Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 1 April 2026

09:00

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just remind the committee that last night we had just started on Part 2. We had the discussion on Part 1, which includes the Schedule to the bill. We are now on Part 2, and this is where the big stuff in the bill is, because, of course, it is the decrease in the amount of intensification that Auckland must plan for. It is significant that we heard in some of the second reading speeches a lot of talk about how this Government was coming in and fixing things. So I would like to ask the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Housing, about that process because I note that the Minister in the chair is not the Minister whose name is on the bill, but he is certainly a member of Cabinet and this is a Cabinet that introduced in 2024 a resource management amendment bill that linked to the Auckland Plan to say, “Don’t worry about the Medium Density Residential Standards”—this is talking to Auckland Council—“as long as you provide for the same amount of capacity, then it will be OK.”

That legislation went through a full select committee process, which, I note, is quite unusual for this Government—and there were changes made by the select committee—but then when we were at this stage, the committee stage, a large Amendment Paper from the Government came in, and one of the changes in that Amendment Paper was to what Auckland needs to plan for.

My question to the Minister is: why, when that legislation was only passed in August 2025, are we back here in this Chamber—and we’re still in March; the rest of the country is on 1 April—changing it again? What is it that has changed so much that between August and March we have to change things? And not only that—somehow in March, we have to be here in all-stages urgency. So if it was technical mistake—and I think there was a mistake that the papers say was a technical mistake; I don’t think it was a technical mistake but the papers are saying it was a technical mistake—about the permitted status of the Medium Density Residential Standards, which is in Part 1 and we have already discussed it, that is a different issue from a policy change. There was a technical mistake that could have justified the use of all-stages urgency, but that is not why this bill is in front of us now. This bill is in front of us now because of a policy change between August 2025, when this Government was in Government, and March 2026, when it is the same Government. So that is one of my questions for the Minister.

I’m moving on and looking at clause 6, “Schedule 3C amended”. The most important provision in this bill is subclause (3) of clause 6, and that is where the schedule to the Resource Management Act, which was amended in August 2025, is changed. This is where we get to this number of 1.4 million. My question to the Minister is—I think I’ve heard this Minister say before, or certainly some of his colleagues—that it is good to use plain language. Yet here we have “(a) provide a minimum housing capacity of 32.5% less than the housing capacity that would have been enabled if Plan Change 78 (as notified) were made operative;”, and that is replacing words that say “provide at least the same amount of housing capacity that would have been enabled if Plan Change 78 (as notified) were made operative.” In the 2025 legislation, it was at least the same amount, and we’ve heard from the Minister that that is 2 million. So here I have 2025 at 2 million, and here there’s 32.5 percent less, as 2026. Why not say 1.4 million? That is the question on the wording here.

I have another question that goes with that. When, given that I’m interested in timing and I’ve spoken about timing at the start of this contribution, did the number change between what we see here and in the regulatory impact statement? In the 2025 legislation, 2 million; regulatory impact statement, which is dated February, is 1.6 million; and then this piece of legislation, 1.4 million. February to March—a 200,000 difference. My understanding is that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, who is also the Minister of Housing—I’m not sure which hat he has got on here—gave a speech, and it’s all on the Beehive website, just six weeks ago and was referring to this 1.6 number.

Now, he gave that speech, and my understanding is that Auckland Council took him at his word. They knew that there had been barbecues over summer and that there was this change in approach from 2 million to 1.6. They were going around, working on the 1.6, and then on Monday—this is my version of history; I’m very happy for the Minister to correct me if I’ve got this wrong—there was a Cabinet meeting and suddenly it dropped to 1.4. Where is the analysis between the regulatory impact statement—the 1.6—where the preferred option is still 2 million, and this 1.4 that just popped out of nowhere, out of the head of someone in Cabinet, and made it through that process and into this bill? That is an important question.

While I still have the floor, I’m also interested in how this 1.4 works as a minimum. We’ve heard the speeches from the Government backbenchers in the second reading, saying, “Why are you all complaining over there in the Opposition about this? It’s only a minimum.” We did hear from Phil Twyford yesterday, talking about a doughnut effect, but I do want to work this through. If the minimum is now 1.4, not 2 as it was last year and not 1.6 as it was going to be last week, and we have already heard, and see in the papers here, that if you give effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and if you upzone all those areas around the train stations, then you are really going to get more than 1.4.

The argument is—and I’m very interested in the Minister’s response to that—that because there is already that capacity around the train stations, around those rapid transport routes, the council will be incentivised to not upzone, to not intensify, those areas that are not by the specified train routes but that are still close to the CBD, the town centre, where we’ve had, for decades now, economists say to us, “If you want to really improve our productivity, then that is where you house people. If you want to improve our housing affordability and how our cities work, that is how you house people.” I can talk in specifics here to the Minister, who I know lives nearer Auckland than I do.

