Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 4 March 2026

14:01

No petitions have been presented. No papers have been delivered. Two select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

• Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Paul Bakker
• report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on three stewardship reports from the Treasury.

The stewardship reports are set down for consideration.

to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Does he stand by his Government’s decision to build a multibillion-dollar liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility, at a cost of billions of dollars, which every Kiwi household will pay through his Government’s new proposed gas tax, in light of the 50 percent spike in LNG prices just this week, following the recent drone strikes in the Middle East?

Well, international commodity prices rise and fall. That’s inevitable. You don’t change your approach or strategy just because of that. What I can say is that banning oil and gas put a chilling effect on this country. The Lake Onslow project, at $17 billion—to be delivered in 2037 at $8,000 a household—and $800 megawatt per hour wholesale electricity prices means that we have a failed energy policy. We have dry-year risk, and, as a result, this has actually been a good move, because it has lowered the forward electricity prices by about $25 since we made that announcement. [Interruption]

Supplementary.

Just before you start—that is to be the last of the general barrage that is to be heard in the House today.

Did the Government assess the risk of a major supply or price disruption before committing New Zealand households to pay for an LNG import facility?

I reject the characterisation of that question, because this is about lowering power bills by about $50 for every single household in this country. This is a backup source of energy, so that we don’t end up in the situation that the member and his Government created last time.

Did the Government assess, or did it not assess, the risk of a major supply or price disruption?

It’s a natural thing that LNG prices go up and down as a global commodity price, but, irrespective of that, it is still the right answer to make sure we have a backup option to deliver dry-year risk, so we take the risk premium down—

Name one economist!

Sorry, Prime Minister. That has to stop. That’s ridiculous, calling out at that level across the House. It doesn’t matter how much you call out; the answer won’t change.

Is the National Infrastructure Plan released by his Government wrong when it says it isn’t clear that importing LNG would lower average electricity prices?

Look, no disrespect, but I’m not taking lectures from that member on energy policy. I saw some wonderful comments that we should be more independent and have an independent energy policy. Well, actually, the actions of that member’s Government created an importation of Indonesian coal and didn’t actually create the independent energy policy that we are creating through an “and, and, and” approach of lots of initiatives. As you have seen since the announcement of the LNG facility, on top of the announcement that we will follow the mixed-ownership model companies investing in thermal firming energy, we have seen a $25 reduction in forward electricity prices in the futures market, and that’s a good thing.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, in all of that, like most of what the Prime Minister’s been saying this week, there wasn’t actually an answer. The question was about the National Infrastructure Plan and the fact that it said that LNG would not lower average electricity prices. The Prime Minister didn’t even mention the National Infrastructure Plan.

That’s right, but, of course, a lot of people across the House were calling out loudly and unhelpfully, which doesn’t make it easy for me to listen to the question. I’ve got a new sound bar in front of me and I have to put up with an awful lot more than I have up until now, but I would suggest that the Prime Minister might consider the question and focus on the answers to future questions.

Was the Frontier Economics report, commissioned by his own Government, wrong when it said that importing LNG solely for the purpose of insuring against dry-year risk didn’t make economic sense?

It’s not the only thing that this Government is doing. This Government is wanting to deal with dry-year risk, because why? It adds a risk premium into consumers’ power bills. So, by doing a series of things that actually increase supply and optionality, we end up de-risking the dry-year risk and lowering the risk premium that’s present in power bills. And, on the back of this, we end up lowering power bills for every household by $50, instead of loading them up by $8,000 for a 2037 Lake Onslow at $17 billion.

Does the Prime Minister think that energy independence is a good thing, and what have been some decisions that have degraded that independence?

I do think energy independence is a good thing and that’s what this Government is delivering. I noticed the member raised that this morning or yesterday, but, again, he caused a situation where we are not energy independent. He ended up banning oil and gas, and, as a result, we import Indonesian coal, and we actually are reliant on others rather than being reliant on ourselves. I don’t take lectures from that member, because it was an abject failure. The Labour-Greens energy policy was a total failure. He knows it, he’s trying to gaslight his way through it, and we’re not having it.

Point of order.

When was the last commercially viable gas find in New Zealand?

I’m sorry?

Point of order. Mr Speaker, I’m seeking your advice because, as we’ve discussed much in this term of Parliament, truth and veracity of the facts that are stated in this House are incredibly important. The Prime Minister has consistently made a causal connection between the ban on offshore oil and gas exploration, and the prices of energy, yet all of the data and evidence shows that the average time it takes to go from exploration to production is 16 years. That is, if we did not see that come into effect in 2018—[Interruption]

We’re going to listen to the whole point of order again; they’re heard in silence. They are often a lot more brief than the member was offering the House.

Mr Speaker, seeking your guidance. When we have a situation where the Prime Minister has so consistently asserted a causal connection between the previous Government’s decision to ban offshore oil and gas exploration, to energy prices that were experienced, yet we know—because the data and the evidence which Governments are then provided with shows it—that the average amount of time it takes to go from fossil fuel exploration to production is 16 years, and if the ban did not come into effect in 2018, new offshore oil and gas would not come online until the 2030s.

That’s all good. Good. I got the point but I have to say that it’s not a point of order because you are calling attention to a debating matter.

A fresh point of order. Mr Speaker, I just draw your attention—I’m sure you have many longer memories than mine—of the way Speakers have held order in the House by shutting down such ridiculous debating points masquerading as points of order, before a member was able to disrupt the House making them.

Yes, well, thank you for your advice; I do appreciate the regularity of it.

Was the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment wrong when he said that importing LNG could leave Kiwis worse off because it would discourage investment in cheaper renewable sources of electricity generation?

Yes, he was, because, actually, we have taken a policy in our Government that we table the advice, and then we make some decisions. What we don’t do is create an $800 megawatt per hour cost that ends up shutting down mills, and low and middle income working New Zealanders lose their jobs. That’s exactly what that member did—economic vandal, arsonist, now complaining about the fire that we’re putting out that he created.

Sorry. Just a minute. You can’t make those sorts of comments at the end of an answer. That’s going beyond a debating point, to actually being a personal insult and it cannot be done.

Point of order. The record is abysmal and you’ve got to understand context.

That’s now, with all due respect, challenging the Speaker, and it’s not a wise thing to do, because even Prime Ministers aren’t beyond being removed from the House.

How can something that increases energy supply and brings down household power bills actually increase costs to households, or is that just Labour logic?

Well, again, the issue that we’re dealing with is that a risk in a dry year—

Point of order. Keeping in mind that only moments ago that very member was pleading with you to make sure that points of order were valid, surely the same logic must apply to questions. You mustn’t allow a question that is, even in its own wording, having a crack at the Opposition, not setting up the Prime Minister to do so himself.

That’s right, and I was going to refer to Speaker’s ruling 181/4—I think it is—that would back that as well. So we’ll move on to the next supplementary question from the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Why is he so sure that tying the price of electricity in New Zealand to volatile international LNG markets will leave Kiwis better off, when the Government didn’t even consider any renewable energy alternative options?

Well, the great thing is that we are experiencing a renewables boom in this country, and that is because of fast-track consenting, a one-stop shop which that member—

Answer the question.

No, sorry. The man is trying to answer the question. Please don’t call out with inane comments like that. Have you finished?

Oh, yeah. I’m happy to stop.

14:12 · to the Minister of Finance

Are events in the Middle East impacting the New Zealand economy?

It is a little early to say whether the conflict is having a significant impact on the economy yet. As I said yesterday, there is likely to be an impact, but what that is and how quickly things get back to normal will depend on the nature, severity, and duration of the disruption arising from this conflict.

Inflation’s nothing to do with international factors, remember?

I note that I am being continuously barraged by the Leader of the Opposition. I think New Zealanders take this issue very seriously, and I do too, and—

Can’t blame international factors!

—I think it is important that I convey these messages to the House, and I think it would be useful if the Leader of the Opposition quit his barrage. Key channels by which events in the Middle East could affect New Zealand are an increase in oil prices, shipping and air disruptions, freight costs, demand for New Zealand exports, and risk aversion in financial markets that affects the New Zealand dollar and global growth. To what extent those channels operate is yet to be seen. The Government is monitoring events closely.

How did markets react overnight?

Brent crude oil ended the day at US$82 a barrel, up from around $72 before the weekend. Global equity markets fell, with the S&P 500 down 0.7 percent and the Nikkei down 3.1 percent. We are observing volatility in these numbers during the course of trading hours. The New Zealand dollar is 0.5c lower against the US dollar compared to yesterday. So there is evidence of a risk of sentiment in the markets, with investors leaning towards safety rather than wanting to take risks in the current environment. However, these market movements have been relatively modest so far. In part, this reflects the fact that it is too soon to tell how prolonged the conflict and any economic disruption will be.

What could the conflict mean for inflation?

In its February Monetary Policy Statement, the Reserve Bank forecast annual Consumers Price Index inflation to fall this year towards 2 percent. However, it did note that geopolitical events could put upward pressure on tradables inflation through higher oil prices and a lower New Zealand dollar. Tradables inflation has been driving the recent uptick in inflation but was expected to fall over the coming year. Whether there is any further upward pressure from events in the Middle East conflict depends on how that conflict plays out and for how long, and I hope that the Opposition share with me the seriousness of these issues and the need to take them seriously.

How is New Zealand placed to deal with global volatility?

New Zealand is well placed. We have sound fundamentals: a resilient banking sector and a floating exchange rate that helps buffer shocks. This morning, Stats NZ released the latest data on the merchandise terms of trade, which is the ratio of the prices we get for goods we export, compared to the prices we pay for imports. Right now, the terms of trade are at record highs in a series that goes all the way back to 1957. New Zealand’s current account deficit has narrowed considerably. It was 3.5 percent of GDP in the September 2025 quarter, compared with 9 percent in December 2022. That makes New Zealand a more resilient country.

14:16 · to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

Yes, in the context in which they were given, including my statement yesterday that the member “wishes to return to the monetary policy framework that resulted in New Zealand’s highest period of inflation in recent history”. At a time of heightened global instability, proposing to dilute the Reserve Bank’s focus on inflation is the last thing New Zealand needs.

When can Kiwis “expect to pay less for home-grown food at the checkout” as she has promised them since 2023, given the price of butter is up 78 percent, mince is up 32 percent, and milk is up 22 percent from two years ago?

It is difficult to compare what is the case now with what would have been the case under the policy settings of the last Government, but I am confident that the measures this Government has taken have meant that prices have been lower than would otherwise have been the case. In the video the member refers to, there are five things I said a National Government would do. We would stop adding costs to farmers: tick—achieved. We would make sure they had the workers they need: tick—achieved. We would bring Government spending under control: tick—that’s what we’re doing. We would focus the Reserve Bank on fighting inflation: tick—that is what we’ve done. We would let people keep more of what they earn with our plan for tax reduction: tick—we delivered tax relief.

How much has the average weekly grocery bill fallen since her statement on 26 August 2025 that the Government’s next steps would “reduce food prices for Kiwis”?

The member is being, I think, quite disingenuous. It is clear from my statement and the work that the Government is doing that our plan is about ensuring that prices in the future would be lower than would otherwise be the case. If the member disagrees with me that increasing competition in the grocery sector is a good thing, she should say so. If she disagrees with me that increasing competition would put more downward pressure on prices than would otherwise be the case, she should say so. I stand by this Government’s view that increasing retail competition in the grocery sector could result in a situation in which prices are lower than would otherwise be the case.

Supplementary question.

He’s given up on trying to answer them—

Hang on.

Has she seen any reports of economists recommending deflation in an economy?

I would say that, across the Parliament, there seems to be quite a lot of confusion about the monetary policy framework and how it works. For example, I did see some quotes from one member of this House today that suggested that if we had lower interest rates and lower unemployment, there would be no effect on inflation. I suggest that member read an economics textbook.

When she told New Zealanders she was on a “mission to deliver better grocery prices for Kiwis”, was that a similar promise to her promise to 21,000 families that they would receive a $250 tax cut?

That was a commitment that I stand by.

How many families have actually received a $250 tax cut?

The member knows full well that she is correlating two separate statements. One statement, which the Government made very emphatically, and which we have delivered on, where we said that we would deliver a tax package, which would deliver up to $250 of tax relief for families—delivered. The second statement was around how many families would receive a payment of $150 a fortnight under FamilyBoost. I want to thank the member for joining the National Party in voting for the legislation which we introduced to expand the generosity of that scheme to ensure that thousands more families would receive that level of support.

Is the reason she gets so defensive when confronted with her own broken promise to reduce food prices because she knows she will never ever deliver on it?

No, I don’t feel defensive. When the other side of the House are having to misconstrue statements and duck away from misrepresentations they have made in this House, they are the ones who are clearly in trouble.

14:21 · to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction

What immediate actions is the Minister taking to stop the escalation of the 170,000 tamariki experiencing child poverty and hardship, particularly for Māori, who make up a quarter of this number across Aotearoa?

Our Government is committed to taking action to reduce child poverty by fixing the basics and building the future for all young New Zealanders. Reducing child material hardship is a priority in our Government’s child and youth strategy. We have made a number of changes to improve the lives of Kiwi families, including increasing the in-work tax credit, lifting the threshold for Working for Families, providing working families with tax relief, and introducing FamilyBoost to make childcare more affordable. Our Government is focused on practical solutions, including breaking cycles of welfare dependency, creating more jobs, and improving educational outcomes to help keep children out of poverty in the long term.

Will the Minister commit to urgent pre-Budget actions for regions like Te Tai Tokerau, where around 9,500 tamariki are living in material hardship, and, if not, why not?

I accept that there are many families who are doing it tough right now. While it would be nice to have said that we had inherited a set of economic circumstances that made it easier for people and families to get ahead, that is not the case. In Budget 2024, our Government prioritised reducing the number of children in poverty with the measures that I outlined before to lift 17,000 children out of poverty.

What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that child poverty and hardship do not begin before birth, following reports from Te Tai Tokerau - based midwives that expectant mothers are missing antenatal care because they cannot afford basics such as food and transport?

I thank the member for her question. That is why the second of the three priorities in the child and youth strategy is the first 2,000 days. We know how critical it is for children to do well. I would encourage any families who are challenged to seek assistance from a variety of agencies who can provide assistance during the first 2,000 days.

What specific supports, if any, has the Minister directed to the combined Tasman, Nelson, Marlborough, and West Coast regions, where an estimated 6,200 tamariki are living in material hardship?

Well, I would repeat that the very first Budget that this Government delivered in Budget 2024 was to lift 17,000 children out of poverty, with measures like increasing the in-work tax credit, lifting the threshold for Working for Families, providing working families with tax relief, and introducing FamilyBoost. I accept that there are families and children who are facing incredibly challenging times right now. That is why our Government’s focus is on growing the economy, creating more jobs to enable more families to do well and to reduce the harm and hardship that they currently face.

Does the Minister still maintain that her Government’s current approach is sufficient in addressing child poverty in Waitaha, or Canterbury, when they’ve reported that there are an estimated 21,000 tamariki again living in material hardship?

Well, yes. That is why we need to have a growing economy so that there are more job opportunities, and there are more opportunities for families to get ahead under their own steam. That is how we reduce harm and we reduce hardship: by reducing the number of children who are growing up in benefit-dependent households.

14:25 · 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.

Will the Prime Minister use his power to apply—that is, to enact or to enable—automatic extensions to visas of those who are currently in this country impacted by the unfolding conflict in the Middle East, as he assumed was the case in his answer to me in question time yesterday?

That is a matter for the Minister of Immigration; I encourage the member to direct her question to her.

Why—[Interruption] I thought I was talking to the Prime Minister.

Sorry, what was that comment?

I said that I thought that I was talking to the Prime Minister. Apologies—I’m waiting for silence in the House before I continue my questions, Mr Speaker.

You’re waiting for silence—how’d that go for you 20 minutes ago?

Just a minute—calm down.

Why does the Prime Minister accept the Trump administration’s word for the legality of its attack on Iran, stating, “It’s up for them to provide the legal evidence and justification for these strikes.”, when Russia made exactly the same argument under Article 51 of the UN Charter when it invaded Ukraine and we, correctly, did not accept that justification?

Well, I think it’s a bit disgraceful and embarrassing for the member to compare Ukraine with Iran. But, again, as I said yesterday, it is up for the Israelis and the Americans to give justification for the legality of their strikes. We are not party to the information or intelligence that they have received. It would be wrong of New Zealand, either way, to jump to conclusions. We need fact and evidence to be produced, and that’s what we would reasonably expect.

Has he asked for briefings or advice on the use of New Zealand - launched satellites from Rocket Lab, which has the US Space Force as a customer, and whether they are being used to support the US attacks on Iran, and, if not, why not?

Well, I can assure the member that all New Zealand intelligence collected or shared is actually in accordance with New Zealand law.

Will the Prime Minister commit to transparency for all New Zealanders on what biometric information may be shared and what safeguards will be in place before his Government moves to sign us up to the Enhanced Border Security Partnership?

Our officials are talking to the Americans. They are free to set their own requirements as they need, and, of course, those official conversations are ongoing.

Why did he call comments on the critical minerals partnership “frothy” and “speculative” in response to our questions in February 2026, when our parliamentary written questions have exposed that he was briefed by his officials on those very negotiations between Aotearoa New Zealand and the USA for this back in November 2025?

Well, as I’ve previously said—and I’ve said publicly—this is a Government that wants to develop a critical minerals sector. It’s very important that we do. Why is it? Because it’s critical minerals that appear in electric vehicles; it’s critical minerals that appear in solar panels. We’ve got a lot of them, and we want to be independent, and we want to develop that sector. So we have ongoing conversations with a number of parties around the world that want access to critical minerals, as you would reasonably expect, but we have not made any final decisions, and, when we do, the member will find out about it.

14:29 · to the Minister of Health

Does he agree with Health New Zealand that “New Zealanders expect that companies involved in healthcare have secure systems and platforms that safeguard their private information”; if so, what steps has he taken to get assurance that all companies involved in healthcare have cyber-secure systems?

14:30

Yes. The Government expects all organisations that handle New Zealanders’ health information, including private providers, to meet the highest standards to keep that information safe. Following recent incidents involving private digital health providers, I asked the Director-General of Health and the chief executive of Health New Zealand to write to providers across the sector reminding them of their obligations to meet cyber-security and privacy standards and to safeguard patient information. I’ve also asked the Ministry of Health to undertake a review of the security and resilience of digital systems used across primary care to ensure appropriate protections are in place. More broadly, this Government recognises that cyber-security threats are increasing and we must constantly strengthen our systems and protections. That’s why we invested an additional $9 million in Budget 2024 and a further $10 million in Budget 2025 to strengthen cyber-security capability within Health New Zealand. Across Government, work is also under way to strengthen New Zealand’s overall cyber-security posture. In addition, the Minister of Justice has asked for advice on potential changes to the penalty regime for privacy breaches under the Privacy Act.

What action has he taken, including potentially through the review he mentioned in the answer to the primary question, to ensure that Health New Zealand has assurance that the providers it contracts are meeting Te Whatu Ora’s cyber-security standards set in 2023?

I’m advised that Health New Zealand contracts for new or updated services, including enforceable expectations in relation to privacy and data-sharing expectations, with references to the Health Information Security Framework as a set of guidelines and controls, the Health Information Governance Guidelines for the safe use and sharing of health information, and enforceable information-sharing agreements meeting the Public Service information sharing standard, underpin all new and renewed data-sharing arrangements that Health New Zealand enters into. Overall, we have inherited a situation which Health New Zealand is now ensuring they’re actively responding to and improving as they go through this process.

Has he taken any action to ensure that work on strengthening primary care cyber-security occurs now, rather than five years from now, as specified in the digital investment plan he recently published?

Well, as I said, there are a number of actions under way, including the review, which is going to look at what actions need to be done in response to the two high-profile incidents. The Minister of Justice is also looking at reviewing the Privacy Act and the penalty regime, since I believe our penalties in New Zealand are woefully inadequate when it comes to the comparison with other countries and they need to be increased. That is an issue, which, again, the previous Government didn’t address—we’re now looking at it.

Does he agree with Tracy Watkins, who said, “government oversight … is a basic expectation when the state allows private contractors to hold intimate medical histories of its citizens.”?

Well, we have inherited a system, and we are working with the system that the last Government put together when they amalgamated 20 district health boards into Health New Zealand and forgot to actually fix the basics. We’re fixing the basics, we’re increasing the monitoring, and, as I said, we’re now taking a number of actions to ensure improved oversight of our data and digital systems across New Zealand.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a—[Interruption]

Hold on.

It was a straight question about where responsibility for these matters lie, and the Minister immediately launched into an attack on the last Government—

An inaccurate one.

—an inaccurate attack on the last Government—rather than actually addressing the question that New Zealanders care about, which is: what is he doing?

Well, the way I heard it, he was talking about a situation that he took over as Minister, which he is able to do under our Standing Orders, and was presumably about to come to the point of the question.

Well, the question was in relation to Tracy Watkins’ piece in the papers on the weekend. I agree that there is a need for increased oversight. We have inherited a system where the previous Government amalgamated the district health boards into Health New Zealand. They failed to fix the basics. We are now doing exactly that, and, as I said in all of my previous answers, there are a number of actions being taken by either the Ministry of Health or Health New Zealand to improve the situation when it comes to digital capacity and the protection of patients’ data. Is the system perfect? No. Is there more work to do? Yes. That is across Government that we need to do that, and we’re committed to doing just that.

Why does he continue to answer questions about cyber-security by placing the blame on private companies or deflecting the blame on to the Opposition when important responsibilities clearly lie with his Government?

The answer is that obligations sit in a number of places including, under the Privacy Act, on private companies, and, ultimately, the penalty regime in New Zealand is woeful and it needs to be fixed. That’s one of the areas that we’re actually addressing. It’s all well and good for the former Minister on the other side of the House to sit there and complain, but we inherited a system from her, which we are now fixing.

14:36 · to the Minister of Finance

What recent announcements has she made regarding KiwiSaver?

Last week, the Government announced we will remove barriers that prevent many farm and other rural workers from using their KiwiSaver accounts to buy their first home. The current settings are not fair to rural communities. We’re making a technical change to the KiwiSaver Act that will enable service tenancy workers to buy a first home while living in employer-provided housing. The changes also build on an existing provision, which already allows farmers to use their KiwiSaver to buy a home, by allowing them to do so through a trust or partnership so long as they live on the farm and exercise majority control and ownership of the commercial entity. This a tweak to the settings to make it fairer for rural New Zealanders. Rural New Zealand spoke, and we listened.

Why are these changes necessary?

Under the current rules, Kiwis can withdraw their KiwiSaver to buy a first home if they intend to live in it. However, the current rules ignore the practical realities for workers in rural communities. Many people working in service tenancies are provided housing as part of their employment. These workers have, effectively, been locked out of using their KiwiSaver to purchase a first home elsewhere. Current rules also require a first home to be bought in the buyer’s own name. However, most farms are purchased through companies, partnerships, or trusts, meaning many aspiring farm owners have been unable to use their KiwiSaver even though the rules imply that is possible. These changes address both issues and better reflect the reality of rural and service life.

What feedback has she heard from the rural sector about these changes?

The feedback’s been great. Federated Farmers have described this as a major win for young farmers and “a huge step forward for the next generation of farmers.” One Wairarapa farmer labelled the announcement “right on point and another example of the Government doing what’s practical for the people.” Joseph, a member of Growing Future Farmers, said, “It gives me good incentive to save and put money aside because there’s an opportunity now, as opposed to before, when there wasn’t.” While another rural worker simply said, “That’s awesome. I’m going to go hard on my KiwiSaver now.”

What do these changes mean for rural New Zealand?

These are targeted, practical changes that maintain KiwiSaver’s core purpose while making the scheme fairer for rural communities. They deliver on the Government’s commitment to back rural New Zealand and remove unnecessary barriers. Legislation is expected to be introduced in the middle of this year. This is not a policy born in the mind of a Wellington official; it reflects the commercial reality of modern farm ownership and rural employment and ensures KiwiSaver continues to support New Zealanders into their first homes.

14:39 · to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

Will the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill impact ACC claimants who have survived sexual violence, survived abuse in care, and survived traumatic head injuries; if so, how many?

This bill will ensure that there is equitable treatment across all people who received ACC payments, whether ongoing, weekly, or backdated. Everyone will have their supplementary assistance assessed by the same rules. The bill is confirming the current policy intent, so this will not change the way people are treated from previous practice.

Point of order. Look, Mr Speaker, I put this question as a primary on notice, specifically asking about three groups of people and whether they were impacted and how many. At no point was this actually addressed or answered. It was put on notice, which is why I’m really confused about the fact that neither of these groups or the amount of people within those groups was even mentioned.

Do you want to speak to the point of order?

In the legislation that has been introduced and had its second reading in the House, it referred to 37,000 people who had an ACC-related debt established related to supplementary assistance. The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) does not have the specific reason for each ACC claim, nor should they. It is private information.

Does she accept the briefing given to the Social Services and Community Committee by ACC that showed a sample of people affected by this bill that demonstrates that within that sample, the largest group of people affected are sexual violence survivors?

I’m the Minister for Social Development and Employment. I’m not the Minister for ACC and I wasn’t in the select committee when the ACC appeared this morning.

Does she not think it’s her responsibility to understand and recognise that the bill she’s shepherding through will put sexual violence survivors into large debts?

I think it might be helpful if I explain to the House the origins of this bill, and it relates to an overpayment where somebody has received a backdated payment from ACC while they have been receiving MSD assistance throughout that time. When the final amount of the backdated payment is known, that may then reflect an overpayment to MSD. That is what this bill is fixing. There is no distinction either on the ACC side or on the MSD side as to what the ACC claim was for, nor should there be.

Will she support amendments to exclude sexual violence survivors, abuse in care survivors, and people who may be pushed into hardship as a result of these debts?

I accept that there will be a range of reasons why people are claiming ACC, and some of those are incredibly challenging and traumatic, but this bill is simply fixing a situation where there has been an overpayment with MSD with benefit and supplementary allowance payments that are made while someone is waiting on an ACC claim to be settled. There should be no difference in MSD support between someone who is paid weekly ACC versus someone who gets a backdated payment. This is about making it fair and equitable and not treating two separate groups of ACC recipients differently.

Why, throughout all her comments on this bill and in the House, has she not mentioned that this bill will create and entrench large debts for survivors of sexual violence, and has instead described them as engaging in “double-dipping”?

Well, I refute that. I’ve never used that expression in terms of the recipients or the people affected by this bill. There is no change in terms of what currently happens. There are a range of reasons—ACC payments is one, where it’s backdated, where clients of MSD are overpaid. They have a responsibility to taxpayers to repay that debt, and MSD, when they have conversations about when a debt has been created, they talk to the person about how that debt can be repaid and over what period.

14:44 · to the Minister of Justice

What action is the Government taking to address disorderly behaviour in our communities?

The Government has announced that it will be providing police with powers to issue move-on orders to deal with disorderly behaviour in public places. Our main streets and public places have been blighted by disruption and disturbance, leading to our communities becoming places of intimidation and dysfunction. Now, that has been obvious to anybody that’s visited our main streets in recent times. Fixing the basics of law and order means, in this case, reclaiming our public places for the enjoyment of those who live there, work there, and visit there. It’s about wanting all New Zealanders to feel safe and secure in our communities.

How will move-on orders work to address disorderly behaviour in our communities?

The Government has agreed to amend the Summary Offences Act to allow police to issue move-on orders that will require a person to leave a specified area for a specified amount of time and to move on a reasonable distance from the area if they are displaying disorderly, disruptive, threatening, or intimidation behaviours. The move-on orders will also apply to those who are obstructing and impeding someone entering a business, breaching peace, all forms of begging, and those who are intending to inhabit a public place. We’ve got many tools which we use to help people who are in need, but we need some extra tools to reclaim our streets for the enjoyment of those who live and work there.

Why is the Government taking action to address disorderly behaviour in our communities?

Well, because we want Kiwis to enjoy vibrant, welcoming, and safe town centres. A survey conducted late last year found that 91 percent of operators in Auckland CBD were being negatively affected by rough sleeping and begging, and 81 percent believed the CBD was not in a good state to attract more people and more investment. [Interruption] By giving the police extra tools to move people on who are disorderly, our streets will be safer and cleaner, and those who legitimately need help will continue to have every opportunity to receive it.

Just to remind people in the House that the constant calling out across the House is well outside what is accepted for interjection.

