be forced to sell the homes that they worked their entire lives to save for, this Government talks up the trickle-down economics. Well, how well has that gone down for them? Yesterday’s financial report card shows that unless you are a multinational, a big tobacco company, or a large digital platform, their economic policies are not working. Councils have been thrown under the bus regarding water reform and, meanwhile, it is seniors who are picking up the tab.

Then, just yesterday, the Government made life even harder, cutting discounted public transport for disabled New Zealanders and doing that during a cost of living crisis. How out of touch is that? Many seniors are disabled, and this directly affects them. Under Christopher Luxon, disabled people, including seniors, will now pay more just to get to their healthcare appointments. Labour has an alternative: we will ring-fence every cent of the targeted capital gains tax for health, delivering a Medicare card and three free GP visits.

I want to briefly respond to points raised by Sam Uffindell regarding the retirement villages changes that his Government has made. In effect, they are short term. They create a two-tier system, and they make people still wait for up to 12 months for their capital repayment. That is why I have a member’s bill that fixes that, and I was pleased that earlier this year Mr Uffindell supported my bill.

This debate is about what kind of country we want to be—

Point of order. The member has incorrectly asserted a statement to me: I did not support her bill. I said we’d take good ideas wherever they may come from—and there were some good ideas—but I did not support her bill.

A genuine debating point, Mr Uffindell, and you may even like to mention that to one of your fellow speakers.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. May I have the last 20 seconds of my speech, given that the clock wasn’t stopped?

Given that the member has read her speech, no, I won’t. She’s an experienced member, and I can encourage others who are going to be participate in this debate: please don’t read speeches. But you can have 10 seconds.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Labour sees you, seniors. We respect you. We want you to have great lives.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. When we talk about the quality of life of older people in New Zealand, we are talking about respect—respect for people who built this country, who paid their taxes, who raised families, and who have contributed to their community over decades. What we are seeing from Christopher Luxon’s Government is not respect; it is neglect. Christopher Luxon promised to fix the economy, but, instead, it has gone backwards. As we heard yesterday, the financial situation is dire because of their unfunded tax cuts. Let’s remember, how much did older New Zealanders get out of those tax cuts? How much were the tax cuts worth to a superannuitant? Three dollars. It’s not even enough for a loaf of bread in Christopher Luxon’s economy. What has the price of those tax cuts been to New Zealanders? Well, it has been cuts to services and cuts that have sent our economy backwards, and it has meant that the services seniors need and deserve are harder than ever to reach. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the health system. Just today, in the paper—in information the Government didn’t want you to know, released to me in written parliamentary questions—there will be another $510 million of cuts to health services up and down the country. These cuts are making it harder to access care and, in particular, general practice care.

Visiting a GP is harder now than ever. Here is what a superannuitant wrote to me: “My doctor’s fees has increased to $75. I have cancelled three appointments, in the last month because I cannot afford to see the doctor. I am a 73-year-old retired grandma with asthma, diabetes, and high blood pressure. I desperately need the coalition to do something about the health system, or else myself and more people will die before our time.” When you cannot access a general practitioner or your same general practitioner, your continuity of care suffers. At that stage of life, in your latter years, when many people do have multiple conditions, general practice care is exactly what you need. Failing to provide this is not good medicine, and it is not good government. It is the same story across the country and across multiple health services. Ambulance call outs, a lifeline for many seniors, have gone up from $100 to $125 in the last year. Hospice services are being scaled back, for example, in Northland. Access to home support is being scaled back, and people are getting less care that they need to live independently. Aged-care facilities, as our committee has heard, are crying out for more resources and more staff.

This is what happens when a weak Government panders to big tobacco rather than the people who need them to care for them. Our country is going backwards under Christopher Luxon. He is making it harder and more expensive to see a doctor or a nurse, to get ambulance care, scans, and X-rays. Labour has a plan to fix this for everyone. In a country where everyone can get ahead and afford the basics, including good healthcare, we will provide every New Zealander with a Medicare card that will give them access to three free general practice visits. That is the basis of excellent healthcare, and every strong health system in the country has strong access to primary care as its foundation. That is the alternative. Make no mistake, this election is make or break for our health system.

You ruined it.

The people jeering over there better pay attention because everyone knows that the National Party has cut and cut and cut. It is our seniors who are struggling and paying the price. They don’t like to hear this over there. They don’t like to hear this, but it’s the truth.

Ms Verrall, in your time left, could you just come back to the elderly part of this, please.

Of course, access to care is of considerable significance to older New Zealanders. They face greater barriers when accessing healthcare because of the price and their fixed incomes. Labour makes no apologies for siding with older New Zealanders and those struggling with the cost of living, and making sure healthcare is accessible to all.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The issue of seniors is a serious one, and I tautoko with what all previous speakers have said. This is something that we should look at carefully and seriously and with a long-term goal that is non-partisan—this is what we heard this morning from the Retirement Commissioner.

The reason for that is simple. We are seeing a drastic increase in our senior population. By 2050, the number of over-65s will increase by 50 percent. We’re currently sitting at roughly 900,000 people over the age of 65. The number of people who are over the age of 85 will also drastically increase. In the latest report by the Retirement Commissioner, we see that 44 percent are feeling exposed in terms of their daily living, and 16.8 percent over the age of 65 are in poverty, which is higher than the OECD average of 14.2 percent. We see homeownership going down from 83 percent to 71 percent currently, and the number of people over the age of 65 with mortgages is 13 percent. And 13 percent of our elderly are currently renting, and this is projected to go up to 40 percent or 600,000 in 2040. This is a serious concern, and this is a concern that should be shared by everyone.

We are seeing some changes, and we’re seeing movement. We’ve seen the creation of the New Zealand Super Fund and of KiwiSaver, which has helped this drastically, and that was something that was supported by all parties and the parties in Government at the time unanimously. It is the sort of vision that we should be having if we want to address this issue. This issue is not isolated to Aotearoa New Zealand; it is a global issue that we’re facing.

However, I will say that it is disappointing to see in the latest report that subsidies for seniors for public transport have been reduced from 75 percent to 65 percent. The rationale given was that we didn’t anticipate the usage and the number of people, but I thought that that would have been a good thing. The point is that any Government should be able to look at this and say it’s a good thing that disabled people and seniors are using our public transport, because the ability to get around, the freedom of movement, is a fundamental right for anyone, and that includes our disabled whānau and our senior whānau. I would ask the Government to seriously consider reverting that reduction.

We are also seeing in the work and retirement studies that a third of older people living in a community are at risk of malnutrition, and that number is 50 percent for older Māori. Ninetythree percent of those entering aged residential care were malnourished or at risk of malnutrition. We are seeing that 28 percent of over-65s are buying less food; 28 percent are putting off medical treatment. We are seeing that the rejection rate for hardship food grants by the Ministry of Social Development for those over 65 is rising, tripling from 3 percent to a peak of 10.2 percent from December 2024. These are serious concerns.

What we are seeing here is that people over the age of 65 are unable to meet the very basic human right to housing, to health, and to nutritious food. There are obviously other things, and a previous speaker—Sam Uffindell, the chair of the Health Committee—also mentioned the residential care sector, the retirement village sector, the home care sector, and there simply isn’t enough time in five minutes to address the concerns there.

Seniors thrive, in all their diversity, with dignity and autonomy in vibrant intergenerational communities. That is the vision that the Green Party has for seniors. This is why in our Green Party Budget we see free GP visits—not just three visits—in general, free dental care, and scaled-up dedicated funding for care, and also scaled-up public housing supply with universal design. These are the things our future communities, the future generations of seniors—over-65s and over-85s—will need, and we are asking for your support on this.

It’s a real pleasure to rise this morning on behalf of the ACT Party to take a call on this debate on the quality of life of ageing New Zealanders. I must firstly acknowledge the irony of being the youngest ACT member, and the youngest member of Cabinet, and talking about ageing New Zealanders. I’ve been in this place for eight years now, and, as far as I’m aware, I’m yet to discover a grey hair on my head—so it’s not about me, but it is about other people around the country.

I’ll tell you how I meet quite a few people who are ageing in our community, and that’s by being the MP for Tāmaki. I go around our community a lot, and I encounter so many wonderful older New Zealanders who have a huge wealth of knowledge and respect for our community, and I really thank them for the support that they give me personally as well. I’ve encountered many of our older members of the Tāmaki community who have called me, in some ways, their surrogate granddaughter. It’s been very, very, sweet, and I know it’s meant with a lot of love and respect. I’ve met some remarkable Kiwis—people who are at Holocaust memorial events wanting to dedicate the past, people at retirement villages engaging in political debate, people who have been at dementia care units, as well as people who have given up 20 years of service as Justices of the Peace in their community. It’s really wonderful.

I believe it is one of the best times ever to be an ageing New Zealander. It is better than in so many years of the past, because we have people who are living longer than ever. We have so many new, exciting medicines constantly being innovated. We have access to new technology and new modes of transport. We have really exciting technological advances happening in things like dementia care, where I’ve talked to people who are looking at studying eye movements—just the shuddering around an eye—to determine whether or not they are overmedicating people who have dementia, because they can actually undermedicate now, or get the specifications right, because the new technology is allowing these people to have more information about how to genuinely care for rather than medicate people in dementia care. It’s really exciting stuff. For family, we’ve got video calls; in the past, when you didn’t have access to new forms of technology, you were more isolated from some members of the community. In some instances, there are some forms of loneliness in the community. I put on a lot of community events in Tāmaki to ensure that people have access to knowledge, learning, and political debate.

There are good things that this Government is doing to ensure that people in our communities who are older have even better lives. We’ve brought on new planning and development reforms for granny flats so that people don’t have to be isolated in old age; they can actually live right by their family, just next door, in the back yard. I think that’s wonderful. We’ve seen this Government invest more than ever in modern medicines. We’ve seen the breast cancer screening age increase to 74 so that older Kiwis have more access to treatment and care.

There are some areas, though, where I think we’re going to see even more exciting progress, with innovation on the way, so that as people are losing the ability to walk as much as they may have done in the past, we’re seeing new artificial intelligence, and we’re seeing new automated movement devices that will allow people to continue walking. I think this is really, really quite astounding. We don’t have to be like the Opposition, which is all doom and gloom about what the future looks like. The future is exciting—

Not with you in it.

—it’s so exciting. People can age well—

Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate, Mr Davidson.

—in their own homes with modern technology, age well in retirement villages, and age well in granny flats. There is still some more that we can do, though. We know that for some more vulnerable members of the community, it is confusing for them to read the contracts that they’re signing when they’re going into retirement villages. I think some of the work that this Government is doing to try to streamline the rights for people in retirement villages is really exciting, because we know that there are some more vulnerable people who do need a little bit more help there. We can get the settings right for development, we can keep investing in technology, we can keep investing in Pharmac, and we can make sure that we’ve got all of our Government settings right so that there is the ability for new, exciting technology and innovation for ageing New Zealanders. Thank you.

I am absolutely thrilled to be able to take a call as a New Zealand First member and on behalf of my party, who has an unrivalled record of delivering a better quality of life for older New Zealanders. We have introduced, and will continue to introduce, the practical solutions that ensure that our older New Zealanders live a great life as they age and that they continue to ensure that New Zealand is a wonderful place to grow older.

First and foremost, protecting the age of superannuation is a bottom-line position for New Zealand First and part of our coalition agreement. We are increasingly put under pressure to raise the age of superannuation entitlement, but the reality is that we spend approximately 5 percent of our GDP on superannuation, and that is considerably less than the OECD average of 98 percent. That sum ensures that every single New Zealander is guaranteed a minimum income in their age. That is a simple, relatively straightforward system that is internationally revered as a good solution for the system that we have in New Zealand. Of course, that is a blunt measure, GDP percentage and quota, because it doesn’t actually reflect what that number does in terms of the contribution that our older New Zealanders make to our society as a whole.

We have to acknowledge that many over-65s continue in employment because they choose to, not because they have to. They own businesses, they drive our sports clubs, they deliver voluntary services, they support our working parents by looking after their grandchildren, they mentor, they coach, they inspire, they create. That is what our over-65s deliver for New Zealand. They are not a problem we need to solve; they are an opportunity for us to be a better country.

But it’s not just superannuation that New Zealand First has delivered on. As part of this Government, we have increased the Rates Rebate Scheme for all SuperGold card holders. Again, a token towards the cost of living pressures. The select committee inquiry, which has been a really important process to really delve into our system and what it needs. We have expanded housing opportunities to give better solutions, not just anecdotes and narratives but actually something practical around the 70 square metre subsidiary dwellings to support multi-generational living, to support the utopia that the Green Party was talking about—that I’m not quite sure how we’re going to pay for, because no worker is going to be able to retire with the taxes they’re going to have to pay to meet that system.

We have launched the Better Later Life Action Plan. The action plan is important, because it delivers all of those supporting functions that allows New Zealanders to live well. It is about connecting societies better. It is about legal protections. It is about housing solutions. It is about how we ensure that there is a quality of life.

Let’s not forget what this Government has done for law and order, because if you want to age with quality and dignity in New Zealand, you need to feel safe and secure. I know only too well that when you’re an older person, as a victim of crime, those impacts are devastating. It isolates you from society. It’s sometimes even estranges you from your own home.

We are going to continue to live. We have an ageing population, as I said, of about 900,000 over-65s in New Zealand. But the reality is, despite this narrative, over 85 percent of that 900,000 actually are not dependent on the health system. They are living independently, and they are living well. This is the point that we need to make. We are living longer, but we are living well.

We have also introduced the ministerial advisory group to ensure that we have a review of the aged-care system. Not as Labour did, just appoint an aged-care commissioner, but actually redesign the system, actually ensure we have a sustainable system in the future.

The reality is, in this country, we all sit underneath the shade of a tree planted by someone who lived before us, and we owe that dignity. New Zealand First will ensure that we protect the family so that we can have strong families, so that we can be accountable to our own futures. We can also be accountable to the people we owe our life too. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I rise today in honour of our kaumātua, our elderly—those grandparents who we were fortunate to have raise us; who were part of intergenerational living, certainly in my village where I’ve come from; the aunties and uncles who are part of our everyday life—and the way that they were able to look after not only us as a whānau but the extended whānau and the wider community. I mihi to all of those volunteers out there who would make sure that the church would look good, that the marae would look good, that the gardens of everyone who couldn’t garden would look great, and that, at the sports clubs, the coaching, the refereeing, the judging would always be happening. You take for granted that type of dignity and the way they are forever giving to us.

We’ve looked at this report and the detail that it brings out, and it would be great to say that all have future-proofed themselves to be able to live with the dignity that they deserve—with the private health insurances and the asset base they need—but that isn’t the case for every kaumatua, because many spent their lives not only working and paying taxes but actually contributing to the society that we live in today. I want to also mihi that there is an obligation, not that they put on me but that I feel—an obligation not only to what they contributed to making us who we are today but how we have that reciprocated love to look after the next generation in the same way that they did with us.

So when we see a report that says not all of our elderly—in fact, nearly four in 10 said their quality of life has declined in just the past two years. One in four seniors in this country are now living with poor quality of life, and the biggest pressure is not luxuries, is not the fact that they want to eat fish once a week or that they’d like to have a piece of steak; it is the cost of living, the healthcare costs, healthcare access, housing, and financial security. This is on all of us—this is on all of us—to acknowledge that this isn’t a personal failure; this is a policy failure. When the report shows that 41 percent of our kaumātua say that the health and aged-care system is not at all culturally fit for them, this, again, is on all of us to decide, indeed, what the opportunities are and how we make this phase of their life something that doesn’t make them feel like a burden on society but, in fact, a taonga. I was raised in a culture where our kaumātua are indeed taonga, just as our mokopuna are. I think we have to talk about equity and how we dismantle and remove the barriers for our kaumātua—for our elderly—and how we make sure that it is done in a way that doesn’t make the kaumātua, the elderly, or their families feel that the burden has been shifted on to them.

There has been some really good research and ideas for us all to consider about what that could look like. It could look like us being able to scale up community support—whether that be marae, whether than be Whānau Ora, or whether that be community-led in-home care models. Some of the research has shown that we need to pay whānau carers properly. It is indeed an honour to look after kaumātua, but it also has a financial obligation that we could be doing more to address. Unpaid care is popping up in broken systems. I think that retrofitting homes for safety and to make sure that accessibility and investment for elderly people to be able to live well is something that we could be talking about and creating policy around. I think, also, that fixing healthcare access for seniors—they’re guaranteed free primary care and prescriptions for over-65s, yes—with equity weighting, and reducing wait times and investing in workforce is important. I know this isn’t new to many of us in the House, but public capacity, not privatisation, should be a priority. I think tackling loneliness as an infrastructure is something that was really hard to read, and I have seen that in my own community. How we fund community connectors—whether that be transport, whether that be churches, whether that be marae, we should treat transport and digital access and social participation as health determinants.

These are some ideas. What I would hate for us to do is to debate the opportunities and the solutions, because we do have an ageing population, and they deserve for us to work together, in dignity and with respect, which they have bestowed into all of us. I do hope that we are looking at our elderly and kaumātua who are not good at asking for charity and that we front-foot with what solid policy as a nation that looks after all its citizens—particularly its kaumātua, its elderly—would look like. Kia ora rā.

It is an absolute honour to rise and speak in this debate. I do just want to acknowledge the speech that just preceded me and the thoughtfulness that it was delivered with, because ageing well is not something that’s political; it is something that we should have a bipartisan approach to.

Growing old is a privilege. Some of us won’t make old bones, and we think of those loved ones who haven’t made it to old age, and we acknowledge their passing early. Luckily, of course, age and life expectancy is increasing here in New Zealand. For Māori, it’s gone up 3.1 years; for non-Māori, between 1.5 and 1.6 years. I do just want to acknowledge all the great medical researchers up and down this country that are contributing to that and helping that happen.

Living longer is also about living better. We’ve heard that not every one of the 900,000 persons over 65 is dependent on the healthcare system. I think, as I move around my electorate, of the many great interactions that I have with that age group. It’s about living well. It’s about living better. It’s about living with independence, dignity, connection, and real choice about how and where we live. This matters to all of us and to all our families. We all probably have parents, maybe even grandparents—and I’ll acknowledge my parents in their mid-80s that may be considered in this category.

Of course, it is something that New Zealand does have to face. We are an ageing nation. As has already been mentioned, there’s 900,000 people over the age of 65 now. That’s projected to be over 2 million by the year 2070. But the good news is that many of those New Zealanders are still very active, engaged, and contributing enormously to their families, their communities, and, of course, our economy. I love visiting the older communities in the Ilam electorate, whether it’s at Holly Lea, Russley Village, Summerset at Avonhead, Bellevue, Bupa Parkstone—always have very good interactions there. The lived experience that people can tell, the stories they can tell; they are well read, they are well educated, and they keep you on your toes.

But it isn’t just about retirement villages and aged care. I also recently had a visit to Bishopdale Menzshed. Of course, men’s sheds help reduce social isolation, improve mental wellbeing, and foster a sense of purpose and belonging—something that’s very important in the 65-plus, especially for us males, who may tend not to be overly social. They’re doing amazing work in the community, building things for local community groups, local schools, and it is a way that men can get together and still be productive.

But the average does hide some hard truths. For many older New Zealanders, ageing is accompanied by insecure housing, fragmented healthcare, and uncertainty about their rights, particularly as they move into retirement living. If we want people to age well, the evidence is clear. Three things matter most. First, connection—and research and work of organisations like Age Concern consistently show that social isolation and loneliness are amongst the strongest predictors of poor health and poor outcomes. Loneliness is not just about being sad; it increases the risk of hospitalisation, cognitive decline, and early death. Ageing well means engaging with local services: volunteering, working with clubs, maraes, libraries, and places where older people can be visible, valued, and connected.

Secondly, it’s health span; not just lifespan. Ageing well is about prevention: preventing falls, strength and balance programmes, medication reviews, hearing and vision support, and timely access to primary healthcare. That is why I’m so proud of this Government’s work to increase access to primary healthcare, whether it be through telehealth or training further healthcare workers to make sure we can get there.

Thirdly, it is about home and place. That is why we have been working very hard to make sure more New Zealanders can get into housing. The highest level of first-home buyers in the last couple of months have been able to access housing. This is going to have a huge impact when this generation gets older.

So we are delivering what matters to older New Zealanders. We’re helping keep prices down. We saw an increase of inflation of over 25 percent under the previous Government, yet in the last three months, we’ve seen a month-on-month decrease in food pricing. We are working on what matters, fixing the basics, and building the future.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, otirā tēnā tātou katoa. As we head into Christmas and, of course, the new year, it’s a time of joy. It is also a time of reflection and sadness that I will not have my parents and that my nieces and nephews and the mokos won’t have their nanny and pāpā. It’s also a time to reflect on the fact that I did have my great-grandmother until she was 101 years old, and I was raised by the village with so many, many pakeke to shape and mould me, so it brings me great joy to hear that, across the House, we all agree that protecting and encouraging a quality of life for our pakeke, our elderly, is something that we must unite on and pursue together as a Parliament.

In Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, this is a very pertinent topic. In Te Wairoa Hōpūpū Hōnengenenge Mātangi Rau, there is no aged care available. Since Cyclone Gabrielle, the community has been rallying around to look at options. In other areas across Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, there is less in-home care, less aged care, and a lot of our whānau are actually being forced into hospital care. I do appreciate everyone across Aotearoa who is taking care of our pakeke. They are repositories of knowledge, and where would we be without the sage advice of our kuia and koroua, whether we ask for it or not?

For those who do have the option to move into aged care, I think we need to think about what that means for the whānau and what that means for the community, because often that is not a choice made lightly. Often, it’s a choice made out of absolute necessity because they do not have access to the healthcare in rural Aotearoa where they live and where they are from and where they are an essential part of our community and our tikanga. When people move into aged care, they are often deprived of seeing their mokopuna every day, and communities like ours are deprived of the intellectual property they take with them to sit in homes in urban areas. It’s actually really, really sad. I know I sound selfish, but that’s a major taonga to extract from a community and a family.

Let’s talk about living well. Absolutely. I agree. Like I said, I had my nan until she was 101. She was sharp to the end and physically active to the end. Often the vision we’d see, when we’d drive up and cross her cattle stop, was that Nan would be sitting in her garden on her beer crate, active to the end in spite of her arthritic fingers. I did not inherit her green thumb.

Anyway, living well in rural communities is a whole other consideration that I hope we will continue to consider as a united Parliament. As I said, our whānau barely have access to quality healthcare, let alone aged care, let alone programmes to keep them active and programmes for interactivity. When someone goes from being a stalwart at the marae, which is an absolutely crucial contribution to our communities and our society, to sitting alone in an aged-care facility, that’s not living well.

How can we work together to ensure, no matter where in Aotearoa you live, you can live well? We talked about flexible care, and I hope we can work on that because voluntary care of whānau has been mentioned. Often, whānau cannot be remunerated for that, and yet they are with their whānau 24/7, learning skills no son or daughter should have to learn, but they want to care for their parent or their nanny and pāpā, and they want to keep them at home.

Papa kāinga developments are another option we should look at. I’m so passionate about this; I could talk about it forever. But in closing, there are many people doing great work around Aotearoa, but I do want to give a shout-out to Turanga Health, one of the best kaumātua programmes in Aotearoa. It’s such a vibe, with over 100 pakeke getting together and enjoying themselves. To the rest of us, just remember: never resist growing old. It’s a privilege many are denied. Tēnā tātou.

I just want to begin by acknowledging our seniors, the people who give a lifetime of contribution to this country we proudly call home. New Zealand wouldn’t be the beautiful nation that it is today without their hard work, sacrifice, and resilience. For that, we thank you. They are truly the best of the best, and they deserve nothing but the best in return. The question we must ask ourselves is: in the past 20 years, have we done enough for them? Have we done enough to ensure that their later years are lived with quality, dignity, and security? Unfortunately, for many seniors across our country, the answer is no. Life can be extremely challenging for our seniors. Many face complex health issues, growing financial pressure, long wait times for aged-care services, loneliness, and, in some cases, elder abuse. These challenges should concern every one of us because how we treat our seniors reflects who we are as a society.

Today, I just want to focus on two key issues: the financial burden and loneliness. During a visit to a retirement village and full conversations with seniors, one reality became very clear: how much you have saved often determines the quality of your retirement life. Financial stress should not be a defining feature of old age, but yet, for many, it is. This is why I’m very pleased about the National Party’s recent announcement proposing to lift the KiwiSaver contribution rate. This is a positive and necessary step. These changes will help ensure New Zealanders are more financially secure in retirement. Those extra savings may seem small at the beginning, but they can make a huge difference—the difference between struggling and living with dignity, independence, and peace of mind in later life.

The second major issue, repeatedly raised by seniors, is loneliness. Loneliness can be just as damaging as physical illness. It affects mental health, emotional wellbeing, and even life expectancy. Many seniors live alone, separated from families, or feel disconnected from our communities. No one who has contributed so much to our country should feel forgotten and invisible. We must do more to foster connection, full community programmes, accessible services, and age-friendly environments that encourage participation and belonging.

I also want to use this opportunity to speak out to our ethnic communities. During a recent hearing, it was mentioned that the ethnic communities appear to have a lower demand for aged-care services due to strong family bonds and cultural traditions of caring for elders at home. It is true that Asian and ethnic families deeply value caring for elders, but I want to make it very clear that that does not mean that we don’t need the aged-care services. The real issue is that many existing services do not meet our cultural needs. Language barriers, food preference, cultural practice, and expectations around the family’s involvement are often overlooked. As a result, seniors and family may hesitate to access services that simply do not feel appropriate or welcoming. Aged-cared services must be culturally appropriate, inclusive, and responsive to the diverse communities that make up modern New Zealand. Supporting ethnic seniors is not a special request; it is part of delivering effective care for all. It is time for us to act now, to do better, and to be better for our seniors so they can live the quality of life they deserve.

As I conclude, Christmas is just around the corner. This is a time of reflection, gratitude, and connection. I urge every single one of you here to spend time with your loved ones, especially our seniors, our elders. Show them the love, the respect, and the care they deserve. Don’t wait until it is too late to say thank you. To all our seniors: we see you, we value you, and we owe you more. I wish every single one of you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s great to be able to rise and raise some issues in this special debate on the quality of life for ageing New Zealanders. It is the last day of sitting for this House for the year, but, hopefully, that doesn’t mean that this is the lowest priority, because it absolutely—as the previous speaker, Carlos Cheung, alluded to at the end of his contribution then—should be a priority for all New Zealanders, especially, but not limited to, this time of year, when it’s an opportunity to reconnect with our families.

Now, at the heart of the quality of life for ageing New Zealanders is digital inclusion, because it should be a right, not a privilege, for all New Zealanders. We have the potential for a very exciting digital future in New Zealand. AI—artificial intelligence—offers huge opportunities for increased productivity but also for better, more targeted, and more specific access to screening and services for New Zealanders. We are also in the midst of a debate in New Zealand around a social media age restriction, which, in fact, has highlighted a number of issues around how online services can be better targeted, better tailored, and better designed to be safer for New Zealanders of all ages.

We also, in the Labour Party, have talked about the proactive steps we’re taking to address needs in the primary healthcare sector to relieve pressure in our hospital sector, which we know is struggling to keep up. We would have the addition of a Medicard, which allows New Zealanders to have a much better record of the medical services they are entitled to and the medical screenings and services that they’ve already had, and we would make sure that it’s a Medicard that New Zealanders take out of their pocket when they go to the doctor, not a credit card.