We have articles here about Parnell and we can see that many councillors do not want to upzone in Parnell, because there is a lot of community talk about this. So is the intended effect—and is this what happened in Cabinet on Monday—the rationale that if you have the minimum so low that it’s going to be clearly surpassed by existing resource management instruments, then there is no way that those elected councillors are going to be able to upzone what some refer to as leafy suburbs, those leafy suburbs that many different Governments have been trying to intensify because of those good economic reasons that I’ve heard the Minister in the chair talk about many times? I would like some comment on that point as well. Is it the intention that those suburbs do not now get intensified, because the capacity is already met through the National Policy Statement on Urban Development and through those rapid transport areas?

09:10

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m happy to answer the questions, which I understand the member the Hon Rachel Brooking asked.

In relation to the percentage and why it doesn’t just say 1.4, the reason is, essentially, a legal technical reason in relation to the process that’s under way. Essentially, what Parliament is doing is legislating in the middle of a plan change process that has started. We had a bit of a discussion at the back end of last night about making sure the submissions that had been made in response to the withdrawal of Plan Change (PC) 78 and the starting of PC 120 could be valid. There were quite legitimate concerns from the member’s colleagues around making sure that the submissions were valid. The way to ensure that they are valid and listened to is to keep the equivalent capacity number in the law but reduce it down by percentage terms rather than go to 1.4 as a number. It just means that the process can continue—that’s the advice I’ve had. In practical terms, the percentage just reduces the number down to about a minimum of 1.4. As I’ve said repeatedly, the other legal requirements also kick in around the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and the other existing legislative requirements around the City Rail Link (CRL) stations, so that will result in the number being roughly around 1.6.

Why are we back here? Well, I think the member knows why we’re back here. This is an attempt to land something that is met with broad consensus—not universal consensus or universal support or a programme the other way, but something that a majority of reasonable people can say, you know what, this is a good step forward for Auckland; Auckland needs to grow, and it needs to grow in the right places. I don’t think it’s worth spending a huge amount more time on that.

In relation to Parnell and other areas, the key point of this is that where Auckland grows, within some parameters set by Parliament, like the CRL, and parameters set by the NPS-UD, which has bipartisan support, it is over to Auckland as to exactly where it grows. That is a legitimate decision or a series of legitimate decisions for Auckland Council and its communities and local boards and all the rest of it. In Parnell, for example, there’s a train station, and it’s near the central business district, so I’m sure there will be upzoning in Parnell, as there will be in other suburbs. The precise mix of that, the blend, and where and what streets—all of that is, essentially, over to Auckland Council. There will be a range of qualifying matters in some of those suburbs as well that Auckland Council has already decided to impose through the Auckland Unitary Plan, which they may decide to keep. The exact mix of all of that is a legitimate decision for Auckland. We’re not mass upzoning a variety of areas; the council is doing that.

09:13

Thank you, Mr Chair. My question follows on from what the Minister responsible for RMA Reform just said and is in relation to that same clause that specifies 32 percent—the same one that Rachel Brooking was just talking about.

I take the Minister’s point around the difference or the discrepancy in terms of the figures and also what the Minister has just said—that Parliament provides some of the guardrails, specifically the specified City Rail Link (CRL) train stations and the proximity to the CBD. My question is around developers like the Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC)—a major landowner and major housing provider who aimed to replace about 2,550 existing homes with 10,500. The Minister will be aware of the work that they’ve done around Point England, Mount Wellington, and so on. They want to expand further in Panmure. One of the things that I’ve heard from them is a little bit of uncertainty around what they are able to do. Panmure is not one of the specified CRL train stations. The area I understand that they’re keen to expand into isn’t necessarily close to the Panmure train station either. They have of course submitted to Plan Change 120, but, given all of the other changes that are in the works, I think there is a little bit of uncertainty, from what I gather from them, in terms of where.

The Minister said that decisions around specific locations will then be for Auckland Council and local boards to decide, but then where does that leave organisations like TRC, who are already planning? That’s my question.

09:15

A similar point. Obviously, I’m familiar with the Tāmaki Regeneration Company, which I think has had an interesting ride over the last 10 to 12 years. It was set up with good intentions in 2014 by the previous National Government, with the broad intention of turning roughly 2,500 old State houses into about 10,000—much greater density and much greater economic use of the land, both for market housing and affordable housing, and for social housing. They are now starting to make progress. I don’t think anyone would be satisfied with their rate of progress to date. Actually, what it revealed once that process started was quite a lot of the underlying issues that we’re dealing with as a country—most notably, the infrastructure. It turned out that when they actually started to do the building, the infrastructure wasn’t there, so they spent quite a lot of time putting in place the enabling infrastructure to allow the building.