What feedback has the Minister seen on addressing disorderly behaviour in our communities?

Well, I’ve seen a lot of feedback, including this comment from Ian Wright at Queen’s Arcade, who said, “It’s very much about holding people to account, drawing the line in the sand and saying we’ve actually got a right to be here too, the people, the visitors, we want to be safe and secure”. And this one from Will on Facebook, saying: “Fantastic new policy. My 70-year-old mum works in the CBD every day and is terrified”. Well, I can tell Will that help is on its way.

Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to seek your guidance briefly on that last supplementary—

No, no—no, no. Make your point.

OK. The Minister for Social Development and Employment refuted the assertion that she had described people as engaging in “double-dipping”. In quotes on 25 February, in an article from Stuff, she did just that. I’m at a bit of a loss as to what we are supposed to do when she gives quotes to media outlets saying one thing, and refutes that very same thing in answers to a question.

Well, you’ve made your point. The only response—I’ll hear from Louise Upston.

Speaking to the point of order, what is reported in the media isn’t always accurate.

There are remedies—[Interruption] excuse me—available to the member, as the member well knows. But we will now be moving on to the Hon Ginny Andersen with question No. 10.

14:48 · to the Minister of Police

Are there more or fewer individuals on the National Gang List since he took office?

14:49

From the end of 2017 to the end of 2023, the National Gang List grew at an average rate of 1.8 members per day. It has grown since then at an average rate of 1.4 per day. Had the Government that oversaw a rate of 1.8 per day been re-elected, there would be nearly—

No, no, that’s not—

—10,800 gang members.

No, you can’t—no, no, just stop there. That’s enough of that. Have you got another supplementary?

Why did he fail to keep the Prime Minister’s commitment of fewer gang members than police officers?

Well, this Government hasn’t failed on the Prime Minister’s commitment to make New Zealand a safer place, and New Zealand is a safer place. We don’t have gang members taking over provincial towns. We don’t have gang members taking over public spaces and public roads. We don’t have gang members intimidating members of the public with their gang patches. All of that has changed under this Government. That was the commitment the Prime Minister made, and we’ve delivered on it.

Why are gangs better at recruiting members than he is at recruiting police officers? [Holds up graph]

It’s upside down.

Well, the good news is—yeah, I think the graph was upside down; just double-check it. The good news is that our police are doing an outstanding job at recruiting new police officers. We’ve never had such a strong pipeline. We’ve got police officers coming back from Australia and we’ve never had more police officers step up and want to return to the job, and so we’re in a very good space. In relation to gang members, yep, you’re right: there’s three more gang members in New Zealand than there are police officers. But the good news is this: help is on its way. Next Thursday, 59 police officers will graduate, and there’ll be 56 more police officers than gang members.

How does gang membership outpacing police officers under his watch fit in with his promise to restore law and order?

Let me give you some of the numbers: in 2025, there were over 100,000 police foot patrols—that is nearly double on 2023. This number here—that wasn’t reported on 1News, but is a very important figure—is there are 49,000 fewer victims of violent crime and there is a 22 percent reduction in serious repeat offenders. Ram raids have also dropped by 85 percent. I think the results that this coalition Government is delivering are outstanding for public safety.

Regarding the people—[Interruption]

Just wait until your own team give you a bit of respect to hear the question.

Regarding gang members, is it his policy to fund gang members to run drug rehabilitation schemes, as was the case when we came into Government?

No, it’s not, and I’ll be interested to see with the coming election whether there are announcements from the Opposition that they intend to fund gang members again.

That’s good—no, wait on—

The one thing I would say is this: in relation to the outstanding results that this Government has delivered around the reduction of victims of serious crime, that is a good thing. We know that we’ve got a lot more work to do, and we’re just getting on with that work. I made a Facebook post the other day in relation to what I thought was pretty unbalanced reporting from TV ONE, and one of the responses was from a man, Kevin Coutts, a legendary retired dog handler from Rotorua. He said, “You can’t reason with stupid, Mark. Also, what does it matter if gang members outnumber police? We’ve fronted up to gang members who have outnumbered us, and always come out on top. Keep up the good work, mate.” Thank you, Cooter. [Interruption]

The Hon Ginny Andersen—and no one else.

Did he, any member of his office, or any person acting on his behalf make contact with the Television New Zealand board regarding the 1News reporting on the National Gang List that aired last Thursday?

As a result of the 1News reporting last week in relation to what was a really important announcement for the country—and that was to report on the Government’s progress on not only delivering more beat units but also dropping that number around the victims of serious crime—I put up a Facebook post saying that I thought that the reporting was unbalanced. There was a big response to that throughout New Zealand, and, as a result, I received a call from a senior TV ONE person to apologise and say that they realise that they have to operate on a social licence and that they were sorry for that reporting.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question that Ginny Andersen asked was quite specific: it was whether he or anyone under his instruction had contacted a board member of Television New Zealand. Now, he referred to a senior member of Television New Zealand; he didn’t indicate whether that was a board member or not—

Sorry, just a minute—someone’s talking while we’ve got a point of order being taken.

Trying to help.

I beg your pardon?

I was trying to help.

Your help, in this case, is not particularly required. So just quiet—and start your point again.

The question was a very simple one. It was around whether he or someone he’d instructed or communicated with on his behalf, I think it was, had contacted a board member of Television New Zealand. He referred to a senior person within Television New Zealand. That doesn’t actually address the question of whether it was a member of the Television New Zealand Board, which is what the question was, and it is material whether or not this was a member of the board.

Speaking to the point of order, I can clear that up and be categorical and say that, no, I did not contact any member at TVNZ, including a board member. I was contacted by a senior member of TVNZ—not a board member. I could name them but I won’t. I think it might be out in the public anyway. But they were very clear and very definitive and very apologetic for what had happened, said that they understood that they operate on a social licence, and that was the end of the conversation. Move on.

Is he aware that it would be illegal for him or anyone acting on his behalf to direct TVNZ regarding their content?

Well, I just answered, and I’ve been very clear about the fact that I was contacted by a member of TVNZ with an apology, because it appears the only ones in this country that don’t realise that crime is improving is Labour and TVNZ.

14:56 · to the Minister of Health

What recent announcements has he made on the use of AI scribes in emergency departments?

Artificial intelligence (AI) scribe technology is now live in all emergency departments (EDs) across New Zealand with the rapid roll-out making it available to 1,250 ED doctors and front-line staff complete—250 more than originally announced following a successful pilot last year. This places New Zealand among the fastest health systems in the world to move from a pilot to nationwide front-line use in our emergency departments of AI scribes. This is a major milestone in reducing administrative burden and freeing up front-line clinicians to focus more on patients. This is what a decisive, outcomes-focused Government looks like.

What impact has AI scribe technology had on productivity and patient flow in emergency departments?

The early results are encouraging. Doctors using the AI tool during the initial pilot were able to see, on average, one additional patient per shift due to time saved. That means faster care for patients, shorter waiting times, and reduced pressure on busy clinicians. The Government is focused on fixing the basics and building the future, and that means practical, real-world improvements that translate directly into faster treatment and shorter waits for patients.

What feedback has he seen from front-line staff about the nationwide roll-out?

After just one month of use at Middlemore emergency department, 80 percent of surveyed staff said the AI scribe improved productivity or efficiency, and 84 percent said it had a positive impact on their overall experience and wellbeing during shifts. That tells us this technology is not only improving patient flow but also supporting the hard-working clinicians on the front line. By cutting down time on paperwork, we’re freeing up clinicians to focus on what matters most: treating patients.

What further steps is the Government taking to expand the use of this technology?

Following strong interest from clinicians, Health New Zealand’s progressing approval of more than 1,000 additional licences, predominantly for use by mental health teams. This Government is committed to delivering modern, digital tools that make a real difference. AI will never replace clinical skill or judgment, but it will increasingly support front-line healthcare staff. That’s why we will continue investing in digital technology that puts patients at the centre of the healthcare system, improving access to care, and delivering better health outcomes for New Zealanders.

14:59 · to the Associate Minister of Health

What announcements has she made regarding tobacco and vape sale compliance?

The Government has taken effective and practical steps to reduce harm from smoking and vaping, particularly among our young people. Today, I announced a major increase in compliance activity, which supports the law changes we made last year to ban disposable vapes and increase penalties for sales to under-18-year-olds. Health New Zealand more than doubled store visits and controlled purchase operations, targeting illegal sales to minors in the last year. Compliance is strong, with upwards of 90 percent of retailers doing the right thing, but a small group of bad actors are holding us back and we need to stop that, which is why we have seen infringement notices more than double over the last year. The infringement efforts have been boosted with the recruitment of an additional 18 compliance officers, with most of them starting work in the last 12 months.

How does this sit alongside other efforts to combat youth smoking and vaping?

Last year, the Government passed the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill, which banned disposable vapes, increased penalties for selling to minors, and tightened retail visibility and proximity routes. The great news is that youth smoking rates are very low and vaping rates are declining, and we want to maintain those trends. That is why I’m pleased that, on Monday, we announced the extra funding for Smokefreerockquest and Smokefree Tangata Beats. These programmes promote a smoke-free and vape-free lifestyle and support wellbeing for our young people. This funding of $550,000 a year is part of a $5.3 million investment towards marketing and quit-smoking campaigns that help toward the Government’s goal to reduce smoking rates and, hopefully, will mobilise the wisdom of our non-smoking young people to guide and encourage the stubborn older smokers who we are trying to reach.

What next steps is she considering?

As I’ve said before, our challenge and focus continues to be getting people to quit smoking. Thankfully, we know our young people aren’t starting; most smokers are now over 40, and we need to reach them to help them quit. There are three areas I want to progress: effectively targeting these smokers with information and support that works—some of that is being done really well, especially by providers working in the Māori and Pacific communities, but we can do more; secondly, mobilising the entire health sector to support the smoke-free goal and providing clear factual information; and, finally, improving the regulatory regime so that it reflects the relative harm of products, has appropriate controls, and is enforceable.

Supplementary?

Supplementary question—Andy Foster. A concise answer would be good.

What will this mean for the regulatory environment?

I am actively working on the regulatory environment with officials. The main considerations are that we have to avoid the pitfalls of introducing a product without regulatory safeguards. The key thing will be to have a regime that is coherent and workable. There is currently a tougher regime for vapes than there is for cigarettes, and we have seen the adverse effects manifest in Australia, where illicit tobacco is the largest part of the market. The wrong settings can and will create unintended outcomes, and we will fix it.

Is it her expectation that enforcement action will be taken when firms that are not specialist vape retailers undertake the home delivery of vapes?

In terms of enforcement action, I am encouraging all activity that is not compliant to be addressed. We welcome complaints to be received by the compliance officers, and they are actively increasing. That is why we have seen a more than doubling of compliance infringement notices, and any non-compliance will be addressed.

15:04

I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

We meet, members, at a time of heightened global uncertainty. We watch, as New Zealanders, our television screens and watch conflict erupting across the Middle East. These events are not abstract for New Zealanders. We feel deeply for those affected directly, for the loss of life and the feelings of insecurity that are being experienced by people across the Middle East. We feel for those New Zealanders so very far from home and uncertain about how they will return. We also contemplate what all of this means for us here at home. It is clear that the escalating tensions involving Iran place real pressure on global shipping lanes, on energy markets, on fuel prices, and on the trade routes that our exporters rely on. We realise that all of this has potential to flow through to the cost of freight, the price at the pump, and the confidence of businesses the world over in making investment decisions.

It is too soon for us to know what those implications will be for New Zealand, let alone, actually, to know what those implications will be for the world. We note with some gratitude that, so far, the effects on international markets and on oil prices have been more muted than some may have predicted, but we are conscious that many events are yet to unfold, and we know that very much depends on the duration, scale, and intensity of the conflict that follows.

As the Prime Minister has made clear, New Zealand is engaging very closely with like-minded partners—Australia and Canada—and we are very focused on protecting our economic and trade interests. In a world like the one we occupy, resilience is a necessity. Fiscal discipline matters now more than ever, energy security matters now more than ever, and economic credibility matters now more than ever. If I can reflect, I feel more grateful than ever that New Zealand is a few islands at the bottom of the world, surrounded by ocean, and very, very far from the conflict that has broken out. Our children, unlike those in the Middle East, do not fear a missile flying over their school. May that ever remain the case.

When these global risks arise, households don’t ignore their budgets; they look carefully at what is coming in, what’s going out, and how they can buffer against the shocks. New Zealand deserves a Government that does the same, one that tells the truth about the books; costs its promises properly; sets out a clear, long-term plan; and responds decisively to the challenges that we face. I must point out that what no New Zealander can afford is a Government that responds to every challenge with these phrases: “Not today.”, “We’ll announce that later.”, “No decisions have been made.”, “You’ll have to wait until after the Budget.”

That is the sum total of what we received from the Opposition, and then what we received is a desire to change dramatically some of the underlying fundamentals that provide New Zealand’s economic security—to rip away the inflation-busting mandate of the Reserve Bank and revert to a policy experiment that corresponded with the period of highest inflation in recent history, 33 months out of target; to recklessly remove the Investment Boost tax policy that is credited with bringing forward investment in firms; to reimpose the tax policy that corresponded with a period of rents rising excessively and driving New Zealanders into more hardship; to restore a pay equity scheme with no idea of where the $12.8 billion to fund it would come from; and to say that there is no plan for energy security other than hoping that it rains. I asked this House, “Please, Opposition, take New Zealanders seriously.” We are living in a serious time, and that demands a serious response.

15:09

The Karori amateur theatrical society wouldn’t even take that on. That was the worst attempt at acting that I have seen since Christopher Luxon tried to ask a question at question time. This is where they are at now.

The Prime Minister is a dud, the finance Minister has no credibility, and they are lashing around for relevance. They have only one option, and that is to blame everybody else. That is the guts of that speech. She’s just shitty because she’s got nothing to complain about. That’s all they want to do. They want us to release policy so that they can talk about that instead of defending their appalling record.

They don’t want to talk about unemployment going up. They don’t want to talk about costs going up. They don’t want to talk about rates, insurance, food, all of which have gone up. They don’t want to talk about the fact that the minimum wage has not kept up with the cost of living. That is their record. That is why, whenever they stand up, they never talk about their record. That is why Christopher Luxon is floundering, and that is why Nicola Willis is under pressure. All they want is a distraction.

You saw this—didn’t you?—last week when Chris Hipkins delivered his state of the nation speech and made a clear commitment that the next Labour Government, soon to be elected in a few months’ time, will be focused on one thing as its main priority, and that is affordability. The best that they could come up with—this is the best that they could come up with—was that the speech was written by AI. That’s it! Then some journo went and checked it out: no, it wasn’t written by AI, but Nicola Willis’ speech was.

I mean, how thick can you be when you think, “I know, I’ve got a zinger! I’m going to say it’s AI, and I am going to be hilarious!” and then it turns out that, actually, you were the one who used AI to write your speech?

AI wrote the joke.

Yeah, AI wrote the joke. I mean, they probably should use AI to write their jokes, because they don’t know what a decent joke is. They think they’ve got a zinger. They walk back to their office and high-five the mirror, but that’s the only reaction they get. They are woeful.

Now, what New Zealanders want to hear from this Government is a track record on delivering on the things that matter to them most. We know that the thing that matters to New Zealanders most is the cost of living. Why haven’t they come up with something that they can point to after two years? They don’t do it, do they? Every time that we ask them a very simple question—do you remember, during the election campaign, they promised that families in this country would receive $250 in support? We have been asking Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon every week for two years to show us the numbers of people who have received $250. Do they answer? No, because the answer is: zero. It is yet another broken promise.

They ran around in their election campaign promising to reduce food prices. There is a list as long as my arm of examples where Nicola Willis and Christopher Luxon promised to reduce food prices, and then when Barb Edmonds asked them to defend themselves and defend their policies, which have had the opposite direction, they have a crack at her personally. That is the modus operandi of this Government: when you back them into a corner, holding them to account on the promises they made and their lack of record in that area, they have a crack at the person asking the question.

The old saying “Play the ball, not the person”, right? All they have is having a crack at people personally. Then, when you turn it around, they cry foul and say, “Oh, they’re having a crack at me.” It’s like that kid at school who used to poke you and poke you and poke you; you’d tell them to bugger off, and then they’d go and cry to the teacher. That is Nicola Willis to a tee, and it is Christopher Luxon as well. This is what happens when you have a Government with no record to stand by and that is not focused on the cost of living.

I’m willing to make a wager, such is my background: I reckon this Government, when they front up at the election campaign and they say, “Look over here, look over there, what about these guys, what about those guys? Don’t look at us; look at them.”, New Zealanders will go, “No, you’ve had your chance.”, and they’ll give them the flick.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member who’s just resumed his seat, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, said that we should play the ball and not the person, but earlier in his speech, he used a term, and I’m sure you might remember it: “She’s just … ”. I just ask: does it help Parliament to normalise that sort of language that normally would be considered unparliamentary? I wonder if the member cares to withdraw it. It’s up to him, but I just think someone ought to consider that, because it brings down the standards for all of us.

Yeah. That’s a term that’s been used in the House before. It was not directed at the member; it was describing a position. That’s the subtle difference. I’m sorry, I’m caught by history here. For the sake of decorum, it might be a good idea to withdraw it, but that’s up to the member. We’ll go to the Hon David Seymour.

15:15

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. It is, certainly, a difficult time for the world as we watch an unpredictable conflict unfold on the other side of the planet. It’s been a difficult six years for many New Zealand households that, I would say, began at a time that we’re about to commemorate, actually, for the seventh anniversary, our nation’s tragedy in Christchurch. At these times, it can be easy to politicise and point the finger, but sometimes what we need to do is ask ourselves some really fundamental questions that might tell us where to go and which way to point in times of uncertainty.

I’ve been thinking about one question, a very simple one: how is wealth created? It may seem like a simple question, it may seem like an obvious question, but the question of how wealth is created tends to divide the political spectrum. On the other side, we get an answer that is simple, appealing, and wrong. Their answer is simply that they can take money off someone else, usually with a new tax, and give it to you. If you listen to the rhetoric of the Green Party, for instance, or Te Pāti Māori especially and often the Labour Party, what they often say is: your problems have been caused by someone else’s success, and if you vote for us, we will take their money off them and give it to you. The problem is they misunderstood the question. If the question was: what is the fastest way to get some money? Then, they’re right; just take it off someone else. Any bank robber knows that. But this problem with socialism—as it’s been said by a very famous person—is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

We, on this side of the House and in the ACT Party, know the real answer to how wealth is created, and that is that people come together in a beautiful thing, and it’s called business. It brings together four types of people who each need something that the other has and they trade value for value to get stronger together. You have entrepreneurs with dreams that they want to make a reality, but they can’t do it by themselves. They come together with workers who have their time and talents to give but maybe don’t have the idea or the thing to work with to create a product. Those two come together with investors who have saved and put aside their money carefully, but they want to get a return from having done that. Those three people—entrepreneurs and workers and investors—come together to provide something for customers that those customers couldn’t make for themselves. The beauty of all this is that nobody is forced to be part of any business, but when people come together voluntarily, they innovate, they experiment, they take risks, and they discover new ways of doing things that allow all of us to live happier, healthier, and wealthier lives.

So often we hear that business is some sort of evil—and they include farms in that, and they beat up on them—but the truth is that we actually need that beautiful human cooperation to become wealthier and to find better ways ahead. Business also needs some things from Government. For example, we need to be safe so that our shops won’t be robbed and our things won’t be stolen and we won’t be beaten up going to the shop or walking to work. That’s why I’m proud to be part of a Government that’s seen crime decrease by 22 percent, already, in the two years through the measures that we’ve taken.

We need to get rid of red tape so that people in business don’t spend their time asking for permission and complying and being inspected and told no. That’s why I’m proud we’re making it easier to get money in from overseas with the Overseas Investment Act. Simon Court, here, is helping replace the Resource Management Act with a law that says “yes” more often. We’re removing things like crazy employment laws that say a person who’s in the wrong can none the less be compensated on a technicality when they’re fired.

All of these things are designed so that beautiful cooperation—where people come together off their own volition to do together what they can’t do alone—can continue in a virtuous circle of becoming wealthier so that our country can prosper and face difficult times from a position of strength. People, as they go into the election this year, should ask themselves a simple question before they vote: do these guys know where wealth comes from, are they trying to take my values, or are they just trying to nick my money? If the other side took that approach, all of us would be a lot wealthier and better off.

15:20

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. This country is built on energy. From the mighty hydro dams, the Rankines at Huntly, and the renewables being built at record pace by this Government, every home and business in this country relies on energy, and abundant and affordable energy is the only way that our economy can grow. But that is under threat due to an incoherent policy from the Labour Party. This is the party that in 2018 banned oil and gas exploration, which directly led to the energy crisis we are experiencing now.

Today, like the burglar returning to the scene of the crime, that same Labour Party is championing the same policy. They have not learnt their lessons. Chris Hipkins has had a rather convenient memory lapse. He started to talk about energy independence when he is the very reason we don’t have it. If he really believes in energy independence, he should lean over and have a chat with his spokesperson, the Hon Megan Woods, and tell her to stop talking about banning domestic gas exploration again. Labour have not learnt their lessons.

The legacy of the oil and gas ban was evident two years ago when businesses and households were being hit by power price spikes. Our most efficient gas-fired power plants were running at half capacity while prices surged. The legacy of the last Government can be seen right here, right now, at the back of Huntly, where over a million tonnes of imported coal are sitting there making up for a lack of gas. I’d encourage every member on the other side of the House to go there and take a look, because that’s your energy legacy and that’s our energy future if that lot gets back in.

There’s a lot that has been said in this House about liquefied natural gas (LNG), but it is important to reflect on what people are saying in the real world. For the sake of time, I’ll give you just one example, from John Harbord, the chair of the Major Electricity Users’ Group: “The status quo is a useful alternative to consider. Not doing something to secure future of gas supply would be to roll the dice with New Zealand’s economy. People might debate whether the LNG import terminal is the best option, but the pragmatic reality is we needed to do something and the Government has.” The other side of the House is proposing nothing because they’ve got nothing.

It’s been a volatile time worldwide, with significant uncertainty, yet the future price of electricity has dropped significantly since this Government’s announcement. As of 3 March, the future price of electricity in this country is down by around 10 percent to 15 percent following our announcement. Every dollar of that helps in the back pocket of a Kiwi business or household, and we cannot risk going back. It is completely irrational and outrageous to propose that we do not get gas to be able to make electricity in this country in a dry year.

There is no surprise that if you do nothing, you get nothing, but that is the policy coming from the Labour Party. It is irrational and it is destructive, potentially, to the New Zealand economy. We saw that destruction play out in reality in 2024. Spot prices of $800 a megawatt hour put Kiwi workers out of business. It ruined Kiwi households and it ruined livelihoods. That is the legacy of a Government that does not have a rational energy policy, does not have a pragmatic understanding of energy—full stop—and we cannot let our economy fall into the hands of those who will roll the dice on our future for the sake of a good political bumper sticker policy. We cannot afford Labour.

15:25

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I wanted to use this time for the House to spare a moment for Chris Bishop. He’s had a really hard few weeks. We had the Infrastructure Commission report come out and he read the evidence. They said, “Don’t pay money for shiny things. Focus on what you’ve got now.”, and he said, “Oh, maybe we should look at reconsidering the Mt Vic Tunnel project.” Then his colleague Nicola Willis came over the top of his decision making and said, “No, we’re definitely building the tunnel.”

Then, the Minister has tried to save face when it comes to housing in our country and tried to plan and zone for more housing in Aotearoa, because the reality is he’s cancelled and delayed 3,000 Kāinga Ora public homes, he’s gutted the construction industry, and he’s brought back no-cause evictions which will make renting more insecure for the million-plus New Zealanders that rent their homes. Then he’s had his colleagues in Auckland come over the top of him again and say, “Actually, we want 400,000 fewer houses in Auckland.”, completely putting a stop to his ambitions to build more housing in New Zealand. So he’s actually taken us back when it comes to the amount of housing available in New Zealand.

The most embarrassing recent blow for the Minister of Housing is that we found out that he has been overruled by his colleague Paul Goldsmith now, who has chosen to completely ignore official advice from the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Housing, who told them that they are not on board with the move-on orders. I don’t know what that advice is because the Government doesn’t actually want to share it with us, but I’m going to look into my crystal ball and assume that the advice probably says that housing people is a lot cheaper than throwing people in prison. The advice probably says that homeless people don’t have $2,000 to pay a fine, therefore they will end up in prison. It probably also says that there’s not even room in the prisons to accommodate the growing number of people that this Government has made homeless.

They ignore advice over and over again. The Government doesn’t know how to use their taringas. They continue to ignore advice. They ignored the advice when officials said, “Hey, if you limit access to emergency housing, you’re going to make more people homeless.” But they did it anyway. When the Government said, “Hey, we might delay thousands of public homes.”, they ignored the advice that said this will make people homeless. No-cause evictions: “This will make people homeless.” They don’t care because they don’t care about advice.

Again, Goldsmith overruled and put Chris Bishop in an embarrassing barrage of actions by his colleagues, undermining him. I feel sorry for Chris Bishop because what that shows me is that it doesn’t pay to be thoughtful and to reconsider your decisions when you have access to new information when you’re in the National Party.

You’d think that his Associate Minister, Tama Potaka, who’s supposed to be ending homelessness, would actually help him out here, but he’s obviously asleep at the wheel. When I wrote to him about a new report about wāhine Māori experiencing homelessness in Wellington City, Tama Potaka didn’t even have the courtesy to reply to my message.

We can’t keep having these massive pendulum swings where the National Party and its Government make decisions that make people homeless and create crises, and then progressive Governments come in with limited time to try and fix those issues and we keep swinging back and forth. We need cross-party consensus that homelessness is not OK and that the most cost-effective, humane way to deal with it is to house people, not to put people into prison.

But I know that side of the House doesn’t understand that because you don’t talk to real people; you sit in your Crown limousines and you drive past them. But if you spoke to them, you’d understand. They don’t know that there are pregnant woman rough sleeping right now who want to keep their babies, who will birth their babies on the street. They don’t know that homeless people are the most at-risk people in town—period. They don’t know that women prefer to sleep in town because if they sleep in a park or under a motorway, they will be raped and beaten. They don’t know that every person who is on the street is not necessarily homeless but is in the grips of mental health and drug addiction crises. They don’t know that children sleeping on the streets are often coming straight from State care or are coming straight out of an abusive household.

Maybe they do know that, which is why move-on orders will apply to people as young as 14. How disgusting is that? Talk to people. They’re right there in every single township. Ask them why they’re there and they’ll tell you it’s as a consequence of your decisions.

Well, I’m feeling a little admonished here, but the Hon Scott Simpson.

15:30

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The opening contribution in this general debate today was from the Minister of Finance, who set out, I thought, a very clear picture of the task that was ahead of this coalition Government in terms of maintaining a steady ship, focusing on economic prosperity, and growing a thriving economy for New Zealand and New Zealanders during a time of geopolitical uncertainty and turmoil.

It’s in that theme that I want to make a contribution this afternoon that relates to my portfolios of ACC and also commerce and consumer affairs. Everything that my colleagues on this side of the House, through this coalition Government—everything that we’re trying to do is about trying to make New Zealanders richer. If we are to achieve everything that we want and desire as New Zealanders in a First World country, if we want the schools, the roads, the education system, the police force, the defence force, and everything that we aspire to wanting, we need to grow our economy and we need to have a wealthier economy, so much of the work that I have been doing in the commerce and consumer affairs portfolio has been very focused on that type of work.

I want to just draw the House’s attention to the fact that it is almost one year since this House passed the customer data legislation that creates the opportunity for what has become euphemistically known as open banking, but it goes so much further than just open banking. So that was the piece of legislation that created the framework that allows our customer data information—data that is often tightly held by big commercial entities—to be shared with trusted, accredited third-party providers who can take that information, analyse it, and then give it back to us as consumers in a meaningful, real, tangible way that enables us as consumers to make wiser, better decisions about how we spend our money and where we place our resources.

Now, the first sector of our economy to be given the treatment under this piece of legislation, if I can put it that way, was the banking sector. Those regulations came into effect on 1 December last year. I’m pleased to report to the House that we are, I think, about 90 percent of the way there in terms of getting this framework established. The reason I say 90 percent is because some of our second-tier banks are going to take a little bit longer. They don’t have the same resource and the same technology available as the big banks have. We gave Kiwibank an extra few months to sort their opportunity out as well.