But while we’re on the subject of credit cards, we do know that digital devices cost money and that connectivity to the services that digital devices provide access to also costs money. It’s summed up very well by the message from Access Matters Aotearoa’s Kōrero for Change, where they said, “Technology has the power to connect, empower, and transform lives—but only if it is designed with everyone in mind.” That is the risk that we see from having a Government whose main drive seems to be about cuts and cost cutting, and trying to pull money out of very, very important places like our health sector. That design, fuelled by that, risks leaving people behind.

Some speakers from the other side of the House have raised the issue of social isolation and exclusion. A very real concern for our older New Zealanders is that either they do not have access to those services or, if they do have access to those services, that’s at the expense of their engagement and their inclusion in community activities and in community conversations, which are so important to address those issues of social isolation and exclusion.

The call to the Government is simple. Our senior sector and our ageing New Zealanders need to be actively involved in the design and development of the platforms of the tools for the potentially fantastic opportunities that technology provides, but if we do not involve our older New Zealanders and our ageing New Zealanders in the design and development of those products and services, we absolutely risk excluding them from the benefits.

Digital inclusion is key. Data security and transparency is absolutely vital, as well. Trust needs to be central to the services that are provided for our ageing New Zealanders and for all New Zealanders on those digital platforms.

The good news is that there are many experts that the Government can work with in this space, and I’m going to name some but not all of them here: Katoa Connect, the Digital Inclusion Alliance Aotearoa, Moana Connect, the incredible team at Fibre Fale, and the Digital Equity Coalition Aotearoa. Also a shout-out especially to SeniorNet in New Brighton, and to Phyllis and the amazing team there, who ensure that some of the older members of our community are still connected, because as technology advances, our community can only advance if we leave no one behind.

Members, we now come to the debate reflecting on local issues, arranged by the Business Committee under Standing Order 80.

I move, That the House take note of local issues.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What a privilege it is to speak to this local issues debate on the final day of the House sitting in 2025. It has been a whirlwind year on the East Coast, and there’s been a lot on. I want to speak about what has been achieved by this Government in the East Coast electorate and what announcements we’ve made to address some of the key issues we faced as an East Coast community. Also, as a number of small and isolated rural communities across a vast and diverse landscape, we forget too easily what has been done, and I think it’s time to reflect on a great year of work.

I did a quick add-up of the money spent, announced in and around the electorate, and it runs into hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly billions. This is good news, of course, for the regions of Tairāwhiti and the Eastern Bay of Plenty. The real question is: what does it add? What does it usefully bring? Does it bring solutions that enable productivity and growth? Will it create jobs? Will it support communities and whānau?

Firstly, I want to acknowledge all of the social sector agencies across the East Cape—well, it will be the East Cape electorate next year—who deliver essential support throughout the region. They do very challenging and difficult work across there, and it’s wonderful to see them always smiling and happy.

But also infrastructure is the backbone of our regional economy. Roading projects aren’t just about safer roads and cyclone recovery; they’re about unlocking growth. When freight routes are resilient and efficient, forestry and farming exports move faster, costs drop, and productivity rises. On State Highway 35 and on State Highway 2, there are many, many projects, big and small, running into the hundreds of millions of dollars. I want to acknowledge all those local contractors who’ve contributed to the work and have gained valuable experience and capability by doing so. That strengthens their own businesses going forward. A small group of people have lobbied hard to ensure that local businesses are used wherever possible—none more so than the inimitable Willie Te Aho.

The work on the roads in Tairāwhiti and in the Eastern Bay of Plenty include the Hikuwai Bridge, a $50 million project; the Mangahauini Gorge, $50 million; Rototahe raising; the Nesbitt’s Dip; the Coates Corner projects, 170 drop-out sites and culverts fixed at a cost of $90 million; Tiniroto Bypass, $45 million; and bridge replacements, $107 million. If you add into that the Waikare Gorge—which is not really in my electorate; it’s in the good electorate of my colleague Katie Nimon, MP for Napier—but it is the one route south for anyone from Tairāwhiti: $400 million, bringing that total to almost $1 billion spent in roading and infrastructure. We also have to add in the Eastern Bay projects: the Matekerepu roundabout, $10 million; the Ōhiwa Beach Road, State Highway 2 intersection, $10 million; and the Pekatahi Bridge, the greatest project released this week, $69 million. Every dollar we invest today in these infrastructure projects creates jobs, strengthens supply chains, and builds a future where prosperity is shared across Tairāwhiti and the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

One of the real challenges in my community has been housing: high rents, short supply of quality housing available for rent and social housing, and a growing concern about homelessness. That’s shared across the country. There’ve been a number of housing projects already completed in the last two years in Whakatāne, Ōpōtiki, and Tairāwhiti. But, in May, the Government announced $49 million of funding into a partnership with all the local iwi. It is in total an $80 million project, to build 150 homes—a much-needed Crown and iwi project which made all of us very proud to be there that day.

Just a couple of weeks ago, Minister Chris Bishop announced a further large investment into housing in the electorate. It’s clear, he said, that the East Coast has widespread unmet housing needs, with more than 700 people on the housing register, one of the highest in the country. Good work coming for Kawerau, Whakatāne, Ōpōtiki, and Gisborne, where between 210 and 230 social houses and affordable rentals will be delivered in Gisborne and the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

Critical to cultural support on the East Coast has been a project that we’ve been very proud to do this year: $50 million to shift five marae out of flood zones on to safer and higher ground. We all know the contribution that marae bring, particularly in times of crisis. We only need to look at the work of the small community of Kutarere near Ōpōtiki, in the Ōpōtiki flooding just recently. These marae to be shifted—two of which I have connections to: Takipu and Rangatira at Te Karaka—and the others, Mangatuna, Puketawa, and Ōkuri were inundated in Cyclone Gabrielle. They’ve all been shifted and will continue to be the heart of their local communities, as a result.

The Rangatira Marae Trust just had an interment ceremony at the weekend to honour their whare Te Whakahau, their whenua, and their tīpuna. Sadly, I missed it because I was still on the way home from urgency, but I understand it was a wonderful ceremony and I congratulate them on that.

Health and access to health services have always been an issue in isolated and remote communities and I acknowledge the work being done in places like Kawerau, Murupara, Ōpōtiki, and Te Kaha, including Omaio and Waiho Bay, for the undying commitment to delivering high-quality health services. I think we still have a way to go for rural and isolated rural health, but I’m pleased that Te Whatu Ora is working with those communities to understand how they can help them better. I’d just like to also note that, in the last year, we stood the urgent and emergency care facility at Puhi Kai Iti in Gisborne to help with after-hours care, to take some pressure off the emergency department at Tairāwhiti Hospital.

In the Eastern Bay of Plenty, the priority has been the return of secondary maternity services, which is expected in April next year. In Whakatane, this year, we supported the Waiariki Whanau Mentoring Resilience cafe to deliver extended services to help with mental health conversations, a much-supported kaupapa in Whakatāne, as it supports people in times of need and it gets things done.

I have so much respect for the people who work at Waiariki Whanau Mentoring. I have admiration for the whānau there, their personal life experiences which are sometimes harrowing, and their resilience and ability to change not only their lives for the better but therefore help others change their own lives is one of the most incredible things to watch.

In terms of economic productivity, there are two other investments I want to mention: firstly, our regional airlines—Air Chathams and Sunair—which provide lifelines across our remote region, will receive assistance from the Regional Infrastructure Fund in the form of $30 million in loan availability. We all know that reliable air services are critical for the East Coast economy and regional connectivity. None of us want to see further cuts to flights or, worse than that, total withdrawal of services. I’d like to thank the good Minister the Hon James Meager for his assistance.

He also helped in the other investment: the $5 million into Eastland Port to provide container shipping capability at the port in Gisborne. This is transformational for the economic sectors in Tairāwhiti, including wood processing, kiwifruit, and produce exports, and it provides the ability for investors to bring new innovation and development into the region. Every investment that we make in bridges, ports, and airlines strengthens the heartbeat that helps our producers get goods to market faster and more efficiently. When freight routes like State Highway 2 and State Highway 35—when ports and airlines are resilient, producers spend less on transport, more on growth and innovation. It means higher productivity, stronger margins, more jobs in our communities.

Our farmers and orchardists are world class, they produce food and fibre that feed families here and overseas, and we have backed them with modern infrastructure, reduction in red and green tape, and smart regional planning. We’re ensuring their success for generations to come, fixing the basics, and building the future. There are so many projects to list, I couldn’t fit them all in this speech. I did a little flow chart thing, here [holds up a chart]. There were way too many to get into this speech, so we had to put that over there. There are so many projects but I couldn’t fit them all. I’m pleased that by combining many, many million dollars of investment—hundreds of millions—in housing, infrastructure, cultural heritage, and trade, these initiatives are creating thousands of jobs, enhancing safety, and laying the groundwork for a much more prosperous future for our community.

Finally, so many people, as well as organisations I wanted to mention here, but just not enough time to give due credibility. Please know that all of those organisations I have visited over this year remain an important part of the advocacy work and the work of a good electoral representative MP. There is nothing more important than taking the front-line issues and making sure our people across the region are heard. I want to make a special mention of those people who do not get a break over Christmas: the emergency workers, Hato Hone St John, firemen, police officers, doctors, nurses, crisis workers; you are all in our thoughts this holiday season. Thank you for your service and commitment to our people.

One more mention to those particularly wonderful volunteers in Ōpōtiki and Matatā who deliver fatigue stops on New Year’s Day when the rest of us are all suffering at home, for all of those young people—and some not so young—travelling from Gisborne’s Rhythm & Vines to further parts of the country. It is a commendable task and I know those who stop off are extremely grateful.

The greatest gift you can give at Christmas time is time. If everybody gives someone who needs it a little bit of time, it goes a very long way to supporting them and making Christmas a better place for everybody. I commend everybody who would like to possibly do that for someone they maybe have never met before. It makes a big difference. Thanks to the businesses and the whānau in my community. It’s been a wonderful year, and bring on 2026.

Thank you. Now, the Labour Party have indicated this is a split call. I call on the Hon Carmel Sepuloni.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to start off by acknowledging all of our NGOs across the country that are working hard at this time of year with the many families that are struggling to make ends meet, with the many families that wouldn’t otherwise be able to put food on the table over the Christmas period, that wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford presents for their children.

I particularly want to acknowledge one of these NGOs that I was able to go and visit with some other Labour MPs on Monday, an NGO that has worked really well across different administrations with National Governments, with Labour Governments, with different political parties, and that organisation is Visionwest in Glen Eden. They put on a Christmas From the Heart event each year. This year, they will be giving out a thousand packages to whānau, which includes not only a ready-packed food package but the ability for them to choose some of the items off the shelf themselves, and also includes the ability to be able to select presents off the shelf for their children. The vast majority of what they have has been donated by the New Zealand Food Network, by companies and organisations and businesses, and also from the local schools who, like my son who is at intermediate in that area, did a drive to take Christmas presents along to contribute to that particular Christmas From the Heart effort.

Despite the fact that I want to acknowledge all of their efforts, I primarily want to acknowledge how tough families are doing it right now. When we were there, they talked to us about the fact that there are so many working families that are coming through the door now, households that have two working parents, that can barely pay the rent let alone the electricity bill, and that struggle to put food on the table and wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford anything else for their children at this time.

Reflecting on that, I have to say to that side of the House that there is a high level of disappointment that you have not delivered on the promise that you made before the last election, and that was to alleviate the pressure on these families with the cost of living. What we’ve seen is that inflation has continued to go up, that their incomes have not gone up to the same extent. We’ve got a Government that has made the decision two years in a row—or was it three years in a row?—to not even lift the minimum wage to keep up with inflation. So some responsibility has to be taken from that side of the House for the struggles that these families are going through.

It’s not just families with children; there’s an increasing number of senior citizens who are struggling to be able to pay for the basics, who are reliant on organisations like Visionwest, to support at this time of year. I want us all to reflect on that.

Do you know what I don’t think? I do not think that any politician in this House is heartless. I do believe that we care about those living in poverty and that there will be families out there that have very little to celebrate at this time of year. But what I also think is that, unfortunately, we’ve got a Government who have chosen to prioritise the wrong thing, and it’s not those families who are experiencing hardship across the course of the year, and particularly at this time of year.

We’ve also got a Government who is out of touch with that experience. Now, I want to recognise that on all sides of the House, there will be MPs who grew up across the course of their life and probably experienced some hardship themselves, but, sadly, what we know is that there are people who seem to forget what that feels like and forget that they have a responsibility to put the ladder out for others, to give back, and to ensure that the next generation has a better experience than what some of us in this House may have had.

So, today, I’m talking about Visionwest in Glen Eden, in my electorate, but I’m acknowledging every single NGO that is doing it tough themselves, with very little funding, looking after whānau who are doing it incredibly tough with the cost of living, and I want to acknowledge them and their volunteers and all those making an effort to make this a better time of year for those whānau than it otherwise would have been.

I want to start my contribution to the local debate, given that this is the last opportunity that I’ll be speaking this year, to acknowledge everyone who works here at Parliament that enables us to be able to do what we need to do. Their roles are vast and there are many of them and they all work incredibly hard. I wanted to acknowledge their contribution to what is an essential part of our democracy.

Now, of course, one of the challenges with a local debate is to identify one thing to talk about. You’ve got five minutes, and there are a lot of things that are facing our regions at the moment. I’m conscious of the community of Ashurst, which has struggled since the Government pulled their school bus services to get their kids to school in Palmerston North; and I’m looking at those that are working tirelessly to help those in Masterton that have found themselves homeless, and the numbers continue to grow under this Government. But the one thing that I really want to focus on today is Wairarapa Hospital. The situation that the Government has put that hospital in, and our region in, is, frankly, nothing short of a scandal.

Now, a brief history before I continue. Wairarapa Hospital was deemed to be structurally unsound, it is not fit for purpose, and it is so bad that Health New Zealand sought $90 million in damages to completely replace the hospital. The only course of action they had available to them was to sue the Masterton District Council, who was, essentially, the last person standing in this. The contractors and everybody else involved weren’t able to be joined into that action. They settled out of court. I’ve never once sought to find out how much that settlement was, but it is clear from the course of action that Health New Zealand has taken that Masterton Hospital is not safe, it is not large enough to meet the needs of our region, and it needs to be fixed.

Health New Zealand settled out of court, and we have spent the last year and a bit trying to find out from the Minister where that money has gone. We accept that the settlement is confidential, but one facet of democracy that this Government has not lived up to is transparency and integrity. It is a basic question to ask of Ministers—where have they spent the money?

Simeon Brown has refused at every opportunity to answer that question. We have long suspected it’s because he’s taken that money and he has used it to fill the hole in his health budget. We complained to the Ombudsman; they looked into it and they finally agreed and forced Health New Zealand to answer that question. Now, we know for a fact why Simeon Brown refused to answer it, because that’s exactly what they did. They took the money.

We wanted to know how much of that settlement, which was for the sole purpose of fixing our hospital, would be ring-fenced for Masterton Hospital, and the answer is none of it—absolutely none of it. Here we are in Wairarapa Hospital with incredibly hard-working staff who are understaffed and overworked. The last estimate was that we are 14 nurses short and they are not allowed to hire. Not only are they overworked but they are working in unsafe conditions that this Government got money to fix and they took it—they took it to fill the hole in their Budget.

It is shameful, it is deceitful, and it is a genuine scandal. They try and make noise, but they have nothing to make noise about, because everything I’ve said is a fact. They have taken the money. They have taken the money that would have given Wairarapa patients a safe and effective hospital to attend and would have given our nurses and our doctors and our health professionals a safe working environment. Filling the Budget and trying to plug the holes was more important to them than keeping our patients and our health professionals safe.

As they work over Christmas and they treat those who need their help, they know that they will continue to do so next year in a hospital that isn’t structurally sound, isn’t fit for purpose, and isn’t safe. That is on Simeon Brown, that is on Health New Zealand, and, actually, it is on Mike Butterick. The local MP has said nothing—has said nothing—not a peep, not a single word about this. He has had constituents get in touch with him; he’s ignored them. He has asked no questions; he has made no representations on behalf of Wairarapa.

It is a disgrace, and it is on each and every single one of them for voting for a Budget that had a billion-dollar hole in their health budget that they had to steal our money for our hospital for their purposes.

E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Almost a decade ago now, I fell down a rabbit hole that led me to this place. Almost a decade ago, I was working at Neck of the Woods on Karangahape Road, I was in the midst of opening a little art gallery and coffee shop in order to support our young local creatives, and I was on 95bFM, the number one alternative radio station in Auckland. I spent a long time—years, in fact—interviewing politicians that I simply could not understand. I could not understand the disconnect between the things that they were saying and doing and the very clearly expressed needs of our communities. So, challenged by my then producer, I ended up throwing my hat into the ring and ultimately landing in this place.

Auckland Central is a place that is not wanting for talent, for creativity, for innovation, nor for care. Our communities deeply and profoundly care about each other, especially in the face of the issues that have been exacerbated by this Government’s intentional decisions. Those structural barriers to people achieving their aims, their vision, their desire for contributing to our communities and living a good life looks like the kinds of so-called difficult choices that this Government has made.

Difficult choices like tax cuts for landlords on their seventh rental property while choosing to push more people into poverty and homelessness. We have consistently challenged the Prime Minister to come to the streets of Auckland Central to meet the people, including the children who his Government’s decisions have made homeless. Thus far, those calls for him to confront the consequences of his actions have fallen on deaf ears, and now we hear that the Government is moving to criminalise the consequences of its own actions.

Difficult choices like the Government choosing to freeze hiring for the health sector at the front line, which they still continue to say is not happening. Yet if you are to listen to the very nurses and the doctors and those involved in the healthcare system, it very clearly reflects their experience, namely at the likes of Auckland City Hospital, just across the bridge from that very Karangahape Road that I was referring to earlier.

Those difficult choices to freeze those front-line hires contrasted quite strongly with the Government’s decision to find $12 billion down the back of the couch for new military spending at the behest of none other than Donald Trump. Then, this Government has the gall to speak about hard work being rewarded as they make decisions to create the rules of an economy that reward speculation and they sell this country off for parts. My question to members of the Government is: have any of you actually worked hospo? That, indeed, is an incredibly, incredibly difficult job to do and if you want to talk about hard work, you should support those who are doing that incredibly challenging work.

When I talk to my small businesses in Auckland Central, they will consistently raise the challenges with people’s lack of discretionary income, which again comes as a result of this Government’s intentional decisions to punch down on hard-working regular people. Then, this Government’s response to all of that is to make those small businesses internalise the cost of payWave instead of the commercial banks, who are consistently making record profit.

The point that I am making here is that all of these decisions which are about our country ultimately end up impacting all of us locally. We need to build the power at a grassroots level to build up towards that political change at a central government level. This is why it is so important for New Zealanders from Auckland Central to across Aotearoa to understand that the power rests in their hands and that they should not let the people who are laughing their way to the bank, screwing those hard-working New Zealanders over, define the terms of what is possible in our politics.

Back to those fundamental ingredients in Auckland Central of the care and the compassion and the creativity and the innovation. Those could be unleashed if we decided as a House of Parliament to create the rules that enabled them to flourish, instead of punching down on them, as this Government’s decisions so consistently do.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Local body elections don’t always get the attention like general elections do. They don’t dominate the radio; they don’t clog up the news coverage. But, in 2025, what happened in local government matters more than many people think, because councils have a growing influence over the cost of living, local infrastructure, and our daily lives.

I want to thank the people who this year put themselves forward to stand for local bodies. Standing for council is not always glamorous; standing for council is demanding. It involves real personal sacrifice, family commitment. Yet across the country, good people—business owners, parents, professionals, farmers, and community leaders—have stepped forward because they care deeply about their community.

A strong democracy relies on people who are prepared to serve and, whether they win or lose, those candidates who stood deserve our respect for putting their names forward and engaging with the democratic process. At this year’s local election, for the first time, ACT made the deliberate and organised effort to contest local government through the ACT Local campaign. That decision was driven by a simple belief: local government should focus on the basics, spend ratepayers’ money carefully, and be accountable to the people who fund it.

ACT local candidates stood on clear principles. They argued that councils should concentrate on core services like roads, water, and waste; stick to essential infrastructure rather than expanding into areas better handled by community organisations or that are the purview of central government. ACT local candidates stood for lower rates; fiscal restraint; transparency; and back to basics, common-sense decision-making. Importantly, ACT local candidates didn’t pretend that local government is apolitical. Councils make real choices about spending, regulation, and the way our future and our communities and our cities will be decided. ACT believes voters deserve clarity about the values and the ideas that councils bring to these decisions.

In 2025, ACT Local succeeded in electing representatives across the country. These new elected councillors are carrying out the responsibility of delivering on those promises, standing up for ratepayers, asking tough questions of the council, refocusing the council on what really matters. Their presence has already shifted the tone of the local debate, bringing stronger scrutiny and clearer accountability to council chambers.

But while there is much to be encouraged by, particularly the quality of candidates—not just in ACT Local but around the country—and the ideas on offer, there is one issue that lingers and it is large and, regardless of politics, we should be paying attention to it, it deserves our consideration, and that is voter turnout. Once again, participation in local government elections has been concerningly low. In many parts of the country, little more than a third of eligible voters took part, and, in some communities, turnout was even lower than that. That means decisions affecting entire cities and districts are being made with a minority mandate. This isn’t a new problem, but it’s a pattern which must improve.

When turnout is low, it’s a warning that councils have become disconnected from the communities they serve, and good people may decide it’s simply not worth standing in future elections. Democracy becomes weaker, not because of bad intentions but because of disengagement. Engagement is crucial at local government because this is the level of government that affects our daily lives. We are a self-governing society and partaking in the democratic process is what is the cornerstone of that system. Councils decide how much we pay in rates, they decide where the roads are maintained, where the water infrastructure is upgraded. They control how quickly a consent is issued and how, as I say, our towns and cities will grow. That is why turnout must improve.

New Zealanders say again and again that we want councils that focus on core services, that respect ratepayer money, and know the value of that dollar, and this must be delivered. Voting isn’t just a formality; it’s how we signal what we expect from those who govern locally. In the 2025 local elections, there was a call for good candidates who stood up. ACT Local showed that good ideas and principles matter at the local level.

Now, the challenge is for our system to prove its responsiveness, to prove why there is value in voters being engaged. This country is made up of neighbours and neighbourhoods, living together and advancing New Zealand. Local democracy is a pillar of how we do this. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I’m delighted that you’re in the Chair, because I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak, as a list MP, about one of my recent visits to the West Coast. It’s a place, Madam Speaker, as you would know—I see the big smile there—

Yeah.

—of wonderful people, of strong communities, of rich and often tragic history, and of deep connection to a place which is utterly beautiful.

The West Coast, Madam Speaker, was the scene, as you know, of many bloody battles. I visited Māwhera, a part of the Pounamu Pathway, which I think was supported by the Provincial Growth Fund, and saw the confronting interpretation of Ngāi Tahu’s repeated brutal invasions and ultimate eradication of the local iwi—it’s pretty confronting stuff. Then, for a while in the 19th century, the West Coast was home to more than 10 percent of New Zealand’s entire population. What was the reason for both of those? It was mining: pounamu and gold.

Mining was also a big part of my visit. I was told that one mining job on the coast creates more than three across the whole community, and it’s also by far the highest value per capita of any job in any sector. I visited Endura’s gold mine on the Snowy River, near Reefton. They started in 2020 and already they’ve drilled 12 kilometres of tunnel. It looks really, really promising in terms of—in fact, they’re really certain of the resource that’s down there, and they’re now about to start investing $80 million in a processing plant. Now, Labour often bemoans losing construction jobs—and, I suspect, mining jobs—to Australia. But what did I see there? Australians coming back and working in the Snowy River mine. One other thing I did note there was that the key investor in the mine was the super fund—the Australian super fund.

I visited Reefton as well. I love this town. When we had the flag referendum on, I saw one Kyle Lockwood flag in the street and the rest was festooned with New Zealand flags; I thought, “This is a great place.” But Reefton’s not only proud of being a New Zealand town; it’s also proud of being the first town in the Southern Hemisphere to have electrified streetlights. I also visited the Powerhouse Charitable Trust, which has restored some of that power system that ran it and is now selling 1.8 megawatts of energy back to the grid.

Then there was Blackball. Now, here’s a town that was down on its luck—a mining town, again. It was a community that was really struggling, but it was turned around with a bit of support, including from Internal Affairs. The community has led that restoration. They’ve focused on celebrating their history and telling the fascinating stories of that place. The first project that the community decided it wanted to embark on was restoring a mining chimney, and they’ve also restored a community hall, heritage buildings, and erected a replica of an aerial cableway pylon that used to take the coal, and some of the kids hopped on the coal and told those stories—

Coal! Coal!

Coal, yes. So they’re telling the stories of those places. There was an outdoor museum display interpreting the birth place of the Labour Party out of the strike action originally in 1908. I’ve got to say, they’re not feeling a whole lot of love from the Labour Party over recent years. It also reflected on the Pike River disaster.

Blackball is clearly a town which is recovering. It’s attracting new residents and businesses, and you can see and feel the pride and care for the town, its buildings, and its structures. It’s a great example, I think, of supporting and empowering a community to get on and develop their own future.

Then there was West Coast mineral sands. Now, they are mining mineral sands near Westport, and they’ve got consented plans for another site south of Hokitika. They started with a paddock; first soil turned just three years ago, December 2022; first exports mid-2023; and they’re now exporting 120,000 tons of product a year. We often talk about value-add; they’re looking to add very significant value by separating those mineral sands, so it’s not just treated as low-value construction sand. What do they produce there? Zircon, that’s used in ceramics, mouldings for factories, etc. Titanium, used in medical products, jet engines, and paint. Garnet—water-jet cutting, and it can also be used on roadways and airport runways to add grip and life for road surfaces and road paint. Then there’s all those rare earths used in magnets essential for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and touch phones, so a clear example where mining is actually helping us to become more sustainable. Their vision is to become an intergenerational business. They’ve got about 70 staff at the moment—the aim is 200 to 300 in the Buller; and then Hokitika, another 70-odd.

But I want to touch, finally, on one last thing, but before I do, also say that Development West Coast, who I spend a lot of time with, are doing an absolute fantastic job, both supporting development on the coast but also building the fund that they got, which was $92 million back in 2012 and it’s now worth $150 million, plus all the investment they’ve made.

But it’s the future of the Landcorp site there, which the West Coast mineral sands are doing a lot of their mining on—there’s been some talk about selling Landcorp. We obviously don’t support that at all, but that site is really, really important, not only for West Coast mineral sands but also, potentially, for the future of Westport and the potential of any relocation. It’s really essential that we don’t sacrifice those opportunities.

I think we need to stand alongside the West Coast community. Both our Government agencies and New Zealand First, certainly, stands alongside the West Coast and its potentially prosperous future.

