Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 17 December 2025

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