I’m looking forward to the new, exciting, and imaginative fintech solutions that are going to be available to New Zealanders via this open banking customer data legislation framework, but that’s not where it stops. We’ve already indicated as a Government that the next cab off the rank in terms of using this piece of legislation will be in terms of open electricity. I heard the Minister for Energy speaking about some of the challenges that the nation faces in terms of energy sustainability, in terms of providing security for our energy needs as we face a winter coming up and also a potential dry winter in years ahead. Open electricity is the next cab off the rank, and then, frankly, I’m open to bids as to what might next be an appropriate sector of our economy to open up in the same sort of way. This is all about reform that has meaningful implications for New Zealand consumers and that delivers real results to them, so that’s just one part of the work that we’re doing.

In terms of some changes to the Commerce Commission, we’re going to be looking at how their governance structure works—a more traditional governance model. We’re going to be giving the Commerce Commission some ability to look at things like creeping acquisitions and killer acquisitions and we’re going to be able to put into statute for the first time a statutory definition as to what predatory pricing is. Now, predatory pricing has been illegal for years, but we haven’t had a statutory definition.

ACC is a big part of my portfolio work. I will be speaking more fully about ACC’s work, but I’m pleased to say that the first initial results of their turn-around plan are producing positive results and we’ve got to a point where we’re seeing the best results in many years in terms of rehabilitating New Zealanders, getting them back to independence, and that’s got to be good for those people, it’s good for the system, and it’s good for New Zealand. There is a lot of work yet to do, but I’m hopeful and optimistic about the future of ACC. The Minister of Finance gave a great speech and I recommend to members who didn’t hear it to give it a listen.

15:36

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I think it’s time we had a talk about the real-life impact of the cost of living, of the high unemployment in New Zealand—not just in the numbers that we hear from the Minister of Finance and Economic Growth but from people in New Zealand about what that means in their day-to-day lives; what that actually means for a family in New Zealand or even in the Wellington region.

The unemployment scene in this region alone: there are 10,000 fewer jobs in the Wellington region due to cuts, due to construction companies, due to liquidations, due to people having their lives and their livelihoods lost at the feet of the decisions that this Government has made that have directly impacted upon them.

When someone has lost their job, the cost of living bites even harder. For one family that I spoke to recently in my area in Wainuiōmata, for some time, the main earner in their family, their father, had lost his job in construction. Not long after, Chris Bishop cancelled a whole lot of Kāinga Ora builds right across the region. He lost his job working in construction and after a period of time waiting to find employment and being unsuccessful, he took up a job in Australia working in construction there. They’ve got two children at high school here and so they did not want to take them out of school, so he now is in a better situation to be working in Australia, sending money home to the Hutt Valley and also coming back every few months, when he can afford to, to see his family.

It is families that are divided up and down our country because of the cost of living crisis, because of unemployment, and because wages quite simply cannot pay for food in New Zealand anymore. In my own family, my oldest son has moved to Melbourne to find work there because he cannot find work that pays enough in the Hutt Valley. My brother is a trained schoolteacher who now has a child, but he lives in China because the wages in China for a primary school teacher are far higher than they are here in New Zealand. That means that our family is divided. That means my parents don’t get to see their grandchild. That means, like many other families up and down New Zealand, families are divided because New Zealand’s living standards are failing to keep up with the basic needs of Kiwis, and that is unacceptable.

The harsh reality of what has happened under this National Government is 240,000 New Zealanders have left over the past two years—240,000 New Zealanders have left. That is an absolute disgrace in terms of building a country, in terms of keeping our people who are bright, who offer opportunity and hope. They are being sent offshore in record numbers because they are given nothing to hope for here.

What did we see only last week? We had a brand-new institute set up by the Government only a year ago. We saw the newly formed New Zealand Institute for Bioeconomy Science cut 134 jobs. That is including scientists, including some of the very people that are able to develop products such as golden kiwifruit, which now earns our economy billions of dollars. Now those people are being fired by the Government in more Public Service cuts. The very people that offer the opportunity of economic growth and making our economy work smarter, they are the ones being laid off. They are the ones being driven overseas.

Now, this Government has absolutely no solutions to these problems. How do we know this? Because they keep asking us for policy ideas; keep saying, “Oh, what’s your policy ideas, Labour? We’d like to know some because we’ve got none.” Well, I’ll give you a few. It should be more affordable for New Zealanders to live here. That starts with healthcare; that means that you can go to your local doctor and get a free GP visit. In fact, you can have three a year. If people get their health problems sorted out sooner rather than later, then that might just start to fix our broken hospital system because people who put off that important primary healthcare at their local GP means that it causes bigger problems down the line. The number one solution, if you’re wanting it, to help New Zealanders with the cost of living right now: what we would like to see is three free GP visits. That will help; that’s real.

We want a more affordable New Zealand but more than anything we want a New Zealand that offers our kids hope. We want our people staying here and building a future here, and that’s, sadly, what National will never deliver.

15:41

If anyone needed an example of how sensationally idiotic this Government’s actions are, liquified natural gas (LNG) is it. No sooner had the Government made the decision to subsidise further fossil fuel dependence than the US and Israel attacked Iran. US and Israeli warmongering has resulted in the Strait of Hormuz being, effectively, closed; choking in energy exports; and triggering high prices for oil and LNG. European gas futures have surged more than 40 percent; Asian LNG prices are up about 40 percent; oil prices have surged past $79 a barrel and are expected to go past $100 a barrel. Yet Christopher Luxon’s Government is yet to see the writing on the wall with its plan to make us reliant on LNG.

Who is left to pick up the tab? Who is left to pay? It’s regular Kiwi households who, quite frankly, have had enough. Kiwis will not only pay through high electricity bills but also through more extreme weather events. Goodness knows we’ve had enough from this Government! Christopher Luxon seeks to make us hostage to the global price of LNG when Kiwis are already hurting from austerity. Businesses and manufacturing are closing, and gentailers are simply going to pass that cost on, because electricity prices rose 12 percent in the last 12 months and are predicted to rise another 5 percent this year, before any uptick from LNG. Lines charges are set to go up again from April. We can’t separate this from the cost of living.

Kiwis aren’t so stupid that they’ll believe the Government’s gaslighting on electricity prices when power companies are making record profits, and it doesn’t have to be this way. Kiwis are looking for leadership, not a Government kowtowing to Trump with his climate denialism. The Government’s billion-dollar blunder can still be avoided if Christopher Luxon will admit the mistake and engage with us on solutions.

It was clearly a mistake to prioritise LNG without seriously considering any alternatives. It’s mystifying that the Government rejected official advice on boosting household solar and batteries and still refuses to release 47 official documents detailing the solar advice received. Dalgliesh & Associates were the peer reviewers of the Frontier report. They made it clear that dry-year risk is really a market issue because, here in Aotearoa, we have significant firming resources available right now, today.

Now it’s an opportunity to walk back the LNG decision, when will the Government walk back this decision? When will the Government engage on long-term, durable solutions? We need to say RIP to LNG, and yes to energy security through our abundant renewables and greater energy efficiency. The Government should have given equal weight to assessing other factors that contribute to the dry-year risk premium, such as the market power, the delayed build, and our untapped energy-efficiency potential.

To provide a window for a portfolio of measures and new investments, we can pre-contract Huntly to run, if required, with biomass. The Government can require the current renewables pipeline to be built at pace. These immediate actions would create a window for new investments and to finalise the New Zealand Battery Project work—the portfolio. Government has all the tools at its disposal. Why won’t it use them?

What we’re seeing this week is a Government that cannot plan, cannot prepare, and cannot deliver energy solutions. It cannot condemn an illegal war; it cannot protect households from price gouging; it cannot listen to its own officials on solar; and it cannot see that the billion-dollar bet it has placed on LNG is unravelling before the ink is even dry on the paper.

This Government has a choice: keep doubling down on fossil fuels that are already failing or it can change course. It can invest in solar that its own officials said would work, and back homegrown energy. We should be more resilient, not more exposed. The path to affordable, secure energy is not through a billion-dollar gas terminal linked to the world’s most volatile shipping routes. We need a Government that backs homegrown energy for the people who live here. We need a Government that will act for our people, for Kiwis; not a Government that will act for the corporates. Kia ora.

15:46

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

What did you get up to in the diary?

On Sunday, on a truly stunning Wairarapa day—just for you, Mr McAnulty—at local MP, awesome MP, Mike Butterick’s farm, Nicola Willis made an announcement that we are we are fast tracking changes to KiwiSaver; changes that will literally change lives. Since 2010, Kiwis have been able to withdraw from their KiwiSaver account to help buy their first home, but the current legislation says that it must be their principal place of residence. That last bit—principal place of residence—has locked thousands of people off the property ladder.

Our Government knows what a great motivator it is to be able to buy your first home with your KiwiSaver. We know it encourages and incentivises saving for young people, and we also know how much of a benefit it is in your retirement if you own your own home, in terms of your health, wellbeing, financial security, and your social benefits. Sunday’s announcement was about levelling the playing field for thousands of hard-working Kiwis across New Zealand; people in service tenancies who, as part of their employment contract, live where they work: military personnel, doctors, clergy, teachers, police officers. The numbers tell the story: 235 education workers, 240 police, 850 defence staff.

In 2024, a Federated Farmers survey said that about 73 percent of dairy farmers, 66 percent of sheep and beef, and 51 percent of arable had farm workers who lived on their farm. If you extrapolate that out, it is literally thousands of people who have been locked out of the opportunity that their city cousins have.

I want to take you back a few years. The flame was lit for me when Tirrell, our stock manager on the farm, came to us and said he had a problem. He had money in his KiwiSaver account; he was keen to buy his first home but he wasn’t allowed to. I didn’t believe him. I checked with the bank manager. The bank manager said Tirrell was right, and it was a problem for Tirrell and it didn’t seem fair to us.

So I talked about this when I was campaigning in 2023. I put a member’s bill in the ballot in 2024: the KiwiSaver (First Home for Farmland and Service Tenancy Tenants) Amendment Bill. Our rural Nats got behind it too; we’ve got real strength in numbers, National Party MPs in this Parliament. We are all determined to champion rural issues and solve problems, and this was a problem that needed solving.

Karla DeWitt from Te Aroha, Danielle Hoffman from Morrinsville; passionate and vocal advocates for change. We weren’t alone in this pursuit. Mike Osborne in Kimbolton used to ring me regularly, so did Simon Perry in Hunterville. Federated Farmers had it on their wish list. It was number three of the 12 policy priorities they had for the 2023 election. I’d especially like to acknowledge Richard McIntyre and Oliver Ibbotson and our local Manawatū/Rangitīkei chair Ian Strawn for their advocacy and their occasional robust debate on the issue.

Karl Dean, the national dairy chair, was at the announcement on Sunday, which was great, and Wayne Langford led the charge. People across the country have been advocating for these changes to KiwiSaver. I’d like to say a huge thanks to the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, for driving this initiative and for picking it up as a Government bill. Thanks also to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Scott Simpson, and to our coalition partner, too. One other part of the bill that I didn’t mention is that it also allows first-time farm buyers to put their KiwiSaver balance towards the purchase of a farm and a home where they’ll live, but in the name of a commercial entity. As Minister Scott Simpson has said, this change reflects the commercial reality of modern farm ownership.

I stand here incredibly proud to be part of a Government that backs rural and provincial New Zealand—the engine room of New Zealand—that backs hard-working Kiwis to get ahead, and that is relentlessly focused on fixing the basics and building the future. The last word, I think, has to go to Tirrell. As Mike Hosking said on his breakfast show last year, this is Tirrell’s bill, and so I’m very grateful for the motivation. Thank you.

15:51

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. Ikaroa-Rāwhiti brings the light to Aotearoa each and every day, but, boy, does this Government try hard to dim it. Ikaroa-Rāwhiti is dealing, as is Aotearoa, with the broken promises of this National-led Government. Do you know what we haven’t heard for a while? “Back on track”, because even the members opposite know that we’re well off the track; in fact, we’re on a fast track backwards.

Let’s take a tour of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti to demonstrate exactly how far off the track we are. We will start in the south, at Wainuiōmata, an area where food banks are now struggling—struggling to make ends meet. The very organisations established to serve the communities are struggling to provide. What they have noticed is that the promise of this Government to help the squeezed middle has been an absolute lie. This Government, instead of closing the wealth divide, has actually created a whole new class of pōharatanga—of dependants—a class where people who are working two jobs are struggling to make ends meet and requiring the services of food banks, who are struggling.

Now, where shall we go next? How about Wairoa? In Wairoa, we know it was hammered by Cyclone Gabrielle, as if that was not enough—and no doubt that’ll be debated in the planned infrastructure debate coming up next—since then, there has been zero aged-care in Te Wairoa. It’s not just the high unemployment driving families apart; when our elderly have to leave their communities and their families, that impact is massive, not just on the whānau and not just on the physical, mental, and spiritual health of the patient, but, of course, for the community losing all that intellectual property.

Let’s skip back further, up to Heretaunga, in Ngāti Kahungunu. This Government likes going on about housing and saying how wonderful it was that they moved people out of motels—to where? Housing looks like different things to different people. Some people were very grateful to have a caravan at a camping ground. Well, now the Heretaunga camp has closed, more people are going to be pushed out to goodness knows where. We know they cannot afford the standard rent in this country—so then what? Now, with the move-on law, they’re going to be flushed out and probably sent to prison, where we’re going to end up paying a lot more to keep them. How out of touch can you be to not understand the basic needs of your constituents?

Now, where shall we go? Let’s talk about the East Coast, and, of course, it would be remiss of me not to while we’re talking about the infrastructure bill coming up. The request from the people of Te Araroa, Wharekahikā, Pōtaka—who still live every day with the fragility of State Highway 35—is simply: “Please, do not forget us.” E hika mā! This flood happened on 21 January, and there has been one announcement. They want some hope, some indication that the major arterial line through the East Coast, which services not only the economy but is a major health access solution for our whānau there—please remember them. A good feed of KFC is awesome, whānau, but it ain’t going to fix our roads. We’re going to need a lot more buckets of KFC to fix State Highway 35!

That said, with the limited time I have, I want to end in the Wairarapa, where my team had a wonderful couple of days at the end of last week. We spent time at Pūkaha, a great example of co-governance and partnership, and where we got to hear the phrase “Tino Rangitānetanga!” and witness the blessing of Kurahaupō waka, who had our tipuna Whātonga at the taurapa. Why that sat with me and why it’s so special is that while this Government may waste time debating ridiculous legislation that seeks to undermine the spirit of our communities, you will fail, because the mana sits in each and every community. Tēnā tātou.

15:56

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can’t help but admire the passion that Cushla Tangaere-Manuel has for her province. I have similar passion for my province, for Taranaki.

Let me tell you a little bit about the history of Taranaki. Did you know that 1865 was when the first oil was found in Taranaki? Down by Port Taranaki, it was and—guess what!—today, we still have oil sheens come on to the harbour, on to the water. People think that there’s been a leak off a ship or something like that. It’s not, because it’s coming out of the ground.

That is how significant oil and gas is in Taranaki, but guess what’s happening today! Our economy is diving. We have got unemployment happening—there are actually, prospectively, 3,300 people who are going to be losing their jobs because of the trajectory of oil and gas demise in our province. Our GDP is diving. We have a very proud province, with the fact that we had the second to highest GDP per capita in New Zealand for many, many years, behind only this place here—Wellington—with all the politicians and everybody else, and all the others who are down here. The fact is that we’ve been striving very good; that is now diving as a result of the demise of oil and gas.

What’s happened with oil and gas? Well, in 2018, we had a policy announcement from the other Government that actually took away the exploration of oil and gas. They did preserve it on the land of Taranaki, but, I can tell you, the decision knocked the confidence right out of the companies that we need to keep the lights on and keep the energy going here in New Zealand. It was a travesty.

Now, I respect the fact that Governments of the day have the right to be able to create policy, but I do not respect policies that have been derived with no quality process to back it up. It was a fact that when that policy was announced in 2018, no officials and no industry knew anything about it. Wouldn’t you think it would be right to go and talk to the people that know the most about this, and at least talk about what are the potential ramifications of such a policy? Well, that Government did not do it, and it was a travesty. Do you know why it was a travesty? Not because of the energy complications we have to our country at the moment—I’ll talk to that—but also the fact that the world started to look at New Zealand differently.

New Zealand was looked at as being a reliable place to be able to develop policy. We did the right thing: we did a lot of research, and we were very careful about how we developed policy. That was the first time we had a major policy that presented out of the blue. It was the Prime Minister of the day’s “nuclear moment”, I think she called it. It was incredible, and the demise of that is shown today. Taranaki is wearing the brunt of it, and—guess what!—energy-wise, New Zealand is wearing the brunt of it.

Let’s talk about energy. This is about gas, primarily. First of all, let’s understand coal. We’ve got this big stockpile of coal, and the Minister for Energy spoke to it. It’s currently sitting at 1.2 million tonnes of coal. Now, you might think “Well, that’s a lot.”, but how much is that? If you think of the big ship that brings coal into this country, that’s 35,000 tonnes. If you think about a truck that’s on the road with an “H” on it, they can carry about 35 tonnes on it, so one shipment is 1,000 trucks to get it there—down to Huntly—for it. That’s one shipment. If you want to get 1.2 million tonnes of it, this is in the realms of about 35 of those shipments, to actually get that. This is an immense mountain of coal—and what is it replacing? It is a firming energy, because we don’t have enough reliable natural gas. It’s a burning fuel that is said to be at least 40 percent cleaner than coal.

Now, when I look at the fact sheet, back in the day, when Labour brought in that particular policy, they said this was for environmental reasons. How can it be environmental reasons when you’re taking away gas and generating electricity, and you’re replacing it with coal? Unbelievable. We need to restore the confidence of finding indigenous natural gas. We’ve had to, as a Government, announce a liquified natural gas policy because we’re struggling to regain the confidence in natural gas being found here in New Zealand, and that side of the debating chamber are holding the country to ransom—[Interruption]—with regards to high electricity prices and a quality, secure energy network. We need to get—I even hear it from the Green member, that we need a long-term energy strategy. I can’t argue with that. But when you’re being dictated to by the Opposition that they won’t allow for oil and gas in the future, that leaves the very question of how strong our network’s going to be. We’ve got to be better than that.

16:01

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to talk about something important today, and that is medicines. Not structures, not slogans, not press releases—medicines—because when someone is sick, nothing else matters.

I’ve been really lucky to have joined the Hon David Seymour over the last few weeks as Pharmac has made a series of announcements about new treatments for New Zealanders. For those people who need those medicines, it’s not about politics; it’s about hope. When a cancer drug becomes available that wasn’t there before, it’s not a policy win; it’s actually about a family getting more time together—people will be able to spend more time with their loved ones. When a chronic condition gets a treatment funded, that’s not a line in the Budget; that’s about someone being able to get out of bed, go to work, be independent, and contribute to New Zealand. When a rare disorder finally has a treatment option, that’s not about bureaucracy; it’s actually about a parent, and a person in our society being able to breathe again—being able to relax and actually enjoy their life. That’s what fixing what matters in health looks like.

For too long, our health system’s been drifting; it’s been focused away from patients. Obviously, this week we’ve been discussing refocusing our health system with the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act changes. We’ve become obsessed with structure and ideology, and that’s not what we want in health; we want it to actually be about patients.

So let me be clear: ACT has been clear that the health system needs to deliver quality, timely care to New Zealanders, and that means actually focusing on outcomes. We’re very proud of the changes we’ve made with Pharmac and actually changing that organisation to make sure it’s delivering for New Zealanders who need important medicines. New Zealanders deserve treatments not based on identity or politics or what box they have to tick. Illnesses don’t discriminate; they can hit a family at any time and an individual at any time. Access shouldn’t discriminate, either.

Actually, healthcare is one of the biggest costs to Government. There’s a lot of pressure, obviously, facing our healthcare system, and when some medicines aren’t funded, that means people aren’t actually getting the treatment and can contribute to society in the way they want, and also can’t spend time with their families and loved ones. That actually affects our whole society. People may not be able to work; they may not be able to earn wages, pay taxes. They may not be able to care for their children, their loved ones. It also often means more interaction with the healthcare system—going to hospital, visiting GPs, putting more pressure on our system. So, when we fund treatments, we often relieve pressure on other parts of our health system, which is really, really good.

Last night, I was actually lucky enough, along with my Government colleague Nancy Lu from the National Party, to join an online meeting that was in relation to triple-negative breast cancer. For those who know a little bit about breast cancer, if you get a diagnosis of triple-negative breast cancer, that is actually very, very serious. There are less treatment options if you have a diagnosis of triple-negative breast cancer. We were invited to join this meeting by Catherine Cooke. Some of you across health may have been lobbied by her. Catherine is a very, very ferocious advocate for trying to get another treatment funded in New Zealand for triple-negative breast cancer. We were very lucky to actually hear the stories from some amazing women: Dr Stone, Ellie, Jackie, Imogen, Annette. They were able to talk about their experience with breast cancer and, actually, what having treatments means. So I want to acknowledge Catherine for all her advocacy—and if she does send you an email and does request the meeting, you should take it and learn more about what she’s trying to campaign for.

But, look, I want to say that this Government is committed to more treatments for New Zealanders, we are committed to ensuring Pharmac is fit for purpose, and we are committed to ensuring that we actually have a healthcare system where we invest upfront to actually ensure New Zealanders have the health outcomes, are able to contribute to society, and really be able to raise their families and live the lives they want. That’s what fixing what matters in healthcare means. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

16:06

I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the committee of the whole House stages of the Public Finance Amendment Bill, the Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill, the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill, the Legislation Amendment Bill; and the second readings of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, and the Financial Markets Conduct Amendment Bill.

16:07

I move, That this House take note of the National Infrastructure Plan.

The National Infrastructure Plan is a wake-up call for many people in this House and, indeed, I would say, in New Zealand. It came about because the Government was elected on the idea of establishing a 30-year national infrastructure plan for the country. Rather than write that plan ourselves through the Treasury and through other Government agencies, we tasked the independent Infrastructure Commission with coming up with the plan. I think that was very important, and it’s given the plan a degree of credibility and independence that, I think, has been widely welcomed by many members of this House and, indeed, many members of the public.

It’s worth noting that we’ve had national infrastructure plans before—there was one back in 2010, I think, and then there was another one in 2011—but they were, if I can be so bold as to say, largely politically generated documents. This is a plan that actually takes an independent, clear-eyed assessment of the state of our system and what needs to change.

They have made a compelling case for change. We face significant challenges as a country: ageing stock; backlog of maintenance and renewals; an ageing population; and increased exposure to natural hazard events, as members of the House know so well from recent days, weeks, and months. The system we have is underperforming. One common quote or statistic that has been used a lot is that we’re in the top 10 percent in the OECD for spending, but the bottom 10 percent for what we get for our spend. I’ve been shocked since becoming infrastructure Minister at the state of asset management: fourth to last in the OECD for asset management. Central government agencies not following basic rules on basic investment management—agencies who don’t have asset registers, don’t have long-term investment plans, don’t do the basics. What that manifests in is leaky police stations, mouldy military homes, rotting classrooms, and, in 2018, a hospital with raw sewage seeping into the walls.

It became a subject for political debate. I remember, back then, when I was a youthful Opposition MP, the debate was more about what we were going to do about it—which is now being fixed, belatedly—but, actually, we should have been asking the question: how did we get here in the first place? How did this happen? How did we end up with raw sewage? I think it was Middlemore Hospital. Getting our system right is a must; it’s not a nice-to-have. I think, as everyone acknowledges, infrastructure is the enabler of economic growth and productivity, and I don’t think anyone’s going to disagree with that.

We have a proud history of infrastructure delivery in New Zealand. In the 1870s, we built a Fell system to get trains over the Remutaka Ranges, and in the mid-1900s, we built a 9-kilometre tunnel under the Remutakas. In the 1950s, we built the Auckland Harbour Bridge, and we used tolls to recoup the cost of building the bridge. In the 1960s, we built Manapōuri, which generates electricity now for 600—

Yeah.

What’s that? Well, it’s the truth, I mean if you’re arguing we didn’t use tolls; we did.

She said yes.

Oh, you said yes—OK. You’re good.

Already paid for.

Well, actually that’s the point. It has been paid for; the capital costs have been paid for, but there are ongoing running costs of the network. That’s actually one of the insights of the report, Mr Halbert, which is that once you’ve paid for something, it’s fine, but you have to maintain it, and maintaining things is what we’ve been really bad at. That little vignette from across the House actually demonstrates precisely the problem we’re dealing with. The debate’s not a party political debate, but it is an interesting insight into the challenges we’ve got as a country. In the 1965, we built the Cook Strait cable between Benmore and Lower Hutt. We used to be world leaders. Now, we find it difficult to consent solar farms and to build new buildings.

There’s a couple of options that are before the country, actually. One is we can just muddle along and look at the plan and say, “Oh, yep, well, a bunch of experts have given us some interesting things.” That’s kind of been the status quo approach for the last few years; I call it managed mediocrity. Managed decline’s another word for it—it’s kind of where we’re at. Or we can actually face up to it, face the hard truths, and make some tough decisions on tolling, upzoning, planning, and actually get an assurance system in place so we get greater scrutiny of central government and more.

There are a number of recommendations in the report that I think are very important, some of which the Government has work under way on and some of which we need to do more work on. They talk about a sustainable framework for planning. Now, we’ve got Resource Management Act reform under way. The Environment Committee is ploughing through the submissions, and I’ve read some of them as well. Creating a durable framework to make it easier to consent and build and maintain infrastructure is very important. It’s something that I’m personally committed to.

They talk about upzoning around rapid transit stations. It’s very important that, as a country, we’re able to take advantage of these large public investments in things like City Rail Link stations, Eastern Busway, Northwest Busway—that will come over time—and train stations in the Wellington commuter area. That’s something we’ve got important work under way on. It’s, obviously, backwards and forwards in Auckland at the moment, but we’ll get there.

There’s a lot in the report around making better use of what we’ve already got through things like managing demand on our roads. That is a word for congestion pricing and time of use pricing. Parliament, last year, passed time of use pricing legislation unanimously, and I was really pleased by that, and I was really pleased to engage with the Opposition around finding a framework that we can all accept. Having a framework is one thing; implementing it is going to be challenging. As I said when we did the committee stage, implementing it is going to get noisy, and it’s going to get rough. My plea for everybody, for all decision makers in Government and Opposition, is that we have a mature approach to this, because making better use of what we’ve got involves things like time-of-use charging and congestion charging, which will raise efficiency and productivity and help drive growth, but it’s going to require, frankly, a degree of maturity from us all that maybe some of us—all of us, probably—have not displayed in the past.

My plea, also, is that we take an evidence-led approach to this. I will express a degree of frustration at the debate around the second harbour crossing in Auckland. The second harbour crossing in Auckland is going to be a project that’s required at some point in the future. There’s a bit of debate around when it’s required, but it’s going to be required. That will be the biggest infrastructure project ever built in New Zealand history by any order of magnitude. It will be billions and billions of dollars. I’m not going to put a number on it, because we don’t know actually how much it will cost. That’s, again, another insight of the report—that politicians have got to stop making announcements about things they’re going to build without knowing how much they cost. Again, I say that’s something we’ve all got to take seriously. It’s going to be billions. Now, that has to be paid for. There’s a couple of answers as to how—well there’s a number of things in the middle, but there’s kind of two choices: one is users help fund it, which is how the second harbour crossing was built in the first place; the other is that we borrow, or some combination thereof.

The idea that we’d ask the good residents of Napier—where I was the other day, straight after that news came out—to pay higher taxes to fund the debt on the Crown balance sheet, to build a road that they’ll probably never use except maybe once a year when they go up to Auckland for a weekend break—that’s a stiff ask for the people of Napier. It’s a stiff ask for the people of Christchurch. It’s a stiff ask for the people of Wellington. I’m not saying that tolls are the answer to everything. They aren’t, but they’re part of the solution towards moving towards more user-pays things.

Here’s the other insight in the report that I think a lot of people have kind of woken up to in the last two weeks since it’s been published: stuff isn’t free. Ultimately, everything has to be paid for, and there’s a range of different ways to pay for that. Ultimately, there is no magic money tree at the bottom of the garden. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are not magic. PPPs are a procurement tool; they are not a funding tool. Again, there’s some very good information in the report around that.