Today marks my 70th day as the member of Parliament for Tāmaki Makaurau, and I’ve been saving this kaupapa kōrero for this very moment. It’s my gift to the House before it rises for 2025, and, in presenting this gift, I honour Takutai. You see, it was Takutai who started this hīkoi for Te Pāti Māori, and it is with her in mind that I stand here proudly to give rise to the voices of our rangatahi. Specifically, I give rise to the most vulnerable rangatahi in Tāmaki Makaurau, who are living with real, genuine fear from not knowing where they’re going to sleep tonight, tomorrow night, or even on Christmas day next Thursday. Housing remains the most urgent, pressing issue in Tāmaki-makau-rau, but homelessness is the gift that keeps on giving. The numbers have gone up, not down, and the latest figures tell us that more than 112,000 people across Aotearoa are without shelter and are seriously deprived of a stable home right now.

Just the other day, the Salvation Army reported that homelessness has more than doubled in Tāmaki Makaurau in the past year alone, rising from 426 to 940 people. How is it possible that the richest city in our country also carries the shame of the worst homelessness crisis? What’s worse is that 50 percent of all of those who are homeless right now are under the age of 25. That’s too close to home for me: my mātāmua, my eldest child, is 25. For any māmā and kuia out there, it’s gut-wrenching and heartbreaking to see tamariki suffer. It is as if they’re our own babies: that’s just how us Māori māmā tick—that when one of our babies suffers, we all do. Our babies belong to the village, and, in this context, when we speak to homelessness, the village is Aotearoa. The recent More Than a Home report, commissioned by Mā Te Huruhuru in collaboration with Manaaki Rangatahi, tells us that the urgency of taitamariki homelessness is no longer just a crisis; it is a generational failure. We have to do better.

During my by-election campaign, I saw things I cannot unsee. I saw a mum pushing a newborn baby in a trolley at 7 a.m. along the Papatoetoe streets. It’s become normalised; Māori Wardens deal with it every day. I also saw a kuia who had made a makeshift home out of a bus stop on Robertson Road in Māngere. I saw parents with young children sleeping in their cars across the road from some of our most prominent malls and washing up in public toilets. There are kids who are not going to school—not because they choose not to or because their parents simply don’t want them to go to school, but because they can’t afford a roof over their heads.

What I didn’t see is rangatahi homelessness, and I’ll tell you why: it’s not as obvious. It’s invisible, and it is growing in silence. It’s growing because $79 million was cut from housing support programmes in the last year. It’s growing because it’s a lot harder for whānau to access emergency housing. It’s growing because there is no real investment in mental health and rehabilitation services and addiction services. It’s growing because this coalition believes that punishment is better than prevention. It’s growing because not one Government policy has been designed specifically with rangatahi in mind, and that is the gift that I bring to this Whare right now—a strong, solid solution that seeks to solve a longstanding struggle. It aims to break cycles. Today, I deliver my Youth Homelessness Prevention Bill into the member’s bill ballot.

It’s not about the crisis; it’s about the cure. Prevention is priority, and this bill seeks to create a legal duty to assist, and it ensures that not one rangatahi falls through the gaps. It places onus on agencies and mandates transparent reporting. It is not a radical approach; it is a responsible bill. Wales and Canada have done it; they reduced youth homelessness while saving public money. My bill is not ideological; it is evidence-based, rangatahi-centred, and community-led. It provides real transformation, but it does require courage, leadership, and collaboration.

This Government is proof that the unthinkable is thinkable. This Government is proof that the unimaginable can become reality. I implore everyone in this House, while they go away for Christmas break and celebrate the festive season, to hold in their minds and hearts the future of our nation. It does require rangatira, and rangatira must be raised by the village of Aotearoa. Rangatira become who they are by rangatahi. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Last night, this House had the first readings of three pieces of legislation that will have transformational effects in my electorate of Banks Peninsula. The planning, natural environment, and the earthquake-prone building bills will have profound impacts in not only Christchurch in the South Island but also the whole of New Zealand. In some ways, I feel really deeply connected to all of these pieces of legislation because of my prior experiences before coming to Parliament.

Last night, I talked about how during the earthquakes I was at the Pyne Gould building. I led the triage team there, and while everybody who came to our triage tent actually survived, there were many other people who perished in that building. I know that all of the other first responders who were in that building also hold those memories of those images of that place, and the emotional impact of that earthquake on everybody who was in Christchurch has been huge. The physical devastation was just almost unimaginable. But every person who was there in Christchurch has got a connection to how we responded as well. I think it’s difficult to understand if you haven’t been in an emergency situation, if you haven’t lived through a crisis and responded. I know others who have been involved in cyclones and other things know what it’s like to have a community response.

When I stood next to that building that was concertinaed—collapsed building off the back spine of the elevator and stairway shaft at the back—it was pretty hard to imagine what it must have been like to have had to have been in that building after the first lot of earthquakes, because in September that building had been checked in the previous year when we had our first lot of earthquakes, and it had been checked and deemed safe enough for people to go back into. For the families of those victims and those survivors, and also the families from the devastating loss of the big smoking pile of rubble that was the CTV building, to go through the later response and then the royal commission of inquiry into the buildings and what needed to happen, was both re-traumatising but also, I think, somewhat affirming in the findings and the recommendations that came out of it.

At the time, I remember feeling such a huge sense of relief that this Parliament had responded and agreed to all of the findings of that royal commission. But when we get 15 years down the track, we see that, actually, in some ways, we’re faced with a triage situation. In medicine, when you have a mass casualty situation, you have to triage. You have to do what you can for the most to get the best survival outlook. What our earthquake-prone buildings legislation is doing is, essentially, taking what is thousands of buildings across the country that would have been deemed unsafe and not able to be used, and finding a practical way to be able to make safe as many of those as possible, in a way that is pragmatic and means that it actually gets done.

To the families of all of those who lost their lives, I want them to be assured that this is not about the money. I’m not talking about the money. You’ll notice that deliberately, although it is billions of dollars. Because, actually, when it comes down to it, this is a pragmatic Government that is taking the steps that we need to do.

Now, one of those buildings in my electorate is actually the Princess Margaret Hospital. That is something that we need to do something about. Yes, absolutely, and I think that the earthquake-prone building as well as the planning and environments bills will help go some ways to getting there. We need to be able to come up with some—many people have asked me what we’re going to do with that. The answer is, we don’t know yet. I want to take the electorate along with me on that journey to figure out and help to advocate for what will be the best outcome. The worst outcome would be if it sat as a mouldering pile of bricks attracting adventurers and vandals and rats. I hope that we can use those to move forward for Banks Peninsula.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’d like to use my call today to talk about homelessness in the Hutt Valley.

Mark is 47. Mark grew up in Naenae and he went to Hutt Valley High School. He worked for many years as a builder in a small firm. When that firm folded after the recent downturn in construction work, he took up work as a casual labourer. He sustained a back injury and then received ACC support for some time. When ACC stopped, he used his savings up pretty quickly and he then went on jobseeker. But the jobseeker amount was insufficient to be able to pay for his rent and for food, so he moved in with his sister in Wainuiōmata and slept on her couch. The house was already pretty crowded with four or five children in there already.

He felt like he was a burden on that family and so he decided to move on. He initially slept in his car and moved around the Hutt Valley to find places to sleep. But with a back injury, he was in a lot of pain sleeping in his car. He got a tent and camped in some areas in and around the Hutt Valley in industrial spaces he found, but he felt unsafe, so some nights he just stayed awake in order to feel more safe. Mark isn’t on the street because of drugs or crime. He’s there because rent went up faster than his income, his injury took away steady work, and he could not access emergency housing at all.

In this very House, we have been told numerous times by the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, by the Minister of Housing, Christopher Bishop, and by the Associate Minister of Housing, Tama Potaka, that if people need housing support, it is there for them. Mark is one of many examples right across New Zealand where that is not true and people cannot access the help and the support they need.

People might remember a recent Radio New Zealand article about the Hutt Valley again, someone living in their car, this time on the Petone foreshore. His name was Dylan Holdaway and he was renowned for that because he was living off tinned chicken in his car. He was working as a vinyl layer and working and living in his car. I think he struck a chord with many Kiwis because he said that a working man should be able to afford a steak after a day’s work—“I should be able to buy a steak.” He could not afford to put decent food into his body and was getting sick as a consequence.

Only when that story broke on Radio New Zealand—and when it was picked up on social media and it got fed around and went pretty hard out in the Hutt—did Christopher Bishop make a contract be signed for a wraparound support enabling some of those homelessness prevention services to have adequate funding to help people in that area. That’s when action was taken. When media stories hit, it was only then that our homelessness prevention service received adequate funding to be able to get in and help people like Mark and like Dylan.

That same provider told me that they had to fight with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) for living in a garage to be a criteria to access homelessness support. Previously, if you were living in a garage, that was OK; that was a house. That provider, who had already gone in and fought hard for that funding to be secured to help these people, had to fight for living in a garage to be added as a criteria to access that support.

I’m told that if you are a mum with kids, you need an eviction notice and that the homelessness prevention service in the Hutt Valley in MSD will be able to provide support to that family once they have an eviction notice. I see them laughing on the other side at their phones; I’m pleased someone thinks that’s funny.

Five people a week in the Hutt become homeless—five people a week—and that’s going to go up over the Christmas period as more pressure comes on families. In the meantime, our social housing build has been cancelled in the Hutt Valley. People deserve to have jobs, health, and homes. Jobs give people dignity and purpose, health services get people back on their feet, and homes provide the foundation that makes everything possible.

We are serious about addressing homelessness. We will give people secure work that they can rely on, accessible healthcare when things go wrong, and also affordable homes in the communities they live in. When people have a job, when people have their health, and people have a place to call home, they don’t just survive; they have a future. That’s what the Labour Party stands for.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity to speak at the end of what has been another year of this Government working for provincial and regional New Zealand so that we can fix the basics and build the future. We’ve heard the Opposition rant and rave about challenges that existed when they left office and, unfortunately, for New Zealand, they did not fix.

Let me talk about three things that have affected my electorate in recent times—the wonderful Whanganui electorate—that have been a direct result of work this Government and, dare I say it, this MP have done in my wonderful, wonderful electorate of Whanganui. Firstly, the earthquake-prone building work: The Post had a headline recently, and it said, “New earthquake regulations ensure ‘survival of rural New Zealand’ ”. You see, it is easy to rant and rave; it is more difficult to actually do practical, implementable changes that solve the problem.

The Whanganui Chronicle, on 2 April 2024, said, “The balancing act involved with earthquake strengthening and protecting heritage buildings was on the agenda when Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk visited Whanganui [the day prior].” Penk said, at that time, that he will make them more realistic so people could have the practical ability to do the work that was required. Again, it is easy to get lost in the technicalities and the story—the things that we’ve done, like removing the New Building Standard ratings from the system, removing Auckland, Northland, and the Chatham Islands. What we often miss in the process is the reality of the impact of the changes on people and on our communities, on the building owners, and on cities like Whanganui.

The changes to earthquake strengthening—the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill—are about having and ensuring a proportionate and risk-based regulatory system. There’s a significant impact when it comes to the dollars and, in Whanganui alone, it will have a reduction of savings estimated at about $24 million. For Stratford, a building owner said, in The Post, again, that simplifying of the earthquake-prone building system will take pressure off owners and make selling properties much easier.

The projected savings for the Wairarapa—a place that work got done by the local MP to support the bill being progressed and coming into this House; something that the prior member who ranted and raved earlier in this debate didn’t achieve—is $68 million for Dannevirke, $82 million for Masterton, and $17 million for Carterton. I just want to do a shout-out to Mike Butterick, MP for Wairarapa. He’s doing a great job there and deserves the support of that region.

As we talk about heritage buildings, it’s a nice segue into the Regional Events Promotion Fund, because in January, we will be having Vintage Weekend—17 and 18 January—which is an opportunity to just highlight the backdrop of the heritage buildings we have in Whanganui that benefit from everything I have just spoken about, along with other events in our region during January: the Goat Adventure Run, the Cooks Classics athletics event, and the Cemetery Circuit, all supported by the Regional Events Promotion Fund.

I want to jump on to, finally, the thing that I was referring to. Much is said in this House and around the country of rural and provincial connectivity. I spoke about it in my maiden speech. Well, this Friday, less than two years after my maiden speech, I stand here excited for Christmas in Pātea because this Friday, we are turning on the tower. Unlike the Opposition, who often focus on the amount of money the Government is or isn’t spending on something, thinking that dollars always solve the problem, this tower is being turned on because of the hard work of the local MP, Bronwyn Wattrus and Jacq Dwyer from the local community board, Mayor Phil Nixon, and Deputy Mayor Rob Northcott. Without a dollar of Government money, on Friday, we will be turning on the tower in Pātea, turning on mobile connectivity, and celebrating connection in our electorate. Madam Speaker, I wish you a very merry Christmas.

Thank you. I want to talk about two different bills and things that are before my electorate at the moment. I represent, and I’m very honoured to represent, the area of Mt Albert. It is, at the present time, subject to a council plan change called Plan Change 120. I have just prepared my submission on that, and submissions are due by the end of the week. But it is also going to be impacted by the Planning Bill and the two are actually interrelated, so I want to talk about that too.

The first thing I want to say is that I totally support affordable housing close to the city. I have found that most residents in my area see why that is so necessary. I’d just like to refer to the Hon Ginny Andersen’s speech about homelessness, because there is a direct correlation between unaffordable housing and homelessness. There are a lot of myths out there about what makes people homeless, and that is the number one correlating factor. We absolutely need affordable housing. I’ve lived in the area for 35 years and I strongly support the majority of you that we need to have that housing built. I have prepared a submission, and I will make sure that people in my electorate see it, because it’s based on what came back as feedback. That will go in on Plan Change 120.

But today, I want to address my concern about the Planning Bill. Now, we’re supporting the Planning Bill at this stage through to the select committee, but that doesn’t mean that we won’t be keeping a close eye and we don’t have serious questions to ask, and that I don’t have those questions to ask on behalf of my community.

One thing I’m concerned about is that we have had a plan change that already erodes the character housing protections in my area. The new Act looks at those character houses and landscape protections in quite a different way. It basically means, from what I can see, that those plan change protections are going to go, and that, in fact, there is no protection around most of that land.

So my question will be: what is the interrelationship between them? Do people who think that they are in a plan change process, which will secure a lot of those areas in terms of the housing that’s there, have that security or is that gone? In fact, are those areas now going to be demolished as a result of the plan change? What will be protected under this new law? From what I can see, there needs to be an outstanding natural feature or landscape or a significant historic heritage to allow protection under our national law under this Act. A lot of the areas that people are concerned about in my area are places like an area called Burnley Terrace. It’s a street full of character houses, but probably none of them would reach that standard, so I think it is a very big concern.

The second part is of more concern to me, because there’s a chilling effect in this law. It looks like what has to happen under this law is that if the council wants to protect something, it will have to compensate the developers to the extent of what they’re losing. Now, that actually really concerns me. Does it mean that places like Ferndale House, which are historic buildings, if the council wishes to protect them, if the trust wants to develop that area into high-rise, does it mean that the council would have to pay out in that situation to the extent of a development of a high-rise building? If that’s the case, councils won’t do it. It will be a chilling effect on any protection of things that the community values.

Now, we live in a democracy and local democracy is a protection of our communities, so it is very important that our communities get to say what’s important. I get very concerned about what I see as the potential of an erosion of the commons—basically, the things we all get a say in and the democratic right to participate and to shape your community versus private ownership. I’m worried that this might be an erosion of the commons and, actually, an attachment to private property owners and new rights that they’ve never had before—new property rights. Thank you. I’ll be looking closely at this legislation.

Members, I’d just like to acknowledge the contributions in the local issues debate. I found them very informative and, at times, very heartfelt. So congratulations, but the time has come for this debate to end. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.

The House adjourned at 12.36 p.m. (Wednesday)

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. Amene.

[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.]

Two petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

Petition of Cheryl Boyes requesting that the House address the lack of doctors and nurses in hospital emergency departments

petition of Paul Bakker requesting that the House ensure that people who have suffered a vaccine injury but can’t get specialist diagnosis can get ACC assistance.

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

Government response to the petition of Sher Singh

2025 long-term insights briefings for:

the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

the Ministry for Pacific Peoples

2025-2030 statement of intent for Creative New Zealand, and

2025-2026 statement of performance expectations for Creative New Zealand.

Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered today; 24 were delivered yesterday. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill, introduction.

The bill is set down for first reading.

to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on the Government’s fiscal outlook?

Yesterday, in the half-year update, Treasury released its latest fiscal forecasts. These show core Crown expenses steadily reducing to 30.5 percent of GPD by the end of the forecast period; the OBEGALx deficit narrowing, then returning to surplus; and core Crown net debt peaking at 46.9 percent of GDP before starting to fall. New Zealand’s fiscal position deteriorated markedly from 2019 onwards. We have brought back fiscal discipline, and these are a very positive set of forecasts.

Has she seen any recommendation for a ceiling on Government debt?

Yes. In 2022, the Treasury recommended, based on its modelling and analysis, that the Government should adopt a debt ceiling of 50 percent of GDP. This means that the Government should keep net core Crown debt below 50 percent of GDP in normal circumstances and, over the long term, provide headroom to respond to economic shocks and natural disasters. The previous Labour Government agreed with this debt ceiling of 50 percent of GDP. We agree with it, and the Labour Party finance spokesperson is on record as agreeing with it. [Interruption]

Hang on. Sorry. You can’t expect me to make a decision about the appropriateness of an answer when you are, yourselves, making so much noise I can’t hear it. But it would be reasonable to say the Minister should refer to the Government programme, not to some other party’s policy.

Has she seen any alternative views about Government debt?

Yes. In my role, it is appropriate to canvass a wide range of views, and I have seen one alternative view in a recently published book. The author, well-known economic commentator Craig Renney, interprets Treasury’s work differently. He says this work suggests the debt limit should, in fact, be around 80 to 90 percent of GDP, and he cites the Green Party’s analysis showing that the debt limit should, in fact, be up to 174 percent of GDP. This author doesn’t think savings are necessary, says New Zealand does not face fiscal constraints, and thinks the debt could be a lot higher. [Interruption]

Just a moment. It may be the last day, but there can’t be tolerance for that sort of general barrage that was going on just then.

What other views, with fiscal implications, are expressed in this book?

Well, Mr Renney’s book proposes a whole range of policies. For example—which members of this House may wish to consider—

No. Wait on. You’re going to have to stop there because a question that asks about what’s in someone’s book is not exactly a Minister being asked to account for Government activity. Besides, it’s Treasury, and you know my view. We’ll go to question No. 2—the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I view it as, actually, a very important part of my ministerial responsibility to review a range of opinions and insights on the economy—[Interruption]

Sorry—

—on fiscal management—

Sorry. Points of order are heard in silence. Can you please continue.

—and on alternative proposals. I view it as a significant and important part of my ministerial responsibility to not only take and represent the views of Treasury, the agency which reports to me, but to canvass a wide range of opinions and views, and to hold these into account when I am making decisions in my ministerial capacity. Therefore, I think it’s appropriate that I reflect to the House what other views I am digesting and hearing about, and, in this case, Mr Speaker, this is a book that has been published by an independent economist who shows great literacy of Treasury’s views and offers alternative perspectives on them, and I wish to share them with the House.

That’s good, but you’ll appreciate that all supplementaries are at the discretion of the Speaker.

to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Has homelessness increased or decreased since he became Prime Minister?

Well, as the member would understand, we don’t have a great set of data around homelessness, but what I can assure him on is that we are taking action on it, and you’ve actually seen us expand 300 more Housing First places—[Interruption]

Sorry, it’s not going to happen—OK. It’s just reasonable interjection, not constant barrage. Some voices are very easy to detect.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I’ve said before, we don’t have great data on homelessness per se, but what I’d say is that we have worked incredibly hard to make sure that we ensure improved housing affordability. We’re seeing that with homeownership and also with people being able to rent houses. We’ve taken 5,000 people off the State house wait-list, which is fantastic news. We’ve taken 3,000 families out of emergency hotel accommodation, and we actually have a very good plan to make sure that we offer up more spaces through Housing First—and 300 more places are available. I think there’s about $10 million being made available for rough sleepers, and, importantly, we’ve also given the Ministry of Social Development more discretion to support, as well.

Has unemployment increased or decreased since he became Prime Minister?

Well, as I’ve said to the member before to explain the five immutable laws of economics, when spending goes through the roof—up by 84 percent—when inflation hits 7.3 percent, and when there are 12 interest rate rises, an economy slows down and people lose their jobs, and that’s why this Government cares about low and middle income working New Zealanders. The Labour Party used to, but I don’t know what they do now.

Has the economy grown or shrunk since he became Prime Minister?

Well, the good news is that I’m sure we’ll see GDP numbers tomorrow, but all commentators are reporting, daily, positive news about the economy. I note that, today, we actually had some very good news from Westpac about business confidence—importantly, there’s been a very big improvement in business confidence in Auckland, which is what we’ve been wanting to see—and there’s been a series of great results.

Can I ask the Prime Minister, has anything happened that was not forecast in the last forecast before the 2023 election, when Labour was in power?

Well, as the member well knows—

Sorry, wait—

—there was a very good coalition Government formed that’s done an exceptionally good job of actually hauling New Zealand out of the economic mess we inherited, and now we’re making good progress. There’s more to do, but it’s pretty encouraging stuff.

Have household living costs increased or decreased since he became Prime Minister?

Again, the key thing here is that inflation has gone from 7.3 percent down to 3 percent, and that’s the single biggest thing that’s made a difference to low and middle income working New Zealanders and household expenditure. The other big component part—as the member will be well aware—is interest rates, and, unfortunately, the previous Government ran it up 12 times, and we’ve brought it down nine times. That means for an average mortgage holder an extra $10,000 every year, and that’s fantastic news.

Would the present Government be having a housing problem if the 100,000 houses policy of Labour had worked?

No, that’s not something he can comment on.

Have race relations in New Zealand improved or worsened since he became Prime Minister?

Well, I think there has been some good collaboration between the Government and iwi on key topics. If I think about the work on social housing in Tairāwhiti, if I think about the work that we’ve been doing on immunisation rates for under-twos, and if I think about the work that we’ve been doing to connect international investors with iwi organisations, it’s been important.

When will he accept—given that homelessness has increased, unemployment has increased, the economy has shrunk, household living costs have increased, and race relations have worsened—responsibility for the actions his Government has taken in the last two years that have made all of those indicators worse?

Well, I want to reassure the member that this is a Government that takes its responsibilities incredibly seriously. It’s a Government that cares deeply about lower and middle income working New Zealanders, and, as a result, we don’t go “Stuff the economy.” and cause the pain and suffering that would have ensued over the last two years.

Question—

That is the Prime Minister under the pump.

Yeah, when you’re ready.

Yep, go for it.

Thanks very much. You’ll be going for it shortly, as well.

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 acknowledge that the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU) estimates that unemployment will keep peaking from right now through to March next year; therefore, will his Government front up with more resourcing to stretched community providers who are trying to make sure everyone can access kai for their whānau this Christmas?

Well, the way in which we lower unemployment is that we actually get Government spending under control, we bring down inflation, we bring down interest rates, we get our economy growing, and that expands employment. The very good news out of HYEFU yesterday was that there will be 270,000 new jobs being created. I just want to acknowledge the Minister for Social Development. She’s done a brilliant job of making sure that people who are on the jobseeker benefit are getting job-ready for jobs available today and jobs available tomorrow. [Interruption]

The question is about to be asked.

Will the tight Budget his Government is choosing for next year, alongside the fall in projected revenue, result in further cuts to community providers who are already unable to keep up with demand?

Well, as I’ve just explained to the member in the answer to my previous question, it’s all about driving economic growth. That is how we lift the collective living standards of every single New Zealander. But I can tell you what the answer is not. The answer is not more tax, more spending, more borrowing under a Labour-Greens Government that caused the mess and actually put low and middle income New Zealanders into a real hole—and we’re digging them out of it.

How will his Government respond to community kai providers who told Chlöe Swarbrick and me on Monday that the level of need is so dire for people that it is far beyond the services and support they are able to provide over this Christmas period?

By running a great economy and getting it growing.

Is he aware that community providers of kai have had to stop advertising their services because they cannot meet demand?

What I’m aware of is that many New Zealanders were put into a very difficult situation because of economic mismanagement and vandalism from a Labour-Greens Government. This is a Government working very hard to make sure there is opportunity being created and growth in our economy.

Will his Government choose to keep whānau reliant on food banks and charity for kai, or will he ensure everyone has what they need to live with dignity?

That’s why we’re building an economy so that people can get connected to work and that’s really important.

In the spirit of Christmas—[Interruption]

Hey, wait on. Would all the commentators like to leave the House or sit quietly—

The exit’s over here.

Hang on. Sit quietly through a question being asked.

Might you have an update for the people of Te Tau Ihu who couldn’t make it today on the progress made with Te Here-ā-Nuku?

I’m very proud of the progress that we made, and I want to thank the member for being present this morning as well. This is an issue that has sat in New Zealand for a long period of time. It’s something that I want to commend the Attorney-General around as well, as well as actually the negotiators and Mr Stafford in particular. It’s something that we should be very proud of. It’s an issue that has been a long-running issue. It has been resolved. It has required compromise and partnership from both sides, and I think we’ve got to a great outcome. I’m very excited about what comes next. Really, that’s the opportunity that the agreement and the resolution today puts in place.

to the Minister of Customs

What recent reports has she seen about increased border protections this summer?

Customs is well prepared to ensure that travellers move smoothly during our busiest travel season while also protecting our border from threats. On Monday, Customs announced that with over 15,000 kilometres of coastline to monitor, their maritime surveillance and patrols won’t be taking any time off. Customs’ Border Protect programme is also urging everyday Kiwis to remain vigilant about our coastline this summer. Reporting any unusual activity supports Customs’ efforts to detect and deter criminal activity.

How is Customs supporting smooth traveller movements?

For genuine travellers, Customs has enhanced its digital services with faster processing through the New Zealand Traveller Declaration. The digital declaration facilitates travellers’ processing for both air passengers and those in New Zealand through the cruise season. At airports, Customs has also expanded eGate eligibility to a further 22 countries this year. Now travellers from 59 countries are able to use that digital self-service option for border processing. Together these digital services save travellers time and free up front-line customs officers to focus on high risks such as drug smuggling.

Why is focus on high-risk passengers and activities in the maritime domain important?

Customs continues to seize record amounts of illicit materials—from the recent passenger in Auckland with over 15 kilograms of meth in his luggage to seizures of more than 60 kilograms of cocaine at the Port of Tauranga over the last two weeks. The threats at our border are very real and unrelenting. Every measure that Customs introduces to streamline processing for legitimate passengers and trade means that we can invest more time assessing threats and investigating them, which ultimately leads to more seizures and reduced harm in our communities.

What messages does she have for Kiwis and other travellers this summer?

I’d like to encourage everyone travelling into New Zealand to take advantage of the digital traveller declaration and eGate. They are faster for you and support Customs’ efforts to keep our borders safe. I’d like to also encourage everyone around our coastline this summer to keep their eyes open and help collectively to protect our borders. Finally, if I may, Mr Speaker, I’d like to acknowledge the incredible dedication and professionalism of our customs staff. While many of us are on holiday, they will be working hard, keeping our border secure and making sure we get to where we want to go.

to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes, and I particularly stand by my statement that I am proud of our Government’s action to deliver tax relief to more than 3.5 million working New Zealanders—tax relief without which, on average, 1.9 million households would be worse off by $60 per fortnight.

Does she stand by her statement that “We have invested more funding in public infrastructure.”, and, if so, why do the Government’s books show a $3 billion reduction in capital spending from 2024 to 2025 and declining capital over the forecast period?