The process from here: we’re going to see what people think of the report; we’re having the special debate. The Government is statutorily obliged to respond by mid-June. Our intention, as a Government, is to work up a Government response and to engage with the Opposition around that response. My hope is that we could get to some degree of consensus around many of the recommendations. Some of them are really eminently sensible recommendations. We’ve already got work under way around assurance, and, as I said to the Opposition spokesperson in the House a couple of weeks ago, we’re doing some thought there. We will be engaging with the Opposition around that. Then, as we move towards June and July, there will be potentially another opportunity for a second special debate on this as well.

Could I just take 30 more seconds, Madam Speaker, if that’s OK?

I’ll grant it today in the interests of the fact that you’re asking for some sort of joint effort.

I just wanted to close by saying my genuine, strong view is that it’s a bit of an inflection point for the country around infrastructure. That will only be true if we listen to what the experts have been saying to us, actually, frankly, for quite a long time now: don’t overpromise; don’t overbuild; look after what you’ve got; work out the benefit-cost ratios of things and what’s actually value for money; establish a pipeline that most people can get behind, still with a bit of room for political argy-bargy, but a sustainable long-term pipeline; get the planning reform right; make better use of what you’ve got; make use of the infrastructure that’s already there.

You know, if we can agree on those basic principles—

If we can agree quickly, because you’re way over your 30 seconds that you just asked for.

—lock and load for the next 20 years, this Parliament will have made a massive contribution to New Zealand’s future. Thank you.

We now have a split call with Labour.

16:18

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The Labour Party supports the work of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission and commends it on the production of the National Infrastructure Plan. It’s long been clear that infrastructure has not been done well in this country. That’s why, under the previous Labour Government, the Infrastructure Commission was established. That is why we have always lent our support towards the work of this plan. We saw it as a natural progression of the work that we’ve done when in Government, and, frankly, that is what the sector wants to see. The very clear message from the sector—and when I say the sector, I don’t just mean infrastructure. It is every sector; about 17 that are referred to in the plan who are sick and tired of the stop-start carry-on that they have seen in this country for far too long.

I think we’ve actually seen in recent debates in this House—and for about 30-odd seconds the Minister’s contribution there—that we are prone to wading into arguments amongst ourselves when, actually, the sector just wants to see where we can agree, and the National Infrastructure Plan sets a pathway there. We have to be realistic, though; we’re not going to agree on everything. But surely we can make genuine efforts to agree on the settings by which infrastructure is assessed and funded and delivered in this country. If we can make genuine inroads in getting to that point, we will provide a lot of the certainty that the sector is after.

Now, if we’re honest with ourselves, we will recognise that there are broadly two reasons why projects get cancelled. We’ve seen it in recent history. They either get cancelled for political reasons, like we saw with the ferries, or they get cancelled because an incoming Government realises that all the promises and announcements that were made by the previous Government haven’t actually been funded, and there’s no plan by which to fund them. Both of those things can be avoided if we do one simple thing, and I don’t propose this as a criticism; I propose this to improve the work that the Infrastructure Commission does. If all Crown infrastructure went through the independent assurance process that the Infrastructure Commission has set up, then we will go a long way to avoiding the cancellation of projects that we have seen in the past.

Now, if we all just take a moment to reflect on our own communities, we all know of a project that was stopped. We all know the disruption that caused, and we know the human impact on those that have lost jobs, many of whom have had to leave and go to Australia because there wasn’t that certainty for their employer to keep them on or to take on new employees or to upskill the staff that they kept. It is about confidence and about certainty, and one way to assure that is if we get the settings right, then it doesn’t actually matter what is going to happen at an election, because they know that infrastructure projects have been properly assessed and nothing has been promised without an ability to pay for it.

I agree with the Minister that we need to move away from that, but let’s identify the elephant in the room: there has been $56 billion of transport commitments made by this Government and there is a $30 billion hole in how to pay for it. Minister Bishop has admitted that himself, so this isn’t a political statement; it is a statement of fact. He has now started making speeches publicly acknowledging that and indicating that the promises they’ve made probably won’t be happening on the time frame that they originally said, and good on him for doing that. But that is one step of probably about a dozen that need to be made to avoid that in the future.

We simply cannot have a situation where, for electioneering purposes, many regions in the country are promised a big new infrastructure project without that having a proper independent assessment and without a genuine plan on how to pay for it. If the Government was willing to require all Crown infrastructure, including the New Zealand Transport Agency, to go through the independent assurance processes of the Infrastructure Commission, we can have an informed debate—us as a Parliament—and respective Governments can make informed decisions and we will avoid the stop-start carry-on, because Governments won’t have the political grounds to cancel things or they won’t have inherited decisions that were based on a lack of information, and the sector and those that work in it can have the certainty they’ve been asking for.

16:24

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just before I continue the thought trail of the previous speaker, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, I want to just acknowledge my grand-auntie, Auntie Kolotita in Samoa. She turned 100 yesterday—so she is older than lots of the infrastructure in New Zealand. The Prime Minister of Samoa was very gracious to be at her party yesterday, so I just want to say manuia lou aso soifua tinā.

I go back to the infrastructure problem that we have here in New Zealand and why this plan actually will give us hope as a country. That’s what I believe this plan will set out. The problem we have in New Zealand is not how much we spend on infrastructure; it’s the actual fact that we do not get value for money for what we spend and we do not look after our assets properly. Successive Governments have all had a part to play in this, and my genuine hope as the spokesperson on finance for the Labour Party is that we get a bit closer to removing the politics, so that New Zealand can have the infrastructure we deserve.

We know there is a whole big plan, a pipeline of work that’s under way, and this particular plan actually sets out how much is in that pipeline. There are 11,925 projects currently under way by both the Government or local government. This costs $275 billion in planning or delivery. That is the size of the problem that we have at the moment, and 98 percent of that pipeline are smaller projects which are worth less than $100 million. This plan sets that out very, very clearly, and that work in relation to finding out what projects there were in the whole of the country started back in 2020, and it was important that that picture started to be built. I want to acknowledge the previous Minister of Finance, Grant Robertson, who first of all set up the Infrastructure Commission in 2018 and then asked them to, basically, go around the country and figure out how much New Zealand has under way and what we need to do, because you don’t know how big your problem is until you actually measure it.

Then what happened was, in 2022, the Infrastructure Commission set out a strategy, so that, therefore, gives a sort of a pathway as to what the next steps are. I do want to acknowledge Minister Bishop, who did continue the work, kept the Infrastructure Commission, and that is just as important—the fact that he kept the independent Infrastructure Commission, and, therefore, refined the pipeline, and now we get to this plan.

It’s so important to make sure we set out that history, because, over time, the hope is that the politics is out of this so that we can keep our workers here, because what we’ve seen in the last two years is the loss of 18,000 construction sector roles—and this is not a political statement; this is a fact. This is what happens when you stop, start, review, pause, and cancel projects. That is the result: we lose our most skilled and capable, and, therefore, when the actual infrastructure starts to wind up, supply and demand comes in and we start to pay more, and that is, effectively, again the problem that this plan starts to try and address.

The plan builds on the vision that the Infrastructure Commission hope to have delivered on from their initial strategy back in 2022. The number one thing I heard when I was the spokesperson on infrastructure for a bit in 2024 was that the sector was screaming out for the politics to be taken out. They were screaming out; they screamed out so much. They wrote to the Prime Minister in May 2024 asking him to please talk to the Opposition, find a bipartisan way to do this, because we are losing our most skilled workers, and, when they say “skilled”, it wasn’t just the people who were digging the holes or holding the lollipop signs. New Zealand was losing our best engineers. We were losing our best architects. It didn’t help that sometimes they’ve cancelled projects and we lost some of our best geoseismic engineers. But this plan gives me hope and it’s on all of us in this House to work as closely as possible to deliver it.

16:29

I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not.

Sorry. Madam Speaker, there needs to a description as to what the explanation is for. Could we get a description as to what the explanation is for?

OK. Yeah, sure; sorry. I wish to correct a statement that I made during the second reading of the Anzac commemoration bill.

So there was no objection to that request? OK; thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, During that address, I stated that civilians served in Bong Son; I should have said Quy Nhơn. I’d like to shout out to Peter Stitt for pointing it out to me. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I really welcome this debate, I welcome the National Infrastructure Plan that has been delivered to Parliament, and I, absolutely, welcome and congratulate Minister Chris Bishop on the work that he has done and the wero he has put out to all of us to work together to have a more sensible and informed plan for long-term infrastructure.

Ironically, I think if you went back to when I first came into Parliament in 2011, one of the reasons I talked about for getting involved in politics was the conviction that we could do so much better on infrastructure. Our buildings could be warmer and dryer, we could be using more renewable electricity, we could have better public transport, and it would benefit literally everyone in the country to do those things, but it required changes in policy and funding and it required some political leadership in order to achieve that.

I’m sure many New Zealanders have had the experience of going overseas and staying in houses and finding that, actually, it’s possible to be in a house that doesn’t cost a fortune to run, and yet it is warm and dry; or perhaps of going to a city overseas of the same size as towns and cities in New Zealand and finding really excellent, affordable public transport, or, potentially, even going to places where bikes are a normal way to get around, and where 30 or 40 percent of trips in a city might be by bike and all the kids are still walking and biking to school. The thing about taking this smarter approach to infrastructure is that it’s better fiscally for New Zealand, it’s better economically for New Zealand, it’s better for our environment and our climate, and it’s better for our people, and so I absolutely think it’s something that we should be able to find a way to agree, across the House, on how to do that.

I do think that what’s laid out in the National Infrastructure Plan gives us some really important information that we have to take seriously, and also some recommendations on long-term system shifts. The number one recommendation is to lift hospital investment because we have an ageing population and we haven’t kept up with hospital investment for some decades.

The second one is completing catch-up on renewals in the water sector and restoring affordability. I’m aware that the Wellington region, and particularly my electorate, is facing the end of life for some of our waste-water treatment plants and it has a significant need for renewal of assets. One of the challenges that I think we need to address is funding. Yes, it’s possible that user charges could pay for some of it, but that might actually be quite difficult in the short term, and local government simply hasn’t had the share of Government revenue that’s needed to be able to invest in infrastructure. Thirty-three percent of our GDP is central government taxation, and only 4 percent is local government, and local government is responsible for a lot of really important infrastructure. I think there’s a role for central government to ensure that local government has the revenue sources it needs, or devolved funding, for some of these important infrastructure upgrades that are needed.

The third recommendation is implementing time-of-use charging and fleet-wide road-user charges. I think that is really important, and it will change some of the prioritisation and sequencing of some of the projects that the Government currently has—I mean, I’d highly recommend that everyone looks at this.

Just bringing it back, and speaking for the Green Party, I’d say that everyone in New Zealand wants long-term thinking and wants the system to be better. We need to meet the challenge of climate change, we have to reduce emissions, we have to adapt to the storms that are already going to come, and there are ways to create sustainable systems that actually reduce costs for New Zealanders while also reducing pollution and emissions and also improving the environment in which we live in a way that protects us from future storms, but it requires change to how we have done things, and what I have found is that there is a certain path dependency. There’s always a constituency for the status quo, and so it’s very easy for politicians to campaign against changes. I think that we all need to recognise where some changes are going to benefit all of us or most of us, and then we all have a role to play in showing that political leadership and helping explain what the long-term benefits of those changes will be.

The other reality is that there’s a certain political economy around new projects and megaprojects, and that is very well referenced in this report. It says that we have “more megaprojects in planning than the country can realistically fund or deliver, [so] providers need to prioritise low-cost, incremental upgrades over waiting for expensive, fully formed solutions. This is especially important in health and transport, where megaprojects threaten to crowd out other priorities like essential maintenance and renewals.”

Something that I think we all need to recognise is that it’s a lot sexier to campaign on a new project, but, actually, everybody’s lives and cost of living can be improved by smaller improvements that are harder to point to, but are necessary. I’ve seen someone reference recently that nobody really welcomes or notices a bridge that didn’t fail, and so you tend not to have politicians campaigning on maintenance and renewals. This report is saying that we have to use what we have better and we have to focus on maintaining and renewing, and I would say that the power to do this is in the Government’s hands—it’s in this Government’s hands.

The power to make the changes recommended in this report sits with this coalition Government right now, and we welcome the opportunity for the Minister to come to us and have a negotiation around what is going to be pared back and what we could do instead. Just to put it in context, there’s $56 billion worth of State highway projects that were campaigned on by the National Party, who assumed it would only be $17 billion. Now, we know it could be $22 billion to have a fully grade-separated, four-laned road from Warkworth to Whangārei, and just the first stage of that is probably $4 billion. That project hasn’t been submitted to the infrastructure priorities list for assessment, and, as I understand it, the Government is intending to sign a public-private partnership for the first stage of that project before the next election.

Clearly, the information around the cost of the project has substantially changed since the party signed up to the coalition agreement promising it. If we want to take seriously the recommendations in this report and the idea that we should have a cross-party approach to long-term infrastructure, then the Government should come to the Opposition parties and we should talk about what we could do instead, and not sign future Governments up to a project that probably isn’t the best use of money to get the outcomes that everybody wants.

What else could we do with $22 billion? Well, four City Rail Links—I mean, the biggest, most complicated project that’s going to double the capacity and transform Auckland; four of those—seven fully equipped Dunedin Hospitals, seven Cook Strait ferry terminals, 150 years of Te Huia train services, or 169 times the entire walking and cycling budget across the entire country in the 2024 Government policy statement. But this is probably the most important: we could drastically lower, or potentially eliminate, the cost of power to 700,000 dwellings in Auckland and Northland by having the Government fully fund a $30,000 7-kilowatt solar and battery system. Now, that would cost the same as the new road to Northland, which will only save 10 or 15 minutes on journeys sometime 20 years in the future, if we could even pay for it.

Just think about 700,000 dwellings having free power, moving us off gas, and moving us off fossil fuels. It would actually be so much better for productivity and the cost of living than the project that is planned, and that is the simple fact of it. Probably even the Government’s own voters—the voters that voted for these parties—would say, “This is actually a more sensible investment that would get us wins in a very short period of time.” I mean, probably in the time that we would just be starting the construction, or maybe finishing—we could definitely do this in less time than constructing even the first stage of that project.

We have some very clear choices before us. I welcome Minister Bishop’s work on this, and his leadership, and I say that the power to make this change that Aotearoa New Zealand needs is in this coalition Government’s hands right now. Those members can be responsible, they can show political leadership, and they can do what the country wants.

16:40

Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I just want to offer a perspective as a civil engineer of nearly 25 years. I have worked under bridges, replacing bridge bearings, and I have worked on sea walls and other structures that are not glamorous but where, if we don’t do the maintenance, things will fall into the sea or bridges will fall down. I understand this. I’ve been out in all weathers at all times of the day, when other people are on their holidays, with teams of people who are dedicated to maintaining New Zealand, and that is why I’m really heartened by what we see in this report. I must thank the Infrastructure Commission, led by Geoff Cooper, and Minister Chris Bishop for their leadership in delivering this plan to the House.

This plan forces Parliament and forces all those in the infrastructure system to confront a pretty basic reality, and I think Julie Anne Genter from the Green Party laid it out. We are facing a series of choices and trade-offs. For each decision we make, there’s an opportunity cost; for each decision we don’t make, there’s an opportunity cost; and when New Zealand is in a massive infrastructure deficit—there’s a list of 12,000 projects, worth $275 billion—let’s be honest: that’s a wish list right now. If everything is a priority, it turns out that nothing is a priority, and that’s why this plan really matters. Before anyone turns up to cut a ribbon or, with a shiny new shovel, to turn a sod, we’ve got to answer two simple questions: what absolutely must we build and what must we maintain at all cost? New Zealand has been very poor as a nation when it comes to answering those questions.

The first opportunity cost is between projects themselves. We’ve heard all kinds of projects floated already in this debate, but I just want to come back to this Northland road. I drove up to Northland last week and went to the Northland Field Days in Dargaville, and I was shocked by the condition of the road. State Highway 1 had almost no passing lanes. I was crawling behind trucks and slow vehicles at 65 or 70 kilometres an hour, even where it was 100 kilometres an hour. There were potholes, the seal was broken, and that was State Highway 1.

Then we left the main highway and headed up towards Dargaville, and driving out of this ghetto-like highway, suddenly we came into this incredible intersection with guard rails and extra wide sections, paint everywhere, and signs everywhere, and I thought, “What is this miracle, in the middle of Northland—in the middle of nowhere?” That’s an example of the previous Government’s Road to Zero approach to designing roads. They must have spent millions and millions of dollars on what’s basically an intersection, when all it really needed was a bit of chipseal and refreshing of the paint on the signs. It shows you that if we don’t have our priorities right, we’re going to waste money on things that have very little value.

One more example, and it really guts me, is Auckland light rail. I mean, what city in the world wouldn’t want a decent light rail from their CBD to the airport? Well, in 2017, the previous Government promised trains to Mount Albert station by 2021, and by 2023, when they got turfed out, they’d spent $200 million on a stack of reports that said that, actually, it’s going to cost about $30 billion and it’s going to take decades. Well, that’s not how you deliver infrastructure. That’s political theatre, and this infrastructure plan points out very clearly that that is no longer acceptable. New Zealanders don’t accept it.

We must be driven by value for money and national priorities. We know that healthcare, infrastructure, and defence, of course, right now must be a priority. Water and waste water, and, of course, transport—because if we connect people in more remote parts of New Zealand and in more rural parts of New Zealand through better highways, they can get to jobs and families have education choices they don’t otherwise do when the journey is unsafe and takes hours longer. That needs to be our priority.

Of course, on maintenance, the Infrastructure Commission points out, rightly, that we must spend as much as 60c of every future infrastructure dollar on maintenance, and that’s because unless we can maintain the assets we’ve already got, we will end up with leaking schools; decrepit, rundown hospitals; and bridges and infrastructure that are simply not suited to the needs of our modern New Zealand. That’s where, as I’ve mentioned, asset management is not glamorous. It involves being under a bridge at night, trying to jack out bearings, while you’re covered in dust and wearing earmuffs and PPE for hours and hours at a time, but it’s the crews that do that, the councils and the public agencies that do that, and the lines companies and the private sector that do that who are the backbone of New Zealand.

There’s also an opportunity cost when it comes to regulation because, while New Zealand sits at the top of the OECD practically for what we spend on infrastructure, we’re near the bottom when it comes to bang for buck. The infrastructure plan estimates that we spend about $1.3 billion a year just on consenting under the existing Resource Management Act (RMA), which adds somewhere around 5 to 6 percent to the cost of projects. That’s money lost to delay. It’s lost to duplication. It’s simply following a process that does not serve New Zealanders well, and it certainly doesn’t help us protect the environment in those very special and unique places where we need to invest more in protecting it.

The RMA is a 30-year-old law. It’s going to be gone this year. We’re going to replace it with new legislation based on property rights and protecting the environment where it matters, because, if we do want infrastructure, housing, energy, and better services to deliver for our future, we must make it easier to build. That’s a coalition commitment that ACT is proud to have driven. I’m very proud to be working with Minister Bishop in his role as the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, as his Parliamentary Under-Secretary, to deliver that for New Zealand, and we will deliver that in just a few months’ time.

We also need to get more from the infrastructure we’ve got, and the commission’s report makes that clear. We need to think about smarter tools: time of use pricing and time of use charging. Of course it’s controversial. People want to know that they’re actually going to be able to get somewhere at a faster pace if they’re going to pay the money. We also think that beyond roads, we need to incorporate things like water meters and volumetric pricing in all of our infrastructure charging, because if there’s no connection between how much water you can use and what it costs you as a household or business, of course you’ll keep using it till either you run out of water or the system collapses. Some councils, like the Kāpiti Coast District Council, and Auckland Council, through Watercare, recognised this decades ago. In some parts of New Zealand, a water meter still sounds like a bad disease, but, I promise you, you’ve got to take your medicine.

We need better ways to fund infrastructure. Minister Bishop and I are sponsoring the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill. It’s currently before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It’s intended to make it easier for councils and investors to use off-balance-sheet private capital to fund infrastructure on the basis that the people who benefit from it—property owners and others—will pay a levy which pays back the debt over time. It means that infrastructure can be built sooner and funded more fairly than through general taxation and rates. The coalition agreement between ACT and National also includes a commitment for long-term city and regional deals, and enabling tools such as public-private partnerships is a smarter way to procure certain types of infrastructure.

Funding is still a massive problem, and speakers so far have highlighted that. That is why ACT would support capital recycling by using our lazy balance sheet to take capital from assets that the Government doesn’t need to own—and I’ll come back to the things we must do versus the things that are nice to have—and to recycle that capital into the ones we desperately do, whether that is in defence, housing, hospitals, or other vital infrastructure. Asset recycling is common. It’s done by businesses, it’s done by councils, and central government needs to get on to it. ACT supports it.

In conclusion, New Zealand’s infrastructure woes were not caused by engineers; they were caused by bad planning systems, weak funding tools, and Governments more interested in announcements than in delivery. The National Infrastructure Plan resets expectations. ACT looks forward to working with parties across the House to make sure we deliver a better outcome.

New Zealand First have indicated that this is a split call.

16:50

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m delighted to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this excellent report. I really want to thank the Infrastructure Commission for all the work, and all the other organisations that have contributed their data and information to it.

I want to start right at the beginning, which is where they really inspire us with what we have done in the past. They say that “New Zealand has delivered world-class infrastructure before. With tremendous innovation, hard work and skill, our ancestors knitted the country together with networks of roads, railway lines, tunnels, and bridges. Tapping into the power of the earth, they built pioneering hydro and geothermal power schemes and created a single national grid—connecting the two islands with what was then the longest high voltage link in the world.”

This pioneering innovation, pioneering infrastructure, and can-do creativity is something that we should all be proud of, and they’re holding a mirror up to all of us—not just in this House but all New Zealanders—and saying that somewhere along the line, we’ve lost that can-do innovation and creativity and we’ve become a country that says no too often. They point out that we talk about an infrastructure deficit, but that infrastructure deficit is not because of how much we spend—and we’ve already heard that—it’s because of how we spend that money. We should be seeking, they tell us, the highest value for money. There are trade-offs there, and we know that.

There are four key themes they talk about. The first is planning what we can afford, and the biggest area they point out as a problem area is transport. We cannot promise everything. When we go to the next election campaign, we cannot be out there promising masses and masses of capital expenditure, because we know that we cannot deliver it and we know we cannot afford it. To the Minister’s credit, he is now sort of taking that back and saying that it’s going to take quite a long time to deliver some of those things. What we should be promising is only those things that we’ll perhaps assess, decide whether they’re a good idea or not, and then think of whether we put money into a budget, rather than say that we’ll promise it up front, because otherwise the thing that we know is that we’ll also get the price spectacularly wrong.

There have been some comments about what will probably be the biggest project in the country by a mile, and that’s the second Auckland Harbour crossing. Now, if we were thinking about doing that, there is one other way you could help to try and fund that, and that is to say that we will start levying development contributions on the properties around that area that will benefit from it. That is one thing you could think about doing, and that would be long-term planning.

They recommend in the transport area the greater use of benefit-cost ratios and possibly a Commerce Commission - like process, but I would also say that you’d need to consider the economic benefit that can be generated by any of these projects. The one I particularly think of, seeing that it’s come up several times, is the Northland road. That Northland road is not only about capacity but it is about economic opportunity for development of the Marsden Point area, the Northport development, and the horticulture development. We had Northland Inc. coming to this House last year, talking about having a $60 billion economy, which is currently an $11 billion economy, I think—the poorest part of the country. That would really lift it. Potentially, those are the kind of things that we need to look at—what does infrastructure deliver for our country—because it’s not about infrastructure; it’s about what it delivers and helps us to do.

The second thing they talked about, and which we’ve already heard about, is looking after what we’ve got much better, which is the 60c in the dollar idea. Local government often gets pinged for this. They really hold the mirror up to central government. Some of our biggest agencies are the worst offenders, and we need to get better, and the idea of legislating that central government agencies must have asset management plans and be transparent about how they’re delivering on that—I say “amen” to that. That probably means we need to change some of our Budget processes so that we don’t think of capital projects as operating items each year, but as long-term things which we look for.

The next area they focus on is choosing the right projects—yep, that’s an obvious thing to do. Making it easier to build: the consenting process has come up in the debate already. I’ll pick one in particular, which is worth something like $800 million a year to our economy, and that is the Stella Passage development, which is the extra wharf capacity at the Port of Tauranga. That is our biggest export port and our second-biggest import port, and, at the moment, it has been frustrated by the consent process. It’s something like six years, and that is costing this country a fortune. We need to fix those things.

Then we’ve got reconsenting, and that’s absolute madness. We’re trying to run an economy with a ball and chain wrapped around our feet. We have put that ball and chain in place, and we need to get rid of those things. Of course, on this side of the House, we supported fast track. The other side of the House often complains about people leaving the country because there aren’t jobs because our economy isn’t performing well enough. These are the kinds of things we need to do to fix that, and I commend that part to the House.

Then we’ve also been mocked about traffic management and doing work on traffic management, but the Infrastructure Commission’s report notes that in terms of delivering electricity—and I know that that’s true for other infrastructure, as well—the cost of that has tripled in terms of traffic management over the last five or six years.

There’s a long, long way to go and there’s a lot more I’d like to say, but we’ve got a split call here. I really do think this is a great report. It’s a mirror for all of us. We need to do much, much better, and take the politics out of infrastructure planning and delivery.

16:55

I really enjoyed having the ex-Mayor of Wellington advising Auckland and Northland.

Positively.

It’s very good—very good.

I heard from the Green Party about how we need to come together as a Parliament to look at the Infrastructure Commission and the future planning for our infrastructure, and I wholeheartedly agree. It’s just too important for the nation and we need to get this right. The outcome of which, if we can do it, is an integrated, multi-modal logistics and transport system.

We need the integrated, multi-modal system so that we can provide resilience and security in the long term, and this is one of the things I wanted to bring up today and focus a little more on—resilience and security—because, at the moment, as we’ve all noticed, there is a war. The Strait of Hormuz, where a lot of our trade goes—we’re a trading nation. That’s what’s supported us for 200 years. Recently, we had a trade surplus—hallelujah!—and we’re increasing our exports, but we are severely at risk if some of those supply chains are interrupted.

We need to ensure that our own internal resilience is absolutely supported through a multi-modal approach. For example, Marsden Point, which, when first built—actually, there was a guy called Dave Culham, who started up a company called Culham Engineering, which now employs over a thousand people and it helped build the Sky Tower in Auckland. That came out of him being one of the people that was an engineer at Marsden Point.

Now, it’s a real shame that we’ve lost resilience through Marsden Point being closed down. It would have given us an option. However, what they’ve done since is they’ve used solar to produce hydrogen so that they can use dense energy for our trucks. This has also happened in Southland. In a recent visit to Southland, I saw that they’re doing exactly the same thing, and that means that you can get dense energy to trucks, because, I’m sorry, electricity will just not do it. The batteries are too heavy, they run out, and they’re in trouble.

So we need to think really laterally about this stuff as to how we actually maintain our resilience. Think about food security. Food gets trucked all around New Zealand on diesel. We’ll run out of diesel, if they stop us at the Strait of Hormuz, in about 20 days. How are we going to move the trucks? This stuff is so vital to our security long term, it’s ridiculous. We need to come back and understand what all these things mean.

Just on the Auckland Harbour Bridge, I was really interested to hear the Minister talk about the Harbour Bridge. He is another person from Wellington telling Auckland how to manage their second harbour bridge crossing. When my wife and I were in Germany—and excuse me for using really bad German language—we ran into a lovely lady in the middle of the Black Forest. We walked into this cafe—this is 30 years ago—and she said, “Und vere are you from?”, and we said, “We’re from New Zealand.” She said, “Where in New Zealand?”, and we said, “Auckland.” She said, “Ah, ah, my husband—he built your Harbour Bridge. He wanted to build four lanes, but they only let him build two.” So this long-term planning is actually quite important for us, isn’t it? We need to make sure that we get this stuff right.

Back to KiwiRail. Rail is so vitally important. I visited Port Otago just recently. They’re all thinking about an inland logistics hub, and that will be supported by rail. KiwiRail—I went there as a member of the Provincial Growth Fund advisory board in 2019, and it didn’t look good at Hillside. Investment: you go back to Hillside now, they’ve right-sized, and they’re producing wagons. They’re up to wagon No. 900 out of 1,350—all new. We’ve got Spanish rail coming. That’s an example of how you can utilise integrated, multi-modal transport across New Zealand, which gives us long-term resilience, which is what I hope we all would like.