Yes, because we have added more investment through our capital allocations at each Budget.

Why, then, did the Treasury say, “In some sectors like residential construction, where the sector has shrunk and workers have left, in some cases, abroad, expansion may be more constrained.”?

Because when interest rates soar very high, what happens is construction firms and housing investors find it more difficult to borrow, and, therefore, projects often go on hold or off the boil. That has been the story in the New Zealand economy in recent times, following a very steep rise in interest rates. The good news is that interest rates have now come down significantly, and we have in place not only a fast-track regime but a replacement for the Resource Management Act coming that will mean that new housing projects, new construction projects, new quarries, new mines can get consented a whole lot faster, and workers can get to work building them.

Why does she continue to say that jobs are coming when yesterday, the Treasury said there will be higher unemployment than previously expected?

Because the Treasury has advised me that over the forecast period, 270,000 jobs will be added to the New Zealand economy.

Who else is there to blame for her economic mismanagement given she has blamed the Treasury, the Taxpayers’ Union, Ruth Richardson, Labour, Grant Robertson, power companies, the banks, Fonterra, insurance companies, supermarkets, US tariffs, “merchants of misery”, teenagers, homeless people, John Key, teachers, firefighters, doctors, nurses, local councils, and unions? [Interruption]

Just a minute. It’s clearly an important question—you should listen.

I don’t take responsibility for the economic mess our Government inherited. What I do take responsibility for is fixing it, and today, I take my commitment one step further and I take responsibility for this: ensuring this economy is not put at risk by the election of a Labour-led Government next year. We’ll make sure that our economy remains on track to surplus debt reduction and that New Zealanders are saved from the ravages of more tax, more borrowing, more red tape, and a step backwards.

to the Minister of Health

What recent progress has been made on the Government’s health targets to improve access to timely, quality healthcare?

This Government is delivering improved access to healthcare for patients.

What did the Wellington High Court say?

Health New Zealand’s latest quarterly results show year-on-year—

Glen Bennett, stand up, leave the House. You don’t call out during questions.

Health New Zealand’s latest quarterly—

Oh, sorry, I take that back. It was an answer. I apologise for being a grinch. I largely suspect that had you left the House, it would be like a present, so I take that back.

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.

Start again, please. I think it would be a good idea if people just at least let a Minister get a few words out before they have something to say.

This Government is delivering improved access to healthcare for patients. Health New Zealand’s latest quarterly results show year-on-year improvements across all five health targets, despite the busy and challenging winter. This means that New Zealanders are getting faster access to cancer treatment, more children are being immunised, and patients are waiting less time for their specialist assessments and elective surgeries. There is clearly more work to do, and too many New Zealanders are still waiting too long for the care that they need. These results are making a real difference to people’s lives and show what happens when you focus the system on putting patients first.

What improvements are patients seeing in wait times for specialist assessments and elective procedures?

Despite union strikes cancelling around 13,500 procedures and appointments between July and September, the percentage of patients being seen within the target time frame continues to improve; 62.3 percent of patients are receiving their first specialist assessments within four months, and nearly 66 percent are getting elective treatment within that time frame—both clear improvements on the same quarter last year. Whilst this shows an improvement, too many people are still waiting too long. That’s why we’ve reinstated the targets and introduced the Elective Boost, which has delivered thousands of additional procedures like hip and knee replacements and cataract surgeries, helping Kiwis get back to work and back to living their lives.

What do these results show about the Government’s commitment to cancer care and to protecting children’s health?

These results show that our Government is backing up its priorities with action and investment. Faster cancer treatment is improving, with 86.8 percent of patients starting treatment within 31 days of a diagnosis, up from 84.6 percent in the same quarter last year. This is supported by our $604 million Pharmac boost, which is delivering 33 new cancer medicines for New Zealanders. At the same time, child immunisation rates have seen the biggest improvement of any target, lifting to 82.6 percent, up from 75.7 percent at the same time last year. This is the largest gain across all targets, protecting thousands more young Kiwis from preventable diseases. This means that these Kiwi kids are getting the best start to life.

How will the Government continue to drive improvements and avoid the complacency New Zealand has seen in the past?

We are continuing to focus the system on delivery. Health targets, backed by a record $30 billion of annual investment in health, are restoring accountability to the system and delivering better outcomes for patients. While progress has been made, we know that too many New Zealanders are still waiting for too long to be seen. We are fixing the basics and building the future, with our focus clearly on ensuring that every New Zealander can access timely, quality healthcare by rebuilding the health system around patients. I want to finish by thanking our healthcare workers for their dedicated work throughout a challenging year and for continuing to put patients first.

to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

Can I first congratulate the Minister on her wedding over the weekend—well done; hope it all goes well. Sincere congratulations to the Minister. But to the question: does she stand by her statement that “I absolutely stand by our target of 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker support by 2030”; if so, why?

Yes, absolutely. Our Government inherited an economic mess where close to 190,000 people were on the jobseeker support, when businesses around the country were desperate for staff. Our Government is ambitious for all New Zealanders, so we’re fixing the basics and building a welfare system focused on utilising the talent of our people. We’re proactively supporting those who can work to get off welfare and into work, and more than 83,000 people exited a main benefit for work in the year ending November 2025. We’ve always acknowledged that many Kiwis have been finding things tough, which is why we’re building the future and helping people get into work.

Is the Treasury wrong, then, when it forecasts jobseeker numbers to be 200,000 by 2030, as shown in yesterday’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, and, if so, why?

Well, we do know that the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update forecasts unemployment to be where we expected it would be in January next year. The other thing it did say is it had some really positive stories about economic growth and opportunities, and also reinforced the 270,000 jobs that will be with us shortly.

How can the Minister stand by her statement when 200,000 people will be on jobseeker by 2030, 60,000 more than her target, or will she change the eligibility criteria, like she did with 18- and 19-year-olds, just so she can say she has met her target?

As I said, we are absolutely focused on the target. We know the massive impact that every single person who gets off welfare into work has, and that’s why I’m really, really proud of the team at the Ministry of Social Development, who work incredibly hard each and every day. They are life-changers for every single person they get into work, and despite it being challenging economically, 83,000 people in the last year alone have exited welfare into work. As economic conditions improve, as shown in the Half-Year Economic and Fiscal Update, I’m very optimistic that we will achieve our target.

Does she think it’s a double standard, though, that she’s increased sanctions on jobseekers who miss their targets, yet the Minister is repeatedly told she is missing her target, and she gets no sanction, no penalty, no nothing?

Unlike that member, I’m incredibly optimistic and can see that the economic growth that our coalition Government is driving will give us more opportunities to support New Zealanders off welfare into work. As I said, I think it’s cause for celebration that 83,000 New Zealanders came off welfare into work in the last year, and I actually think that’s worth celebrating.

Why does she keep ignoring the Ministry of Social Development, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and now the Treasury when they keep telling her that she will fail to achieve her target, or will she keep her head in the sand and pretend there’s nothing wrong?

Well, unlike that side of the House, I’m very optimistic about the way that the New Zealand economy has turned the corner, despite the absolute train wreck that we inherited. This side of the House knows that for every single person that we move off welfare into work, it is life-changing for them, for their whānau, and their community, and we will not give up on any one of them.

Question No. 8.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I haven’t called you yet, because the House seems very animated—Dr Hamish Campbell.

to the Minister for Mental Health

What announcements has he made about supporting families who experience stillbirth?

This Government is committed to ensuring families who experience the loss of a baby are treated with dignity and compassion. That’s why we’ve announced we will change the process of registering a stillbirth so that it is more supportive and sensitive for grieving parents. Every year in New Zealand, approximately 700 to 900 families experience perinatal loss. We’re committed to making sure parents who lose a baby are met with dignity, care, and the right support.

Why was a change needed to the current process?

For too long, families have had no choice but to complete stillbirth registrations through the same online process designed for parents registering their newborn. We’ve heard from grieving families that going through the same process adds unnecessary pain at an already traumatic and distressing time. Changing this process is about reducing distress and showing understanding for what families are going through.

What will the process be under the new approach?

Health New Zealand is working with the Department of Internal Affairs on a new approach which will allow parents to register a stillbirth through the Whetūrangitia website. This is a dedicated website designed to support families who have experienced baby loss. Moving the registration process to Whetūrangitia means that parents can engage through a process that acknowledges their loss and connects them to the right services and support. Health New Zealand will fund the technical and service changes needed to make this happen, ensuring the process is sensitive, streamlined, and aligned with the guidance already available on Whetūrangitia.

What responses has he seen from families impacted by stillbirth?

Some of the messages from families impacted by stillbirth that I’ve seen have been both heartbreaking and deeply encouraging. Sharma said, “This is a much-needed change. I was pregnant with twin boys and one passed in utero. It was heartbreaking and so hard to follow the same steps to register the birth of both my boys in the same process, even though one boy was alive and one wasn’t.” Lily said, “This is a really positive step in the right direction, and Whetūrangitia is such a great idea. It’s an amazing resource for bereaved parents.” This is a simple change, but it’s a meaningful way to reduce distress and show compassion during one of the most difficult times in someone’s life.

Supplementary, Mr Speaker.

Question No. 9—Priyanca Radhakrishnan.

Supplementary, Mr Speaker.

Oh, sorry. A supplementary. My apologies—Mariameno Kapa-Kingi.

Thank you. Will the Minister commit to introducing reporting on Māori birth parents who experience stillbirth and are receiving disproportionately high rates of compulsory mental health treatment, and, if not, why not?

I welcome that question from the member. I think it’s important that we do have the data that informs decisions around ensuring everyone gets access to timely mental health and addiction support. Today, we released quarter 1 data that showed Māori access to mental health and addiction support for primary and specialist services is increasing. I want to acknowledge our Māori services by Māori for everyone, as well as a significant improvement in Pasifika and Asian, as well as our rural, mental health services. It is important that we set a standard of what was a guaranteed level of service in this country and ensure Health New Zealand delivers to that standard the Government has set.

to the Minister for Disability Issues

Does she stand by her statement, “We know disabled people want to participate in their communities, to make decisions themselves and to thrive”; if so, why?

Yes. That’s why we’ve released the New Zealand Disability Strategy, which sets out measurable actions we will take over the next five years to help realise the aspirations of disabled people. It has been clear, from the conversations I’ve had with the disability community, that this is important to them. The strategy is an important lever for building the future and driving positive change for disabled people. Our Government is committed to improving the lives of disabled people, and we have demonstrated this with an over $2.1 billion investment into the disability support services.

How is driving transport costs up for disabled people by cutting funding to the Total Mobility scheme, that thousands of disabled people rely on, supporting them to participate in their communities?

It’s hard to cut funding when it wasn’t appropriated in the first place. What this Government has inherited is yet another mess of uncontrolled spending with a fiscal cliff. So, instead, our Government is focused on how we ensure that there is fair, consistent, and available support for disabled people and older New Zealanders to ensure there is a Total Mobility scheme available to them from one end of New Zealand to the other.

Why is she making the lives of disabled people worse by increasing their cost of living, when the Ministry of Social Development’s own research shows many disabled people already go without healthy food and cannot visit family because it’s too expensive?

Well, as this side of the House has said on many occasions, unfortunately, the economic reality we inherited from the previous Government has meant we have had to get on top of a range of out-of-control costs. Part of what we have focused on very, very deliberately in our support for disabled people is having fair, consistent, transparent, and reliable services. As I said, that’s why we have invested $2.1 billion into disability support services to improve the support they get. From February next year, it will also enable greater choice and control in the way that they are able to support and ensure that their services are delivered the way they choose.

Is disability advocate Peter Boock wrong when he says that her changes are “cost-cutting to shift the burden on to the poorest and most marginalised people in our society,”?

No, and I would note that in September 2023—mere months after that member, when she was Minister, announced the increase in the subsidy to 75 percent—the then Minister of Transport David Parker told media outlets that his ministry was undertaking a review of Total Mobility, including investigating affordability. So it would have been really helpful if, when that member was in charge, she’d actually budgeted—put the money aside—and not given empty promises to disabled people.

Can the Minister confirm that the appropriation for Total Mobility has remained flat into the out-years, even though a decision was made to increase the subsidy, which has unsurprisingly had the impact of increasing demand and therefore costs to the scheme?

I can, and the point is that the previous Government—[Interruption]

Sorry, just a minute. For a lot of people in this country, this is a very important question, so we’ll hear it without any interruption.

I can confirm that, and what is absolutely despicable is making promises to disabled people when the funding is not set aside and when the then Government and the Minister of Transport within a couple a months could see there was going to be an issue around affordability and sustainability of the Total Mobility scheme. Yet again, this side of the House has taken on the reality of fixing a problem we inherited, and what we are ensuring is that disabled people and seniors have a Total Mobility scheme that is accessible across one end of New Zealand to the other, because what we do know is it’s not just an affordability challenge for central government; it’s been a big affordability challenge for local councils, and we wanted to ensure that we had a scheme that we could continue and that regional councils could continue to fund as well.

What message does it—[Interruption]

Just hold on—hold on. I’m just going to say for the rest of this question at least, anyone who calls out at all will be having an early afternoon.

What message does it send that her Government’s holiday gift to disabled people is less independence, less dignity, more anxiety, and less community participation, all because her Government views disabled people as a financial burden?

I fail to even have words in this House for the level of despicability of that question. But what I would say is the changes that we have announced don’t take the level of subsidy back to what it was in 2022. What we are doing is the changes will come into effect on 1 July—we have taken one decision in order to ensure that the Total Mobility scheme is sustainable. I’d really encourage and invite disabled people, their whānau and community, as well as seniors who access the Total Mobility scheme, to have their say on the consultation document put out by the Ministry of Transport because this is also an opportunity to strengthen the scheme, to make it more flexible, and to allow those who use the system to have more choice and control. I’d really encourage them to have their say. We will be listening. We will make changes to ensure that it meets their needs.

to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Why has the Government announced a merger of three major ministries that will impact over 1,300 staff just a week before Christmas?

Because we want to have outstanding execution of our Resource Management Act reforms, and we need to build an organisation that can deliver up against that task. Also, this is a Cabinet that’s taken a decision and we didn’t want any further speculation.

Why has the Government chosen not to extend transport subsidies for our kaumātua and tangata whaikaha just a week before Christmas?

Because the system was unaffordable and unworkable. We did not want the risk of local government authorities backing out of the system. We’ve pulled it back 10 percent; it’s a 65 percent subsidy—unlike the previous Government that actually made promises but didn’t put the money aside, and as a result there was a massive blowout in the system.

Will he rule out including the Treaty principles bill in any future coalition agreement with the ACT Party?

I’ve got no responsibility for that as a Prime Minister, but I have made my position clear as leader of the National Party

Is the Prime Minister running a Secret Santa this year, and, if so, which Minister drew Māori communities, because the gift seems to have gone missing?

No—that’s not a question. Have you got another question? Just a complete waste of a question, that one.

Why did his Government decide to gift $3 billion to landlords and take $13 billion from the hard-working women of this country?

No. Also, you can’t do that either. Ask a question without making a statement. That is a statement of opinion, not a question.

Why did the Prime Minister decide to gift $3 billion tax—

No. Sorry. You can’t—you can keep trying, but that doesn’t cut it either. It’s Christmas; last chance.

Thank you. Did the Prime Minister decide to gift $3 billion tax—

No. Sorry. You’re talking about the State’s books—

Well, it was $3 billion.

I’m being incredibly tolerant, but that is not a question that you can ask a Minister, because Ministers don’t have the capacity to do what you’re suggesting. So ask a question.

Aw.

No, that was the last chance.

Sorry—did someone object to that, down the backbench from the National Party? Well, in that case, you can all stay silent through the rest of this question.

Did the Government decide to do tax breaks of $3 billion to landlords, and did the Government decide to take $13 billion from the hard-working women of this country?

We’ve canvassed these issues before over the course of this year. What this Government did do is it gave tax relief to low and middle income working New Zealanders, and not one member of Labour, Te Pāti Māori, or the Greens supported that.

Can the Prime Minister find the patience to continue the long wait for some acknowledgment that restoring mortgage interest deductibility for residential housing has actually been accompanied by a fall in rents?

I can confirm that. I can confirm under the previous administration, rents went up $180 a week, making housing really unfordable for people. This is a Government that has improved housing affordability by lowering rents, and one of the things that contributed to that is making it attractive for landlords to put their properties on the private rental market.

Does the Prime Minister believe it is possible to “gift” money by reducing taxes, or did the money belong to the people who earned it in the first place, thereby making it impossible for the Government to gift it to them?

The Prime Minister need not comment on that. I’ve already made it clear that Governments don’t gift; Governments—

Did anyone hear that over there?

Could we have the Hon Jo Luxton, question No. 11.

to the Minister for Biosecurity

Is it still his intention to eradicate the yellow-legged hornet from New Zealand?

Yes, it is. I would just like to recognise all the hard-working people at Biosecurity New Zealand and the contractors—nearly 150 of them—that will be working through the summer to accomplish that goal.

150?

150.

Does he regret cutting more than 100 jobs from the Ministry for Primary Industries biosecurity team in 2024, given the professor of biology Phil Lester said if the yellow-legged hornet gets established, it will be a major threat to our dairy and kiwifruit industries and all those that work in them?

As has been said to the member opposite and other members many times in written parliamentary questions, the actual number of front-line biosecurity officers has increased.

Why hasn’t he allocated additional funding to support the eradication programme?

Watch this space. I will be making an announcement shortly.

What is the expected loss to the economy and to jobs in our dairy, horticulture, and viticulture sectors if the hornet is not eradicated?

Well, again, the intention is to eradicate it. To the best of my knowledge, there will be, potentially, a 30 percent reduction in hive numbers if the hornet was to become established. But, I would just say: we are taking on some serious expert advice from around the world—from countries where they are fighting this hornet. They have been mightily impressed at the effort we are putting in, the resources we are devoting to this, and also the interest that the people of New Zealand are putting into this. We are seeing people responding up and down the country with reports of sightings. The people of the North Shore especially, are right in behind this, and I think we will be able to achieve eradication.

Will he take responsibility for any job losses as a result of impact to industry from the hornet, given the decisions he has failed to make as Minister?

As I’ve already said, I haven’t failed to make any decisions. We have decided to eradicate this. We have organised all the research that needs to happen. We have got the resources there. We are giving this 110 percent.

Just wait, Mr Tuiono, until the whole House is listening. Now would be good.

to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety

Why has she chosen to allow a rise in the minimum wage that is less than the CPI inflation forecast?

The new minimum wage rate will apply from 1 April 2026. Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation is forecast to be around 2 percent quite soon after the new minimum wage rate applies, where it is forecast to remain relatively stable. This 2 percent increase is exactly the minimum wage rise that the Government has set.

Does she accept that an increase in the minimum wage that is less than inflation is an effective pay cut, and, if so, what message does this send to hard-working essential workers just before Christmas?

I believe I addressed that in the first part of that first question. Second to that, I think the member needs to be aware—and I would hope that every member of this House is already aware—that businesses are doing it tough across New Zealand, and every wage increase is an increase to business. We know that unemployment rates are high already, especially for youth unemployment, and the responsible thing at this point in time is not to set the minimum wage too high so that it affects youth unemployment.

Does she accept the advice from officials that shows that since 2022, there has been no wage compression and that minimum-wage workers have, relatively, gone backwards in real earnings compared to higher earners?

Research by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has found that the minimum wage increases have been the main driver of wage compression over the past 25 years, which has narrowed the gap between low and middle income earners. The Kaitz index, which measures how close the minimum wage is to the median wage, increased by 32 percent between 2000 and 2023, while the minimum wage increased by over 75 percent, with adjusting for inflation. This is quite concerning because we know that people out there across our broader economy feel hard done by when the minimum wage starts catching up to their own wages.

Was choosing to cut the minimum wage for 2026 relative to inflation simply doing a favour to business owners, noting that officials found no overall negative impacts on productivity or incentives to education or training for historic high minimum wage increases?

No.

Can the Minister confirm that few minimum-wage workers are the main breadwinner for their household and those who are are generally eligible for tax credits, which they lose when their wages increase, meaning that minimum wage increases are a very poor way to fight poverty?

That is true—[Interruption]

Just a moment. I’m pleased you’ve got an opinion; I haven’t.

It is true that it’s widely acknowledged that minimum wage increases are not a poverty-reduction tool. With the statistics that have been provided for me by MBIE, the largest population group that is affected by minimum wage increases is actually young people.

Young people help their whānau too.

Look—all day; all day long. If it weren’t for the exalted position you hold within your front bench, you might have had an earlier afternoon.

Do the workers deserve a merry Christmas, and if so, why is this Government just the Grinch that privatised Christmas?

The only grinch is the one sitting across there on the Opposition benches. This Government would wish a merry Christmas to all.

That concludes oral questions.

I move, That the House adopt the following sessional order to support the implementation of the amendments to the Public Finance Act 1989, made by the Parliament (Repeals and Amendments) Act 2025, in respect of the treatment of the Office of the Clerk and the Parliamentary Service under that Act:

PARLIAMENTARY AGENCIES

1 Definitions

For the purposes of these rules—

Act means the Public Finance Act 1989

motion means a motion for an address to the Governor-General made under section 26EB of the Act to—

(a) commend estimates and capital injection for each parliamentary agency:

(b) request that the estimates be included in a Vote, and capital injection be authorised, in an Appropriation bill

parliamentary agency means a parliamentary agency within the meaning of the Act

recommendation means a recommendation made by the Officers of Parliament

Committee under Rule 2(1).

Functions of Officers of Parliament Committee

(1) The Officers of Parliament Committee considers and recommends to the House, in respect of each parliamentary agency,—

(a) an estimate of appropriations to be included in a Vote, and capital injection (if any) to be authorised, in an Appropriation bill, and

(b) any alteration to such a Vote or capital injection.

(2) A recommendation may be made under paragraph (1) only in respect of an appropriation or authorisation to which section 26EB of the Act applies.

(3) The function set out in paragraph (1) is additional to any other functions of the Officers of Parliament Committee.

3 Financial veto

(1) The Government may certify that it does not concur in a recommendation, motion, or amendment to a motion, because, in its view, estimates or capital injection proposed in the recommendation, motion, or amendment would have more than a minor impact on the Government’s fiscal aggregates if they were included in an Appropriation bill.

(2) A certificate by the Government under paragraph (1) must state with some particularity the nature of the impact on the fiscal aggregates and the reason why the Government does not concur in the recommendation, motion, or amendment.

(3) Standing Orders 334(1), 335(3) to (5), and 336(4) apply to a certificate by the Government under paragraph (1), and are read accordingly.

4 Annual reviews of parliamentary agencies

(1) This rule comes into effect on 1 July 2026.

(2) Each parliamentary agency is an organisation that is subject to annual review.

(3) Standing Orders 256(2) and 353 to 358A are read accordingly.

I move, That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3) be now read a second time.

Great bill.

My colleague the Hon James Meager says “Great bill”. I don’t know if I would go so far as to call it a great bill; it is certainly a perfunctory bill and it’s a bill that has to be passed every year. And it’s always on the Wednesday around about the middle of December when Parliament—

It’s up to you; don’t complain.

What’s that?

It’s up to you; you could’ve made it the other day.

Well, that’s true. I wasn’t complaining; I was merely making a prefatory remark about where we are at in the system. It always comes at this time of the year. It’s sort of the middle week of December, the middle Wednesday. We’re on the downward slide towards Christmas Day. What are we today, December—what is the date today?

17th.

17th. Eight days to go. My son is joyfully opening his advent calendar—not long to go. And we pass the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3).

This bill is required to confirm legislation that would otherwise be revoked if not confirmed by Parliament. So it’s actually legally important that we do it. And I want to say thank you to the Regulations Review Committee.

Great committee.

Now James Meager says that’s a great committee; I agree with him. Back in the day, I was a young junior backbench whippersnapper. When I first came into Parliament, I was placed onto the Regulations Review Committee. I remember talking to senior colleagues and they said, “What have you done to deserve that?” And I remember saying, “I’m actually quite excited about it.” Anyone with a legal bent, anyone who’s a boffin—got a legal bent—

It’s a wonderful committee.

The Hon Judith Collins, the attorney, says it’s a wonderful committee. Am I right in thinking, Ms Collins, you’ve previously been on the committee?

I did, in fact, chair that.

The attorney tells me she’s been a chair. I see the Hon Rachel Brooking over the other side. She’s definitely a legal boffin. She’s been on the Regulations Review Committee. It’s a much-mocked committee, but it’s very important.

So this legislation relates to 22 confirmable instruments for 11 Acts, including Acts that many people will never have heard of: the Animal Products Act 1999, the Biosecurity Act 1993, the Civil Aviation Act 1990, the Tariff Act 1988, the Social Security Act—I think people will have heard of that. Most of these confirmations relate to levies with this peculiar situation in which there are industry levies for avocados, oysters, tomatoes, potatoes, and onions. So all of these are, essentially, industry levies that are passed by the—well, they’re forms of legislation, so they have to be confirmed by the House, otherwise they lapse. And we do not want that.

I do want to thank the Regulations Review Committee and also the officials at the various different agencies for all of their advice on this. It’s one of those things that we just have to do this side of Christmas, and it marks the beginning of the end in the parliamentary year because soon after that we will have the adjournment debate and then we will be out of here for the year.

So with those brief remarks, I commend the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3) to the House.

It’s a very important piece of legislation. I was chairman of that committee, of course, so I concur with your views, and I’m sure the views of the next speaker, Arena Williams.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3). I asked very earnestly when I got to sit down with the Prime Minister when I was very first elected, to set out my aspirations and hopes on what select committee I could be on, “Please can I be on the Regulations Review Committee? I am so interested in that.”—not at all! It took me until this term to get my way in the door, but I’m there now and I’m enjoying this excellent committee, which works very hard. It is a great committee, Mr Speaker, and you have heard from us recently at the Standing Orders review about the role of that committee. I hope this Parliament will find a way through to improve the role of the Regulations Review Committee and make it a more useful body on regulation in this House.

But to this bill, it’s good that the Minister has set out those 22 instruments that were made between 1 July 2024 and 30 June. He’s right to highlight that if we do not pass this law, then a number of regulations, particularly those levy-setting regulations that have already been levied by two private companies, would need to be paid back. So this is very important to confirm this. It’s not like any other sort of confirmation bill. This would have the effect that the Government would be needing to part with levies that it had already collected if this didn’t make its way through.

We see this as an important piece of legislation that must be passed today, which is why the committee laboured over one potential change that we took advice on in that room and quite carefully considered. We strove for consensus around that issue, and that’s why there is not an amendment, because the committee did not arrive at a consensus view around whether there should be an amendment. I was one of the members of the minority who was giving careful consideration to whether this particular instrument was made in the normal way, particularly whether those grounds of it being a usual way to make regulation were made out or if it wasn’t something that was more appropriately carved out for debate by this House, as a matter for Government policy and then lawmaking in the usual way. Those two things are important because when the executive delegates to a department to be, in this case, the lawmaker, it’s important that it is known and knowable how that department will use its regulation-making power and that it’s not making Government policy on the hoof. That is the point of the Regulation Review Committee’s powers to look into these levy-making powers.

That power is to be found in the excise setting for heated tobacco products. Heated tobacco products will see an excise reduction under this bill of 50 percent. This is the bill which gives effect to the Government’s policy to reduce taxation by half to heated tobacco products. It’s unusual for a bill like this to do that. It would be more usual for the Government to decide upon a policy which changed the way that public health was to regulate those sorts of products and to do that in either a health bill that the then Health Committee could consider, or in its taxation measures whereby it sets levies and then those can be debated in the normal way. Because both health policy and levy-making powers, which create taxation duties, are important parts of our democratic process which people deserve to comment on, which those people who will be paying for them deserve some sort of recourse for, and so those people and future people who will be affected by those decisions can at least have some transparent oversight over or at least understand the governance relationships that exist in that chain of decision making.

It’s not what’s happened here. The regulations were made at the departmental level, based on a Government policy change, and that is what the committee inquired into. The reduction was made through an Order in Council under the Customs and Excise Act 2018, and members across the committee took that issue seriously and examined it closely. Mr Speaker, if you’ll indulge me, this is something that members of the committee are interested in potentially bringing a disallowance motion to the House about. It’s still under discussion, but I bring it up here because it’s useful for all members to know what we’re dealing with here. The concern is that the regulation-making power being used is unusual—unusual in the natural English meaning of that word: it’s never been used in that way before. It’s unusual also in the sense that excise duties are not designed with the power to go down. You might need that power and flexibility if there were a mistake, but not in the situation where you intended to give a tax cut to incentivise a particular product over another. Excise duties are about incentivising behaviour in a market. This is not a regulation that was made in that way to give effect to that kind of policy. It would usually allow Consumers Price Index indexation of excise rates and not policy shifts like this.

Customs was also unable to point to any comparable excise reductions ever made using this power. So that is why this might be prime for something that we examine more closely through the power of disallowance of the Regulations Review Committee when we return to Parliament in the next year.

It would be inappropriate, though, for the committee to have recommended, in my view, that the bill did not proceed. If this bill did not proceed only for that one concern, then levies which have already been levied would have been levied unlawfully, and that’s also inappropriate, especially in relation to any exercise of the Government’s power to taxation.

So without wanting to drag this on, we support this bill. This is useful and it tidies up all of those other 21 instruments we have no issue with. We will, hopefully, be back here, though, to discuss why it is always appropriate for the House to have proper oversight of whether regulations are made lawfully and in their usual way, and that we do not expect departments to give effect to regulations which do something unusual. “Unusual” is exactly the word we’ll be debating then: whether a new rate for the excise that is applied to heated tobacco products, which has never gone down before in this way, which is not designed in the primary legislation to be able to give effect to such a policy change, and which was not done alongside a shift that was advised upon by the other departments involved in this—that’s what makes it unusual. That’s why we’ll be back.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to follow on from the previous speaker, Arena Williams, and I also acknowledge all members of the Regulations Review Committee. Even though I am not a permanent member of that committee, I have found that to be one of the most enjoyable and rewarding committees to sit on this term.

You’re welcome.

Yes—and I acknowledge the chair, Arena Williams, and the deputy chair, Nancy Lu, as well as the previous chair, the Hon David Parker.

This particular bill does confirm secondary legislation made in the period of 1 July 2024 to the end of 30 June 2025. There is a number of secondary legislation that is covered, and most of it is to do with, as one would imagine with secondary legislation, fees, levies, duty, and tax settings, and this includes—and I think the Hon Chris Bishop has mentioned some of these names as well—the Animal Products Act and regulations under the Animal Products Act; the Biosecurity Act; the Civil Aviation Act; the Commodity Levies Act; the Food Act, pertaining to things around apples and pears and, I think, onions as well; the Gambling Act; the Land Transport Act; the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act; and the Tariff Act, particularly addressing, I guess, the ratification of the ACCTS—the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability.

But I do think that one of the ones the previous speaker has noted is the one that is of most concern to the Greens, and it is important for us to spend a little bit of time unpacking this particular secondary legislation, or the regulation, and this is to do with the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products Indexation and Reduction) Amendment Order 2024, which, I believe, was ratified on 1 January 2025.

The reason that this particular one is of concern to us—sorry, the date made is 18 November 2024, and the commencement date is 1 January 2025—is that the Regulations Review Committee, as it does with all secondary legislation, go through a scrutiny process within that particular committee to have a look in terms of their consistency with a number of criteria. This is something that the Regulations Review Committee does both in terms of complaints from the public but also in terms of the general work programme of the committee in scrutinising secondary legislation, and this particular power granted to the select committee is under Standing Order 327(2)(a) to (i), and paragraph (c) is the one I want to focus on. It is one of the things that has piqued the committee’s interest while I was attending on that committee. It is Standing Order 327(2)(c), which is where the secondary legislation “(c) appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the enactment under which it is made:”.

In this particular one, in terms of the duty table of tobacco products indexation and reduction, which is something we spoke about in terms of the Customs Amendment Bill as well, in general under the primary legislation and under the empowering provisions under the primary legislation, one could only increase the excise duty up to and being in line with the Consumers Price Index (CPI). It does put up a threshold to how the excise tax could be calculated and what increases it could make.

However, within that empowering provision under the primary legislation, there was no provision being given on how much one could reduce that excise tax, and here is the loophole that potentially has been exploited when we were looking at this particular part, which is reducing the excise and the excise-equivalent duty rate for heated tobacco products by 50 percent.

Read as written under the empowering provisions, this is something that is allowed. But if one goes into the purpose of that particular section, this is considered unusual. One of the things that the committee did was to look at a broad power to make non-CPI - related reductions, and we sought some advice from the New Zealand Customs Service, who administer the order. I just note the concern that this is something that is unexpected and unusual. We also asked Customs at that stage whether they could provide any examples of any comparable excise reductions made under section 21 of the principal Act, and they were unable to provide any example of how this was used in the past.

The rationale for this from a Government perspective is that the 50 percent decrease on the basis of reducing the price of heated tobacco products would encourage a cigarette smoker to transition to them. Although the 50 percent is technically permitted by the empowering provisions, the committee considered it does not align with the general policy intent of the empowering Act.

There are a couple of issues there, and I think this is where the Regulations Review Committee performs an incredibly important role in terms of scrutinising, and this is something that we have heard in multiple avenues in terms of Parliament’s ability to potentially disallow secondary legislation or have more instances, and we have heard that particular aspect from both sides of the House on this particular matter, not necessarily in terms of the excise and excise-equivalent duties table but more in terms of disallowance of secondary legislation or more ability to disallow secondary legislation.

I have two concluding remarks on this in terms of the interaction between the Regulations Review Committee and also when it comes to secondary legislation. The first is that despite the unusual and unexpected nature and the fact that the committee itself considered that this does not align with the general policy intent of the empowering Act and it is considered unexpected or unusual, the committee couldn’t reach a unanimous agreement to recommend amendments to the bill to remove confirmation of the order. As part of the consideration by the select committee, the committee did consider withholding confirmation of this order because if the order is not confirmed, anything levied under the order of the relevant part and of that particular part of the order was required to be refunded in accordance with section 125(1)(a) of the Legislation Act 2019. But the problem is that it couldn’t come to a unanimous decision and this is one of the areas where I genuinely do believe that the Regulations Review Committee should have the independence and also the ability to make consensus decisions on something that the committee itself has deemed to be unexpected and unusual, and we have seen, potentially, the dichotomy or the lack of willingness or, I guess, the inability for that particular committee to make those kinds of decisions that are in line with Standing Order 327 or alternatively not in line with Standing Order 327 going through the Regulations Review Committee during this particular term, and the tikanga Māori regulations and disallowance there is a good example of that. So that is something, I think, for the committee to consider.

The other concluding remark that I would make follows very closely to the previous speaker, Arena Williams, in terms of what is potential recourse for this. And this is the thing where the Regulations Review Committee members, permanent members, unlike myself, have a specific provision under Standing Order 329 to disallow secondary legislation—and that is done by a member of that committee—or any provision of secondary legislation that does not lapse and is retained on the Order Paper. And this is something that, again, we have seen being used on the tikanga Māori regulations. It is a call to the permanent members of the Regulations Review Committee to actually put forward a disallowance motion under Standing Order 329 for next year on this particular part. And like I said, not simply in terms of the policy intent, not anything to do with the policy intent of that, but mainly because of the unexpected and unusual, and the general, I guess, moving away from the empowering provision under the principal Act. But because of that—and we haven’t been able to do that—the Green Party will not be supporting this confirmation.

on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3) be now read a third time.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s actually not that common that I get two speeches back to back—what a treat!

Well, why don’t you give us a treat and make it short?

You know, Mr Speaker, this is literally a conversation we’ve had before, but I feel like it does hurt my soul not to use the full 10 minutes. I’m sure this is something that I will need to correct once we are in Government, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to support the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill in its third reading. I do want to acknowledge all who were involved both in the deliberations but also in terms of the discussions we’ve had during the committee stage of the whole House around this bill.

Just in terms of the context of this bill, I think the most important aspect of this bill is the increase in the number of High Court judges under the Senior Courts Act. There were other amendments as well, but I think I want to focus on the Senior Courts Act 2016 first.

Now, when this bill was first introduced in the House, the number of High Court judges was increased from 55 to 57. As we saw in the committee stage later on, this number was increased from 57 to 60 by an amendment from the relevant Minister. This is something that is really important—and this is also one of the key reasons why the Greens are supportive of this particular bill—and that is because the number of High Court judges has not increased in recent years, despite there being a significant increase in our population. But one of the things that we have seen—and it has been discussed by the previous speaker, Greg O’Connor—is the fact that in terms of the population increase, the last time the number of High Court judges was increased, the population had increased by 25 percent. There was a recommendation by the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court, Helen Winkelmann, that the number of High Court judges should be increased by 25 percent to reflect the population increase, which would bring the number of High Court judges to 69 judges, instead of what we have seen, which is 55, 57, or 60, as per what was in the bill as well as the amendment. That was the first major aspect of this particular bill.

The second part of this bill is around the Coroners Act, particularly in terms of the ability for coroners to be able to close previously opened inquiries, and this is mainly with regard to the Coroners Act 2006. In general, under the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee’s guidelines, legislation should not have retrospective effect, but we do see this as being an important aspect of efficiency when it comes to the court system. In its advice as of 30 June 2025, the committee advised that there were 3,240 active coronial inquiries. The average age of the inquiries was 637 days—so just under two years—and the average time for disposing of the inquiry cases was about 957 days, which was just a little over two and a half years. This is not incredibly efficient, and so the ability for coroners to be able to close those previously opened inquiries is important if we want to be able to close them early.

However, the committee also took into its consideration the fact that some of the families may want to continue with an inquiry and receive findings about the circumstances leading to death, and it was important that the bill struck the right balance between efficiency and having a range of safeguards, which includes that coroners can only close an inquiry when the information becomes available; before deciding to close, a coroner would need to notify interested parties, including family members of the deceased; the bill would not apply to inquiries where the law requires a coroner’s open inquiry; and also section 91 of the Coroners Act empowers the Solicitor-General or the High Court to direct that a further inquiry be opened. So a number of safeguards have been provided in terms of being able to give the reassurance to the family members that despite the efficiencies being sought, there is a level of safeguard, and the coroners will still take the utmost care in terms of any investigation or any inquiry.

Similar efficiencies were considered under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, particularly around the management of pre-trial processes if a defendant is charged in respect of two or more offences in different District Court offices, and this is something that we’ve also engaged with the Minister on during the committee of the whole House stage. Once again, I would like to acknowledge the Minister in the chair at the time, the Hon Minister Nicole McKee, for her genuine engagement with the members’ questions on this particular bill—so thank you for that.

I want to draw members’ attention to probably the most fascinating aspect of this, which saw this bill being brought back into the House under a recommittal motion and also a second committee stage. This potentially also speaks to the previous announcement or release by the Attorney-General around the speed at which this Government, or any Government, is making law, particularly under urgency, and there will be opportunities or the instances where, potentially, we’ll be looking at bad law or, potentially, looking at voting on Amendment Papers or bringing in things that haven’t been factored in.

Now, the reason that I mention this is because under the first committee stage, we thought in that committee stage that it was a great idea that the National Party had voted on a particular amendment from Greg O’Connor to increase the number of High Court judges further, from 60 to 65. That is still four below the recommendation from the Chief Justice, but having 65 is a much better step than what we saw. However, when we found that out, we thought that that was a fantastic move. This is exactly what the judiciary had been asking for, but again, what we saw later on was a little bit of a “takesies-backsies”, because that wasn’t something that they were considering in the first place.

Don’t get me wrong—the increase from 55 to 57 and the further amendment by the Minister to increase it from 57 to 60 is a good move. But then again, if that was able to increase once or even twice, the question remains as to why there wasn’t an opportunity to consider a further increase.

This was something that I asked the Minister in the chair, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, during the second committee stage on this bill. I asked whether this was something that they had considered before bringing an Amendment Paper back to reduce it from 65 to 60. I asked whether this was something that was considered, and whether the Minister had considered a supplementary budget that would allow for that, noting that—yes—there are budgetary concerns and there are also budgetary restraints. I do acknowledge that an appointment as a High Court judge is a lifetime appointment, unless those people decide to step down themselves. However, it remains to be said that it is something that the judiciary has asked for, and this is something that would provide more efficiency when we are looking at our higher courts system.

It is disappointing that the Minister has decided not to do that. Further, it is also disappointing that the Minister, in response to our questions during the second committee stage, has also said that he has not had such a conversation with the Minister of Finance to even see whether this was a viable option to keep the number of High Court judges at 65.

So, on one hand, it is disappointing. But on the other hand, in both of the committee of the whole House stages, as well as in the previous readings of this bill, it speaks to the fact that the use of urgency, and the ability and the need to see parliamentarians going quite late into the night in order to do the voting—having those sorts of terms, generally speaking, on a bill isn’t necessarily conducive to good lawmaking practices.

In saying that, the Green Party does support this bill. We are looking forward to having more judges. That is something that will take place next year, I think, and that’s something quite exciting for everyone.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill is about fixing what matters in the justice system. Justice delayed is justice denied. Every adjournment, delay, or procedural bottleneck means that victims and their families end up waiting longer for closure. It means businesses end up being stuck in limbo. It, ultimately, means communities lose confidence that the system can actually do its job.

ACT supports this bill, because it takes a practical approach to speeding things up. It lifts the cap on High Court judges so the most serious cases can be heard sooner. It tightens court procedures so judges spend less time wading through abuse of process and more time dealing with serious offending. It gives courts better tools to manage cases efficiently, rather than letting the system just grind to a halt. A justice system that moves at glacial pace is not compassionate, it is not fair, nor is it efficient; it wastes public resources, and it fails the people that it is meant to serve.

The bill builds on the significant improvements in court timeliness under this Government, including a 20 percent reduction in the District Court criminal case backlog since April 2023; a 20 percent reduction in active cases in the District Court’s civil jurisdiction in the year to July 2025, with the average age of active cases dropping by a remarkable 36 percent over the same period. The Disputes Tribunal has completed more than 900 extra cases in the year to July 2025 compared to the year prior, and a 21 percent drop in aged cases. The active caseload in the Coroner’s Court has reduced by 15 percent, which can be attributed to the introduction of associate coroners, clinical advisers, and relief coroners.

ACT believes that victims should be at the centre of the justice system, not forgotten in the backlog. Faster courts mean quicker accountability for offenders, greater certainty for families and business, and a system that actually works. This bill will not solve every problem overnight, but it is a sensible, targeted step in the right direction, building on the progress we’ve already made delivering faster justice. To the members on the opposite side, you’re welcome. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill. In 2023, when New Zealand First went to election, we wanted to speed up the justice system and get our victims justice quicker. That’s something, on this side of the House, this Government is achieving within this bill. This bill is reasonably simple. It’s increasing the number of High Court judges originally from 55 to 57, but through the amendment from the Minister at the committee of the whole, that’s now been increased to 60. A lot of that is around the complexity of cases. Cases are getting more complex. You’ve also got to think of New Zealand’s population growth. As the population is growing, obviously, the number of High Court judges we need, naturally, grows. We also have the basics of the striking out of plainly abusive proceedings on the papers. We have cases where, on the papers, judges should be able to make those basic decisions and be able to move cases on. We will also see streamlined criminal pre-trials. At the moment, where cases happen across the country, being able to hear those in one court instead of in multiple courts just makes common sense.

The part I do want to touch on is the coroner. The coroner is now able to close inquiries when new information makes them unnecessary. The interesting part for the Justice Committee, when we heard that the evidence around that, is that we are looking at retrospective cases. We’re going back and saying to coroners, “Actually, you can close those cases”, and it’s actually unusual for Parliament to make that retrospective law, but in this case here, it makes common sense, because we’re speeding things up and actually want to make those decisions and give those decisions to families, especially when the information is there to say that that case should be closed. Also, with coroner cases, there are over 3,000 active cases. I think, at the moment, we’re looking at something like over 600 days is the average case that those cases are sitting there, and, actually, the disposal of those cases is over 950 days. To speed that up and actually give some answers to families is, again, something New Zealand First supports. On that, I commend the bill to the House.

This is a split call—Tamatha Paul.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker, and a very merry Christmas to you and your whānau and to everyone else in the House. I hope you all have an awesome Christmas and a beautiful summer rest with your whānau and all your friends.

I rise to speak in support of this bill, the Judicature—which is a new word that I learnt this year, so great things all around—(Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill, on behalf of the Green Party. As speakers before me have talked about, this is a bill that does a number of things but basically begins to address backlogs within our courts and it also looks at eliminating abuses of the legal process.

I guess the main thing that I wanted to speak about in the time that I have is around access to justice. Minister McKee stole my line, but I was going to say also “access delayed.” Access to justice—

Justice delayed.

Justice delayed is justice denied, which is really great.

Collaboration is good.

Yeah, cross-party collaboration; what a good way to end the year. We know that there was a significant backlog in the courts which was accumulated over the COVID era, and this bill addresses some steps that we can take to begin to clear that backlog. I had a really awesome meeting with the new chair of the New Zealand Parole Board today, and we had a discussion about the impacts that backlog can also have on the other end of the process for them on the Parole Board when they’re processing people who are exiting the criminal justice system. So it’s interesting to see the flow-on effect that those backlogs can have and the small steps that we can take to allow for more judges and reduce, I guess, time wasting within the justice system. These are things that are going to speed up that process, so that’s really helpful.

I particularly think about people who have got cases within the justice system that bring them a lot of strife and a lot of emotional grievance; thinking, particularly, about people who have been victims of violence, victims of family or sexual violence. You know, it can be quite emotionally impactful for them to have to wait for that process to happen. So any increases in speed to that justice process is going to be a good thing for everybody.

I guess the one thing I did want to talk about, though, is there are other contributing factors to the court backlogs. When this Government was passing three-strikes legislation and when they were passing the sentencing law reforms, the regulatory impact statements were really clear on the impact that would have on the judiciary in terms of those backlogs, because it meant opening up more space for re-litigation and more space for judicially reviewing some of those decisions that were being made. Because this Government is a lot more directive when it comes to the judiciary, how much they can give in terms of sentence discounts, and the way that they should execute their power, which is an overreach of the Government into the judiciary, which shouldn’t happen. So there are other things and other decisions and other choices that have been made by this Government that contribute to that backlog. So, while this bill seeks to eliminate some of those delays, we might also want to consider some of the bills that we’ve passed in this term that might also add to those backlogs.

The other thing, I guess, that might be worth mentioning in terms of this bill is the use of the word “plainly abusive”. We struggled during committee of the whole House on this bill to try and understand what the use of the word “plainly” might mean. So I’m looking forward to seeing the way that judges might apply the provisions in these bills to define what “plainly abusive” means in the sense of how they develop their case law.

So we support this bill. We hope that it means that more people will have access to justice, more people will be able to get that certainty in their lives when it comes to matters that they’re bringing before the courts, and, yeah—everyone: have an awesome break, look after yourself, stay safe. And to people watching at home: drive safe, don’t drink-drive, have a great Christmas, and see you next year. Kia ora.

It must that time of year—merry Christmas, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Bates.

I can’t believe I’m standing up in this House speaking on a bill that the Greens have just said they are going to support, just before me. So it definitely must be that time of year, and I’m excited to end the year on such a positive note as we do good work to improve the justice system in this country and continue to reduce the number of victims in the system.

I want to highlight one point and that is that a District Court judge will now be able to direct pre-trial processes for a defendant facing multiple charges to occur in one District Court office rather than multiple processes across multiple court offices. This is a great way of getting results faster in our court system, and, therefore, I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thought Tamatha Paul’s contribution on how to reduce or improve timeliness in court—that is to say, don’t get caught drink-driving and stay out of court—is a very good idea, so thank you for that piece of wisdom, Tamatha Paul.

Look, yes, we support this bill, despite Carl Bates, but I do want to point out—

He didn’t hear you; you may want to repeat it for the member.

No, I know, he wasn’t paying attention, but that’s not unusual, Madam Speaker. This Government is certainly creating plenty of work for judges, not only the three-strikes legislation, which is yet to take effect [Interruption]—pardon?

I didn’t say anything. There were too many of them talking. I didn’t say a word.

Oh, sorry. I thought it was something wise coming from the Chair, not bickering from the rabble over there—and, of course, the Sentencing Act, which we know will simply increase work. But, on top of that, there’s a landslide of judicial reviews because of the poor government that is happening. I mean, only today—it is a Christmas rush, admittedly—but only today, we’ve seen the High Court come out and say that the Government was wrong in issuing an injunction preventing the Government from progressing its work on puberty blockers until it takes into account, properly, medical advice. If the Government were to actually follow proper procedure and listen to doctors when they’re meddling in doctors prescribing drugs, then perhaps the judges wouldn’t be quite so busy, and we wouldn’t need more of them.

Today, another judicial review came out telling the Government—and here’s a cracker—telling the Government that, in respect of corrections, they should follow the law; that the fact that they haven’t recruited enough prison staff isn’t a good reason for not giving prisoners their statutory entitlement. The statutory entitlement which they were talking about was one hour’s exercise outside a day. In the evidence, in the corrections case, there was a long list of prisoners who were regularly—not in isolated instances, but regularly—not being given one hour’s exercise a day. The response of the Government through the Department of Corrections was “We’re a bit busy.”, and the judge said, “You’re a bit busy is not an excuse for breaking the law.” What I found mind-bending in that case was that Corrections said, “Well, we know we’re not obeying the law. We know we’re breaking the law in respect of prisoner entitlement, but don’t make us do it.”, and the judge said, “I’m sorry, but no. I am issuing an order that you obey the law.”

But that’s typical of this Government. They seem to think that the law is some sort of general guidelines that you should follow if you can manage it. No wonder we need judges to come—and more judges—and tell this Government to follow proper process and to follow the law. And, of course, probably Greg O’Connor’s amendment, which would have increased over and above what the Government proposes—at least increase the amount of judges that could be appointed; give a band of judges where it shouldn’t go below this and it can go up to the higher number—was a good idea. In fact, Government MPs thought it was a good idea, because they voted for that amendment in the committee of the whole House. Either that or they were snoozing like Carl Bates was just before, because that’s what they did. Then the Minister came back to this House and said, “I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with my party whip who voted for that.”

I don’t know what’s going on over there. Either the backbenchers are revolting—well, that goes without saying—or they don’t know what they’re doing; the whip doesn’t know what he’s doing, he’s casting votes willy-nilly, and the Minister has to come back and clean up after the chief whip. Well, that’s happened—that’s happened before, hasn’t it? Can’t count, doesn’t know the rules. Anyway, we find ourselves having to go back to committee to get what the Minister wants, and here we have this bill. So, good, we could have more judges—and Greg O’Connor, last night, gave a cracking good speech, and he observed that, in fact, in terms of judges per capita, we’ve been falling behind for some time. I suppose this is the kind of inflation adjustment that we agree with. In fact, we still haven’t come up to the number of judges per citizen that we would have had in the 1970s and so on, so the judges are still working hard.

There is, of course, a number of other initiatives in this legislation with which we agree—one which I had, through select committee, kind of expressed caution and continue to express caution over, and, in fact, is reflected in the tone of the select committee report. That is throwing out abusive proceedings without any hearing and also barring people from bringing new proceedings. The reason for this is that difficult people—people who are not nice people—can actually have good cases. Many a time, someone has brought a claim which has been poorly expressed, which has perhaps been even littered with a few expletives and where they have perhaps done it in a way which borders on harassing, but, underlying that claim—it is important that we don’t look at the person, we don’t look just at their behaviour; we look at the genuine merits of the claim. We need to be very cautious in limiting the rights of people to come in, genuinely walk into the court, stand up, and say, “Well, look, judge, here’s my problem.”—not through a lawyer, because these people aren’t generally using lawyers; they’re just litigants in person and say, “Here’s what happened.”

I accept judges don’t like—and I’m not trying to criticise the judges here, but they would much prefer to have a well-ordered and well-pleaded case with nicely, tightly prepared evidence. But that’s not how human nature works. There’s many people who want to come into court and they want to complain about a wrong that they feel they have suffered and they want to know whether the law provides a remedy, and they can do that in pretty obnoxious ways. We have to be very cautious that when someone wants to come to court, we don’t throw it out because it’s presented in an obnoxious manner. We’ve got to say that the case is not only pleaded badly and pleaded rudely but it lacks merit. It is the job of a judge—the tough job of a judge—to burrow down and determine whether there’s a kernel of a good claim in there, and to actually provide guidance, particularly to litigants in person, to make sure that they can order their claim and articulate it accurately and comply with the rules of the court. So, yes, we agree that there are cases where abusive proceedings should be struck out because they can be used as a tool to harass and torment. That’s why we’re supporting this legislation, but just expressing our caution and hope that judges will interpret that in the manner it’s intended—for only the most egregious and meritless cases.

And, of course, the innovations around coroners: the delays in the coroner’s court have been a bane for many years. It’s particularly troubling when people really want to know the cause of death of a loved one and want to know what steps have been in put into place to prevent further tragedies in the future. Of course, in some cases, there’s a situation where, in fact, it’s become clear that a full hearing isn’t needed, that we can streamline that procedure; we can put the case to bed, so to speak, and, essentially, give just that degree of closure to the families and other people who are interested. We agree that that’s a good innovation, as well, that kind of procedural streamlining in the coroner’s court—giving coroners more power to, essentially, take a case and say, “Look, we don’t need to go to a full hearing on that. We’ve got the evidence before us now, which we didn’t know existed before. We can close that file and let the families know that they won’t have to go through a full hearing.”

So, good legislation. The Government’s certainly creating plenty of work for judges. They probably should have picked up Greg O’Connor’s amendment, because they’re going to need more soon, at this rate. But don’t worry, end of next year, they’ll be up.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. As members have rightly said, our Government’s supporting the courts to be more efficient and to minimise delays. We’ve actually seen that by the end of 31 March this year, cases disposed of within expected time frames had actually gone up to 81 percent after almost a decade of declining timeliness. That’s progress. This bill is enabling that to continue to move forward, and this legislation really will help that happen.

This is my last opportunity to speak in the House for the year, Madam Speaker, so I wish you a merry Christmas. I wish members on the other side and on my side a merry Christmas and a happy New Year. I look forward to seeing you in 2026.

Thank you. This call’s a split call—Camilla Belich.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to start by echoing the words of my colleague across the House in wishing both you, Madam Speaker, and all the staff here at Parliament, colleagues opposite, and those working in and around Parliament, a very merry Christmas—

Thank you.