Yes, Infrastructure Commission: big tick. Planning what we can afford, looking after what we’ve got, and prioritising into the future—that’s absolutely crucial. Yes, I agree with the previous people that have said we need to take some of the politics out of this and make sure we have a good, prioritised plan for the whole of New Zealand into the future so that we are actually spending money on things that we all agree need to be prioritised. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

17:00

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s actually a privilege for me to stand and speak to this particular issue and to hear all the other the speakers in the House today. Ngā mihi nui to the National Infrastructure Plan, and I just want to acknowledge all the kōrero today because I think it is important that we, as a House, look at how we improve infrastructure here in Aotearoa.

I’ve heard a lot about the fiscal implications and the impacts of improving infrastructure here in Aotearoa, but I haven’t really heard about the why, and the why is ensuring that we make mokopuna decisions. If you take the fiscal part out of it and actually have what is the reason for ensuring that we have A-class infrastructure here in Aotearoa, it is because we want it to be here, we want it to last, and we want it to benefit all of our mokopuna. So if we make those decisions, I think we will be on the right track. If we’re not making them for any other reason than that, I think that this House could tread well in regard to the reasons why we need better infrastructure.

I just wanted to read a quote from the infrastructure plan brief. It goes like this: “We don’t get enough for our infrastructure dollar. The quality of our infrastructure lags relative to what we spend on it. High-level comparisons suggest we get relatively poor ‘bang for buck’ for our spend, meaning fewer kilometres of road, rail or pipe per dollar than many other countries.”

“We need to fix the leaks, not just keep buying bigger mops”—that was by Helmut Modlik, Tumu Whakarae in Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira. What he’s actually talking about, in actual fact, is the relationship, I think, that Māori have in regards to infrastructure here in Aotearoa.

What we’ve seen over this last term is the degradation of any relationship that Māori have with the Government, and even local government. It has an impact on local government also in regards to infrastructure. One of those is definitely the changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA), and I’ll grab my tuahine’s one here, nō Te Tairāwhiti. Both she and I know the impacts of having very little and having a lack of infrastructure there on State Highway 35, and we’ve felt the impacts of that in the last storm at Punaruku, in Te Araroa, in Wharekāhika, in Hicks Bay, and right along down the Coast and in many other instances.

Once upon a time on the Coast—eh, e te tuahine Cush—we used to talk about Bola. That was always the conversation around the tables on the Coast—it was always Cyclone Bola. Well, it seems like Cyclone Bola is hitting every year, and we’re seeing huge impacts on the infrastructure on State Highway 35. The ability for us to be able to move in and out, the ability to be able to fix the bridges, to fix roads, and to fix slash—that doesn’t just impact the infrastructure on the land but it also impacts the infrastructure in the sea and our ability to collect kai when it comes to food sovereignty and our ability to be able to live off the land and live off the sea, which many of our people have been doing for many, many years. We’ve had attempts for people to build walking tracks—and I’ll mention Ngā Ara Tipuna—along the Coast. Again, for our people there in Te Tairāwhiti, that was met with quite rigorous opposition in regard to that because they were left out of any of the planning and any of the discussions.

The RMA is important for Māori communities because not only does it allow us to have those discussions but it also allows us to protect wāhi tapu and Māori-owned land. I don’t want to go down the co-governance kōrero, but this is why having a relationship is important, and I saw in the report that it talks about “Ki a koe tētahi kīwai, ki a au tētahi kīwai.” What that talks about is that you have one handle of the kete; I have the other handle of the kete, and that talks about ensuring—I don’t want to say “co-governance”—partnership under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I think that’s vitally important as we move into the next phase of infrastructure here in Aotearoa.

Yes, we need pipes that will last, we need sustainable transport and solutions—absolutely—and we need to build climate resilience in our communities. What happened at Moa Point—let’s take that for an example—was an infrastructure failure. That environmental disaster was a consequence of consecutive Governments failing to make mokopuna decisions, and this is what I am saying. We need to be making mokopuna decisions as we move through this particular phase of infrastructure here in Aotearoa.

I just want to talk about the Waiariki for a little bit, while I have the opportunity. There are bloody orange cones everywhere, and there have been for a while—far too many—but it’s not about the far too many road cones. They’ve been there for far too long, and that’s the issue. That’s the issue—they’ve been there for far too long—and that tells me that there has been quite weak planning in regard to access from one part of the electorate to the other.

I go to Auckland—I don’t like going there often, but I go to Auckland and I’m not very happy with the traffic there. What we’ve got is a growing population, but we’ve got a very ageing infrastructure—we’ve got a very ageing infrastructure. Look, however you’re going to get your second harbour bridge, those are probably things that need to happen in regard to infrastructure in Auckland.

Absolutely, rail—you know, when you go overseas and you go to some of those other countries, you’ve got electric trains and you’ve got bullet trains that go from one province to the other very quickly. Have we explored all options in regard to trains and transport? Have we looked at better options in terms of the blue highway—in terms of the moana—that are environmentally safe? It makes people—and I can talk about Ngāti Porou and Te Whānau-ā-Apanui—very nervous when they talk about ports and barges and things like that down in our particular area, because we actually still have unlimited and undisturbed access to our moana.

It’s not like we haven’t had that relationship with our moana; we have an absolute relationship with our moana, and so when people propose ports and barges on the coast, we need to make sure that the research and all the due diligence has been done to ensure that we’re able to do that, because that’s nothing new to the Coast. We’ve had schooners going up and down the Coast. We actually had small ports in our small areas—Awanui and Ōmaiao, Tuparoa, and even in Hicks Bay itself, and in Uawa also—but that doesn’t thin the fact that that Māori and Māori communities need to be part of the discussion, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi needs to be at the forefront of infrastructure here in Aotearoa.

The way that this Parliament and this House works through that is going to be vitally important to moving forward, because infrastructure in regard to rural New Zealand—and I heard somebody talk about rural New Zealand and the reasons why many of the legislative changes have been made to help and to assist with the developments in rural New Zealand. They need to also include rural Māori here in Aotearoa, and I do talk about my end of the country: Te Whānau-ā-Apanui and Ngāti Porou. Te Whānau-ā-Apanui still own 90 percent of their whenua, and we’re talking about over a hundred kilometres of coastline. We’re talking about the Raukūmara Ranges, and one side of the Raukūmara Range is in Te Whānau-ā-Apanui; the other side is in Ngāti Porou.

These are some of the things where I think, if we’re going to make decisions as a House, bipartisan decision-making in terms of infrastructure is important. But what’s vitally important for Te Pāti Māori is that Te Tiriti o Waitangi must also play a pivotal part in regard to infrastructure here in Aotearoa. Māori land owners must be part of that conversation. Māori organisations and Māori businesses also need to be part of that conversation. If this report talks about “Ki a koe tētahi kīwai, ki a au tētahi kīwai.”, we must both be holding the handle of that kete to ensure that we make the best mokopuna decisions when it comes to infrastructure here in Aotearoa. Kia ora tātou.

17:09

The National Infrastructure Plan doesn’t sugarcoat it: we face some serious challenges ahead in relation to infrastructure. This report, I think, sets the basis for some honest conversations for our infrastructure needs as a country.

I want to focus on what I think are the three takeaways that I took from this report. The first is that we need to establish political consensus on the core infrastructure needs for our nation. Now, we know that population predictions are pretty accurate. We know where the growth is occurring in New Zealand over the next 30 to 40 years and where there needs to be schools, hospitals, and then connecting roads. We should get to a point where 80 percent of our infrastructure needs we can agree on, as a country. The rest of the 20 percent of needs—OK, the other side will want more cycleways and we’ll want more roads, but the core infrastructure needs of this country should be bipartisan. As the report outlined, there are lots of projects, but not a lot of funding for those projects, and so we need to, I think, get consensus. If you look around the world at countries far more developed than us and far wealthier than us, it’s because they’ve been able to get political consensus on the big stuff that matters in infrastructure.

As has been raised, household budgets are going to be constrained, the central government’s Budgets are going to be constrained, and local governments’ budgets are also going to be constrained. We just don’t have enough money in the kitty to fund the pipeline, and so getting consensus is, I think, the big takeaway. We do have a great time to demonstrate that with the second harbour crossing, and I do want to shout out to the opposite side for being willing to engage with the Minister of Transport to make sure that this is a bipartisan initiative.

The second area, or takeaway, is about having a rational conversation around prioritising the sequencing and the sizing of the pipeline and projects. The report says, “Think slow, act fast.”, and if we take that literally, it means: “Take the time to understand and prioritise the projects that are most important.” Actually, this is where I do agree with Julie Anne Genter around understanding—[Interruption] I know; agreement across the aisle does happen—about benefit-cost ratios and about understanding what are the actual benefits and costs of projects, and ensuring that we can prioritise accordingly. The report talks about there being lots of small stuff—low-hanging fruit—that we can do in terms of asset maintenance. It doesn’t cost a lot of money, but it actually makes a big difference. Let’s get that started, as well.

We do need to have rational conversations around how we fund infrastructure. The need for funding is huge and, as the Minister outlined, the second harbour crossing, whether it’s a bridge or a tunnel, is going to be multibillions of dollars and we need to fund it somehow. So let’s have that discussion around who will pay for it and when we will need to pay for it.

The third thing is that we need to do better with what we have, and it has been a very clear takeaway from this report that we don’t do asset maintenance well, and that’s where focusing on the basics of infrastructure must be a priority for us as a country. If I look at my own electorate, in Northcote we’ve had infrastructure projects such as new school projects at Northcote College, which is a great initiative, but that cost $88 million. That’s the equivalent of two new schools that we’ve just opened. We have to do infrastructure cheaper and more efficiently in this country.

Now, I wish to acknowledge what this Government is doing to fix the basics and build the future around RMA reform, fast tracking key infrastructure projects, upzoning around transport locations, and making sure we’re getting councils focused on the basics around water and key infrastructure, but there’s more work to do. It’s going to require discipline, leadership, and courage from across this House. The future of our nation depends on it. I commend this report to the House.

17:14

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s a pleasure to take a call in this debate on the National Infrastructure Plan. I have been enjoying the opportunity to reflect on the thoughtful contributions from members from across the House, including the member Dan Bidois, who just took his seat.

The Infrastructure Commission lays out the challenges we face as a country in remarkable depth and detail, and I am grateful for their report, but when I reflect on the conversation in this House, there’s another element that we can add to the diagnosis of what’s behind our infrastructure deficit and what’s behind our future challenge, and it’s politics. That is what’s been in the background of all of the contributions, isn’t it? It’s that our politics is toxic to being able to achieve the infrastructure goals that our public expect us to be able to achieve. New Zealanders want roads, they want hospitals, they want schools, and they want an electricity grid that works, and yet it’s too tempting for us to lean into the politics around infrastructure. That is detrimental to us achieving those outcomes.

I am so grateful for the thoughtful contributions that I’ve heard today that suggest something else might be possible. I don’t underestimate the challenge of maintaining this posture from here, though. How easy is it going to be in the next seven months to promise a road, to oppose a road, or to try and make political hay out of cancelling or promoting an infrastructure project? We know these things are very, very tempting because people like them and want them, but, fundamentally, by playing politics in that way, we undermine our whole country’s ability to get anything done, because it’s that politics that leads to the stop-starting on infrastructure projects—get it? If we say, “Yeah, I’m going to make a bargain about a hospital with the electorate.”, and another Government changes that, then that means that it’s back to the drawing board, or the effort put into that project was wasted. It’s sunk costs, like they say about the Interislander ferry, and so it is our politics that is the problem.

I am pleased that today we’ve heard recognition from the Government of the work of the Infrastructure Commission started under the last Government. I’m pleased to see how well Minister Bishop has continued to shepherd this work through, because this is our only hope for actually getting things done. It is a new way of talking about infrastructure, and a step back, in part, from some of the politics of infrastructure, into identifying those areas that we can agree on in a pipeline.

I want to talk about some of the statements about health infrastructure in the Infrastructure Commission’s report. They spell out things that we have known for a long time. We have a low number of hospital beds compared to other countries, an ageing population, deteriorating infrastructure, and a low level of overall investment. Things must change.

What is incredibly helpful about the Infrastructure Commission is that they have put down on paper that we need 4,900 additional hospital beds by 2043. To put that into context, the number of public hospital beds now is 12,000. That is a massive increase above where we are now, and so the fundamentals of our level of investment and ambition in health infrastructure absolutely has to change, and it has to be a step change. I am so pleased to see this number in print. I have been asking for this number for the entire time in Opposition because I knew that this work was under way, but I didn’t know the number.

We should not be playing games about trying to conceal these numbers from the public. If we want to change our politics, it should be in the public domain. New Zealand now knows that we need 5,000 hospital beds, and it’s incumbent on all of us to create the political environment where we can get on and actually get that done.

I did prepare a longer contribution, where I was going to painfully read through my many efforts at select committee to try and get that number out of Health New Zealand officials and the many times that they dodged answering that question. I hope those days are over.

17:19

I rise with great pleasure to talk about New Zealand’s very first National Infrastructure Plan—the first one that has been presented. I’d like to commend our Minister for Infrastructure, Chris Bishop, for bringing this forward because, as we’ve all acknowledged around the House today in this special debate, it is incredibly important that we do find common ground when it comes to infrastructure investment in New Zealand. We all agree that there has been a huge under-investment in infrastructure and that we certainly need to focus on the priorities of building our roads, our schools, and our hospitals and focus on the maintenance of our public infrastructure and public assets. We also need to enable private infrastructure to be built, as well, and focus on having some public-private partnerships, which, of course, are also very important.

I’d like to take this opportunity in my contribution to look at how important these infrastructure projects are. We’ve been very fortunate in Hawke’s Bay to have the very first road of national significance to take off be the four-laning of the Hawke’s Bay Expressway. This type of resilient infrastructure is very, very important for our rural regions across New Zealand—for our export regions—not only for getting our wine, red meat, apples, and everything to the port fast and efficiently, but also for the fact that it creates a lot of jobs and opportunities in our regions. That’s why infrastructure drives growth, it strengthens our economy, and it’s really important.

I just want to give another little example of how we see the flow-on effect of that really strong, good, resilient infrastructure. Recently, I visited Tūpore, which is a local company in my electorate. They’re a roading company, and they’ve just invested in a very large asphalt facility to provide the asphalt for the roads across the East Coast. This, of course, is really important because we were devastated by a cyclone recently, which really highlighted how important having resilient infrastructure is. This company has produced this new plant, and it’s going to produce 1,500 tonnes of asphalt per day to meet that growing demand. Of course, this is also creating jobs and opportunities across Hawke’s Bay, and so that just shows how important having resilient infrastructure is to the regions. The Māori Party touched on that earlier, because, of course, we’ve seen more devastation across the East Coast, where we need to highlight how important infrastructure is to our regions.

One of the main priorities in this report is building better hospitals and investing in our hospitals, and I’d also like to touch on the investment that we’ve seen in our Hawke’s Bay hospital and how important it is. We’ve recently opened the radiology department at Hawke’s Bay Hospital. This is the beating heart of the hospital and to see the smiles on the staff’s faces and to see the benefit of having a really, really good piece of infrastructure—it’s so important for our hospitals and for our patients. We’ve also just started the construction on a new ward at the Hawke’s Bay Hospital, which is also really, really important for freeing up space in our emergency department and getting better patient outcomes.

Also, just last year, I opened Kaweka Hospital, which is a private hospital, but this just shows the benefit—which is also another priority in this report—of having public-private partnerships, and the way that we can get better outcomes for patients by looking at public-private partnerships. When the patient is lying on the operating table and looking up at the ceiling, I don’t think that they’re thinking about who owns the ceiling; they’re thinking about their operation and getting that done. With public-private partnerships, we can create better patient outcomes, and this is really important.

There are many things that could be discussed in this report, but I also just want to very quickly touch on the flood protection and how important resilient infrastructure is in that investment, particularly, for mitigating climate change. As we’ve already heard, we’re seeing these natural disasters more often, and we need to invest in mitigating climate change, and that’s really important. I really commend the National Infrastructure Plan to the House.

17:25

That was a great segue—thank you, Catherine Wedd—because we do need to put money into mitigating climate change, and one of the biggest emitters in the country is actually cars. I’m glad that this report talked a lot about roads, and that is probably what I’m going to talk most about today because I do think that the Infrastructure Commission’s report does paint some really hard truths for the “roads of National Party significance”. For those who don’t know, these are 17 roading projects that the Government wants for economic growth. That’s the kind of simple message that I’ve understood from what they’ve been saying, and I can’t speak for all the roads, but there is actually just one of those projects that I’m extremely interested in.

I do want to say off the back of Catherine Wedd’s speech that I do acknowledge that there are regions in provincial New Zealand especially that need roads to connect them to things like hospitals—we’re not disputing that at all—but there is one project in those 17 projects that is not needed by any means, and it also happens to be the most expensive road per kilometre that has ever been built for at least the last 26 years. I’m talking about the State Highway 1 improvements here in Wellington. For those who aren’t aware of this project and who don’t live in Wellington, this is 2 kilometres of road—2 kilometres—and all it does is add one lane in each direction and it adds about six to eight traffic lights in 2 kilometres of road. This is going to cost more than $1 billion—$1 billion.

We’re being scammed!

We’re being scammed—that’s right, Simon Court from the ACT Party. It’s a scam. If you want to save money for the people of New Zealand, don’t do that project. If there’s anything I know about Wellingtonians, we are among the highest public transport and active transport users in the country. It’s a project that nobody asked for and nobody wants in Wellington, and the reason for that—and I think the report really gets at this—is that we need to fix the systems that we have in place and the infrastructure that we have now, instead of focusing on new, shiny things like billion-dollar tunnels.

To kind of put that into reality for you, in Wellington—actually, before I get to the reality, I would say that this is also a project with a potentially negative cost-benefit ratio. It could have a cost-benefit ratio of 0.75. That means that for every dollar we put into it, we are losing out on the benefits, and that’s because the proposed second Mount Victoria Tunnel is not going to enable more housing in Wellington, it’s not going to fix congestion, and it’s not going to increase economic growth within the city. It’s just not doing a whole lot for Wellington at all, and so we have to ask ourselves why the Government is continuing with a project that is not needed, that is the most expensive in history, and that nobody has asked for.

To give you a bit of a reality of what the report is trying to say, I think that the Mount Victoria Tunnel is a perfect example, because why is the Government spending more than $1 billion on this 2-kilometre stretch of road when bus fares in the Wellington region are set to go up by 3.1 percent from May this year? If you live in the west of Wellington, in Karori, or in the east of Wellington, in Miramar, it’s going to cost you $5 per trip to get into the city centre. Our regional train network is completely underfunded and desperate for investment. Many of our popular train routes in the Wellington region have been replaced by bus replacement services, which means you have to catch multiple buses instead of catching one single train. Our train stations and train stops in the region don’t have simple things like toilets, or places where you can wait and not get hit by the rain. We’re at risk of losing 50 of our bus drivers because the English language visa requirements are too onerous. We don’t even have solid weekend or night-time bus services.

Like, we are the capital city of New Zealand, and our public transport system is woefully inadequate but also extremely expensive, and you can see why Wellingtonians are frustrated that our transport network is falling apart. Meanwhile, the Government is proposing this billion-dollar tunnel for 2 kilometres of road that nobody asked for. This is exactly what the report is trying to say: invest in the things that people need.

Just to contrast it with another form of infrastructure, Wellington Hospital goes into code red, on average, twice a day. That means there are not enough staff to look after the people coming into the waiting room—and are we fixing the hospital? No. We’re building the most expensive road in the last two decades that nobody has asked for. We can do better, and Wellington deserves better. Kia ora.

17:30

I want to acknowledge and congratulate Minister Chris Bishop and the Infrastructure Commission for delivering this report to the House. Infrastructure is the foundation that supports our daily life: the roads we drive on, the water we drink, the hospitals that care for us, and the schools that educate our children.

New Zealand faces a serious infrastructure challenge. We spend a greater share of our GDP on infrastructure than many comparable countries do, but we achieve less. This is not sustainable. If this continues, New Zealanders risk missing out on the hospitals, schools, water systems, and transport networks they expect and deserve. The issue isn’t just how much we spend; it’s how we plan, prioritise, and deliver infrastructure. Too often, projects are delayed, costs escalate, and planning is reactive, rather than long term. This is why change is needed.

The National Infrastructure Plan provides a 30-year road map to address these challenges, and it has four basic principles: one, plan what we can afford; second, look after what we’ve got; third, prioritise the right projects; and, fourth, make it easier to build better. This means making honest, long-term investment decisions within our fiscal limits, it means maintaining and renewing existing infrastructure before it fails, it means assessing projects to ensure they deliver the greatest economic and social benefit, and it means improving procurement and consenting processes so that we can reduce cost and build more efficiently. In short, it’s about spending smarter and achieving better results.

What does this mean to Auckland and the people in Mt Roskill? Auckland is home to more than a third of our population and it delivers a significant share of our economy, yet it faces some of the greatest infrastructure pressures. Planning what we can afford means that Auckland’s major transport and housing projects can be sequenced properly, avoiding stop-start cycles. For communities like Mt Roskill, this creates certainty and ensures that growth is matched by investment in roads, public transport, and local facilities.

Looking after what we have got is crucial in Auckland, where aging water infrastructure has caused disruption. Proactive renewal means fewer bypasses, fewer road closures, and less disruption to families and businesses. Prioritising the right projects means focusing on initiatives that reduce congestion and improve connectivity, that build a transport link between suburbs and employment hubs, and that allow Mt Roskill residents to access jobs more easily, with reduced travel time and lower commuting costs.

Making it easier to build better means faster delivery of housing-enabling infrastructure, schools, and healthcare facilities in growing communities. Having a more efficient construction sector reduces costs, benefiting both taxpayers and ratepayers, but it is encouraging that many of the commission’s priorities are already reflected in this Government’s work. Health New Zealand now has a long-term capital infrastructure plan led by record hospital investment to support our ageing population. Water reforms are under way to renew ageing systems and restore affordability. Major transport projects are being carefully sequenced. Flood resilience is being strengthened through national investment, and planning reforms enable development like key transport corridors. These steps show how we are moving from planning to delivery, and this is very important. It’s all about delivering.

As I say, New Zealand spends more than many comparable nations, but we achieve less. We cannot afford to continue that pattern. The National Infrastructure Plan sets a clear direction: be disciplined, be strategic, and be long term. If we follow that path, we will not just build better infrastructure; we will build a stronger, more productive New Zealand for the generations to come. Thank you.

17:35

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my genuine pleasure to take a call in this special debate on the National Infrastructure Plan. I think the conversation that we’re having in this House has had incredibly thoughtful contributions from members who have taken to their feet to talk about what is something that we know, as politicians, we need to start doing differently, and the infrastructure plan that was delivered at the end of last year and released this year lays that bare. The infrastructure is difficult. It is hard. It requires a different way of us doing things than we do in the normal political cycle.

I’d like to congratulate Minister Chris Bishop for bringing this report to the House, and I’d also like to congratulate the antecedents of this report, and I think it shows the way that we can do things differently. This is, of course, born out of the establishment of the Infrastructure Commission in 2019 by the first Minister for Infrastructure, the Hon Grant Robertson. We then went on and, in 2022, we had the first 30-year infrastructure vision. Now we’re seeing the continuation of this with this first plan, and I think that that shows how this has to go beyond the political cycle. It’s going to cross over multiple Governments and it is something that, as politicians and as parliamentarians, we can be proud of.

What the report lays bare and what the contributions in this House have laid bare is that we do need to do things differently, and at the core of this is a more collaborative approach. It is a more bipartisan vote or multipartisan vote that seeks to take some of the politics out, and I thought my colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall gave a very thoughtful contribution about how we need to be careful that everyday politics don’t intrude in this. Even in this debate, where I think we’ve had some very thoughtful contributions, we can’t have missed some of the edging in of the pork-barrel politics that has underwritten infrastructure for too long in this country—the thinking that being a good politician is talking about the winds in your local patch, rather than talking about that long-term strategic planning that we need to do as a country.

We also need to realise that collaboration and multipartisanship isn’t about the Government of the day telling other parties how it is. Genuine collaborations and genuine multipartisanship, whoever is in Government, is actually about coming together to form enduring plans that can cross Governments, that can endure, and that do set New Zealand on that long-term trajectory, because infrastructure is hard.

In Government, I served as the Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration, Minister of Housing, Minister for Energy, and, briefly, the Minister for Infrastructure, and it does not get easier. It does not matter who is in Government, it is expensive, and we lack the depth to deliver in New Zealand in terms of our sector. We need to be building that up so that we can continue to deliver a pipeline.

The other thing that’s come through is that this needs to be evidence-based, and nowhere have we seen that more than in the area of energy. What we have seen is that we know that we need to increase our renewable energy in this country and we need to have long-term plans to do it. The report from the Infrastructure Commission had the key actions in this area to lock in stable, long-term energy strategies. I think that that is critical and I implore the Government to bring through the Gas Transition Plan. Never has it been more important than in the current context this week that we do have that plan in place and that we do have that energy strategy that has been sitting in the Beehive since the Government came in, which could be delivered to do that, and to use that evidence base.

To hear the current Government dismissing the words of the Infrastructure Commission, who warn that there is no evidence that bringing in liquefied natural gas (LNG) would lower electricity prices—to have this being swept away as recently as today in the House is concerning. What we have to do, as politicians, is accept there is evidence, that there will be opinions and we have to be prepared to look at that, and that we need to be prepared to take it seriously, and bipartisanship does not mean pushing through projects for which there is not political consensus when the evidence does not see it stack up, when the world is on the brink of an energy crisis in terms of the spiking of LNG prices—to push on with that project.

This report gives us all food for thought. We need to work together, but we need to work together in different ways. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

17:40

It’s great to rise and talk to this National Infrastructure Plan, a 30-year view on how New Zealand can better plan, fund, maintain, and deliver infrastructure. As others have said, we can be grateful to the Infrastructure Commission for the work that it’s done on this report. Of course, the Minister for Infrastructure, the Hon Chris Bishop, asked them to prepare this work soon after our election and they got to it, and what we’re seeing now and what they’ve outlaid is nearly 12,000 projects that are at a value of $275 billion, with most of those projects unfunded. We’ve got a lot of work to do and we’ve got a lot of prioritisation to do, but the good news is that it doesn’t start here. There’s already a lot of work under way by this Government as far as national infrastructure goes.

We are fast tracking. We’ve seen that legislation come through and even in my own electorate, the New Zealand Transport Agency have applied for the Northwest Busway’s fast-tracking application. We are improving health and education infrastructure, and you can see the work that Erica Stanford is doing around education property and the work that Simeon Brown is doing in health infrastructure.

We are improving infrastructure funding and financing, and you can see that with the entity that was set up by the Minister of Finance last year, or the year before, and the amendment bill that is before the Finance and Expenditure Committee to give better tools for our Going for Growth agenda, with regard to the territorial local authorities and councils. That came before the Finance and Expenditure Committee just today.

You can see the Auckland transport reforms that sit with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. They not only will give better and greater transparency and accountability to Auckland Transport but will also set up an Auckland Regional Transport Committee, with members from both the Crown and the council, and a 30-year integrated transport plan. Again, this is long-term transport planning for our biggest city—Auckland—which will be 2 million people by 2033. An Auckland deal with the council and the Government is pending too, and so there’s a lot of work happening.

Time-of-use charging, which is sometimes colloquially known as congestion charging, is something that the leaders of Auckland have known about and have been asking for for over 25 years. Whether it’s the Employers and Manufacturers Association or the Auckland Business Chamber, and the surveys that they used to do back in the day of Michael Barnett and others—when they put a survey out to Aucklanders asking “Would you be prepared to pay a small toll if it meant you could get to work quicker and there was a free, viable alternative?”, overwhelmingly people said yes. That is long overdue.

In fact, I would argue that public-private partnerships (PPPs) are long overdue. I know that with the Land Transport Management Act in the early 2000s, when Paul Swain was transport Minister, they set it aside and tried to get the PPPs going. It took a Supplementary Order Paper by Steven Joyce to try and improve that PPP structure, and it worked to a certain extent.

A great example of a PPP or a BOOT—build-own-operate-transfer—is Spark Arena. In 2007, a management company signed a 40-year deal, a leasehold, with Ngāti Whātua. The council chipped in some money, the build was $94 million, and they’ve got it for 40 years. In 2047, that’ll be handed back to the ratepayers of Auckland for zero, and, as someone alluded to, no one really cares who owns this infrastructure, particularly if they’re at Spark Arena watching “Tay Tay” or whoever.