—and a happy and safe festive break. So thank you for that opportunity. I am interested to speak on this bill. I haven’t been able to participate in past readings or in the committee stage of this, but it was a particularly interesting committee stage, so I’m looking forward to the opportunity to traverse that, for the record.

Judges do a really important job in New Zealand. They are absolutely essential to the way that our democracy works, and they have a very difficult role in the sense that their exercise in their role in the justice system is not always appreciated by those who receive it. They can be subjected to very personal attacks, security concerns. They can be criticised. It is a convention in this House, an unusual opportunity, to safely be speaking about judges, because often in this House we avoid speaking about them because of the separation of powers. So I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work that our hard-working judges do across New Zealand. I think we have an exceptional legal fraternity in New Zealand and exceptionally skilled judges, much more skilled lawyers and practitioners than myself who work in these areas, and we are very, very well-served and very lucky to have them.

We will be even more well-served once we increase the number of judges that we’re able to have in the High Court. So I just want to acknowledge them for their work. They are unable to often defend themselves when they’re criticised, but, generally, I think in New Zealand we have a legal profession that is very well-respected around the world because of our very great, excellent teachers and commitment to access to justice. They do a great job and we’re very lucky.

So this bill does increase the number of High Court judges. Unfortunately, my colleague who is now with us in the House—Greg O’Connor—did put forward an even better proposal, which was to increase the cap of judges to 65, which is a marginal increase compared with what the Minister had suggested through an amendment that was agreed by the Government at committee stage, and then, regretfully, the bill was recommitted to the committee stage and that was reversed. I think that’s a missed opportunity, because there is a significant need and we know that we must be able to have these cases heard in a timely manner; especially when we’re dealing with criminal matters, we know that timeliness is essential in order to have a fair result for people. We know that there is lots of evidence to suggest that eyewitness accounts in things like criminal trials are often impeded and impacted by the process of time. If we are in a situation where we have more judges, we’re more likely to be able to hear those in a timely manner. So that is something that we support. Regretfully, the Government decided to change their minds, belatedly, in supporting Greg O’Connor’s excellent amendment. However, this is still a very good step forward in relation to increasing the number of judges that we do have.

It also covers a number of other things. I don’t have a very long call, so, regretfully, I’m not able to go through the seven key changes that this bill does make. But just to pick up on a couple of ones that I think are quite interesting, and that my colleague Duncan Webb referred to, are the increased powers that judges have in relation to vexatious litigants and the abusive process. It’s a really tricky issue and not easy for judges to determine at all. My experience is that there are genuinely vexatious claimants occasionally, but there are also people who have a really clear legal need and are unable to articulate that in a way that is usually accepted by the court. So I want to put on the record that these new powers that are put in place in relation to abusive process and vexatious litigants are used sparingly and only in very clear examples. I have absolute faith in the judiciary that they’re able to ascertain whether one case is a vexatious litigant or an abusive process or someone who maybe is not the most articulate person and thinks that the more communication they send the more convincing their case will be; those people deserve access to justice as well. So I just would encourage that those new powers are used with the right degree of seriousness. Thank you.

The Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill presents practical changes aimed at improving the timeliness, the much-needed timeliness, of judicial processes, increasing the number of High Court judges and District Court judges so that they’re enabled to consolidate pre-trial processes, and coronial inquiries that may be closed when deemed appropriate. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Merry Christmas to you and to the House—and given that it is the Christmas season, I thought I’d take a very small amount of licence to tell the House my favourite Christmas joke, which is—

Licence granted, as long as it’s above board.

—what do you call Santa’s helpers?

Subordinate Clauses.

That’s right—another lawyer—subordinate Clauses.

We made it to the last sitting day, and we also made it to the third reading of this bill, which is very exciting because it almost looked like it might not happen after the wee whoopsie in the House last week. I do think it was a bit of a missed opportunity on the part of the Government, because Greg O’Connor’s suggestion, in my view, did address a very live issue in the courts in terms of capacity. It was good to hear from the Minister in the chair that he genuinely considered leaving it as it was, but I do think it was a big missed opportunity. In many respects, there are a lot of issues of delay that are currently occurring in our justice system, so while this bill goes some way to addressing a handful of those issues, it doesn’t address the entirety of the set of issues in front of us in the justice system.

As others have pointed out, not only are the Government passing a variety of legislation that will indeed clog up the system—including the Electoral Amendment Bill, which I’ve said a few times now will return to the House and, in my view, will spark some litigation—but I did note that in this year’s Budget, there was also a decrease in the number of decision makers at the Human Rights Review Tribunal. It’s gone down, I believe, from five to three decision makers. In that tribunal, it’s already the case that if you were to file a case in regards to privacy or a health and disability matter or a discrimination matter, it could take two to three years to get to a decision, so there are significant delays in other parts of the system.

We’ve also had the Chief Justice speak to issues in legal aid—and, of course, there is a legal aid review that is currently happening. However, the question is, really, once that review is complete and recommendations are made, whether steps will be taken by the Government to address those recommendations as well. At the end of the day, if you fix the issue of not enough judges in the courts but you do nothing to address issues of access to justice, we will continue to have that slow-down or continue to have people just not being able to resolve their legal issues.

Another issue that’s come up in this space—I visited the Manawatū Community Law Centre when I was down in the beautiful Palmerston North, and one of the issues we spoke about was the growth of people who were representing themselves in litigation, and that that was leading to a delay in the courts as well, but also a sense of some frustration in terms of the Family Court but also the District Court, and, certainly, in relation to other matters as well. There is a way of addressing and helping those people; the Auckland Community Law Centre, for example, ran a programme for some time that helped people who were representing themselves in the courts. They would actually place a lawyer in the courts to help people navigate the system. Those other issues are very much live issues that I hope the Government will turn its mind to in the new year.

This bill, though, is a good bill, and we are supporting it. It makes a number of amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. This is the part that amends to allow appeals to the Court of Appeal—though a judge can make that direction straight away. It also makes amendments to the Coroners Act 2006, and others have spoken to the fact that the coroner is now able to close matters if new information has come to light where the coroner deems that an investigation is no longer warranted. I would just note here that we had, I thought, rather a significant petition come to us in the last Parliament on this issue, where families were very concerned about the time that it was taking to get through the process. While this may well address that issue for some families, the other concern I do have is that other families may have a concern that a matter that they had wanted to be considered by a coroner isn’t. The families that came to us were concerned about delay because there were issues such as finality, of course, but also access to life insurance payments. For other families, there are true questions about cause of death. That is sensitive, and so I do think that that’s a provision that we will absolutely need to monitor.

On the issue of whether we got the number of judges correct, the Law Society did submit on this and noted the increase to our population, which other members have commented on. I do think that is another factor that we need to monitor. I did ask the Parliamentary Library, when this bill came up initially, just out of curiosity, how we compared internationally in terms of numbers of judges. Per 100,000 of population—and this isn’t just in relation to High Court Judges—New Zealand has 4.75 judges. A few other countries to compare to: Bulgaria has 32 judges per 100,000; Iceland has 16; the UK has 6.7; the Netherlands has 14; and the Holy See has 3,229 judges per 100,000 population—very fascinating. It’s quite a broad range, but I do think there are questions about whether our number is right, not just for the High Court but across our tribunals and courts. If we have clogs in the system where there are what I would call everyday legal matters—so in our layer of tribunals—then that would mean that most people aren’t having their matters resolved as quickly as possible. You might have very serious cases going through the High Court and more High Court judges appointed, and they get resolved more quickly, but we still need to address the tribunal-level delays as well.

Other people have raised the issue of plainly abusive litigants, and while the proposals in this bill will speed up the process and allow judges to make those decisions that those cases cannot proceed, I have two concerns on this issue: the first, takes us back to the increasing number of self-represented litigants in the courts. Obviously, there are people who are very frustrated about legal matters. Sometimes there is a conflation in terms of mental health issues as well that brings them to that place where they’re frequently filing, so I do think there’s a degree of sensitivity that we need to have towards those litigants. It potentially points to an expansion of something like the community law centre model of a help system for those litigants and having advocates in the court to help walk them through a process, so they avoid this kind of strike-out action.

The other issue that I have with that particular set of changes is that once you’re struck out, you’re struck out for a period of three years. That seems quite considerable, to me. The restriction or rule is such that it doesn’t matter if you’re filing in relation to a completely different matter or not, or the merits of that matter. It’s all on the basis of your history of being struck out, and I do think that that’s quite an extraordinary step to take, in many respects. The current law is drafted more narrowly in terms of what can be struck out—so, again, I would say that that is a provision that we definitely should continue to monitor, just to ensure that it is fair to the individuals who are bringing those claims and that we aren’t needlessly denying people their opportunity for access to justice, essentially.

At the end of the day, we do support his bill. I think anything that helps speed up our justice system in a fair way is a useful piece of legislation for us to have on the books, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be the last or maybe the second to last speaker on this bill, on this eve before we go on our Christmas break. Essentially, this bill increases the number of High Court judges, improves the operation of senior and District Courts, and grants coroners more power to close inquiries. The bill aims to better focus judicial time on critical matters like serious criminal cases, because on this side of the House, victims come first. Merry Christmas, Meri Kirihimete, and in my mother tongue: Milad majeed.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. I’m glad to stand this afternoon to speak to the Judicature (Timeliness) Legislation Amendment Bill—it took me awhile; I practised that quite a bit, that word. My son was helping me. You all know him. He’s a lawyer. His name is Eru Kapa-Kingi. Anyway, I just thought I’d add that in as a bit of Christmas cheer. Let me start this way: the word “timeliness” sounds good, and we all like that because we always, in our roles, want to try to capture time and control it. Unfortunately, my view is that, in fact, it will accelerate harm. I can see some good intention here, but I don’t believe that it goes far enough and understands the deeper issues which are more systemic.

This bill talks about efficiency, about streamlining, and about reducing backlogs. When you increase the number of High Court judges, when you fast-track processes, when you tighten rules around so-called abusive civil proceedings, you are not addressing the root causes. You’re smoothing the dying pillow. You’re building more capacity, and history tells us what happens: “When you build it, they will come.” More judges, more courtrooms, more prison beds—that’s not justice; that’s expansion of a system that already disproportionately impacts Māori. We’ve heard the phrase “Justice delayed is justice denied”. I proffer that “Justice rushed is justice denied too.” That’s what this bill risks doing. It risks prioritising speed over substance and, particularly, efficiency over equity. It risks silencing complex claims under the guise of striking out plainly abusive proceedings.

Yes, the backlog is real. COVID-19 left us with over 140,000 delayed appearances. People are waiting—sometimes in fear, sometimes in trauma—for their day in court. That erodes trust in the system, but trust isn’t rebuilt by tinkering at the edges; trust is rebuilt by addressing why the system fails in the first place—underfunded legal aid, systemic bias, sentencing laws that strip away judicial discretion, and the removal of section 27 reports, that once gave judges a full picture of the person before them. Ironically, those changes have made things slower and more expensive.

While others will stand and say, “I commend this bill to the House”, I say, pause, think, and ask yourself: who benefits from the speed and who pays the price? If we don’t, we’ll keep connecting the same dots: more judges, more prisons, more Māori behind bars. That is not justice; that is failure dressed up as progress. Amongst that, please, let me wish everyone a safe and loving and whānau Christmas and New Year. Tēnā tātou.

on behalf of the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: I present a legislative statement on the Anzac Day 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 Anzac Day Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

On behalf of our colleague and friend the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage with whom this legislation is something of a joint venture, I move that the Anzac Day Amendment Bill be now read a second time, having been introduced in April of this year to provide for a broader and more inclusive commemoration of those who have served our country in wars and warlike operations.

The Anzac Day Act was last amended in 1966, and it currently restricts commemoration to those who served in six specified conflicts, the last being the war in Vietnam. Much has happened since that time. The bill proposed amendments to the Act to take account of the service in more recent conflicts and other operations in which New Zealanders have served, and also so that it would be broad enough to commemorate service in years to come.

We wanted to make sure that it would include those New Zealanders who have served in allied forces in war and warlike conflicts, such as UN missions or multi-force groupings or organisations. It was also intended to commemorate non-military service in a war or warlike conflict, such as service by medical teams, the Home Guard, and the Merchant Navy.

The wording of the present Act restricts recognition of allied forces who landed on Gallipoli in the first allied troops landing to troops from the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, when in fact other allied troops also participated. The bill intended to broaden this to include New Zealand and other allied forces.

The bill was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in April. I’m grateful to the committee, both permanent members and others who made themselves available to consider the important matters being discussed. Of course, we’re also grateful to those who submitted and provided contributions to the consideration of the committee at that time. They considered a number of different submissions on it and, as a result, recommended a number of changes that I consider to be very useful in their report back to the House on 23 September.

I’m very pleased to bring the bill back to the House today with the amendments of that committee as recommended. In brief, the select committee supported the replacement of section 2 of the Anzac Day Act 1966, but they recommended the following changes. They felt that New Zealand’s longstanding relationship with Australia, as reflected indeed in the name Anzac, should be recognised and that the bill should change the Act to commemorate the Gallipoli landing of New Zealand, Australia, and other allied forces.

The committee confirmed and recommended that the amendments should be interpreted as applying to both living and dead service members, including those whose deaths might have occurred outside the war or warlike conflict; not only those who have died in war and warlike conflicts but also those who died in connection with New Zealand military service—for example, those who died during military training—the service of New Zealanders in allied multi-force missions; non-military service in certain circumstances; and service that has now taken place and also service that will take place in the years to come.

Importantly, the committee also emphasised that the Act is not and should not be prescriptive and it should be open for communities and individuals to commemorate and reflect on Anzac Day every year as they see fit. The committee’s changes have made this a better bill. I’m delighted that they have recommended that it be passed, and I support the amendments and recommendations that they have made.

I also, of course, want to take a moment to thank all those who have served in the way that the bill will ultimately recognise in that broader fashion. Anzac Day is a special day in the calendar for New Zealand and elsewhere; so too is Christmas. I take this opportunity to wish you, all your presiding officers, and fellow members of the House of Parliament across the aisle and on our side too a very Merry Christmas, and I look forward to seeing you in a happy New Year. In the meantime, I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the Johnsonville Rugby Club, in the heart of the Ōhāriu electorate, there’s a plaque on the wall. The name on that plaque is Leon Kristopher Smith, who was killed on 28 September 2011 in Maidan Wardak Province in Afghanistan. Every year, the club holds a ceremony—he was an old boy of the club; an old boy of Onslow College—and his mother and other family members attend. Interestingly enough, Leon Smith, under the current rules, is not eligible to be celebrated on Anzac Day.

This bill, and this is the reason why we do support this bill, means that people like Leon Smith—who died an absolute hero and received the New Zealand Gallantry Decoration and the Charles Upham Bravery Award for an operation; not the operation in which he unfortunately died but one just a month before in Kabul. So to bring Leon Kristopher Smith within the recognition of Anzac Day is very noble and something that we do agree with wholeheartedly on this side of the House.

Having come from the police service—and I know that the Minister has been in the service himself—there is a tendency to think that those things that we’ve been involved in were real and the ones that came after just weren’t quite. Very good evidence of that were the RSAs themselves. Second World War vets had to fight to get the recognition to go to the RSA, as did the Korean War vets, and as did subsequently, in fact, the Vietnam vets. It was only very latterly that “That wasn’t a real war.” That was reflected, too, in some of the submissions received by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—“Why change it?”; “Really, this was about the First World War.”; “This was about those.” There’s only six at the moment—there are only six areas, or war theatres, that are actually recognised, and this will broaden it. That started with the South African War—although, interestingly enough, the South African War was only brought in in one of the later changes. It started off with the First World War, and the latest one, of course, is the Vietnam War now.

Many of the members who were here will remember the plaque over the door which is for the New Zealand Wars. Actually, it was only when I happened to be overhearing one of the guides bringing people through that I realised this is actually officially a war memorial in here. And the fact was that the very first sort of war involving Europeans and Māori wasn’t recognised—so I don’t think anyone would begrudge that recognition there now.

So, again, this does make sense. As I say, there’s a natural tendency for people—and we saw that in the submissions—not to broaden it out, because there’s a fear that somehow we’re watering things down. I respect that people do have those views because they will have in mind someone—whether it be an uncle; it might have been a great-grandparent or great-grand-uncle; it seems to be a lot of people have great-grand-uncles who perished in the First and Second World Wars—and they’re the ones that they go looking for when they go to the Commonwealth war cemeteries. And there’s probably not many of us for who, if we look back through, there isn’t somewhere from either Gallipoli right through to France and Passchendaele and into the latter war cemeteries where there’s not someone who we’re related to.

So broadening this out—why it does deserve to broaden out. It’s a little bit unspoken, but in the world—and we do celebrate these things—increasingly, as we look at the demographic of New Zealand, the reality of it, and we don’t like to say it, is some of the people who now form quite large parts of our population probably weren’t necessarily on the same side in some of these conflicts. So we’re able to recognise that, actually—and going back to Leon Kristopher Smith—it’s actually individuals who’ve died, individual tragedies that we’re celebrating, and individual deaths or acts of heroism. So what it comes back down to is—and, again, if there are those watching that think this is somehow diminishing the actions of those who went before us, just think that—actually, the act of lying there, knowing that you’ve done your bit for your country, and knowing that you’re probably not going to go home is what we’re really celebrating here.

I can always remember reading about the Battle of Passchendaele. Passchendaele—while we talk much about what happened at Gallipoli, in fact, the second Battle of Passchendaele was a terrible day for New Zealand. I think 830 died on one day there. I remember an account of that battle. There was a sergeant from the Canterburies lying there; someone had a report of this person who had been wounded so many times and continued to fight. Nobody ever knew what finally happened to him; I don’t even think he was actually identified personally. Often when I think about the sacrifice people make, that is the one—it just probably took me at the right time—that comes to mind.

So next year, when we’re celebrating Anzac Day and when, you know, we do have our parades in every town and city—and I think it’s fantastic that we can drive through; there’s hardly a small town or a hamlet anywhere in New Zealand that doesn’t have one of those war memorials on it—the fact we can now understand is that it’s the act of sacrifice, it’s the act of giving your life, your health, or whatever we do for our country, that we are really celebrating.

I just can’t help but also think that there are many ways that people do give their lives. I do have to mention the Tā Wira Gardiner case. People will remember Tā Wira Gardiner. He died from glioblastoma, which is recognised as something that is brought on or caused by agent orange. When you look at a death like Leon Kristopher Smith, they are the ones we sort of do understand, but there are a lot of people who carry the scars and ultimately the deaths. The case of Tā Wira Gardiner is still under way. I just hope that those who will be making decisions as to whether that will go back to court—without turning this too political. Sometimes the long, slow deaths that result from some of these deployments can, in their own way, be worse than those where the actual death can come much more quickly, and those that are left behind—and it so often is about those who are left behind—can actually deal with it. In the case of Wira Gardiner’s family, of course, the family—in fact, even the fact that they’ve kept the case going there is in commemoration for Wira Gardiner because he wanted to know that even after he’d gone, those that came behind would benefit from him.

But going back to the bill there, again, we have no hesitation in supporting this. I just hope that next time we are celebrating Anzac Day, commemorating Anzac Day, whichever way we actually do spend the day ourselves, we just take into account that there’s a lot more now. It’s part of our history. It’s locked in. You know, World War II and those six conflicts that we celebrate, they are locked in. But let’s not hesitate to lock in a few other conflicts that bring about the same loss as many of those wars did. I end on just respect again for Leon Kristopher Smith. I recommend this bill.

Just to let the member know, this debate will be interrupted at 4.30, but, if there is some excess time, the member will be able to have that in the next opportunity.

Oh, OK, feel free to cut me off.

As it is the last time for me to be speaking in the House today, probably—possibly to the profound relief of people on the other side and perhaps some on this side—let me begin by wishing you a merry Christmas and all other members a merry Christmas as well, and also acknowledging the real heroes of the House, the workers and the clerks who keep this place functioning as well. So merry Christmas to everyone. I’ll get that out before I get cut off, Madam Speaker.

Thank you.

I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak on the Anzac Day Amendment Bill, and we will be supporting this bill. We will be supporting this bill, and it’s not just that it’s Christmas; it is something that we have considered as a party and we’ve considered as a select committee as well. So it’s a good way to finish off the year—to find a bill that’s actually got support all around the House.

As other members have talked about as well, we canvassed a number of submitters that came to the select committee. I’m on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and people were passionate. There were some that thought that the bill was being broadened too much, some that thought it was far too narrow and needed to be more conclusive. So what I thought we did as a committee was to try to find that balance. I acknowledge that Minister Penk sort of took that on board when he said, “Well, you don’t want to have an exhaustive list of a whole lot of things, but you want to be able to make space so that people are able to commemorate and to remember those that have gone before.” And that was the balance that we were trying to get as a committee, because stories are personal to different families, and each family and each community has different stories as well.

There were a number of submitters, for example, that wanted to look at the role that the New Zealand Wars would be included. We have got the Hon Peeni Henare on the committee as well, and he reminded me that, actually, there are ways for that to be commemorated. And in this I’m talking about Te Pūtake o te Riri he Rā Maumahara, a day on 28 October where we remember the Land Wars. I guess, for me, it’s letting people know that how you commemorate Anzac Day is how you commemorate it—we don’t want to be prescriptive. So if that is how you remember Anzac Day, on your marae or at your church, then kei te pai.

I think about that in terms of my own personal story and of my own history. I was thinking back to my own tīpuna, actually, who went to Ruapekapeka to fight the British. So they go to Ruapekapeka to fight the British, and then, a generation or two later, my great-grandfather and Hana’s brother sign up in the Māori contingent to go and fight for the British against the Germans in World War I. And often we think about history being this far away thing, but I remember as a young child actually meeting my great-grandfather, and he passed away in the 1980s. And so when he was born, it was a couple of decades after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. So when he was born, there actually were people still walking around that were around during the events of the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

So history is not that far away. I think it’s important that we are able to have spaces for people on their marae and their churches and all their different communities to commemorate in the ways that they see fit. It would be different for my family as it would be different for a number of other families.

If you look at the select committee report, it’s not actually a very long report, but we did deliberate over it, I think, quite carefully to sort of make sure that we canvassed the issues that submitters were bringing to the committee, because it was very important. It was very important for us to find that way to make sure that people are able to commemorate, to hold that space for what Anzac Day is about, but also to make sure that people have that flexibility to be able to commemorate that in the way that is best for them.

There are different amendments that we suggested as a select committee, and those are around clause 4. Clause 4 amendments propose to replace section 2 of the Act, and new section 2 would remove the list of specific conflicts from the Act as well. We had a discussion about recognition versus commemoration, and we fell down more on the side of commemoration. So that gives people the ability to say, “Well, actually, this is the experience that I have; this is the experience that my family have as well.” We also spent quite a bit of time talking about those that died in service and warlike conflicts, but those, also, who died as a part of their training as well. So making sure we can find a way to fold in those important aspects as well.

But at the end of it—and I think I’ve got less than a minute—is to make sure that people can continue to commemorate and remember their loved ones, to find space for others within these commemorations, not to be prescriptive, and to allow people to commemorate Anzac Day in the best way possible.

So I see everybody is coming into the House. They know I’m just about to wrap up and they’re enthusiastic about it.

We came for you!

They’ve all come for me, Mr Speaker. So let me end by wishing you, Mr Speaker—because we’ve had a change—a very, very merry Christmas. Let me once again acknowledge all members of the House and hope you all have a have a good summer break and a very merry Christmas. On that, I think that might be the time where you cut me off. Merry Christmas, everybody.

This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day.

Before I call on Government order of the day No. 5, as determined by the Business Committee, I’m going to take a few moments to make my own comments. Normally, in an adjournment debate, the Speaker gets to speak at the end of the debate, and one of the irritating things about that is, by that stage, there are only about two people left in the House, and so some of the really important information that might be conveyed at this very important time of the year is lost on most people. There’s also, from another function not too far from here, a slight droning noise that prevents any concentration.

All I want to say, really, is I want to thank the Clerk of the House, Dr David Wilson, his assistant, Suze Jones, and all of those who sit here day after day making sure that our procedure runs smoothly; and to all of those from the Clerk’s Office, who facilitate select committee work, the inter-parliamentary relations staff, and anybody that works here including all of the messengers that we have, and our House security staff as well. I want to thank Raf Gonzalez-Montero for his work as our chief executive, his two assistants, Amy Brier and Mitch Knight, and all of the around about 1,600 people who work for Parliamentary Service, making sure that the place works. They really are the mechanics of the democracy, and their work is very much appreciated.

I want to particularly sing out to the security staff, who do a wonderful job in making sure that we are kept safe in this place. We, all sitting here, know that the things that we have to deal with now are quite different to what has been the situation in the past, and so we keep looking at those changes. In the meantime, I also need to thank the VIP drivers—a lot of you don’t get to use them, but I do, and they’re very good. They’re very obliging, and it’s a service that really should be well and truly looked after. Can I also mention the buildings team. You’ll see the building going on out in the back. They’re doing a great job of getting it up and running on time. It’s inside budget, which is also another pleasing thing. Most of all, I also, from that team, want to thank Andie Lindsay, who serves as the EA to both the Clerk of the House and the Chief Executive of Parliamentary Service. Andie’s one of those people that knows where everything is. If you think you don’t know where something is, call her; she’ll oblige you. She does a terrific amount of work behind the scenes.

Other than that, can I say there are some interesting little facts here that should be recorded. This is, I think, particularly salient because the Parliament this year sat for a total of 87 days. Anybody hearing that would think 87 days out of 365 is not a lot. But we know that that is only a very small part of the work that everybody does in here. We had 55 hours of extended minutes, and 209 hours of urgency, compared to 630 hours of normal time. A question could be asked there that the Standing Orders committee might consider about how we—[Interruption] Did you say, “Is there a satisfaction measure on here?”

He was noting my dissatisfaction was registered.

Yeah. Oh, that’s all right. Thanks very much. I wish it counted, but, anyway, I’ll give my own satisfaction score in a minute.

Eighteen members’ bills—four were passed, six not agreed, 12 still in the process. There was one local bill and a private bill as well. But there were—and this is an important stat, I think—943 oral questions to Ministers—and, questions to members, there were nine of those—but there were 58,938 written questions lodged. If anyone wants to know what the Opposition aren’t doing for those 300-odd days a year when they’re not in Parliament, they’re writing questions to Ministers. I’ve, of course, got to make sure that you get answers. I’ll tell you what: the time it takes to pore over those answers absolutely takes a big toll on you. The other small facts: Bellamy’s this year sold 60,000 hot drinks—mainly coffee—at Copperfields. Some people might say, “If you’re only working 80-odd days a year, why do you need to stay awake so much?” Also, 73,000 people went through Parliament in tours this year—quite a large number. If you include visitors who came here for various meetings, that number goes up to 122,000. When you think about the number of people visiting here, it means, I think, that we have a strong democracy, and we’ve got to make sure that this place remains as open as it possibly can.

While I might like to offer some political advice to both sides of the House, which I know you’d find incredibly useful, I think I’ll resist that and simply say to all members that I wish you and your families and your friends and all of those who support you outside of that all the very best for this Christmas season and as much success as is reasonable for you in the 2026 year. Thank you very much.

on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the sitting programme for 2026 be:

January 27, 28, and 29;

February 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19;

March 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 24, 25, 26, 31;

April 1, 2, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30;

May 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, 28;

June 23, 24, 25, 30;

July 1, 2, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30;

August 4, 5, 6, 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27;

September 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 17, 22, 23, 24;

October 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 22;

November 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12;

December 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17,

and the following dates are to be scrutiny weeks:

June 15, 16, 17, 18, 19;

November 30;

December 1, 2, 3, 4,

and that the House do now adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 January 2026.

After a big year, I want to start by thanking everyone who supports all of us to do our jobs: our cleaners, our messengers, sign language interpreters, security, the Dignitary Protection Service, VIP drivers, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, Cabinet Office, Office of the Clerk, the buildings and catering staff, select committees, Hansard, IT, tour guides, travel, finance, electorate offices, and everyone across this Parliament. I hope you all genuinely have a fantastic Christmas and a very well-deserved summer break. Merry Christmas, also, to all the families of every MP in this House. Nobody makes a bigger sacrifice for our public service than our loved ones, and I want to say thank you very much. To you, Mr Speaker, can I say thank you for your very reasoned and fair moderation this year—and I do promise to keep my haka very short!

Can I wish all of my National Party colleagues, firstly, a very merry Christmas. I have to say, I’m incredibly proud of our team. You all put in a huge amount of work representing your communities, delivering on National’s values, and making sure we’re fixing the basics and delivering the future. I have to say, the National Party, I think, is in great heart. We’re gearing up for next year’s campaign, and behind that campaign, of course, is a team of volunteers and supporters across New Zealand and our party HQ. I want to wish all of them a very happy Christmas, as well.

Can I also thank every Minister across the coalition Government for the work that they’ve put in this year, because this was a Government elected to deliver—and here’s what we’ve done. Wasteful spending is down, keeping a lid on inflation and leading to more and more Kiwis rolling on to lower mortgage rates. A Resource Management Act replacement, with up to $3 billion per year and seven fast-track projects already approved. Projects under way like the Hawke’s Bay Expressway, University of Waikato medical school, Ōtaki to north of Levin highway, Brougham Street in Christchurch, and more roads and more classrooms across the country. Faster building consents and more building products being available from overseas. Our trade balances back in surplus after four years of trade deficits. We’ve got more money being spent by tourists in our businesses, and record Australian visitors. We have a demonstrably safer country, with 38,000 fewer victims of serious violent crime. Youth offending is down 16 percent. Ram raids are down 85 percent. We’ve got more visible police out on the beat, we’ve got gang patches banned, and we’ve got faster trials and tougher sentences. We’ve had truly transformational progress in our schools, with better attendance and academic achievement already coming through. And we’ve got good progress on health, with 16,000 more elective surgeries, 33 new cancer treatments, and 2,000 extra nurses and 500 extra doctors.

On this side of the House, this is a team that has simply knuckled down and got on the job of fixing Labour’s mess and making sure we are fixing the basics and building the future. On that side of the House, though, is the Labour Party, and merry Christmas to each and every one of you. I find, myself, that they’re a bit like a picked-over box of Favourites at an office Christmas do. For starters, I think all the good ones have gone. After refusing to front the COVID inquiry, I’d say Chris Hipkins would be the Flake. I think the rest of Labour are a bit like a Cherry Ripe; they seem nice on the outside, but inside they’re deeply, deeply red—and, frankly, they’re just best left where they are. Of course, their mates in the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, they’re actually a bit like a Picnic, frankly—a bit rough and totally nuts.

But, I have to say, there are some Labour MPs I’m particularly fond of. I would like to thank, in particular, Willow-Jean Prime: by ignoring requests for Labour to get involved in our education policy, I think she has done more than any of her Labour predecessors to advance the education of our kids, and so thank you for that. And, of course, we’re very sad to see Duncan Webb go at the next election. In a recent interview, Paul Goldsmith was heard to remark or to refer to him incorrectly as “Roger Somebody”—not to be confused, of course, with Labour’s new tax policy, which is “Roger Everybody”. Now, Labour claims to have gone on a tour of reflection, but, actually, the only conclusion is that they didn’t tax people enough. That’s what they’ve come back with. But that’s what you get with Labour: a group of people who have never actually had to take a risk or to worry about making a payroll, telling those who have that they don’t deserve the life that they’ve actually worked so hard for.

Can I just say, Michael Wood has been in the media a lot recently. With every interview Michael Wood does, he achieves two things: (1) Chris Hipkins gets even angrier; and (2) Carlos Cheung gets even more popular in Mt Roskill. But you can’t deny that Michael Wood is truly tribal Labour. I mean, he has already proven that he will stake his whole career on Labour’s core commitment of no asset sales.

I want to wish, in particular, the Leader of the Opposition well, though. He certainly has one of the toughest jobs in politics, right behind whoever is Te Pāti Māori’s accountant. Now, Labour’s very close relationship with Te Pāti Māori has gone from strength to strength over the last year. Not only did they let them win the by-election but Willie Jackson told the media that these two parties are 90 percent aligned. But I have to say, unlike Labour, we will not be working with Te Pāti Māori—but I’ve come up with a couple of policies that we could align with them on: (1) including their MPs in David Seymour’s attendance action plan; and (2) extending the social media ban to Tākuta Ferris. I did note—and I made the comment to Paul Goldsmith—that there’s a wonderful new Māori soap opera on that NZ On Air has been funding. It’s great. It does feel a little bit like double-handling, if I’m really honest with you, because thanks to Te Pāti Māori’s co-leaders, we get to see a taxpayer-funded Māori soap opera in this Parliament every sitting week. But, look, that’s enough about Te Pāti Māori. I don’t want to be accused of punching down as opposed to punching up, which is actually what happens in their caucus meetings.

Now, can I extend a very merry Christmas to my friends in the Greens.

No.

Oh, you’re going to get it anyway, don’t worry—don’t worry. A few Green MPs have actually left Parliament this term for behaviour ranging from some quite serious things, like shoplifting and allegations of migrant exploitation, but, also, frankly, for very unforgivable things, like actually getting a job in the private sector—something so offensive to the Greens that even Ricardo Menéndez March refused to write a letter of support for it. But I would just ask my colleagues to give the Greens a bit of slack, because it’s not easy being Green. Just think how lonely it is to get to be the only Bolsheviks sitting in business class, you know?

But enough of the Opposition. Let me bring it back to our side of the House, and I want to say merry Christmas to Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour and all of our ACT Party colleagues. Earlier this year, David said that Jesus very well might support ACT, but I talk to the guy every night and I’ve never heard him talk about it. David then went on and accused Winston of cosying up to Labour, but I actually suspect it’s ACT who might be sending signals to the parties of the left, because, for example, Brooke van Velden’s changes to make it easier to dismiss people earning more than $200,000 has to be some sort of olive branch out to John Tamihere.

Can I extend a very merry Christmas to our foreign Minister Winston Peters and all our friends in New Zealand First. Winston, as you know, has visited 31 countries over the last year. He’s done a sterling job representing New Zealand on the world stage. He’s actually such a dedicated foreign Minister that he’s mastered French, and every time I post something on social media, he replies “Oui”. There’s actually been a lot of commentary, of course, about what was a rather unorthodox midterm changeover of some of the most senior roles in politics this year. Some people questioned if it would work, swapping an experienced stalwart of this place for a scrappy younger man who, I admit, is sometimes publicly critical of me. But I think Thomas Coughlan has actually done quite a reasonable job filling Claire Trevett’s shoes.

Now, like many Kiwis, I was actually shocked by the recent news that Labour has people—people actually operating from this very building—producing content that manipulates the things that we say and relentlessly attacks the Government. But, despite that, I’d still like to wish the press gallery a very merry Christmas and, I’ll say, I will miss you over the summer break. Speaking of my interactions with the media, I actually saw last week that I am a finalist or nominated for Quote of the Year—but I actually have to say I think the judges have actually overlooked some of my best work. There was the time I described the recently passed Sir Bob Jones as a “living legend”; and, of course, there was the time I was asked for my view on something Shane Jones had said, which is irregular, and I answered, “Well, I would say what I would say to you is that that’s not what I would say.” I have to say to all of you, I look forward to providing even snappier and more insightful comments to all of you in 2026.

In all seriousness, can I close by saying that the absolute best part of this job is meeting Kiwis across the country—I get to hear their stories, I get to hear their concerns and their aspirations, and that is a true privilege. They understand the challenges that this Government has had to face in turning the ship around, because they’ve faced those challenges, actually, with us over the last few years. Yes, it has been tough and difficult, but more and more people are starting to see and to feel that our economic plan is working. I look forward to asking for their support to stick with that plan in 2026.

Can I just say a very final merry Christmas and thank you to all of those working through the summer: our emergency responders, our aged-care workers, our essential services, and everyone keeping Kiwis safe. With that, can I say merry Christmas, everyone, and we look forward to 2026.

If we ever needed more proof that AI can’t come up with very good jokes, I think we just heard it, because that caps off a shocking year for the Government. The year of growth in which they succeeded in shrinking the economy. The year that they began by saying that everyone must go, and everyone went to Australia. The year in which they said they were going to get kids off the couch and increased youth unemployment. The year in which the Prime Minister said to New Zealand families struggling to feed their kids that they should just go down to the supermarket, buy them the ingredients and make them a Marmite sandwich, and saw the price of doing so increase by over 50 percent just in one year. The year in which they still couldn’t find one single family in New Zealand that received the full $250 a fortnight that they promised.

I took great heart this week when the Prime Minister declared that next year was all about them getting re-elected. That gave us great encouragement on this side of the House, because every time they declare that they are going to try and achieve something, they seem to achieve the opposite. And so that is great news for the members on this side of the House.

But more concerning, I think, for the members on the other side of the House is the news continues to get worse for them. As they head into the summer break, it’s barbeque at Bish’s place. It’s all about barbecues on the other side of the House. And we know what that means in the political circuit—when the barbecues start firing up, it means trouble for those who are already in trouble. So Chris Bishop, of course, invited all of his colleagues around to his house for a barbecue. Christopher Luxon heard about this and said, “Don’t worry, I’ll do the supermarket shopping.” Turns out you can’t get much for a barbeque for $60 a week. And so that started to set things off on the wrong foot.

But then Sam Uffindell said, “Don’t worry, I’ll go and do the supermarket shopping. I’ll give my wife a break once this year and I’ll do the supermarket shopping.” They sent Simeon Brown off to collect the grog, but, tragically for them, he forgot his 18+ card and so the rest of the caucus is still waiting for their drinks. It continued to go downhill when Chris Bishop realised that he forgot to check the gas bottle. Never mind, Shane Jones showed up with 200 million of them. The bad news for them is they were all empty, and when it turned out they were empty—the company that supplied them had buggered off—he asked the taxpayer to help with the clean-up.

His colleague Casey Costello showed up with the smoker, insisting on cooking the ham in it and created a huge rift in the coalition when it turns out that Andrew Hoggard had also shown up with pork. David Seymour took along a few uneaten school lunches. Now, you’ve got to hand it to “discount Dave”; he is committed to value for money for the taxpayer. He’s combining his role as the Minister for Pharmac with his Minister for school lunches role, because now he’s providing free penicillin to kids up and down the country. Think of the savings to the drug budget that he has managed to achieve from that.

Mark Mitchell showed up with tough on crime brisket, which, like a lot of things that Mark Mitchell does, has been cooked aggressively on the outside, but it’s still raw in the middle. But he’s wrapped it up with a press statement saying that it’s safer than it’s ever been. Nicola Willis was on desserts, you’ll be pleased to know. She showed up with something she called Eton mess; everybody else in the House regards it as the Half Yearly Economic and Fiscal Update. But then Winston Peters decided to outdo her. He brought along some reheated trifle from 1996. He said that it’s a proven recipe, but he won’t tell anybody else what’s in it, he won’t tell anybody else how it’s made, and anybody who criticises it gets greeted with a firm rebuke that he’s taking his bowl and the Government and he’s going home.

Erica Stanford missed the memo. Nobody sent it to her Gmail account, so she missed out on the barbeque altogether. But there was one special dish. The host of the barbeque prepared one special meal, and it was only for the Prime Minister, a wild mushroom stroganoff that was only for Christopher Luxon’s enjoyment.

But then it got messier at the National Party barbeque because they decided to play a few post-dinner games. Mark Mitchell suggested a game of Five Hundred and then blamed Casey Costello for not bringing enough cards. The new incarnation of “woke Winston” said that fireworks were not to be tolerated at any point, and so, unfortunately, that went out the window, and the game of musical chairs was also spoiled by Winston when he refused to get out of his at any point. Those undertaking or participating in Nicola Willis’ pass the parcel were very disappointed to learn that under each layer of wrapping paper there was simply an IOU note that they can only cash in at some vaguely distant point in the future.

It’s been a tough year for Kiwis. So moving to a more serious note, I do want to acknowledge all those New Zealanders who have experienced a great deal of difficulty this year—those who lost their jobs, those who have been struggling with the rising cost of living, and so on. I do want to indicate to them that help is on the way, and next year they will have an opportunity to vote for that help.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank you and all of the staff who work for you, the Office of the Clerk, the chamber and gallery staff, the Parliamentary Service, including the security team, who, of course, we have a greater need for their services now than ever before, and that is something that we do take very seriously and we thank them for their work. To the buildings team, a big thankyou to them. To all of the people who welcome visitors here, including our tour guides, a big thankyou to them. I won’t do to them what I did last summer where I showed up and had my family here and took my kids on a tour of Parliament. Unfortunately, the tour guide was a little intimidated by that and bailed out on taking the tour, and her supervisor had to step in, which was a little unfair. So I just want to say to her, I’m sure she would have done a brilliant job of doing that tour anyway.

To the Bellamy’s team, thankfully none of us are fussy eaters. We’re all happy at whatever food that we get delivered every day. But a big thankyou to the Bellamy’s team and to the VIP drivers. To all of our electorate office staff across the country, who deal with the public every day and who, in many cases, will see people at their worst and deal with some really difficult situations—a big thankyou to all of our electorate office staff. To the public servants up and down the country, who go to work every day to make New Zealand a better place, a very, very warm thankyou to you. To all of our other staff here at Parliament, in whatever capacity they serve us and the New Zealand public, a very big thankyou to you.

Finally, I want to thank our families—the families of all members of Parliament from across the House. I think it’s something that only members of Parliament truly understand, the level of sacrifice that our families make. We say this every year, and I’m sure the public appreciate the sentiment but perhaps don’t fully understand that the families of members of Parliament really do have a rough end of this deal. We get to do some amazing fun things in our jobs, no matter how challenging and confronting our jobs may be from time to time, but our families don’t always get to do those fun things that we get to do. And so we really do send our thanks and our aroha to the families of MPs from across the political spectrum, and we thank them so much for allowing us to do what we do. We couldn’t do it without all of their support.

Finally, to all Kiwis, I hope you do get to enjoy the good Kiwi summer. Contrary to the views of others, I don’t think the Kiwi summer holiday is too long. And, in fact, I think for far too many working New Zealanders, the holidays aren’t nearly long enough. So to all those who are working through the summer holidays, making sure that the rest of us who are enjoying a break can still go to the supermarket, can still fill up the car, and can still go and stay somewhere if we’re going away for a holiday, a particularly big thankyou to all of you for allowing us to have a break over the summer. And of course, to all New Zealanders, I hope you get a break, and let’s hope that 2026 is a better year than 2025. Thank you.

E te Māngai o te Whare, ngā mihi nui ki a koe, kia tātou katoa. Some things are completely different than this time last year. It was next week, one year ago, on Christmas Eve, exactly that I finished my final of 15 daily and consecutive radiation treatments to kill breast cancer cells, which had followed chemotherapy treatment and two surgeries. I was able to return to mahi a month later, to the aroha of the motu at Waitangi in February 2025.

So my first mihi, actually, Mr Speaker, is to you—to acknowledge the support for my leave for medical treatment and my oncologist-ordered careful return, as I know you have supported people across this House. We have the privilege here in this place of being able to role model collective care in times of need for everyone. All I wish for, and all I will keep striving for, is for all people to be afforded that same ability of putting whānau, treatment, and healing first when the unexpected happens. Thank you again, Mr Speaker.

My second mihi is to my incredible team of people, our Green MPs, and our kaimahi—our staff—who have been the stabilising force and support network behind a returning co-leader when, at one point, I doubted whether I would ever make it back out of my pyjamas, let alone back to this incredible role that I have the privilege of serving.

Although every experience is different, I have a responsibility to the breast cancer community to not put up any pretence about the challenges that everyone faces after cancer treatment. I have had to relay directly to those survivors that none of my return would have been possible without the privilege I have of financial security, of support from whānau and colleagues, of love from the community, and of the supportive place of employment, and that, even then, I am only just starting to feel my energy returning back to a level that I recognise.

But, Mr Speaker, let me tell you, I was rearing to come back, to play my part as one of hundreds of thousands of people standing for an Aotearoa that our mokopuna deserve, for an Aotearoa that truly upholds the mana of Te Tiriti, that truly protects and nurtures our environment, that truly knows that we have everything we do—because we really do—to ensure that everyone gets to live good lives in this beautiful country of ours, that they have everything that they need in this beautiful place we call home. It is an incredible privilege to be able to return back to that teamwork, to be able to turn back and come back to the collective visions that this team, that our kaupapa, has been putting forward for the decades that we have existed.

This time last year, whānau up and down the motu were preparing for a summer of submissions—many will remember the actual date of 7 January—7 January, to have their say on the Treaty principles bill. So many, in fact, that the submissions portal crashed on that day. We eventually found out that an overwhelming majority of 300,000-plus whānau opposed the bill—300,000-plus submissions, the most submissions, by far, to any bill brought before this Parliament. We actually should be proud of the mobilising and the networking and the learning that happened across communities, many making submissions for the very first time ever. Whānau hosted submission-writing workshops at dining room tables, on living room floors, in wharenui, on marae, on Zoom, in nightclubs. Many were surrounded by others, as a group; many in smaller groups; some people on their own in isolation—none of them bots. All were driven by a love for the relationship agreement called Te Tiriti and the desire to honour the promises this very country was founded upon.

To our shared community of Tiriti lovers and defenders, we thank you today and every day for honouring the promises of our shared ancestors, the promise of peoples to take the best possible care of each other. That is what Te Tiriti has always been about. That is the vision and the unity that we should all be upholding and be proud of. That is the leadership that we witness every single day in communities around the country, wanting to fight for.

So while that bill is now a distant nightmare, the coalition Government have asked the public to submit on other horrendously unpopular proposed law: boot camps for youth who, really, are young people who need what everyone else needs but don’t have access to it; benefit sanctions, stripping sick, disabled, and unemployed people of their ability to make ends meet, by taking away their only source of income; the treacherous Regulatory Standards Bill—overwhelming opposition again against this bill that seeks to further undermine Te Tiriti, undermine the environment, and undermine community voice—restricting lifesaving healthcare in the form of puberty blockers, a direct attack on the dignity and access to healthcare for takatāpui and trans whānau; and financial punishment for workers invoking their right to strike. The Government wanted submissions on all of this before the end of January 2025. While that also feels like a distant nightmare, every single one of these awful ideas that you’d think were plot points of a young adult novel destined to fail are our real-life descent into dystopia and are now law.

When Pākehā arrived in Aotearoa, people were hanged for stealing kai to survive. Before that, if someone was hungry, our tūpuna would pull up a chair at the tēpu or a wharekai at the marae and feed them. While the former has become the L-A-W, the law of this land, it’s that latter A-I—that ancestral intelligence—which reminds us of the L-O-R-E, the lore, of our whenua. Manaaki and curiosity were the first values that seeped into our whenua and have since had capitalism built over the top, because that’s the mate of colonisation.

But the foundations remain, they really do.

Cheer up.

I am really cheerful about the foundations and the values of this country, actually, because this is what makes Aotearoa who we are. Those are the foundations of manaaki and aroha and the responsibility to be kaitiaki and good ancestors and guardians for our mokopuna to come.

So we know we have enough for everyone to live good lives. We know that, for successive decades and successive Governments, people have been led to believe that poverty is inevitable for some, that we are just going to have to normalise some people being without housing, that we’re just going to have to normalise privatising public goods and services for corporate gain and private wealth. We know that people are waking up to that. We know that we can offer solutions and pathways for something quite different.

Oh, look at that, I’ve got 50 seconds left! So I want to ensure that I thank, alongside my colleagues, the people who make this House work. While I was away on leave, I was delighted to actually be hearing from your security team, your cleaners, the people who feed us, also sending well-wishes. That’s the incredible manaaki that I was just speaking to that makes us who we are. It’s role modelled every day, not in the halls of power, necessarily, but in communities, in workplaces where our ordinary folk are. Ngā mihi ki a koe, Mr Speaker. I wish you a merry Christmas. Kia ora.

Thank you.

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. For nearly everyone in New Zealand, 2025 has been a challenging year, and yet it is one that ends with an uptick as the days get longer and the sun rests higher in the sky. There is a stirring in the Force as people take on new hope—new hope that our economic prospects are improving, that the hard work done by this Government is paying off, and that 2026 really is going to be a cracker.

There are many people that I would like to thank, who make this democracy possible. There are people who work throughout this building—people who clean; people who keep us safe from outside threats, in the form of security guards; people at the library, at Copper’s, and, I’m told, a place called Pint of Order.

There are also my many colleagues around Parliament, and I would like to echo what others have said and acknowledge their families and the impact that a political career has on the people in their lives. I want to particularly personally thank Alex for her unwavering support and boundless sympathy and patience that she’s shown.

I particularly want to acknowledge my ministerial colleagues and my partners in Government. Winston and I have united to help address the challenges that this country faces. For those who say that we fight like cats in a sack, hear this one simple fact: this Government has passed more legislation in the first two years of its three than any MMP Parliament has passed in its whole three years. That’s pretty productive. You may not agree with the pace. You may not agree with the legislation. That’s OK. That’s democracy. But it certainly shows that we have a united Government that works effectively together.

I’d like to acknowledge my erstwhile neighbour, friend, and colleague Christopher Luxon. We’re in different parties, for a variety of reasons—Jesus doesn’t call me every night—but none the less, it’s been a pleasure to work with you, and haven’t we got a lot done?

I should acknowledge the members of the ACT Party. I’m proud to lead a group of New Zealanders from all walks of life, united by our mission to be representatives of New Zealanders and to represent New Zealanders who believe it doesn’t matter where you come from; it’s where you’re going in life and being able to make a difference in your own life, being able to improve tomorrow through your efforts today—in fact, that’s what this country was founded on. That’s why each of us, at different times, from different places, move to these islands, taking the biggest risk that many people take in their life: to migrate and give their children a better tomorrow.

That’s the spirit that we believe in and it’s the spirit that’s advocated by Cameron Luxton, the only licensed building practitioner in Parliament that we’re aware of, ever. I believe Parliament needs more practical people who know the difference between a hammer and a nail, to make sure that we actually reflect all perspectives in our Parliament.

Laura McClure did an incredibly brave thing this year. She held up a deepfake pornography image purported to be of herself, to draw attention to something that so many people suffer in silence. She was prepared to stand up and do it in public. That legislation, now drawn and before members, I believe has not only the ability to make a big difference to so many people suffering from this modern scourge but also to demonstrate the power that a creative and diligent backbench MP has in this Parliament.

Parmjeet Parmar must be the hardest-working member of Parliament that I’ve seen. Every weekend, she is out there with a dizzying array of events and commitments, but she also takes on hard issues and campaigns and wins, such as with the end of the indoctrination at her old university and mine, the University of Auckland. She does this, I might add, while copping unbelievable abuse and flack for her identity from people who say they are in favour of equal rights and opposed to racism.

I especially want to acknowledge, and I do acknowledge, the words of Marama Davidson. To fight cancer and come back is a mission that none of us ever want to go on, but we are so happy that she and every other survivor has been able to do it. The ACT Party, in our caucus, has somebody who has faced a very similar challenge. As we speak today, he’s in isolation so he doesn’t take on any infection before he is able to have a kidney transplant, out of a pool to which his wife is donating so he can benefit. Our thoughts are with you, brother. And even from your sick bed, you are able, through social media, to be the authentic voice of rural New Zealand in a way that I don’t know anyone else could. The halving of methane reduction targets this year are a tribute to your dogged determinism, and saying, “Hello, all you good Kiwis, we will stand up and give rural New Zealand a voice it did not have before Mark arrived.”

I want to acknowledge Todd Stephenson, “the pocket rocket” and the kindest whip you could ever hope for, most of the time, and the person who is parliamentary private secretary for Medsafe and Pharmac, who has actually driven the change. Pharmac is a different organisation. People who used to be picketing outside are now inside the building, having constructive dialogue. Medsafe is now processing consents twice as fast as it used to, and we have pseudoephedrine to wake up and melatonin to go back to sleep again. He’s been incredibly effective in that role.

I believe the biggest thing that this Parliament will do, when people look back, is change the fundamental relationship between someone who owns land and those who give them permission to use and develop it. The resource management reforms that Simon Court and Chris Bishop together have driven are a generational shift for this country, based on property rights. I am proud of the change that has been driven by Simon Court.

Who could better embody the value of the ACT Party that it does not matter where you came from but where you’re going than to have somebody who was abused at the hands of then Child, Youth and Family Services to be in charge of Oranga Tamariki, with no more KFC on the roof, a reduction of harm in the facilities, and genuine compassion for all children no matter where they come from. I’m so proud to share a party with Karen Chhour, a truly great New Zealander.

I said we had the authentic voice of rural New Zealand in Mark Cameron, but people would be amazed at the number of times in meetings behind closed doors that Andrew Hoggard has turned a conversation with his practical knowledge—“Well, to be honest, before a storm, I can’t really do much with my tractor; it needs to be afterwards.” He’s been highly effective. If I was a yellow-legged hornet, I would just leave now because Andrew Hoggard is on the way. I tell you what, when he stings, he stings for sure.

Nicole McKee has done something that few get to do: to come into Parliament with a mission to make sure that we are safe from firearm harm and yet treat licensed and legitimate firearm owners with the respect and dignity that all people deserve as they go about their business, even as she cleans up anti - money-laundering and gets faster justice in the courts. That is a true achievement.

And to my friend and colleague Brooke van Velden, so many Ministers have on their epitaph “Did not fix the Holidays Act”, so many Government departments can’t follow the Parliament’s own laws when they do their pay, and so many small businesses have had it up to here with a law that does not work. Yet Brooke is getting it done, with changes agreed on this year that will actually simplify an annoying part of the world, even as she serves as a very able and popular MP for Tamaki. In fact, if people could stop coming up to me saying how great their local MP is across the border in Tamaki, that would be great for 2026! What’s more, to have Brooke van Velden also fixing up health and safety by actually going out and listening—wow, what a great team. I’m so proud to have had the leadership and the opportunity to work with this team, to drive the change across so many areas in order that New Zealand becomes a better place.

Yes, our party has also put on the table the idea that our Treaty actually gives us all equal rights, instead of dividing us into two different categories of human in these islands. While we may have lost the vote, we did not lose the argument, because check what Kiwis think—they agree with those principles. Whether you like it or not, they will be back, because universal human rights are the truth.

We’ve also introduced landmark legislation that when a Parliament or a Minister passes a law, they have to say what the impacts are on people’s property. That shift is exactly as big as the people on the left fear. But for everyone else in New Zealand, it is a wonderful development in our constitutional history.