Swimming pools: we would love a big new swimming pool in the northwest of Auckland. Even the Labour councillor Shane Henderson said to me, “I don’t care how it’s funded; I just want the swimming pool, as do the people.”, and so there are opportunities, not just around transport infrastructure but community amenities like that.

It’s great to see some political consensus come out of our investment summit last year and to hear some really encouraging words from the likes of the Hon Barbara Edmonds. It’s great to see that we are heading towards some bipartisanship, but we do need to prioritise. With 12,000 projects and $275 billion worth of projects, mostly unfunded, we need to prioritise, and this Government is committed to that.

The member’s time has come to an end.

17:45

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call, as Labour’s transport spokesperson, in the special debate on the National Infrastructure Plan. I do want to acknowledge the former Government for establishing the Infrastructure Commission, and I also want to acknowledge the current Government for continuing to allow the commission to operate.

This is a plan that is seriously long overdue, and it provides an independent lens and assessment and a view on what the infrastructure needs are for Aotearoa New Zealand now and into the future. The very clear position that is outlined in the plan is that New Zealanders are spending more and are getting less for what it is that they’re spending in the infrastructure space, and in terms of infrastructure, we know that that does touch everyone and everyone has an interest in it. I understand that The Aotearoa Circle is here on precinct today. They’ve got their own take on infrastructure and the needs that that carries through, as well. Defence has needs, health has needs, education has needs, and, of course, transport and others have needs, and it’s transport that I want to focus my contribution on this afternoon.

When I engage with industry groups and participants in the transport space, they warn about the politically driven infrastructure that has been part of our country for quite some time. We know that that leads to cancellation, it leads to delays, and it leads to cost blowouts, and already today, in this Parliament, the ferries are a great example of that. That was, let’s face it, a political call that had consequences in terms of delays—we’re still waiting—cost implications, time, and, obviously, the nature of the infrastructure that’s now in place. The other aspect of that is—and this is what was referred to by the Hon Dr Megan Woods—the pork-barrel aspect of politics, where we see pieces of transport kit and infrastructure that suddenly appear in marginal seats or in political electorates because it suits the individuals of the day, rather than our necessarily having a long-term look at what that looks like.

The transport sector, like others, is calling out for certainty. I get it—we get it—because what needs to change is that chop-change, in-out sort of nature of infrastructure that has really plagued our country for many years. People are sick and tired of that, and rightly so. When we look at building and construction, the number of people that have left this country is well over 20,000 people because of the in-out, stop-start sort of nature of the change that’s in that space.

One way that we can remove the political element in the transport space is by allowing an independent lens over all of the transport-related projects and all of the projects that Waka Kotahi—the New Zealand Transport Agency—might want to put through. Currently, they don’t do that, and there is a system that’s been stood up that will allow for them to remove that political lens and to actually spit out at the other end a fair assessment and an independent assessment as to what each of those transport projects do look like.

Now, I acknowledge and accept the Infrastructure Commission’s priorities when they come to transport. For the first one around time-of-use charging, we’ve supported the legislation that permits and allows time-of-use charging. Around tolls, the use of tolls needs to be in circumstances where it’s not tolling an existing route and it’s not tolling anything other than something that is new, and certainly not a replacement road. This Government got a very clear message around their attempt to try and toll Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū-Tararua Highway as to why any Government shouldn’t be turning its mind in that particular space, and so we support aspects in that particular rhythm.

The other one is around maintenance and renewals, and this is a big focus in the report—about how seriously underdone New Zealand has been and has been served as a result of not investing in ongoing maintenance and renewals. There is the upzoning and transport corridors in terms of providing some coordinated strategic approach to that, and then the final one is around the absolute need to prioritise and schedule projects. My real concern is the current suite of roads of national significance that actually have not been scheduled or prioritised, and that is a very irresponsible way to try and spend $56 billion that does not exist.

These are examples where, yes, bipartisanship is important, but the proof will be in the pudding. On this side of the House, we are absolutely committed to doing what we can to ensure that the long-term infrastructure needs of our country are met, and we hope that the Government and others come on board with that, too.

Madam—oh, Mr Speaker.

Nancy Lu.

17:50

Mr Speaker, sorry about the hiccup in calling you “Madam Speaker”.

I was actually quite impressed with the willingness from the Opposition, who are keen to know more about the details in the National Infrastructure Plan, but there is also the willingness to work together for the long-term betterment of our country, and this is exactly why I welcome the National Infrastructure Plan that has been announced by the Government. All parties in this Parliament need to have a look at it very, very closely to make sure that we can work across party differences for the betterment of all of the population in New Zealand.

But may I begin with the reality that is ahead of us, for the entire country. Basically, in the past 20 years, as the National Infrastructure Plan has suggested, the country has spent around 5.8 percent of GDP each year, and, to be honest, spending 5.8 percent of GDP each year on infrastructure puts us amongst the highest-spending in GDP proportionality in all of the OECD countries. However, we rank pretty much at the bottom in terms of productivity and in terms of efficiency, and, actually, we are fourth to last in all of the OECD in asset management. In some cases, in some of our big agencies, we don’t even have a full list or a good understanding of where our infrastructure is or of the status of the assets or what is supposed to come in the next one, three, or five years of maintenance plans. In plain language, we spend really big—5.8 percent of our GDP in the country—but we don’t spend well enough.

So the 30-year National Infrastructure Plan that the National Party campaigned on in 2023, in the election, is precisely to deal with that: to give a bipartisan, cross-party opportunity for all of us to come together as a Parliament and also as Government to make sure that we are delivering for New Zealanders into the next 30 years, so that our next generations are ready and can really benefit from the growth of infrastructure in New Zealand. The independent New Zealand Infrastructure Commission was set up to do precisely that. It takes away the politics so that we can focus on actually delivering for New Zealanders with taxpayer money.

Now, the infrastructure plan, with the 30-year view, sets out very, very clearly where New Zealanders can plan—very importantly—to fund, and often when people think about infrastructure, we think up front about the capital cost, but it’s more than the capital cost. It’s also about the maintenance, the repair, and the delivery of the actual construction of the infrastructure, and these are challenges ahead of New Zealanders but also ahead of the Government to make sure that we are building practically and responsibly for the future of New Zealand.

Now, a few of the key items that are within the National Infrastructure Plan are, for example, hospitals and the ageing population. No doubt, that is no surprise to anyone in New Zealand that our country is ageing in terms of the demographic, and so how do we plan long term and ahead of time to make sure that we are providing for the future demographic of New Zealand? The long-term investment plan into building hospitals and retirement villages, etc., is critical for us.

But also it comes down to, for example, water renewals and affordability for New Zealanders in different cities, from rural areas to urban and to larger cities. The reform that we have implemented and brought in since this Government came in in 2023 was Local Water Done Well, and that is one of the best reforms, in my opinion, in that we are providing that stronger oversight with a clear cost structure so that we are able to provide better water infrastructure for everyone in New Zealand.

Then it comes down to smarter and better transport funding, and so there is the need for legislation to move on from the time-of-use charge. That has passed, people have moved on, and we need to be able to evaluate who actually uses roads in New Zealand and who is actually relying on roads to transport goods and services and people around the country. Even, for example, with our city councils, we are moving into the more modernised electronic road-user charges.

There are many, many of the big categories that are included in the National Infrastructure Plan, which the Government has made publicly available. I encourage people who are watching on TV or through the media to have a really good read, but I definitely encourage and welcome all members of this Parliament to come together, take away the politics, and really think about the next 30 years for New Zealand.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate will resume at 7.30.

Good evening, everyone. We’re on the debate on the National Infrastructure Plan. We’re on call No. 16.

19:30

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a five-minute call in the National Infrastructure Plan special debate. I’m pleased to be coming back to make this contribution, and I particularly want to make it from the perspective of what is covered in the report in terms of education.

When I was thinking about this speech, I thought one of the greatest joys as a member of Parliament is to go to an opening of a new school building or a refurbished building—whole parts of schools. Some that I can recall just recently were Northcote College and a huge building that we opened there, with many, many classrooms, teaching spaces, and learning areas, and also Opononi Area School was one that I did last year and I really enjoyed going to. These are projects that mean so much to those schools and to those communities because the schools are really the heart of our communities.

We can think about infrastructure, and it can seem like a bit of a dry word. We can all think about the wood, the bricks, and mortar, the roofing iron, and so on, but when we think about what it means in terms of education, these are the spaces that our children are learning in and that they spend so much of their time and their days in. It helps them to learn the skills that they need to go on to have the jobs and careers that they want in order to be contributing members of our society, but to also pursue their passions and their interests. So when we talk about the importance of having an infrastructure plan that plans for the needs of our education infrastructure, I want to echo the contributions from those around the House that are supporting the work of the Infrastructure Commission, from its establishment to the strategy that it came up with and the plan that it has now produced over many years. It’s wonderful to hear support from across the House for the work that the Infrastructure Commission has done.

When I look at the report and I look at the specifics around education infrastructure, one of the interesting points that the report notes is that they are predicting a population decline of young people, and, therefore, that will impact on what the need for education infrastructure is around the country. While it makes up only about 3 percent of the spending that the Infrastructure Commission talks about, it’s important, none the less.

One of the things in the report that I think is very important for this House to take note of and for all parties to take note of is the point where the Infrastructure Commission says that whilst they do predict that there will be a population decline in terms of young New Zealanders requiring this infrastructure, there are regional variations to that—so that will be particularly in Auckland and in Canterbury—and so it’s important that we plan for long-term growth in those areas. That needs to be done over successive Governments.

It also points out that there will be regional variations in places like Northland, or Te Tai Tokerau, and Te Tai Rāwhiti—and I see our member for Te Tai Rāwhiti here. One of the unusual things that this report points out is that the local demographics will change. For Māori, for example, the Māori school-age population is expected to grow significantly in most regions, while non-Māori school-aged populations are expected to decline in most regions, and this may increase the relative demand for schools with Māori immersion settings.

Māori-medium education is one of the areas that has long had inequities when it comes to property and infrastructure and providing for the network. When Kelvin Davis was the Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education), we had a vision of having 30 percent of our Māori students in Māori-medium education by 2040. That was going to require new schools and more kōhanga reo to be able to make that provision, and this infrastructure plan actually says that Māori are going to have population growth in the area that will require more schools.

Māori-medium education is an option that they are increasingly wanting to take, and so I implore all parties in Parliament tonight to take special heed of that advice from the Infrastructure Commission, because that is something that we will need cross-party support on to ensure that we can provide for those needs, going into the future. Mr Speaker, thank you for that time.

19:35

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just think, for a moment, you might like to indulge me for the first minute. I’d like to acknowledge my daughter, who, exactly 26 years ago to the minute, was born. She’s here in the gallery and she’s celebrating her 26th birthday, so congratulations to Eve. Well done—you’ve survived your father for 26 years! I’d also like to acknowledge her partner, Jesse May, here, who has just been acknowledged today as being accepted into the Police College, and so it’s going to be another one of those joint celebrations. Congratulations to you both. Thank you for indulging me, Mr Speaker.

Look, this is a really important report—a really important report—and if ever there was a region that felt over the years like it has suffered from the country not having a decent infrastructure plan, it is Northland. If you have a look at the history of Northland, they’ve had to fight all the way through and keep fighting to get any infrastructure investment of significance into the region. Going as far back as 1917, for a bit of a history lesson, there was a parliamentary road tour, driven by a bloke who became an MP: Colonel Allen Bell. He led a delegation of MPs, media, and officials all around the North to demonstrate the need for infrastructure investment. It shouldn’t have to take that sort of advocacy to get outcomes, and so that is one of the reasons why this is so important to have a plan for the country.

Another bit of history, because, very shortly, we’re about to embark on starting the next stage of the Northland Expressway, which has received a bit of commentary from people in the House tonight. Is that investment a wise investment? Well, for the people of Northland, it is, and that’s because we’re making up for generations of a lack of investment. The frustration—if ever a region has suffered from the politics of infrastructure, it is Northland, because, in 2017, a road that was proposed to be built then, and significantly cheaper than now, was cancelled. Consequently, we’re about to start, and so, in the not too distant future, we will be turning the sod on the next stage, to Te Hana, whereas if we had had a good infrastructure plan, we should have actually been cutting the ribbon. That is the difference.

One of the other things which I’m pleased is highlighted in the infrastructure plan is resilience, because if ever there was a piece of resilience infrastructure in Northland that needed to be replaced, it is a decent road around the Brynderwyn Hills. When that road was shut due to bad weather and Cyclone Gabrielle at that period of time, it cost our economy over $2 million per day, and I feel for the other parts of the country that suffer these sorts of events from having a lack of resilient infrastructure.

I just think that as we build our plans, we’ve got to think that it’s not only about the population base; it’s also about what can be delivered for regions like Northland. When you look at the potential upsides, which have been highlighted in the report commissioned by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, of particularly the long-term benefits of building decent infrastructure as part of an infrastructure plan for the North, that is really, really important. When you look at the types of benefits that could come to a community that has suffered for too long in terms of its social outcomes and all the other outcomes in the North, the benefits could come from good connectivity and from good infrastructure plans. Those are the sorts of things that we are looking for.

I congratulate and I thank the members on the other side. Yes, there will always be some debate about the importance of certain infrastructure, but I think we need to keep it in the context of having a bigger benefit over a long term, not just the short-term look, because these are big, expensive projects that mean a lot to the people and to the regions that they are invested into. I’d just like to say that to finish up.

Finally, once again, happy birthday, Eve, and congratulations, Jesse. All the best. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

19:40

There is nothing I’d love more than to have the last word, and to have the last word on this debate is a wonderful thing. We’ve all been very excited to see this infrastructure plan come out. I’ve been in transport my whole life, and so of course, naturally, I’m going to talk about transport.

I’d just like to acknowledge, first, the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister of Transport, who started off this debate by talking about Napier, so of course, naturally, I’ll finish the debate by talking about Napier. One thing he did mention was toll roads and the future of infrastructure, how we fund it, and who should have to pay for it, and I think that’s a really important topic. Secondly, my colleague Catherine Wedd from Tukituki, my good neighbour to the south, talked about the spend on the Hawke’s Bay Fallen Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital, which I don’t need to mention a second time, but it’s just worth acknowledging that again.

What I really wanted to talk about is the fact that in my time in transport and, certainly, in my time in politics—I campaigned in 2020; I campaigned again in 2023—if I had a dollar for every time someone said, “Couldn’t infrastructure be bipartisan? Couldn’t you have a longer-term plan and a longer-term pipeline so that we had success?”—

You’d be a wealthy woman.

—yeah, exactly; thank you very much, Stuart Smith—I would be a very wealthy woman because this is something that people talk about all the time, and they say it for a number of reasons. One is that we would be able to do it all more affordably if we had a long-term plan and a long-term pipeline for contractors and for civil construction companies to be able to plan this work and to be able to do this work.

Secondly, our communities would be able to make plans based on the work that we are proposing to do. In Hawke’s Bay alone at the moment, the amount of proposed development of housing and industrial developments is enormous, and they are doing that because we have indicated and we have shown—the spades are in the ground, the diggers are in the berms, and the cranes and the bridges are there—that it’s all being built. Now, these guys know that they can start planning their industrial developments and their residential developments at either end of the Hawke’s Bay Expressway. This is what it means. It’s vital for us to do this work.

It’s not just transport—of course, that’s the thing that I’ve got a lot of experience in and I’m really happy to talk about—but it’s also in health and it’s also in education, energy, and you name it. But we have to be able to agree to a long-term plan that we commit to. I was very much there in 2017, when, as the last National Government, we talked about the Hawke’s Bay Expressway. It was almost all but there, and then what happened? We didn’t get into Government that time, it got cancelled, and there goes another six years of that project. Just as my colleague Grant McCallum has talked about, it becomes more expensive, we have less progress, and we have had the cyclone which happened, which meant that it took two hours for people to get to work in the morning. These are the things that make a big difference. Now, we’ve got progress. It’s going to take a couple of years, but people see the work happening, and it makes all the difference.

Now, I just want to draw everyone’s attention to another very important corridor, and that is State Highway 2 north, from Napier to Gisborne. Now, you might think that there’s not a huge population north of Napier, where you’ve got Wairoa, you’ve got Gisborne, and you’ve got Tairāwhiti as a region, but it’s not about the population; it’s about the potential, and, actually, we saw in Cyclone Gabrielle just how vulnerable that area is. If you lose the Waikare Gorge, which we did, the time it takes to get to Wairoa from Napier is 10 hours, as opposed to one and a half hours. It is fundamental, and I have been bleating on about this corridor since well before I got into politics because we have to start now. Actually, we hadn’t done work to that corridor since Steven Joyce opened the Matahorua Gorge realignment. I remember going on that road in a bus and being very, very afraid that we were going to hit a truck as we went past each other on that corner, and the very same issue is the case in Waikare Gorge.

Now, of course, which Government has given the green light to the Waikare Gorge realignment? It’s ours. But, actually, what we need is a commitment long term to saying that once we’ve done the Waikare Gorge realignment, we look at the Devil’s Elbow and we look at all of these other parts. We look at the Whareratas. We look at well beyond that, into the Waiōeka Gorge—

The Hurunui one-lane bridge.

We’ve got a one-lane bridge on a State highway, Stuart Smith, and it is absolutely astounding. It does not mean that we have to fund this all now—and we have very much talked about the affordability of doing it—but we just have to have a plan that we all commit to so that in a decade’s time, we aren’t still here, talking about the same thing.

Now, one thing I will go back to that the Minister of Transport and the Minister for Infrastructure, Chris Bishop, mentioned earlier is the “not in my backyard” approach. We have got to very much get real about how we are affording to pay for this and how we are going to make it happen. Whether it’s a public-private partnership or whether it is tolling these roads, we can all stand by and say, “Don’t do it to me, but you can do it to Auckland for the Harbour Bridge.”, but we’ve got to get a really sensible approach to this.

I’m pleased to have had the last word. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend this plan to the House.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Public Finance Amendment Bill, Social Security (Accident Compensation and Calculation of Weekly Income) Amendment Bill, Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill, and the Legislation Amendment Bill.

19:47

I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think, while I hope that the Minister of Finance’s enthusiasm for this bill would last for the committee stage, there are actually quite a few things to get through in this committee stage, not to mention the Minister’s new Amendment Paper 502, as well, which also has a few interesting bits that we would like to dig into.

I want to start by maybe checking with the Minister in terms of the interaction between Part 1, clause 4 and also her Amendment Paper 502, in terms of the amendment to clause 6. Clause 4 mentions “nominated relevant department” and also “servicing department”, but what we are seeing here in the Amendment Paper from the Minister is, when we are looking at clause 6, it refers to replacing “the Crown or an Office of Parliament” with “the Crown, an Office of Parliament, or a parliamentary agency”. I just want to check with the Minister on the interaction between those; on why, for example, “parliamentary agency” was included in that amendment.

Continuing on from that line of question, I want to draw the attention of the committee to the regulatory impact statement, noting that this is something that I didn’t go through with the Finance and Expenditure Committee. One of the things that I would like to actually congratulate officials on is that this is probably one of the few regulatory impact statements where the options considered for each section are really clearly laid out, and the option that the Minister has decided to go with is also highlighted. So, I think, definitely props for that.

I guess, a broader question I want to check with the Minister, first, is that I’m sure the Minister is aware that currently there is also a parliamentary inquiry into performance reporting, and that’s one of the limitations that was mentioned in the regulatory impact statement, page 5. I wanted to check with the Minister: what was the rationale behind introducing this bill while the parliamentary inquiry into performance reporting is still taking place? Indeed, you know, advice and consideration—if they’ve been sought with the Office of the Auditor-General; so I guess that’s my second question. So I have two questions for the Minister currently.

19:50

As the bill sets out, clause 4 means section (2)(1) of the Public Finance Act (PFA). That’s the section that defines the terms within the Act, and it adds two new definitions: “nominated relevant department” and “servicing department”. That, essentially, means that interdepartmental executive boards or interdepartmental ventures are defined in the PFA as “relevant departments”.

In terms of the reasons for introducing the Amendment Paper in the time since the bill was considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, the Parliament (Repeals and Amendments) Act 2025 has come into force, and that states that the Office of the Clerk and Parliamentary Service cease to be departments or part of the Crown for the purposes of the Public Finance Act. We now need to amend the bill to ensure it is consistent with those changes made to the underlying Public Finance Act, and the Amendment Paper includes a technical change to do this. That’s what clause 6 does.

19:51

Thanks, Madam Chair. I still want to focus on clause 4 of Part 1 for this particular question, and it is in relation to the new definition that’s going to be inserted in the interpretation section of the current Public Finance Act. Of particular reference is that “nominated relevant department”.

The question I have for the Minister of Finance is: can she please provide examples of what an “interdepartmental venture” is; what they are currently; the reason why we have not provided a schedule to the Public Finance Act actually listing what those interdepartmental ventures are; or whether there has been any consideration of whether we could allow for a modification where we could actually list those interdepartmental ventures? Given this is a new definition in the interpretation section, is there a way that we could actually include those that are currently in the primary legislation and then look at an Order in Council mechanism in order to add new ones to the list?

My concern is that, currently, this is a new definition. It is really difficult to understand what is actually meant by that particular section, because when you read it, the relevant cause means “the relevant department that has been nominated by the board of an interdepartmental venture to provide the following on behalf of the interdepartmental venture: (a) information on strategic intentions: (b) financial statements”. I just want to see whether the Minister or Treasury, as part of the drafting, had actually considered whether they needed to include a schedule as part of this bill. Therefore, it is more transparent to the New Zealand public that we know exactly what an interdepartmental venture is, because I note that an “interdepartmental venture” under the current Public Finance Act has the same section given as section 5 of the Public Service Act 2020. Again, for the lawyers in the House and for the lawyers that, for any particular reason, are questioning or could do a judicial review to Treasury as to whether they have met the obligations under the Public Finance Act, they would have to go trawling through two separate Acts. Why can’t we just include a schedule as part of the Public Finance Amendment Bill itself?

Also, whether the Minister has received any advice as to whether we could actually include the list as part of primary legislation, if not as part of the schedule; and if you did include it as part of the primary legislation, whether you could include an Order in Council mechanism?

19:53

Clauses 34 to 36 amend the reporting requirements to departments involved with an interdepartmental executive board. An example of that is the climate change independent interdepartmental executive board and/or an interdepartmental venture. We don’t have any interdepartmental ventures yet, but they are listed as a schedule in the Public Service Act, and so the omission of that definition in this Act would raise questions about how it was to be reported on for Public Finance Act purposes.

The member has asked about whether we should be doing this via the primary legislation or in the way that we have. It’s always my view, on matters like this which are subject to change, that having the flexibility of doing it in the way proposed makes sense.

19:54

Thank you to the Minister of Finance for that elucidation. Then, therefore, if we don’t have an interdepartmental venture, why are we having this change?

As I just said, they are listed in a schedule in the Public Service Act.

Therefore, why is that schedule not in the Public Finance Act, given you now have to have a separate cross-reference to a separate Act, when in fact there is none in the primary Act, which we are here trying to amend?

19:55

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also want to ask a further question. I’m just noting that I still have an outstanding question for the Minister of Finance. Thank you so much, Minister, for your response to my questions before. That was very clear. My question previously was around, I guess, the rationale of introducing this bill in light of the fact the parliamentary inquiry into performance reporting is still outstanding.

I want to check another question from the Minister. Understanding that, between the introduction of this bill under the first reading and then coming back to the second reading and now the committee stage, there are changes being made to the definition of “nominated relevant department” and “servicing department”, where the article that has been used has changed from an indefinite article into a definite article—i.e., from “a” to “the”. That would make sense in terms of “nominated relevant department”, where you’re looking at a singular, and one and only, relevant department that has been nominated. But I’m curious to know why that has changed for “servicing department”. Can I just get clarity from the Minister that when we’re looking at the interdepartmental executive board and a servicing department, that there’s only “a” singular servicing department—i.e., “the” department identified as the servicing department—or does it still allow multiple departments to be the servicing department?

19:56

Thank you, Madam Chair. I go back to my earlier question, which hasn’t yet been addressed by the Minister of Finance, as to why we are even having a change or an introduction of a new definition into the interpretation of the Public Finance Act, given that it cross-references the Public Service Act, Part 4, Schedule 2, which actually has no listing of an interdepartmental venture.

Therefore, if the purpose of this bill was to tidy up the Public Finance Act—and some bigger changes, which we can address as part of the further clauses as we go through this committee stage—why was that not cleaned up, then, as part of the change as part of this bill? Given there is, when you go to—again, the difficulty—the Public Service Act, you go to Schedule 2, Part 4; it then refers you to section 33, which talks about the establishment and reorganisation of interdepartmental ventures, and it talks about the framework in which those interdepartmental ventures can be set up, which is through Order in Council, which was, kind of, my suggestion to an earlier point.

My question is: why was that not cleaned up as part of this bill? I appreciate that was a 2020 bill, those amendments that were made to the Public Service Act. There was quite clearly an intention by the previous Government to perhaps bring in, through Order in Council, an interdepartmental venture—and, obviously, now, with a new change of Government, the ability and the discretion for the Minister to make the changes to the Public Finance Amendment Act through this particular bill. Had they considered cleaning it up by just removing those references—or, actually, first of all, not including it as an interpretation or a new definition, and then cleaning up the cross-references to it?

19:58

In response to the Green Party member, yes, I am prepared to address his question about the meaning of “a” and “the”: yes, there is only one servicing department for an interdepartmental executive board provided for in the Public Service Act.

In response to the question from the Hon Barbara Edmonds: what these clauses do is amend the reporting requirements for departments involved with an interdepartmental executive board or interdepartmental venture. These departments are already defined in the Public Finance Act as “relevant departments”.

Barbara Edmonds. Before the member starts, can I please ask members to highlight which part or which clause you are referring to?

We’re still up to clause 4, the very first clause in Part 1. It’s in relation to section 2, the amendment and the new interpretations.

Thank you.

19:59 · to the Minister of Finance’s response, which is in reference to those Public Service Act schedules

again, that’s a roundabout interpretation in the sense that—so why do you have it? The scope of this bill was to do some specific changes to clean up the Public Finance Act.

To the Minister’s response, it still doesn’t make sense as to why you would keep this in there, because it’s superfluous legislation, given that it’s quite clear there’s no intention for there to be an interdepartmental venture, unless, Minister, there is going to be a new interdepartmental venture. The reason why I ask is because, actually, this might be an amendment that we could actually table.

20:00

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the Minister of Finance’s response. I do want to try and look and, I guess, move to clause 5 and 6, but, again, I note that there is still an outstanding question to the Minister regarding this bill and also the parliamentary inquiry into performance reporting. Thank you, Minister, for your response to the servicing department. I think in cross-referencing with Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the Public Service Act, the specificity of a singular servicing department is understandable.

Moving on to clause 5, can I just check, as a starting question, that replacing “registered market” with “licensed market” which has two separate meanings, is something that is quid pro quo, as in it’s a one-to-one transition from “registered market” into “licensed market” and those two are, essentially, referring to the same thing and it is simply an update to the primary Act? Again, you know, this not being my area of specialisation, I’m also particularly interested in learning from the Minister as well. I guess, in this case, has the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 replaced the Securities Markets Act 1988?

On to clause 6, I just want to touch on this for the time being, and I’m sure others will have more questions around it. I want to thank the Minister in terms of her explanation on that in light of the recent Parliament Bill. I do want to know with the cross-heading—I guess I’m confused as to the difference between what is in the cross-heading of clause 6 and what is defined in clause 6(1A), because in clause 6 it says “(Expenses or capital expenditure must not be incurred unless in accordance with appropriation”, but in 6(1A), it says, “does not require the Crown or an Office of Parliament”—or parliamentary agency in the amendment—“to incur the expense or capital expenditure that it authorises.” If you’re looking at the subheading, am I correct to assume that it can’t incur expenses that’re not within the appropriation, but, in clause 6(1A), it seems to imply that it can’t occur expenses that it already has authorised. I just want to check with the Minister on that clarification.

20:03

In answer to the question—repeated question—from member Edmonds on the same point, the Public Finance Act and Public Service Act clearly work together. Ventures and boards are set up under the Public Service Act and those provisions remain, whereas the Public Finance Act deals with their financial accountability. Hence the cross-references are the simplest way to address that.