It was a hard year, but we’ve come out on top as a country. I’m very proud to wish you all a very merry Christmas—including you, Mr Speaker—after a wonderful year of ACT driving the change. Thank you very much.

Mr Speaker, thank you to you and your staff. We must also acknowledge the Assistant Speakers, who have performed the role with professionalism. That is widely appreciated across all parties in the House.

To the cleaners, caterers, security staff, drivers, library, and Hansard staff, as well as the many office staff in the precinct, thank you for your service. This building would not function without you, and we wish you a happy and safe festive season.

We also acknowledge all of the first responders and essential services, our policemen and women, firefighters, paramedics, doctors, nurses, corrections officers, and all those front-line professionals and volunteers that have kept our country safe and running this year. We thank you, and a special thanks to those who will continue working and looking after us through this holiday period.

To our colleagues in New Zealand First, thank you for your support and excellent work to see us through another highly successful year, supported by all of our parliamentary and ministerial staff.

Now, by all accounts, as a party New Zealand First has had an outstanding year. At this time, we often look back from where we have come from to where we are and where we will be, and reflecting back to this time before the last election, no one gave our party any chance of being back here in this Parliament. Well, today, we are here, and the question is no longer if we’ll get back; it’s how many seats we will get. We’ve got some news, and it’s very good for everyone. We will turn these current polls into confetti. We are on a trajectory to make a major shift in the political landscape, and we aim to do even more than that. We have the team, we have the candidates, we have the party machine, and we have the support of Kiwis.

This year, we’ve been packing the halls around the country the old-fashioned way, with ordinary hard-working Kiwi battlers, who see the party talking common sense. They all see what it is that makes New Zealand First different from any other political party. We are the only socially conservative party, and we’re proud of it. We are the only nationalist party with a capital “N”. We are the only patriotic party, a word that is so often judged and criticised. We stand proud to be patriots of a country called New Zealand. What’s more important is that we’re the only party that brings political balance to the spectrum of extremes.

Now, New Zealand First is not just running in another election next year; we intend to turn the next election on its head, so watch this space.

I don’t think your partners like your speech.

Yeah, but how are you liking it? We have said many times in this House over the past two years just how far Labour has drifted from its origins. They are no longer the party of the workers. They are now a party full of apparatchiks who have graduated from some sociology department riddled with left-wing brainwashing propaganda. Most of them think that “manual labour” is the Prime Minister of Mexico! They are flawed in their thinking. They’re so flawed in their thinking they can’t even remember that, just two years ago, they left this country in such a state that we are even now struggling to clean up the mess. Yet, right here, right now, they’re starting to announce election promises requiring them to borrow, to tax more, and to spend even more. Too many of you know nothing about the economy and even less about politics.

Here’s one thing they do know. They will never win the next election when they sit there relying on those two other parties. The electorate never forgets, and nor do we. Labour has deserted the traditional blue-collar workers of New Zealand. The slow-boil movement of the party to the left has caused a huge number of long-time Labour voters to feel abandoned by a party that once stood for the ordinary hard-working Kiwi. Instead, Labour now seem to care more about left-wing social justice issues, ideological crusades, woke cultural Marxism, the very same failings and racial obsessions of the Māori Party and the Greens. The once great Labour Party of Savage and Fraser has turned into a party of moral outrage and political inertia. And, by the way, there is one party in this House who understands what a worker is, and you’re looking at it. We’ve got the record to prove it. For all those conservative and old-school Labour voters out there, you’ve only got one place to come, and we welcome you.

As for the Greens, they’ve proven themselves to be the most hypocritical, shallow, vacuous bunch of Marxists that we all knew they were. They’ve gone through more MPs than they have protests! By the way, where are your keffiyehs now? Where are your keffiyehs now? The biggest problem the Greens have is their name: they are not a “green” party any more. They’re not even a little finger of Rod Donald or Jeanette Fitzsimons—people I knew—who, despite all their flaws, stood up and had purpose and principles.

How dare you—how dare you?

I dare because I knew them, but you don’t, because you didn’t. The Green Party today is nothing but a shallow shadow of their former selves. They don’t talk about the environment any more.

Keep their names out of your mouth.

Look at this guy. He arrived here five minutes ago and he’s telling me how this world should be! How’s that for damned arrogance—how’s that for damned arrogance?

Keep their names out of your mouth.

Here, listen—here he is. See, he’s off! They’re so desperate for candidates that’s what they’ve got. They’re so desperate for candidates they’ve got many people like him. The Greens don’t care about, nor do they understand, the reality of our economic and social future as a country. They care more about gender, wokeness, unicorns, and a geopolitical war happening on the other side of the world that they know nothing about. When was the last time they asked a question in the House about the climate or the environment? The Green Party of just 20 years ago has morphed from an environmentally focused party with some values to back that up—

Wake up!

Mr Hernandez, that’s enough.

—to a valueless, rudderless party that thinks that anyone who disagrees with them is evil and should be shouted down. Shoplifters, cheap-labour exploiters, foreign-born Marxists, and unstable narcissists, the last two donning a watermelon yarmulke and Hamas scarf during Passover—just breathtaking what they’ve got away with here.

As for the Māori Party, they have tried their hardest to be the martyrs of the media for their shallow, transparent cause, but no one asks them, of the Māori Party, “So who do you actually represent?” They suffer from the same affliction as the Greens thinking they represent everyone green; oh no you don’t, just as the Māori Party don’t represent Māori. As the saying goes, to be ignorant of one’s ignorance is the malady of the ignorant. The fact is the Māori Party are not pro-Māori; they are anti everything that has given them the ability to sit in this very House. They are not pro-Māori; they are anti-democracy. They want a totalitarian, race-based, separatist country. They want a separate Parliament, separate laws, and separate land. That is why they’ll always be so divisive in their rhetoric. That’s who they are, and that’s what they do. And who wants to work with them? Come on, Labour, tell me: who of you wants to work with them?

The Māori Party’s in such disarray that their own party is no longer. It is an utter disaster for the left, and they know it. I stood in this House at the start of this term, in my very first speech, and said that they wouldn’t last long, and I wasn’t joking. In fact, this is what I said. Let me quote: “I know a bunch of losers when I see them.” Now, I wish them luck for the next election—I wish them luck for the next election—but they’re so hopeless they wouldn’t know what to do with it.

Say something nice now, Winston.

Now, Willie, I know the tremor in the voice of desperation when I hear it, and you know what I’m talking about, don’t you?

Having said that, it is going to be a big year, for many reasons, in 2026. We are setting out to turn next year into a year that we look back on in wonder as a political watershed year. We are hearing all the talk and questions from the media even now, trying to get in front of the change they can’t understand but that they suspect is coming, trying to head it off with all their putative questions. They want to know what’s happening next year. Well, there’s only one thing we have to say to the media: get out of the way and watch this space. Happy Christmas.

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. First of all, I’d like to support all of my colleagues in our mihi to our staff, to the security staff, to the catering staff, to the cleaning staff, to all of those in the library, and to our interpreters and translators—those who keep us safe, those who keep us clean, and those who keep us connected. I’d also like to mihi to our teams—those who stay the late nights, those who have to sit there and make sense of what it is that is happening under urgency, and those who turn up and make sure that the electorates and those community members who are asking for things to be done—for thousands of Official Information Act requests and written questions to be done. We don’t thank them enough, and I do honour not only their work but their whānau that allow them to be here supporting us all.

I also want to mihi to David and to ACT—to Mark. I wish him well on what he is experiencing at the moment. We know what that disease is like, and unfortunately we weren’t able to get to this stage. But we do mihi to all of the parties that have had to contend with members who are unwell, who are desperate to get back and contribute to their communities because they are all valued members elected by their communities.

There’s a lot of noise out in the world, there’s a lot of noise in this House, and there’s a lot of noise out in our communities. Whether or not we agree with the noise, it’s for us a time also to reflect. It has been a tough year. It’s been a tough year specifically for our communities who spent this time last year, as Marama said, getting ready for submissions and being able to impress—through a very indifferent process—what it is that they felt about Te Tiriti. It’s been a year of extremism, and it doesn’t matter which side of the fence you sit on: extremism and extremists really hurt the cohesion of life. We have seen a lot of culture wars. We have seen legislation that has hurt our communities, and the removal and repeal of everything that a lot of our communities in te ao Māori hold dear has made them feel extremely under attack.

I’d like to share with you a story. It’s not the same one as the one I shared last week about Shane, but it is about our people who show up, and I would like to spend this time and give accolades to all of our people who show up—who show up during submissions, who show up when we are out there making sure that things have been understood from within this House, who show up to tangi, who show up to birthdays, and who show up when their members and their MPs are calling for kaupapa. I want to share how they’ve turned up in spite of and despite everything that is loud out there and shown their aroha for this nation.

I’d like to start with a bit of a love story—and sharing with the member before me in reflecting on the love that brought us into the kaupapa that we stand in today. For many, joining politics is about joining political parties. For some of us, it’s actually about joining the love of a kaupapa that you’ve shared. For me in Te Pāti Māori, it was in 2004 when my son, who’s now 22, was three months old and being breastfed as we took loads and loads of buses from Taranaki to fight against what the Government at the time was enacting. It was an experience that you never knew in the morning, as you mobilise, where you’re going to sleep that night. But people showed up and they showed up with charity and generosity to manaaki and to look after us.

It was a period when we had our whaea—who we lost this year—Dame Tariana, and she crossed the floor alone. Well, she crossed the floor alone because she loved her people. I have no doubt that we all do what we’re doing here today for the love of our people and the love to serve. For many, it was about shaping and designing policy. And we saw her come out and Te Pāti Māori—or the Māori Party at the time—come out with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, come out with Whānau Ora, come out with the Māori economic development strategy, some that we still talk about today. For us, it started and sparked the love of many people.

In 2017, we saw that movement go from being very, very big down to two MPs and then actually leaving Parliament—it was voted out. There were obituaries written about the party, about the movement, before the bodies were even cold, if I can say it like that. It really tested our love, and it really tested our love for the kaupapa and whether the kaupapa of Te Pāti Māori was real and if we could prove our love and the ability to sustain it. In 2020, Te Pāti Māori proved its love by the people who turned up, not by the politicians but because of the people who turned up—who showed up. They decided to put two MPs in. And those two MPs announced that they would be pebbles in the shoes of the Crown, who I think was Labour at the time. They talked about a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa, an Aotearoa Hou, and they talked about being unapologetic.

The love within the party sparked emotion, sparked connection, sparked relatability, and sparked connectivity to many things that come out of this House that otherwise aren’t known in a lot of our communities. We normalised our thinking, we normalised our fashion—we were actually allowed to show our shoulders at the time. But I guess as the love continued in 2023, we were able to grow to six MPs. My point being: we saw the biggest hīkoi, we saw the biggest suspensions, and we saw the biggest submissions. We see 300,000 now on the Māori roll and working towards an eighth Māori electorate. I think what’s really important in this lesson of love is that we should never be comfortable in this place; we should always be open to challenges.

I want to end this by acknowledging the people who don’t make the headlines, who actually are part of the love story of our movement: the ones who show up early and leave late; who volunteer on maraes; who are in branches; who are in unions, in schools, in kōhanga, and in community groups; who write submissions and sit with others to help them learn how to write submissions; those who drive kaumātua to hui; those who organise kai and make calls; those who host hui in a hold space; those who keep turning up even when it’s hard, even when it’s messy, and even when no one is clapping. Because those are the people that often are forgotten in the noise of politics, in the noise of decisions, and in the way that this place rushes and rushes and puts everything through urgency and makes sure that it’s impossible for those voices to be heard and seen when submission dates are so quick.

One of the things that I think is really important as politicians is to remember that the people who show up have the expectation that we behave in a certain way, even when we disagree. I think the people who show up outside of this place expect us to also hear them even when we’ve never been in VIP cars—even when we’ve never been in ministerial suites. Even if you don’t like what it is that they fundamentally stand for, those voices are still important to the fabric of Aotearoa.

I’m really proud as a movement that, yes, we have been through the toughest season that I’ve known, but we’ve done it in a way that makes sure that the movement for our people who turn up, who show their aroha for their kaupapa—they know that we will never ever forget that those are important voices. They are important people. They may not be seen on the line of those jobs and those flash investors and these people who are coming in from overseas; they may be trying to break cycles, they may be people queuing for mental health, and they may be people queuing and helping to figure out what it is that they need from Aotearoa.

But what I will say is that I hope we become a nation that stops leaving people behind. Te Pāti Māori will never ever ever stop having the love of the people—for those who show up for us; for those who may not know to show up. That is what we should be doing: always mobilising and bringing on another group who actually can see themselves in this place.

I think that’s probably the biggest honour: being able to come to the end of the year knowing that we did the best that we could do. Know that we will love everyone, and you may not love me but I will love you. You may leave me, but I will fight for you. That is exactly how tūpuna showed us. Nō reira, I wish you all well for Christmas. Look after yourselves. Be safe. Kia ora rā.

E te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you to all the people who make us look and sound good in this place and in our jobs. To Hansard; our security team; our messengers; the cleaners; our Copperfields and catering team, who caffeinate us and deal with us when we’re hangry; and, of course, the Parliamentary Counsel Office; the Office of the Clerk; our library staff; IST; our tour guides; our education team; our buildings team, those who set up and pack down multiple events every day in this place; the buildings team; the events team; the travel team, who get us where we need to be, when we need to be there; all the precinct staff; and all of our Electorate and Community Office staff out there around the country—we say thank you for looking after us.

I want to say one name this afternoon, and that is Colin in the little booth up there. Thank you for turning us on and for sometimes turning us off, and we hope you do more often than not sometimes—certainly the Government’s side. I also want to say thanks to our family, our whānau, who look after us and put up with us when we’re not here. We’re almost home and we’re almost done.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank your team and Mr Speaker for looking after us and for overseeing robust debate in this place—and sometimes not so robust debate in this place. We appreciate the Deputy Speaker, Assistant Speakers, and the Temporary Speakers, and we say thank you. To our Labour whips team, thank you for keeping us all in line on this side. To our whips across the floor, to our musterers and matarau across this House, thank you for keeping this place mostly in check.

I want to take a moment to think about my favourite movies at Christmas time. What are my favourite Christmas movies? Well, first of all, of course, we can’t go past Love Actually. Love Actually is one of my favourites. It’s a film about Christmas. It’s a film about love. It’s a film about joy, but it’s also a film about loss. It’s a film about heartbreak. It’s a film about breakups—big-time breakups. So I’m not sure whether the coalition Government MPs will be watching Love Actually this year because of what potentially is on the cards.

Particularly, there’s a story of Karen and Harry—Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman. That was a story of betrayal. That was a story of just constant blame. I think it sounds familiar. Even at question time this afternoon, all we heard from the Government Ministers was blame, blame, blame, and, from that Prime Minister, we can never even get a straight answer out of the Prime Minister. Sometimes I feel straighter than the PM’s answers!

I also want to talk about one of my other favourite movies, Home Alone—a pretty cool movie. I reflect back to recently when, unfortunately, the chief Government whip kind of had a bit of a whoopsie when it came to everyone rushing off around the country and no one left in the Chamber to support the Minister of broadcasting. He was left home alone as his bill didn’t quite make it through to be able to pass.

Then there is How the Grinch Stole Christmas, and there’s nothing really particularly funny about this movie that I can really share this afternoon. It’s around a grinch of a Government that has cut transport and subsidies to elderly and disabled people. It’s around a grinch of a Government who have cut support for 18- and 19-year-old job seekers. It’s about a grinch of a Government who made cuts for the school lunch programme. What a grinch I feel this Government can be, in that way.

I’ve been thinking about the fact of Santa Claus on Christmas Eve when he does his rounds and he pops into chimneys all around the world. I’m wondering if he’s going to bother turning up to one of Christopher Luxon’s houses or not, because I’m not sure if he’ll be getting his milk and cookies this Christmas. He’d be worried it might be half a stale Marmite sandwich and a slice of apple.

I want to be controversial as I finish my contribution on my all-time great Christmas movie, and that is Die Hard. Die Hard—is it a Christmas movie; isn’t it a Christmas movie? Isn’t it? Is it? Well, I’ll say clearly this afternoon on Hansard that Die Hard is a Christmas movie. As I think about that—and make it really clear, it’s the question we often get asked on this side of the House: is this a one-term Government or isn’t it a one-term Government? Well, I can say clearly this afternoon: this is a one-term Government just like Die Hard is a Christmas movie. Two red ticks—2026.

I want to finish on hope and our needs for hope at this Christmas time. As we look at our rainbow whānau, our ethnic communities, Māori and Pacific people, our beneficiaries, and those looking for work or homes, we need to find ways to bring people together and not to separate them. As we go into the Christmas break, may we find hope and be part of creating hope for a better 2026.

New Zealand is one of the longest continuous unbroken democracies in the world, and it takes a lot to run this place. I do want to start by saying thank you to everybody who helped make this place a very special place: you, Madam Speaker, and your boss, the Speaker; all of the Government and Opposition whips; my colleagues on the Business Committee; the Clerk’s office; security; Copperfields—I think I’ve taken quite a few thousand of the many thousands of coffees this year—

Half of them were for me.

—half of them for Nicola Willis, as she says—the security staff; and the VIP drivers who get us home safely and to and from the airport and other places around the country. A genuine thankyou from all of us for helping to make this very special little democracy all that it can be and, I’m sure, will continue to be in the future.

It’s been a long year, and I’ve listened to a lot of music. I got sent my Spotify Wrapped the other day.

Oh, not Stan Walker!

Yeah, what happened at the awards?

Don’t steal all my jokes; that’s coming! Give me a chance to get there. I’m building up to it!

It wasn’t a pretty picture. It was, basically, 1990s grunge with a sprinkling of 1990s and early 2000s New Zealand rock music, with The Wiggles. That was my Spotify Wrapped.

Any Don McGlashan?

Don McGlashan, sadly, did not feature, and nor did Stan Walker.

I’m sure KPop Demon Hunters did.

Ha, ha! But I have been thinking about other members of this House and what would be on their list. I reckon Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer would love a bit of Taylor Swift “All Too Well (10 Minute Version)”, except that it would actually be “All’s Not Well (Te Pāti Māori Version)”.

For Mariameno Kapa-Kingi and Tākuta Ferris, Taylor Swift’s “We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together” would be on the list. For Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke and Oriini Kaipara, it would be “Stuck In The Middle With You”. John Tamihere’s would definitely be “Everybody Wants To Rule The World”, even if he can’t quite figure it out yet.

Ingrid Leary would pick up “It Wasn’t Me” by Shaggy, and, of course, Chris Hipkins has been on tour around the country saying, “We’ve been listening”—except we all know that the Labour Party’s agenda for Government, God forbid, is more of exactly the same thing all over again. His favourite song would be “Oops!...I Did It Again”, the Britney Spears classic.

David Seymour has had one song on repeat this year: Backstreet Boys’ “I Want It That Way”. Now, he sings this a lot in Cabinet meetings, followed up by Mr Peters finishing up with Frank Sinatra’s “My Way”.

Nicola Willis has had a top song this year. It’s Carly Rae Jepsen’s “Call Me Maybe”, in relation to Ruth Richardson. In recent weeks, she’s changed the lyrics to “Debate Me Maybe”, and in recent days it’s sadly become “Debate Me Definitely Not”.

The Prime Minister has a unique and varied music taste. He has, I would argue, appalling music taste. His top song is Dolly Parton’s “Working 9 to 5”—or, in his case, the hours “Working 5 to 9”. That is also how he expects all of us as Ministers to be working every single day of the Christmas holiday season. Merry Christmas, Prime Minister!

It has been a long year for many New Zealanders; it is going to be a better 2026. As we reflect on the year, we reflect on better times ahead. We reflect on those who will be working over Christmas, working to make sure that those who don’t have as much as many people in this House have enjoy a bit of Christmas cheer. At Christmas time, I know many members will be thinking about those who have passed this year, including, sadly, those in this House and in this term of Parliament. I know we’ll all be thinking about family members that we have lost in the past.

Can I also finish by reflecting on the enormous family sacrifice that many people make, that the families of many members of this House make, to allow us all to be here and to do the jobs that we do. It is an enormous privilege to be here. I think we will all enjoy a bit of Christmas cheer this holiday and festive season, and we will look forward to a better 2026. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Rather than talk about a list of songs:

Two years on and the people are still

Pushing you-know-what up hill—oh man!

You know what I mean?

“Cut cost of living” is what the PM said,

But our whānau out there still can’t buy bread—oh man!

What a situation.

And so they wake in the morning and they step outside,

And they take a deep breath cos they’ve got to get by,

And they scream from the top of their lungs:

What’s going on?

And they say:

“Hey-ey-ey-ey, hey-ey-ey.” They say, “Hey—what’s going on?”

That’s the number one question I get asked across Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, around Aotearoa, and even from whānau living overseas: “Cushla, what’s going on with this Government?” Whānau throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti have told me, “This has felt like a year of attacks on Māori.” While I’m happy to simply convey that message, I thought, “Come on, Cushla, keep it Christmassy”. So here’s a compromise:

Jingle bells, jingle bells

The Treaty won’t go away.

Aotearoa won’t stand for it

No matter what you say—hey!

Sadly, this year will be remembered as the year this Government tried to take Aotearoa backwards, in a monumental way, seeking to erode national relations and systematically removing all that is Māori—the very things that make this country unique, the reo and tikanga manuhiri want to hear and experience when they visit our shores, and the taonga that makes us very attractive global economic partners. But this will also be remembered as the year Aotearoa rose united and said: “Kāhore! This is not who we are.”

Then there’s the attack on people just wanting to get ahead here in Aotearoa. The 200 whānau leaving New Zealand every day seeking better opportunities, leaving whānau and whenua—they’ve been told by this lot to:

Get a haircut and get a real job

Clean your act up and don’t be a slob

Get it together like that there mob

Get a haircut and get a real job!

I note, first of all, that there are more Māori in professional and entrepreneurial roles since records started. We’ve always been kamakama, but that aside—it’s fair enough to say that, but show me the jobs—show me the jobs. There are 36,000 fewer people in work than a year ago. Of course, it is not all doom and gloom, and I want to thank the people of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti for the light you bring to so many each day and for the honour of being your voice in this House. Ngā manaakitanga ki runga i a koutou katoa.

[Care upon you all.]

The second most common question I get asked is: “What are those fullas really like? Do yous get on?”; to which I respond “For the most part, yes.”—“most” might be a stretch.

Madam Speaker, may I wish you, your whānau, all members, and your whānau a very merry Christmas, and we’ll see you in the new year. And to all the kaimahi throughout this beautiful Whare of ours, and to all our Electorate and Community Office staff who keep things ticking over: enjoy your peace and goodwill away from us all.

And to end on a positive note, to you all, from Te Pāti Reipa:

We wish you a merry Christmas

We wish you a merry Christmas

We wish you a merry Christmas

And a happy New Year!

Huri noa i tō tatou Whare, meri Kirīhimete ki a koutou katoa.

[All around our House, merry Christmas to all of you.]

Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. The National Party was asked who was going to sing and it was going to be Paul Goldsmith but he’s not available today—but he’s just turned back up.

Can I start by thanking all those who make this place work: the staff, officials, House Office, Parliamentary Counsel staff, Chamber staff, select committee staff, Hansard—who have had to transcribe some very colourful language this sitting block—the security team, cleaners, the Copperfields team, VIP travel staff, and of course our electorate staff, and of course you, Madam Speaker, and the team. I’d also like to particularly thank the staff in my office, who have had to explain to me the difference between a CT scanner—Grant McCallum—an MRI, and a SPECT scanner roughly 600 times throughout the year. It’s certainly been quite the year, and Kiwis have certainly faced their ups and downs throughout the year.

Of course, this Government has been incredibly focused on fixing the basics and building the futures so that New Zealanders can get ahead. Our Ministers have been working incredibly hard. Nicola Willis has delivered a fiscally responsible Budget without a magic money tree. I hear it sprouted up in Dunedin. I’ve been down there a number of times this year; still have not found it. Chris Bishop, of course, has been cutting red tape and keeping the House running smoothly. Paul Goldsmith from Ngāti Epsom hasn’t defected to Te Pāti Māori; they’ve defected from it. Louise Upston has, of course, helped to get more than 80,000 people off benefits and into work without needing to take a break on Celebrity Treasure Island.

Of course, the privilege of working alongside our colourful colleagues in our coalition parties certainly keeps things very entertaining. But as we head into summer and we write our Christmas cards—and it’s quite the thing here at Parliament; we write lots of Christmas cards—I’ve got a few Christmas cards that I’d like to read out.

My first one is someone who is not actually here in Parliament but is very aspirational, Michael Wood. “Dear Michael, congratulations. I do hope you’ve received Christmas cards from all your old friends: Auckland Airport, Chorus, Spark, National Australia Bank. I imagine they’re quite fond of you, given how long you held on to those shares—16 reminders, wasn’t it? That’s more than enough for the 12 days of Christmas. If they’re not, the third time’s the charm. First time is an MP; second time losing the seat; third time—well, the voters will elect Carlos Cheung once again. Merry Christmas, Michael, and may your campaign be transparent this time.”

Next one’s to Craig Renney: “Congratulations, Craig, on your selection for Wellington Bays, and on your book”—I mean, sorry, “your manifesto”. I hope you’ve sent a signed copy to Chris Hipkins, perhaps inscribed “To Chris, future former leader. Love Craig. The title alone is impressive: “How to spend money we don’t have: a Council of Trade Unions economist guide to fiscal fantasy”. Chapter 1: “Misquoting the finance Minister: an art, not a mistake”. Chapter 2: “Why Treasury security knows my name”. Chapter 3: “The curious case for permanent deficits.” It’s quite the manifesto—sorry, “book”. I’m sure Julie Anne Genter is thrilled Labour is running someone who makes the Greens look like moderate centrists. Merry Christmas, Craig, and may your economic theories remain theoretical.

Now, to Ingrid “ChatGPT” Leary: “Dear Ingrid Leary em dash Member of Parliament for Taieri. Merry Christmas, full stop. I particularly enjoyed your email sent at 11 p.m., full stop. The prompts were fascinating, full stop. When asked if you used ChatGPT, you said you did not, full stop. That was incorrect information, full stop. Then you said someone else sent it, full stop. Also incorrect, full stop. Then you admitted you sent it and used ChatGPT, full stop. I hope you enjoy your summer back in the homeland of Waiheke Island, full stop. Perhaps you can do some yoga and reflect on the importance of authenticity, full stop. Merry Christmas, Ingrid, full stop.”

Finally, to Chris Hipkins himself: “Chris, you’ve promised us different Labour this year. The only problem is your different Labour appears to involve a capital gains tax, which you’ve promised before; wealth taxes, which you proposed before; relying on Te Pāti Māori for the numbers, which you did before; and running Michael Wood again, which you’ve done before. I wish you a very Merry Christmas, and may your hundredth mention of “different” be the charm.”

What a year it’s been. I want to say thank you so much to everyone around this place who makes it work and my colleagues. And, of course, a huge shout-out to all of our hard-working front-line workers who’ll be working over the summer break: our doctors, nurses, ambulance officers, paramedics, police officers, fire officers. Each and every one of them is doing such an incredible job, keeping the country running while we’re on holiday. I wish you all a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

Motion agreed to

Members, merry Christmas. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 January 2026.

The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.