In answer to Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question about clause 5, what that clause is, essentially, doing is legislative repair, updating a reference to a definition in another piece of legislation that’s since been repealed and replaced. It replaces the reference to the term defined by reference to the now out-of-date Securities Market Act 1988—i.e., “registered market”, to the relevant term in the New Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, which is “licensed market” and that replaced the Securities Market Act in 1988. So that is simply a change of definition in the cross-referenced Act.

In terms of clause 6, which the member also asked about, this clause is simply clarifying an ambiguity in the interpretation of the Act, specifying, essentially, that an appropriation does not create an obligation to spend; it creates a permission to spend, but not an obligation to spend, which is a good thing because when public agencies feel that spending is no longer necessary, it’s appropriate that those dollars paid for by hard-working taxpayers can be put to purposes that are necessary rather than simply spent because of a technical requirement of the Act.

20:04

Thanks, Madam Chair. Just actually carrying on from the question and the Minister of Finance’s response in relation to the registered market within the meaning of the Securities Markets Act. If I go to the Securities Markets Act, “registered market” means any of the following and that’s—sorry, Madam Chair, just for your understanding, it’s clause 5. You look at the definition in section 2 of the Securities Markets Act, “registered market means any of the following: (a) a securities or futures market that’s registered under section 36F: (b) a securities or futures market that is treated as if it were a registered market under section 36ZY(4)”.

I just want to clarify with the Minister: is she confident that the replacement with “licensed market”, which is under a separate Act, which is the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, covers the specificity required under section 36F and section 36ZY(4) as part of the registered markets? I’m just wanting just to check because it’s one of the things that we had not checked, clause by clause, as part of the select committee stage.

20:06

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister in the chair for her answer around clause 6. I just have a follow-up question. I understand completely the Minister’s explanation that an appropriation is an estimate, it’s an invitation to spend. But what we didn’t get the chance to explore at select committee stage is what was the kind of policy ill that this was trying to rectify. Were there examples where this was being misinterpreted by agencies, where it was seen that it was something that was creating situations where departments were spending where they may not have otherwise been if this clause had been in the Public Finance Act, or was it merely a general tidy-up of the Act, given that there were a range of revisions that were being done, and that the Minister received advice that it would be an opportune time to do that legislative tidy-up?

20:07

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, thank you, Minister, for clarifying clause 6. That does make a lot of sense in terms of what the Minister of Finance is saying: that an obligation is different from a requirement—well, that a requirement is different from something that is here in this bill.

Let’s look at it in terms of an agency or Crown or Office of Parliament or any of the department agencies. While this might be a change in legislation to make things clearer, is there also an expectation, then, that certain budgets are able to carry forward to a subsequent year or, if you’re looking at a four-year cycle, that they’re able to bank some of that? In general, whether you’re in the private sector or in the public sector and you are given a budget, even though you’re telling people you don’t have to spend all of it, if the remainder of the budget is going to be recalled as a part of that, there’s still, regardless of who it is, a desire to spend some of that.

I guess my question is: while clause 6 is a clarification, how does the Minister think it’s going to play out in practice? Does the Minister think that it is going to be able to give a better signal to agencies or better reassurance to agencies that they don’t have to spend everything, but also give reassurance to agencies that things can be carried on into subsequent years?

Can I just say we have been on this one clause—there have been four different questions on it. I think it’s been well traversed, so I’d like to keep this moving, please.

20:09

Which clause are you referring to?

Clause 6.

Yeah, so clause 6. My question is, and this is the first time I have asked a question on clause 6: the amendment reads, “After section 4(1), insert: (1A)”—I’m thinking this is subsection 1, paragraph (a). The current drafting of the bill has that as a capital “A”. I just need to clarify: is this a subparagraph or a subsection? If you look at section 4 within the actual Public Finance Act, in the way that it is set out, they don’t have subsections or subparagraphs; they actually set it out—sorry, they do have subsection paragraphs, but I don’t understand why it would be 1A rather than 1(a). That’s probably the easiest, simplest way to explain, and I just need to check it’s not a drafting error.

20:10

In response to the question from Barbara Edmonds relating to my confidence about the definitions in clause 5: yes, based on the evidence provided to me and my faith in the Parliamentary Counsel Office.

In answer to the questions from both Megan Woods and Lawrence Xu-Nan about clause 6, the members’ interpretations are broadly correct, which is that this is cleaning up on the way through something that could play out in future and ensuring that the legislation is absolutely unambiguous on that matter.

For the benefit of information for Lawrence Xu-Nan, there are already, outside of this clause, measures in the Budget process that allow funding to be carried from one year into the next. That occupies part of the time of the Minister of Finance. Ministers have to submit those through what’s called the October Baseline Update process, and there are rules about the way in which that happens. But, obviously, it is the case sometimes that appropriations that are made by Parliament, for whatever reason, don’t get used in the year in which they are intended, and Ministers then face choices about whether those funds are returned to the centre for use on new initiatives or whether those funds are retained to be used for that appropriation in the next year. Those are already built into the Budget process and the finance Minister’s powers.

20:11

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister Willis, for your response; I truly appreciate your engagement on all of these. Also, I take your note, Madam Chair, and I’m happy to move on to clause 7—well, actually, I’ll do clause 7 and 8 together, because one refers to non-departmental capital expenditure and the other one is departmental expenses. Just trying to get clarification on the intention of clause 7 from the Minister: when we’re looking at non-departmental capital expenditure, I want to check, using—let’s say my main portfolio that I spend a lot of my time on is education, so when we’re looking at non-department capital expenditure, the closest equivalent I can think of is when you are looking at school properties, for example. Would that be something that is considered as a non-departmental capital expenditure? But, in this case, what sort of circumstances will we be looking at when we’re looking at multi-category appropriations (MCAs) when it comes to something like that, and how would you have MCAs and categories of expenditures that don’t currently contribute to one single overarching purpose? Is that something that has been happening currently, which is why this clause is in there as a way of correcting or, again, clarifying what is the intention of an MCA in the first place? So that’s my first question.

Then, looking at clause 8, I’m curious as to replacing section 7C(2)(c) with a new (c), which is that when you are looking at a departmental expense appropriation, other departments may incur expenses at the same time and then be used against the appropriation at the direction of the appropriate Minister. I guess, again using the education example, Vote ERO—Education Review Office—is a separate appropriation, etc., but if Vote ERO is drawing on additional or is incurring expenses that normally sit under Vote Education, with the permission of the appropriation Minister, they are able to draw on the appropriation from the Ministry of Education for the work that ERO is doing but fulfills the same purpose. Is that how I’m supposed to interpret clause 8, inserting new paragraph (c)?

20:14

In answer to Barbara Edmonds’ query about clause 6: yes, it is a new subsection 4(1A), not a drafting error.

In answer to the questions about clause 7, look, this is, essentially, removing a requirement for the Minister of Finance to approve the establishment of a multi-category appropriation (MCA); rather, it just allows Cabinet to do it, which both removes an administrative step from the Minister of Finance but also acknowledges that once Cabinet’s approved the creation of that multi-category appropriation, it’s good to go—noting the Minister of Finance is a member of the Cabinet anyway. It’s just an unnecessary administrative step.

In terms of clause 8, really, the purpose of this clause, what it does, is it specifies that only departmental expenses can be incurred under these multi-category appropriation arrangements, and that resolves some uncertainty for departments about the types of expenses that have been permitted under those arrangements previously.

20:15

I just want to ask the Minister of Finance to clarify that process change. She’s referencing clause 7, and it was the amendment to section 7B, which has been replaced. The Minister referenced that it’s no longer the Minister of Finance; that now it goes straight through to Cabinet. Have I just surmised that right, Minister?

Well, yes, it’s always been the case that approval has to be granted by Cabinet or joint Ministers—the Minister of Finance and the appropriation Minister. So what this now says is that the requirement for the Minister of Finance to approve the establishment of a multi-category appropriation is removed. So it just aligns it with other appropriation types, which is to say there doesn’t need to be that additional step.

20:16

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Madam Chair, it’s only clause 7—it’s only clause 7.

That’s ambitious.

Well, clause 8, actually—ha, ha! Good try, Dan. So just moving on to only clause 8 of a lot in Part 1, the appropriation limited by amount—sorry, clause 8, section 7C amended, “Responsibility for, and administration and use of, appropriations”. I just have to ask the Minister of Finance: what is an example of an appropriation administrator? Is that at an executive level or is that at a departmental level, please?

Just while the Minister of Finance gets some advice in relation to that, the question I have, again in relation to section 7C, which is now being amended with new section 7C(2)(c), is that if you look at new paragraph (d), “if the appropriation is a multi-category appropriation that includes 1 or more categories of departmental expenses, any other department may incur departmental expenses of the same type as the category or categories of departmental expenses in the multi-category appropriation against the multi-category appropriation—(i) at the direction of the appropriation Minister; or (ii) with the agreement of the appropriation Minister.” When I have a look at the current 7C under the Public Finance Act, which was actually amended in July 2013 according to the history within the actual primary Act itself, it made a particular change in that 2013 amendment bill which I just don’t quite reconcile in relation to what is currently section 4. I just need to check: is the new clause 8, replacing 7C(2)(c) with new paragraphs (c) and (d)—is that still in reference to section 5 of the Public Finance Act, or have I just totally misread how that amendment has happened in 2013, changes to section 5 of the Act and now in section 7C?

20:18

The member’s now repeating the same question, just using more words. As I have made very clear, the bill removes the requirement for the Minister of Finance to approve the establishment of multi-category appropriations, leaving the approval with Cabinet or joint Ministers. The whole point here is that it is consistent with other appropriation types. In terms of administration and use of appropriations, it is for departments to use the appropriations of another department.

20:19

The Minister of Finance might not have listened to the actual question; there were two totally separate questions, and so if you’d like me to repeat—

No—thanks.

—the second question, but they were two very specific and different questions. One was in relation to just an example of what the appropriation administrator is, and the second one was actually in relation to section 5 under the current Public Finance Act and the reference to 7C(2)(c) in clause 8.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I have one more question—and also just, I guess, signalling to both the Chair and also to members on the other side of the Chamber that, although we’re going clause by clause, we have been moving through the bill at a reasonable pace. There is quite a bit more meat in Part 1 that we want to get to.

Mr Xu-Nan, the Chair will determine the pace.

Thank you. Just on clause 8, the final question I have on clause 8: I understand, when you’re looking at replacement section 7C(2)(c) and (d), it says in subparagraph (i) “at the direction of the appropriation Minister;”, but I’m curious to know, when it says “or (ii) with the agreement of the appropriation administrator”—which, looking at the definition of “appropriation administrator” under the Public Finance Act, it alludes to, I’m guessing, the chief executive or the secretary of agency—in those cases, are they simply looking at the operations of how, I guess, the multi-category appropriation or further appropriation is used? Surely the appropriation administrator doesn’t have the ability to alter what is currently in the Budget and it should only fall under the Minister. I guess this is more of a clarifying question for the Minister of Finance.

I do want to move on to a new section, because this is actually something that I’ve found very interesting—this is, I guess, starting from clause 10 to 13. Now, this is something that is not in any regulatory impact statement, nor was it explained in the explanatory note, which is the exclusion of the intelligence and security department from having to declare certain information. Or, if you’re looking at, for example, in clause 13, new section 26DA(2), the end-of-year performance information on an appropriation and an audit report is not required, I see, and the intelligence and security department are exempted from having to report to the House on their end-of-year performance and appropriation. I just want to check with the Minister: this is not in the regulatory impact statement, nor was it really discussed at length, from what I can see, in the select committee report, nor can I see that in terms of the information here. How did that come about—the exemption of security and intelligence agencies from reporting?

20:22

Well, the member Lawrence Xu-Nan is bringing a new and unwelcome definition of “pace”, but I’ll leave him to his own interpretation of what pace truly is.

In terms of Barbara Edmonds’ question: yes, replacement section 7C(2)(c), inserted by clause 8, simply clarifies the existing section 7C(2)(c). Section 7C(2)(c) was confusing. It required application of other terms to interpret it.

In terms of the question on admin and use, an appropriation administrator can be any department. Appropriation administrators are listed in the Estimates document.

In terms of the question from Lawrence Xu-Nan about the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service, it has been a longstanding feature of our public finance reporting environment that the NZSIS reporting has some secrecy attached to it, due to the nature and sensitivity of the work that they carry out and the need not to signal to those whose actions threaten the peace and stability of New Zealand what it is that we are investing in and where we are increasing our investments. These are all measures that have been taken in order to create the peace and security of New Zealand. This is not a new thing that’s been introduced as part of this bill; therefore, that is why it’s not included in the regulatory impact statement.

20:24

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a few more questions for the Minister of Finance in this particular section. I understand from a national security perspective why that would be exempted, but I’m just checking—I guess clarifying from the Minister—if it’s something that’s already happening, that has been taking place, but then without a legislative backing to support what the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) is currently already doing, which is why it’s in a bill, I’m assuming it’s in a bill because something needed to be clarified. That’s my first question.

Again, like I said, while I understand the requirement and sensitivity when it comes to national security, I do wonder, from a public scrutiny perspective, and also the ability for the public to trust the way that we are spending tax dollars, what mechanisms are still in place to ensure that the NZSIS, for example, are still doing things within the bounds that are expected from the New Zealand public.

20:25

I’m happy to clarify for the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. It’s actually the other way around, in that this amendment in this bill enhances reporting requirements, in that it removes the exemption for the intelligence and security department to provide end-of-year performance information on appropriations for audit by removing the exemption wording from section 15A(4) of the Act. That’s already a voluntary practice that they do that end-of-year reporting, but it formalises that requirement. They prepare audited performance information.

This, of course, has been their response to address recommendation 5 of the royal commission of inquiry into the Christchurch terrorist attack. That amendment ensures consistency, transparency, and will foster greater public trust in the operations of security and intelligence agencies. That also relates to clauses 12 and 13 in the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re just up to clause 9 of 30, for Dan Bidois’ notice, just in case he was wondering how many clauses are in Part 1. We’re looking at “Section 14 amended (Contents of Estimates)”. I do want to acknowledge the Minister of Finance. She is answering every question we’ve had, so thank you very much for that, Minister, because it does help the pace of the debate, as some would say.

In clause 9, which is “Section 14 amended (Contents of Estimates)”, when you go through the current Act, which is section 14, it basically lists through from paragraphs (a) to (h) a set of requirements for the appropriations. Subclauses (1), (2), (3)—no issues with those, because, when you compare it to the changes that it makes in the current primary Act, they fit perfectly. I just had a question, though, for the Minister on clause 9(4). That’s where it reads: “After section 14(2)(c), insert: (d) the scope of the appropriation set out in the statutory provision that creates the permanent legislative authority.” For those members of the committee who don’t know what a permanent legislative authority is, basically, it’s an approval for Government spending that continues in effect without needing an annual renewal by Parliament. Basically, it just continues.

The importance of that, though, is that if you’re given that power because it renews without the ability for Parliament to, basically, have to do it, there needs to be some checks and balances in relation to that. I just need to understand from the Minister, because it is a new subclause, what exactly is the mischief that this new paragraph is trying to achieve, given some of the earlier changes that are going through Cabinet, which is good, because there’s still an executive check on that. It’s no longer the Minister; it’s whichever appropriate Minister. But in relation to that new paragraph (d), what is the mischief that they’re trying to achieve by that? Unfortunately, when I checked some of the initial briefing on the bill, some of the papers that we received by officials—who I need to acknowledge as well: thank you, officials, for your support during the select committee process—I couldn’t quite find what you were trying to achieve by this new paragraph.

20:28

This responds and resolves issues where departments have previously failed to accurately reflect the scope of permanent legislative authorities, and, in doing that, we reduce the risk of unappropriated expenditure. I would note there have been several instances of unappropriated expenditure in recent Parliaments.

20:29

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, thank you, Minister. I do find your answers very, very helpful, so I really appreciate it. With that, I’m actually going to move on to a newer section. I think this is probably the section that received the most attention, which is starting from, I guess, clause 14.

I’m going to leave clause 14 for the time being, which is around the overall removal of “wellbeing”—removing the requirement to articulate the wellbeing objectives in Budget decision-making—but I want to draw on the fact that, in light of that being removed, how do you think, in terms of what we’re seeing in clauses 15 and 16 around the fiscal strategy report, the long-term objectives and the short-term objectives are also encapsulating the same essence of what the public expected from the wellbeing?

The reason I ask this question is that, while the wellbeing has been removed, we do hear from the submitters and also from economic and legal and also community advocates that the lack of mentioning—even though people can still do that, but the lack of a clear signal within a budgetary document or within the expectation of the objectives is going to leave some people worse off or leave certain communities and vulnerable communities worse off.

I want to check with the Minister, with that, let’s say with clause 15, in terms of the variables or the alternative variables, is there anything in there that would give the indication that an aspect of wellbeing is still considered when you’re looking at some of that fiscal strategy reporting? Madam Chair? I’ll continue—

Lawrence Xu-Nan.

—thank you—while the Minister is, I’m assuming, seeking some advice.

The reason I also mention this when it comes to the long-term objectives and also in terms of the wellbeing—and this is something that we do see in terms of the inquiry into parliamentary performance reporting—is that there isn’t a clear goal in terms of outcomes and also in terms of measures. I accept that, and I’m hoping that, in terms of some of the changes to the contents of the fiscal strategy report long-term objectives, we do see some of those changes.

However, like I said, I am concerned that possibly, at this stage, it is not considered in clause 15 under, let’s say, subclause (2), inserting sections 26J(1A) and (1B), that there is anything that potentially indicates that an aspect of wellbeing is still considered. Therefore, I wanted to check with the Minister if the Minister is receptive to my amendments to this. While we’re looking at total operating expense, revenue, and the balance, the level of total debt—that is clear and understandable—the level of total net worth potentially requires some level of calculation.

I also think, if that is the case, we should be adding additional variables, so my amendment is to include—let’s start with two of the amendments—two new additional variables. One is on the level of long-term social deficit, and the other one is on the level of long-term infrastructure deficit. While it’s important when looking at long-term objectives to know what that is—I’m sure the Minister knows way more than I do when it comes to fiscal strategy and also in terms of the debt and deficit. But one of the biggest concerns we’ve seen—and we just had two hours of debate on this—is the fact that it’s hard to evaluate the cost to New Zealand when you’re looking at long-term structural deficit, whether it is social or infrastructure, so I want to check with the Minister if she’s open to those two amendments.

20:33

I was going to address this question by saying it highlights a philosophical difference, but I defer to the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan and thank him that he acknowledges that I know much more than him in terms of fiscal strategy, debt, and deficit. Thank you. That is a rare compliment from my opponents. I agree with you.

One of the things that I do know about debt and deficit and the need for fiscal discipline is that, actually, economic and fiscal responsibility are essential to wellbeing. There can be no wellbeing without economic and fiscal responsibility, and it is a philosophical difference between us. It is my view that you can’t simply keep borrowing for ever, because eventually you do have to pay, and paying becomes more expensive if you are an undisciplined economy. Treasury’s estimation is based on advice they provided the previous Minister of Finance—advice that he signed off on. If New Zealand incurs more than 50 percent of debt as GDP, we put ourselves at massive wellbeing risk, if you would want to phrase it that way, because it could mean that, should a shock occur which required us to have a debt buffer that we could borrow to, we would find ourselves in a debt doom spiral by which our interest bills would become so big that we wouldn’t be able to fit them within our Budgets, and that could be extremely problematic to the wellbeing of New Zealanders.

We’ve seen that happen in countries around the world, where it’s led to them having to take drastic and Draconian measures in order to service the debt that they have to international debt markets. I simply philosophically disagree with the member’s view that you can just simply keep borrowing for wellbeing. Actually, keeping on borrowing destroys medium-term wellbeing, particularly when we consider the impact on future generations.

20:35

Thank you, Madam Chair. I also thank the Minister of Finance, I think, but I think also the Minister brought in philosophical differences. I think part of this is a philosophical difference, but we’re also aware that when we’re looking at public infrastructure—whether we’re looking at social infrastructure such as health or education, or whether we’re looking at physical infrastructure such as roads, railways, etc.—at this stage, our ability to plan long term and the impact that will have on people long term is not entirely captured in the way that is structured here in clause 15 under the fiscal strategy report long-term objectives.

I guess the question is—I don’t think anyone is saying that we should be borrowing debt indefinitely to be able to service wellbeing, but there is a balance. Counter to what the Minister is saying, it is also the Draconian approach that certain countries have taken to reduce their borrowing and reduce their debt that shocked the system, which massively increased interest rates, which is what brought down Theresa May.

I’ll just remind the member this is not a debate; this is actually an interrogation of this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess it comes down to my original question in terms of whether the Minister will support my amendments to clause 15(2), inserting sections 26J(1A) and (1B)—

The Minister has addressed that question.

She said we have philosophical differences, but not necessarily that she will not support the amendments. The question to the Minister, I guess, posing a new question to the Minister, in terms of a different amendment of mine, which is around the fact that the Minister would also understand in terms of some of the long-term risks—again, we are referring to fiscal strategy report long-term objectives. When we’re looking at the long-term objectives and risks to the country, our obligation under the Paris Agreement, for example, is something that has been also discussed quite at length, particularly around nationally determined contributions.

In this case, my other amendment that I will ask the Minister to consider for subsections (1A) and (1B) is also the level of climate impact fiscal risk, which is something that should also be, I think, considered or reported as part of our long-term fiscal strategy reporting. Again, while we don’t want to take on additional debt—and, also, I do think that debt and deficit, in this case, particularly with structural deficit, are different things—we must also acknowledge that, as a country, we can’t operate in isolation. With the long-term objectives of new sections 26J(1A) and (1B), inserted by clause 15(2), has that considered in there our obligation and then, potentially, the fiscal risk in terms of the international agreements that we have signed up to?

20:38

Clause 15 simply permits the Government to continue to use the statutory variables in the Act to express its long-term objectives, and it gives Governments some flexibility to use an alternative variable or variables in substitution, and it does that in a way that still requires major metrics to be reported on.

I just want to point out to the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan that these are minimum requirements. There is nothing preventing the Government from setting out other goals and priorities in its Budget Policy Statements and its fiscal strategy reports, for example. In the recent Budget Policy Statement which I published, I set out very clearly—I encourage the member to read it—that the Government’s overarching goals for its term of office are to build a stronger, more productive economy that lifts the real incomes and increases opportunities for New Zealanders; to deliver more efficient, effective, and responsive public services to all who need and use them; and to get the Government’s books back in order and restore discipline to public spending. There is nothing to prevent the Government having objectives which guide its Budget decisions, and certainly that is the case with our Government.

20:39

Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually want to go back three clauses because my good friend Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, who is actually the education spokesperson and who is not the finance spokesperson, has jumped ahead three clauses, but I actually have questions on clauses 10, 11, 12, and 13, before we even get to clauses 14 and 15.

In relation to clause 10—

It’s a by-part debate; you don’t have to go in order.

—it is replacing section 15A(4) of the Public Finance Act. Sorry, what was that, Stuart Smith?

I said you can go in any order. It’s by part; it’s not by clause.

Excuse me! This is not a debate across the Chamber.

Sorry, it was an interjection—I was just trying to hear his interjection.

She’s allowed to respond to interjections.

Absolutely. Any member can go anywhere, but I’m just going through it one after the other.

In relation to this new amendment, it’s replacing section 15A(4) with “However, in the case of an appropriation for borrowing expenses, subsection (2)(c) does not apply.” Now, when you look at the Public Finance Act, the current 15A(4) actually has two paragraphs. In 15(4)(a), “in the case of an appropriation for expenses and capital expenditure to be incurred by an intelligence and security department,” which I think the Minister of Finance had said there is no more requirement for that to be reported, and then goes to (b), “in the case of an appropriation for borrowing expenses, subsection (2)(c) does not apply.” I just want to confirm her earlier response to an earlier question from another clause that that is actually why we don’t have that paragraph (a) and it’s only (b) as per the amendment.

20:41

This is now getting repetitive. I have already clarified that the bill requires these departments to provide end-of-year performance information on appropriations with the same content as the other departments. This has been done by convention. This brings it into statute.

20:42

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just signalling to you, Madam Chair, also in terms of the conversation we had before, that a lot of the questions I asked of the Minister of Finance, on clause 15, are philosophical in nature, but I want to get down to the specific clauses and subclauses and ask if the Minister wouldn’t mind providing an example. Again, I noticed, with clause 15, that one of the things that has changed between the first reading of this bill and the end of the second reading of this bill is this subclause (1), which is “Replace section 26J(1)(a) with:” paragraph (a)(i), (ii), (A), and (B). I want to check with you, Minister, whether you wouldn’t mind providing an example of the variables detailed in subclause (2) when alternative variables must include a variation—as detailed in new subsection (2)(1B). What would be an alternative variable that can be “used in addition to, or in substitution for,” as stated in replacement section 26J(1)(a)(ii)(A)? Would you be able to give an example of what would be considered a substitution?

20:43

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’m tempted.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just noting that I am moving through Part 1 but that a lack of engagement from the Minister of Finance is one of the reasons why I have to—it would be good to, from the Minister, have a response to some of these questions.

I can move on to clause 16, which is where we’re looking at the content of the fiscal strategy short-term intentions. I wanted to start by asking the Minister about clause 16(1), when we’re looking at “The fiscal strategy report … for the financial year … which the report relates [to] and for at least the next 2 financial years … explicitly [using] ranges, ratios, or other means,”. I do like the measurement of this, but I wondered if, by explicitly stating “next 2 financial years”—which makes sense—“explicitly [using] ranges, ratios, or other means,”, there is any situation where that potentially could limit or create inflexibilities in terms of how the short-term fiscal strategies could be reported on?

I’m going to start with that particular question, and if the Minister so wishes to address my previous question around what is considered a substitution, it is also found in a similar phrasing in clause 16(1), replacement section 26K(1)(b)(i).

20:45

The member asked for an example of where an alternate variable could be used. An example is core Crown net debt versus total debt. Obviously, both measures are still providing a descriptor of the Crown’s debt position, but they are slightly variable. New section 26J(1B), inserted by clause 15, continues to require the Government to explain how those long-term objectives accord with the principles of responsible fiscal management, and where the Government chooses to use an alternative variable, either in substitution for, or in addition to, the statutory variable, the fiscal strategy report must state how the alternative variable used is similar in nature to one or more of the statutory variables. I note that successive Governments of different political stripes have, from time to time, used these alternate variables.

Just before I call the member, I’ve been watching this debate for the last hour. I’m aware it’s quite a technical bill, and the well-informed nature of those engaged in it has also been noted. That shouldn’t be an excuse to use the technical nature of it to bog us down, and nor should it be, on the other hand, a reason why we shouldn’t actually be delving deep into it. Just that balance is what we’re trying to seek to achieve here. I also note we’ve had what, I’d have to say, is quite an ambitious closure motion from the other side, but we are just moving forward at a nice pace.

20:47

Thank you, Mr Chair, I really do appreciate it. I agree that this is quite a technical bill, and I’m also trying to get my head around it, which is why we are seeking clarifications from the Minister of Finance, but I note that this is the Public Finance Amendment Bill, and public finance—in many ways, the way we do the Budget—is going to affect every part of what we do here, including any portfolio and any ministerial work. I guess I’m just trying to be thorough enough with this bill to give due respect to the magnitude of this bill.

Thank you, Minister, for that response. That’s really helpful. That’s a really good example, which I will remember, in terms of substitution. I want to pick up on something that I mentioned that straddles clauses 15 and 16, and that is clause 14 and, subsequently, clauses 17 and 19 maybe, which are all around the circumstances of the removal of wellbeing and also the repeal of certain clauses. When we are looking in the regulatory impact statement’s option two, which is removing the wellbeing-related requirements, it says that, in terms of consistency, “This option could lead to less consistency and comparability of information contained in the Budget Policy Statement over time.” I just want to check with the Minister about, with the removal of the wellbeing, how the Minister would ensure that the consistency and comparability of information are maintained at the same level as it is currently.

20:49

Well, clause 19 simply repeals that requirement that the Government would state in the Budget Policy Statement the wellbeing objectives, as a separate matter. This removal just reflects the actual practical reality of a Budget Policy Statement. If the member is to read my most recent Budget Policy Statement, I set out, very clearly, the Government’s overarching goals for its terms of office, which I would intend to do in the future and, I suspect, any decent Minister of Finance would do. Then I simply state there are also the wellbeing objectives, because achieving them is what we’ve judged to be the most important contribution the Government can make to the long-term social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of New Zealanders. It is simply a fiction to say that, by placing a requirement on wellbeing in the terms of the Public Finance Act, it is, in practice, changing anything about the way in which Budgets have been put together or formed. I would make a generous assessment that there has probably not ever been a Minister of Finance who has set out to try and deliver a Budget that would reduce wellbeing, and putting the clause in there, I think, is more window dressing than anything else.

20:50

Just a very short follow-up question. I wasn’t referring to, I guess, the wellbeing part. What I’m specifically referring to is what is on page 26 of the regulatory impact statement around consistency and comparability of information contained in the Budget document as something where the removal could have a potentially negative impact. The only question I have is whether the same level of consistency would be expected. Although the regulatory impact statement says that they may be negatively impacted, is that something that the Minister is already working on to ensure that the same level of consistency exists? That’s all.

20:51

Thank you, Mr Chair. My questions are related to the questions that my colleague’s just asked around clause 17 on the repeal of the wellbeing objectives. In reading through the regulatory impact statement in terms of the options that the Minister of Finance was presented with in terms of solving the policy ill that she saw there, option 3, which obviously was not the option that the Minister went with, was clarifying wellbeing requirements to strengthen transparency and accountability. I’d like to know the extent to which the Minister considered that. The Minister’s consistently said that she can cover this off through the Budget Policy Statement more broadly, but, indeed, when the wellbeing requirement was introduced in 2020, it was about having that consistency and transparency, which is what the objective of this Act says it’s trying to increase. So how are we going to compare one Budget to the next in terms of having that consistency?

My second question to the Minister around that is: why are we making these changes now while, at the very same time, the Finance and Expenditure Committee has been tasked by the previous Government with doing the inquiry into public reporting? This has been brought up by a previous speaker. One of the things that that is looking at is how not only we, as a Parliament, can hold the executive more to account in terms of its fiscal decisions, but also non-fiscal indicators and what they may look like. In many ways, making this change is very much getting ahead of that piece of work that’s going on. I’d like to know the extent to which the Minister considered that when she was working through the policy options that were presented to her.

20:53

I’m delighted to say that I considered that, and I think the Budget documents are pretty comparable. All you need look at is the waffly words and photographs and pictures and endless sentences and superfluous phrases in Grant Robertson’s Budgets and then compare them with mine and know there’s a new show in town. I don’t think that the wellbeing measures have provided consistency in that regard.

The second thing that I would point out very clearly is that never, at any stage, were specific statutory metrics introduced in relation to the wellbeing objectives such that they would have been objectively comparable, whereas the Public Finance Act, on the other more longstanding measures, does have metrics around the level of debt, around the balance between operating expenses and operating revenues, the level of total net worth, and the total operating expenses. I think the member probably already knows it, but the reality is the wellbeing clauses were inserted into the Public Finance Act by the previous Minister of Finance as a window dressing exercise to pretend that, somehow, his Budgets were different from any others, but they were judged in the same way as any Budget is, which is: what’s the inflation rate? What is that doing to the cost of living? What is the growth in the economy? What is unemployment? What’s the debt? What are you spending? If she disagrees with that is how his Budgets were judged—what is the impact on public services; what is the impact on taxpayers?—then I invite her to have another discussion with Grant Robertson.

20:54

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I think these committee of the whole House stages are important for the committee to ask the Minister of Finance questions about the decision-making process around the various policy options that were presented to her. The question that I put to her around option 3, which wasn’t retaining the status quo—that was option 1. Option 3 was around clarifying those wellbeing requirements. The Minister said that she wasn’t satisfied that there were statutory metrics that were there in the same way that the fiscal indicators had statutory metrics, so I’d like to know: did the Minister consider, instead, amending the legislation and putting in place statutory metrics by which those wellbeings could be measured? That is entirely different than the answer that the Minister just gave, which was around option 1, which was retaining the status quo.

20:55

No.

Thank you, Mr Chair.

Slow to the draw.

There’s a long way to go, people.

A very long way to go. That’s right, Dr Megan Woods, because we are only at clause 17 of 30 of Part 1 of two parts, plus an interpretation.

What I want to ask the Minister of Finance is in relation to, particularly, the wellbeing provisions, where clause 17 repeals section 26KB of the Public Finance Act. Now, even though the Minister believes it was window dressing, an organisation that didn’t believe it was window dressing was actually the United Nations. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)—so it’s a committee in the UN—recognised that the introduction of these wellbeing objectives into the Public Finance Act was a crucial framework for safeguarding children’s rights and that the launch of the subsequent Wellbeing Budgets from 2018 was a positive step towards realising one of our international obligations under UNCRC, article 1. The UN committee recognised these positive steps, and so it is not merely window dressing according to the UN.

One of the wellbeing objectives that we did have was around child poverty and the ability, basically, for Governments to be able to observe that the wellbeing objectives were more about longer-term thinking. There were many submissions that we received during the select committee process that reaffirmed that view. Their concern was that, by the repeal of section 26KB, the Minister was no longer taking a longer-term view into the wellbeing of children but was actually making more short-term decisions, which we have already recognised in some of the Amendment Papers on the Table, and that measures such as GDP assess, perhaps, how much you can produce or service, but doesn’t actually calculate if you’ve got people sleeping in cars—how is that reflected in GDP?

My particular question to the Minister is: given the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recognised the introduction of the wellbeing objectives into the Public Finance Act as crucial for safeguarding children’s rights and also the subsequent Wellbeing Budgets as a positive step towards realising under UNCRC article 1, what are her steps, now, to deal with that, given she has now repealed that as part of clause 17 and repealed section 26KB?

20:59

The question really highlighted something that I hope my colleagues agree with, which is that I’m glad it is the people of New Zealand who democratically elect their Government and not a report writer at the United Nations, because if that member wishes to press the case that, by simply inserting wellbeing objectives into his Budget Policy Statements, Grant Robertson was about to deliver more wellbeing, I would suggest to her that 33 months of out-of-control inflation reaching an intergenerational high, the accumulation of tens and tens of billions of dollars of debt, a cost of living crisis, a crash in the economy, which led to his Government being voted out, would suggest that most New Zealanders judged that the insertion of wellbeing objectives did not, in fact, enhance wellbeing. I’d also address the member’s questions by saying that we have retained the child poverty Act, so in relation to her questions around that, those reporting measures remain. I’d also point out that the inclusion of wellbeing measures did not prevent people sleeping in cars, which was a common occurrence under her Government in which the social housing wait-list was much, much longer than it is under ours.

Just an observation, first, Minister. The reason the Minister doesn’t make comments in the chair is because she has a microphone and they are broadcast, so please defer from that. Secondly, also to be aware: the more material the Minister introduces into her answers, of course, it does broaden the debate out. Thirdly, though, be aware we need to be still making progress and I’ll be now asking for each member who is actually asking questions to refer to the part of the bill that they’re referring to.

21:00

Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. Yeah, the Minister of Finance did open up a whole lot of different questions in relation to—

That’s right.

I know, a lot of debatable points which we will go through.

You haven’t been able to answer any of them.

Sorry, what was that, Simon Court? Just so we can put it on Hansard, thank you very much—take a call.

So, therefore, given the Minister’s particular comments in relation to some of our obligations that we have committed to under the UN and some of the conventions—particularly to the rights of children—is she now saying to the New Zealand public that she does not believe that New Zealand should not be a party to the United Nations conventions on the rights of children, given her response that she just gave? I ask the Minister to respond very carefully to it, because it would be a very interesting Hansard to review, and to continue this line of questioning, given the different subjects that she opened up as part of her response.

21:02

Thank you, Mr Chair. Also, Mr Chair, you spoilt our fun because the Minister of Finance has already opened up and we would love to have the opportunity to talk about shock events and the fact that we often seem to have this amnestic effect that we have on the other side, when the very shock event that the Minister refers to that we need to be prepared for is exactly what happened globally in 2020, where we actually, overall, came out better in terms of our level of debt compared to many others in the world.

But the question I have for the Minister is referring to clause 20. Within the regulatory impact statement, there are a number of issues that this bill is hoping to address and there’s still a few more that we haven’t touched on yet, and I want to touch on the one that talks about quantifying and publishing new tax expenditure estimates. I want to check with the Minister; I guess the first question over here is in the regulatory impact statement—and I’ve been keeping a close eye to it—when it comes to clause 20, inserting new section 26MA. I’m looking at subclause (3), specifically “the tax expenditure statement must include, for each tax expenditure”.

One of the things that we are seeing—this is the options identification of this particular section in the regulatory impact statement where option 3 is chosen, and this is page 19. The content in the regulatory impact statement says, “The content requirements to be specified in legislation would include:” five different categories. In most cases, each of the categories match what we see in 26MA(3)(a) to (e). But I’m curious as to why there’s been a change in the legislation from what is in the regulatory impact statement for option 3, “d”., which is an explanation of the outcome the expenditure is intended to achieve. Whereas 26MA(3)(d) is the type and objective—objective, not outcome—of the tax expenditure, noting that when we’re looking at the definition of “outcome” versus “objective”, outcome is straightforward, but the objective is a step-to-step process of leading to a particular goal or a particular outcome.

I guess my question to the Minister is: why are outcomes not required to be included in the tax expenditure statement in the legislation, compared to the regulatory impact statement?

21:05

In answer to Barbara Edmonds’ question: no. But as the member should well know, it has simply never been the case that New Zealanders agree with every sentence in every UN report.

In relation to clause 20, this is simply a transparency measure, and I note that it was actually welcomed by Opposition members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which is to put in a requirement where there is this tax expenditure, that there is some reporting on the outcomes of it.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and tēnā koe e te Minita. My question is relating to clause 17 and the repeal of 26KB. Acknowledging the Minister of Finance’s focus on fiscal responsibility and of course the fact that Māori had strong support for this in their submissions—for the wellbeing reporting—in 2018. Given the strong performance of the Māori economy, which is based on generational wellbeing and evidence of prudent fiscal management, did the Minister have any conversations with any iwi or iwi entities, including hauora entities? Was there any consultation undertaken with those entities and the impacts that this will have on the long-term effect of not just the Māori economy but the overall economy, with a Māori lens? Did the Minister receive any advice on whether changes to the inclusion of the Wellbeing Report will affect any obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and was that even a consideration? Thank you.

21:07

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I still do have questions on those clauses 17, 18, 19, 20, which is the set of clauses that are removing the wellbeing reporting.

In the regulatory impact statement (RIS), Treasury noted that the Wellbeing Report “provides a standalone piece of analysis on broader economic and social outcomes, published at regular intervals. It is … using Treasury’s professional judgement and is independent of Ministers. This supports public debate on the state of the nation. Ceasing the [Wellbeing Report] therefore risks less information being made available for public debate.” Now, this is quite a fundamental change in terms of what the bill’s purporting to do, which is around transparency; that actually there’s advice from officials that it’s going to risk less information and less transparency feeding into the public discourse in public debate.

The other question I have for the Minister is, in the explanatory note, it gives streamlining the number of stewardship reports that Treasury must prepare as a reason for discontinuing the Wellbeing Report. It’s seeing it in the context of those other stewardship reports that are produced, and this could be re-characterised as a de-prioritisation or a cut, if you like. So if administrative efficiency was the priority, as outlined by Treasury in the RIS, was the consideration by the Minister for merging the existing requirements of the three existing stewardship reports into the Wellbeing Report to look at consolidation of those reports, rather than simply cutting the Wellbeing Report in the name of streamlining? Thank you, Mr Chair.

21:09

In reference to the questions from the first member, I note that the bill went through a full select committee process to which any Māori individual entity or organisation was able to submit. I note the bill only received 80 written submissions. However, I can also confirm for the member that no inconsistencies with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi were identified during the development of the policy proposals in this bill.

In answer to the questions from the Hon Megan Woods, I just simply disagree with the statement that she quoted. In terms of her question around consolidation: no.

I also have to say that broadening out the debate doesn’t mean spending too much time on those broader issues, either; it means they can be obviously addressed.

21:10

Thank you, Mr Chair. I don’t believe the Minister of Finance answered the question from Cushla Tangaere-Manuel at all. I want to come back to clause 17, particularly when we look at this from a wellbeing perspective, and we look at the strategies that roll out in terms of Māori-targeted funding. Now, we were talking about the consultation process, and the Minister has not given us a satisfactory answer in regard to that, particularly given what the Māori economy is worth. We’re talking in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet the Minister has not come back with any answers in terms of her consultation process.

Also, we’ve seen so much money—in fact, I would say around a billion dollars, and I’ve taken this up with Minister Bishop and Minister Potaka—in terms of the Māori housing strategy; over $800 million in the last year or so transferred out of the Māori-targeted area for Māori housing, which is something that has been incredibly crucial in terms of development for Māori. I would like the Minister’s response to that, given that we had a programme in place—we had Māori housing groups in place—and it seems to be something that this Government has ignored, despite that funding going into the mainstream pūtea. Now we have Māori providers who have to compete and who are missing out, so it goes against the grain. [Chairperson signals to member]

Yes, yes, I’m trying my best, Mr Chair—it’s a very difficult, tricky topic here. We’re talking about Budgets—

Maybe best left to others, Mr Jackson.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m trying my best here. If we’re talking about wellbeing, where is the wellbeing in transferring that money out? Where is the strategy in terms of targeted funding for Māori? Where is the consultation? Where is the partnership with Māori? I think that the Minister has been very—well, I did not hear the response. In fact, I thought it was an inappropriate response.

21:12

I move, That debate on this question now close.

We probably need to keep moving forward now, to those questioning.

Yes, and I’m happy to carry on from my colleague Mr Jackson, who just gave an excellent speech outlining the kinds of things that need to be reported under wellbeing reporting, and the kinds of things that that would pick up. I’ve got a very simple, quick question for the Minister of Finance, it is still on clause 17. Why did she not consider the consolidation of all of the reports into one?

21:13

Because I thought it was better to remove it.

I would like to move on to, I guess, the next broad theme of this bill, which is around specific fiscal risks—or SFRs—which is what we’re looking at in clauses 22 to 24, noting that clauses 22 and 23, essentially, replace some of the reporting aspects from two years to four years and three years to five years respectively.

I want to check with the Minister of Finance, on clause 24(2), also noting that this is still a brand-new clause that hasn’t been touched on previously. We are looking at specific fiscal risks. Clause 24(2), which says, “After section 26Q(3)(b)(ii), insert:”—the new subparagraph (iii)(A) talks about “the fiscal impact during the forecast period for the economic and fiscal update if the risk were to materialise;”.

I want to check a couple of scenarios with the Minister and whether they would then be considered the materialisation of a risk for the forecast period of the economic and fiscal update. One of them is, for example, what we are seeing now, when there has been international conflict that potentially disrupts supply chains, etc. Would that be considered something that is going to happen here? It’s not something, I would assume, someone could forecast, but if it does materialise, would it be considered a specific fiscal risk? That’s my first question.

My second question is: if you are looking at the increased frequency of climate-charged weather events—and, again, when we did the infrastructure debate, there was a lot of conversation about what happens when certain communities are cut off. I think Grant McCallum talked from a Northland perspective, and I think Katie Nimon also mentioned Tukituki—

Napier.

Oh, no, you’re Napier—I’m sorry. Tukituki and Napier, Katie Nimon’s and Catherine Wedd’s electorates. If that were to happen, and we are looking now at a very clear increase in climate-charged weather events—we know that those risks will materialise, so would those kinds of risks also appear as a part of specific fiscal risk? Those are my two questions. Where does it go if it’s not anticipated, and would climate-charged weather events be included, because it’s now happening?

21:16

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just noting that we are up to clause 20—I’m just doing a progress update. Clause 20 of 30 in Part 1 of a two-part bill, including the interpretation section. Going specifically to clause 20, which is new section 26MA, which is the tax expenditure statement, during the select committee process we heard from a number of submitters who are actually very supportive of this new amendment, this new addition to the Public Finance Act by the Minister of Finance, so I do acknowledge the work that she and Treasury have done on that in relation to making this a mandatory reporting obligation. Some of the particular questions in relation to the tax expenditure statement were on parts that were perhaps missing.

Just quickly for the Minister: has she considered reporting on how much potential revenue is being lost to avoidance or evasion, by broad tax type? That does sound weird—how can you report on how much tax may be avoided or evaded? However, Inland Revenue do have a compliance model where they do, via industry sector, try to calculate the level of avoidance or evasion—whether it’s avoidance or evasion, they’re two separate things, and they won’t necessarily say one or the other. They can actually measure that, and that’s by industry sector. For example, if you’re in the hospitality sector, and other cafes of similar sizes are showing that they’re reporting X amount of revenue, but your particular business doesn’t actually show that same level—it’s actually probably a drop—that is actually a flag within the system that they would probably report as part of their compliance modelling.

I just want to ask the Minister that question: had she considered whether—because it’s not as part of the current tax expenditure statement—how much potential revenue is being lost to avoidance or evasion, before I ask other, further questions?

21:18

In relation to the questions about clause 24, I refer the member Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan to the latest Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update for examples of what risks look like, and I note that these include climate change - related risks. For the member’s information—although I would note that providing this information is certainly wide of the bill at hand—if a risk materialises and has an impact on the Crown, it is no longer a risk; it would be included in the forecasts.

In terms of clause 20, I’d just simply note for the member the Hon Barbara Edmonds that nothing precludes any Minister from reporting information above and beyond what is required from the Public Finance Act. This Government certainly stands by its delivered promise to invest more in audit and compliance at the IRD. We have done that over successive Budgets, and we are proud to have done so.

21:19

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The Hon Barbara Edmonds, moving forward.

I am moving forward, Mr Chair, to, actually, my proposed amendment that is on the Table, specifically an amendment to clause 20. That’s to insert new paragraph (f) after new section 26MA(3)(e), and that’s the estimated number of taxpayers that would be affected by the tax expenditure. I note the Minister of Finance says that the current amendment doesn’t preclude Ministers from being able to report on anything; however, I believe that this is important enough that it should be actually in the primary legislation. The reason why I say that is that by ensuring the tax expenditure statements also include the number of taxpayers that would be affected by tax expenditure—this would prevent a repeat of where a Minister makes claims about how many people would benefit from a tax cut or a transfer, only for it to be wildly overestimated.

I do think it’s important that that goes into primary legislation. Yes, Ministers could decide to report on that by other means; however, by putting it into one place, which is the tax expenditure statement—again, I hope that amendment would be able to get the support of the committee—it means that the Minister has to actually record the estimated number of taxpayers that would be affected by that tax expenditure—not in a policy paper, not in a little Budget at a Glance booklet, not in a press release, but, actually, in the tax expenditure statement. I seek, hopefully, an answer from the Minister as to whether she would support my amendment to clause 20, new section 26MA(3), to insert new paragraph (f).

21:21

No. The clause codifies existing practice. The way in which the member the Hon Barbara Edmonds has put the amendment would significantly increase the resources required to be applied by taxpayers in order to deliver on that legislative amendment. But I guess some members of the House have different views on how we should use taxpayers’ money. I always think we should be as prudent as possible.

Given the Minister of Finance’s response that it’s already recorded in other things, how would it cause even more resources to, actually, then just record it into one place? That argument does not make sense. The Minister’s saying, “Well, they have to record it in this statement, in that statement.”—the Budget at a Glance, for example, or a press release—but that it’s going to cause a whole big bunch of resource to put it in the tax expenditure statement. If the Minister stands by her response, how much more resource would it be? What advice did she receive from Treasury or IRD in relation to that large amount of resource, extra resource it’s going to take? How much would that extra resource cost? Why can’t she include that as part of a further financial year? And if the Minister is standing by her claim that it has to be recorded in other documents, name those other documents, otherwise she has totally, basically—what’s the word?

Misled.

—misled or mischaracterised. If it’s going to be included as part of other documents, I don’t—I’m trying to understand how it is more of an extra big resource to put it in a tax expenditure statement.

21:23

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move on to, now, looking at a new clause. Again, I note that I’m not our finance spokesperson, so a lot of the questions I ask are probably going to be asked in more depth by other finance spokespeople, like the Hon Barbara Edmonds, in far more detail than I could muster. Also noting, with what the Minister mentioned before, that there are some good bits in there that we do agree with, but it’s still important just to check with the Minister of Finance on some of the intent and some of the operationalisation of it.

With that being said, I want to move on to clause 26, which is around the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update (HYEFU). This is to do with one of the other policy intents of this bill, which is adjusting the requirement of a HYEFU in an election year. The only question I have for the Minister in this—and I understand why we’re moving from October to September, it’s a logical move in terms of the gap between what is going to be in a Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU) and what is going to be in HYEFU. But one of the things that I see in the regulatory impact statement, on page 38, is that there is the risk that if the exemption applies more often because we have moved the date of the HYEFU from October to September, there are no further requirements for producing any economic or—sorry, the exemption from October to September; there’s no requirement to produce a HYEFU, possibly, at the end of an election year before a Budget Economic and Fiscal Update (BEFU) the next year. So I want to check with the Minister—and this is something that’s recorded in the regular impact statement—what is the Minister’s intent; is that a significant enough risk in the Minister’s perspective? I guess that’s the first question.

Maybe I’ll just ask my second question now as well, which is on clause 27, and that is to do with the shifting of the PREFU earlier, taking note that more people would be doing advance voting. I think the idea of shifting from, I think, at this stage, the window between 35 days and 25 days is a good one. But in terms of the interaction—which we said before—of the exemption for HYEFU and then the shift in terms of the PREFU, does the Minister also think there’s going to be a longer and longer gap between the BEFU mid-year in the election year than, potentially, a PREFU now earlier in terms of the election? And there’s going to be a much longer gap potentially. Then, if you get a HYEFU that’s been exempted, there’s going to be a longer gap between the PREFU and the BEFU of the subsequent year—is the gap going to be too long for it to be considered a good process?

21:26

In response to Barbara Edmonds’ questions, the advice I received was that by formalising publication of the taxation expenditure statement as it currently stands, rather than a new, novel, and expanded form as she has described, that reflected what Treasury and Inland Revenue believed they could achieve within existing resources. I was advised that collecting comprehensive data on all tax expenditures in the way described would impose compliance and administrative costs that presently outweigh the value of the additional information and would divert resource from analysis of policy options.

In terms of the questions from Lawrence Xu-Nan, I note that this is simply about being pragmatic and practical. The period between a half-year update and a pre-election update—if it is too short, it imposes significant burden on Treasury. As it is, the time difference between a Pre-election Fiscal Update (PREFU) and the next update, which would be at Budget if the exemption were to apply, is not dissimilar to the existing gap between a Budget Economic and Fiscal Update (BEFU) and a Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update in non-election years, which is roughly eight months compared to seven.

I just also note that regardless of the requirements in the Act, a newly elected Government may wish to provide updated economic and fiscal information to the public and would be able to do so—again, nothing in the Act precludes it.

Tom—

Rutherford.

—Rutherford. You’ve been away a while, Mr Rutherford.

21:28

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’ll also just remind that attempting to persuade at this stage and attempting to clarify will be two quite different points that will be taken by the Chair.

Thanks, Mr Chair. I have a question in response to the advice that the Minister of Finance just gave. The advice that she received was that it would take additional resource, that, basically, the tax expenditure statement as set out currently in Amendment Paper 502. The additional resource for Treasury and IRD is based on how much resource it would take for this, for, basically, what’s in clause 20, new section 26MA, which is “(1) The Minister must present to the House of Representatives a tax expenditure statement”, and they must present that statement immediately after they delivered the Budget for the financial year—which is fine. “(3) The tax expenditure statement must include, for each expenditure,—(a) a description of the tax expenditure; and (b) the legislative provision that authorises the tax expenditure; and (c) the estimated value of the tax expenditure, where it is reasonably feasible to estimate; and (d) the type and objective of the tax expenditure; and (e) if available, a link to an internet site where [the] documents that record the following are published: (i) the decision to make the tax expenditure: (ii) the analysis that informed that decision.” Then, (4), it “includes an exemption, allowance, preferential tax rate, deferral, or offset.”

I accept the officials’ advice that that does take significant resource, because this is new. Every time something is new, in the same way as when the disclosure statements were introduced as a regulatory requirement, it does take effort. However, for example, when officials estimated that 21,000 families would benefit from FamilyBoost, the maximum is 250, and when we’ve asked the Minister how many of those families have actually received it, the Minister is unable to answer it. So we have assumed it’s zero.

That work is being done. That is part of a Budget policy. The work has already been done to forecast that it was 21,000 families. So I don’t understand how that work, which has already been done, cannot be transferred into the Tax Expenditure Statement, and why that would cause huge—sorry, I think the word was “big”—resources by the Minister when the work’s already done.

Again, let’s follow that from step one. The Minister has released a FamilyBoost policy as part of Budget 2024. If the Tax Expenditure Statement was required in 2024, there is a whole list of things that they would need to do as part of the Budget Policy Statement, because it must be released straight after. The work has already been done to forecast how many families would benefit from that particular tax policy. I do not understand what is the extra, because that’s actually the real question: what is the extra resource to translate the forecast of 21,000 families into a Tax Expenditure Statement? The reason why I’m asking what is the extra resource is because although I can accept from officials that, yes, for Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department there may be significant resources for the new Tax Expenditure Statement, they would have had to do the work as part of the principal tax policy decision, which the Minister has included as part of her Budget.

The introduction of the whole Tax Expenditure Statement is to make it mandatory as part of this Act. You are making it mandatory. I do not accept the excuse that it is big resources, so my question to the Minister, and it is a new question, is how much extra resource—the extra bit, given officials, hypothetically, have already estimated X thousands of families are receiving this—is needed to put that in a Tax Expenditure Statement, given the purpose of the Tax Expenditure Statement is to set out the effect of tax policy decisions, made as part of the Budget to make it mandatory, when the work is already done? I don’t understand the Minister’s response of “big resources”, because, actually, the resources have already been allocated, they’ve already been forecast, so what is the extra resource that’s required to put this in a Tax Expenditure Statement?

21:33

I have a question for the Minister of Finance on clause 27, which is “section 26T amended”, which is around the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update (PREFU). We supported increasing the number of days in which the PREFU needed to be published. This is an important part of the election cycle, when the books are opened up. Parties right across the House and the Opposition, as well as the New Zealand public, get insight into how much money there is and how the policies stack.

One of the things I’m interested in is that if you look at the primary legislation, section 26T(1), it states that “The Minister must, not earlier than 30 working days, nor later than 20 working days, before the day appointed as polling day in relation to [the] general election”. Clause 27(1) in the amendment legislation replaces “30” with “35” and “20” with “25”. I support that, but one of the things I’m interested in is whether the Minister of Finance received any advice around whether that polling day was the right day that we should be using, given the growth in advance voting in New Zealand, or whether or not we should be setting the days that the PREFU needed to be published out from the beginning of advance voting.

We’re seeing hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who are casting their votes before polling day. It is an important part of the election cycle in terms of Opposition parties being able to release policy, making sure it all stacks up. That window has fundamentally changed since this primary legislation was put in place that saw polling day as a fixed state, whereas we now know, in fact, that the regulatory impact statement and some other work actually shows the growth of advance voting, because it is such a thing and it is part of the rationale for why we extend it out. I just wondered whether the Minister either received or asked for advice on whether polling day or the beginning of advance voting was a better metric.

21:35

As the member the Hon Dr Megan Woods well knows, the clause has the effect of, effectively, meaning the Pre-election Fiscal and Economic Update is published five days earlier. This strikes an appropriate balance between, on the one hand, ensuring that voters have better information before they go to vote, and, on the other hand, ensuring that that data is up to date and not out of date by the time they go to vote.

21:36

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 502 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Barbara Edmonds’ tabled amendment to delete clause 4 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment deleting clauses 12 and 13 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Barbara Edmonds’ tabled amendment deleting clause 14 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15(2) to insert “the level of long-term social deficit” into new subsection (1A) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15(2) to insert “the level of long-term infrastructure deficit” into new subsection (1A) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15(2) to insert “the level of climate risks to financial stability” into new subsection (1A) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15(2) to insert “long-term social deficit” into new subsection (1B) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15(2) to insert “long-term infrastructure deficit” into new subsection (1B) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 15(2) to insert “climate risks to financial stability” into new subsection (1B) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 16(2) to insert “short-term social deficit” into new subsection (1A) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 16(2) to insert “climate risks to financial stability” into new subsection (1A) be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 16(2) to insert “short-term infrastructure deficit” to new subsection (1A) be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Barbara Edmonds’ tabled amendment deleting clause 17 be agreed to.