Leaving that aside, they do have this mandate to expand. It’s a jointly owned company between the Crown and Auckland Council, obviously. I wasn’t aware that they’d made a submission to Plan Change (PC) 120, but it doesn’t surprise me. A whole range of organisations would have made submissions. I’m fairly sure Kāinga Ora has made a submission because they are, interestingly, one of the most affected Government bodies by these things. One of the reasons Kāinga Ora sometimes struggles to hit their build targets—and this is true both in this Government and in the previous Government—is consenting problems at councils. They get the run-around from council staff who ask them things like, “Oh, we’re very worried about where the planter boxes are on the driveway”, and “We’re very concerned about the concrete on the property being the same colour as the grass on the property.”

I’ve got a whole list that I published the other day about totally extraneous, nonsense reasons that councils go through in order to stymie housing growth. People think it’s just private developers who get the run-around from council staff—it’s not; it’s also Kāinga Ora. The thing that really gets me is that this is for social housing for the most vulnerable tenants in our community—often extremely vulnerable people. You would have thought that councils should be bending over backwards to make sure those developments can get off the ground and actually get up and running, but Kāinga Ora gets the run-around big-time from councils, and I’m pretty infuriated about it, as you can probably tell. Anyway—

Build Arlington!

What’s that? In Wellington? Don’t get me started on Wellington, because the same problem happened in Wellington with Dwell Housing in Kilbirnie. I’ve publicly talked about Dwell Housing being given the run-around from Wellington City Council about social housing in Kilbirnie, from memory. The council asked a whole series of things, and it took them, like, 18 months to get resource consent for social housing—leave aside the funding issue, which I know the member’s concerned about. You can’t actually build anything without resource consents. Don’t get me started.

This is part of the reason why Resource Management Act reform is before Parliament, because everyone is affected by nonsense council decision makers giving people the run-around and focusing on things often internal to sites. You might notice the new planning legislation removes, from the purview of councils, stuff internal to a site. The way your living room faces, where your TV faces, the size of your bedrooms, all that sort of stuff—those are not legitimate roles of the planning system. They’re not. The planning system should be focused on externalities, not on things internal to a site. The colour you paint your front door—

No, minimum room sizes are.

And orientation is.

—is not a relevant decision for planners. This constant desire—well, if you think it is a legitimate role, you’re welcome to those views, but—

Well, can I take a call?

Well, no, hang on a minute. Anyway, I’ll stop. TRC have made a submission. The appropriate place for them to work that through with the council is the independent hearings panel. I’m sure they will make an oral submission.

In relation to Panmure train station, it’s exactly the same point. They will make a submission around that; this is a decision for Auckland Council and the independent hearings panel and the communities of Auckland as to exactly what happens there. The other point that’s worth noting is that just because a plan says something is a permitted activity or it’s easier to go up to a certain height limit, it doesn’t mean you can’t do that if you want to. You’ve just got to go and get a resource consent, and there’s a whole process around that as well. We are liberalising the rules in this plan change and through this bill and the subsequent PC 120. Theoretically, you can go and get resource consent for all sorts of things in all sorts of places as long as you can get it through the council, so TRC will be in that position, too.

09:20

I’m going to go specifically to this, but just on that answer around councils, there were some valid points you were just saying. I agree councils shouldn’t be the handbrake to housing and they shouldn’t be able to control every little element and aspect of development, but there are some important precedents or rules that councils can set; things like minimum room sizes. Otherwise, you’ll end up in a space, like in South Korea, where you’ve got tiny little boxes that people have to live in that are underground, where people get no light, no fresh air, nothing, and they’re living in tiny little boxes. So there is some argument for council to be able to stipulate things like that, but not things, like you say, like the concrete matching the grass or the colour of the door—totally agree on that.

Right, so to the bill, my question is around page 3 of the bill. Replacement clause (8) in Schedule 3C, replaced by clause 6(6) of the bill, says, basically, that for the purpose of calculating the housing capacity, Plan Change 120 is using the same capacity modelling methodology as was used under Plan Change 78, and that’s what I really want to ask questions about. In the debate on the first reading and second reading of this bill, there was a bit of debate about what are the underlying kind of statistics or modelling data that underlies this change. I note that we’re carrying over the assumptions around capacity modelling from Plan Change 78 to Plan Change 120. I’m sure we can agree, hopefully, that migration patterns or expected demand in terms of housing or population may have changed in the conditions that existed under Plan Change 78 and the conditions that exist today. I’m interested to know: what’s the rationale between carrying over that modelling, because it may have fundamentally changed now? I want to test that assumption.

What is the model that’s being used? Can you talk to us a little bit about what that methodology looks like? The other assumption I want to test with you is assumptions around capacity and this concept of “latent capacity”. To tell the committee what that means, latent capacity refers to the belief that existing urban networks contain unused capacity that can accommodate additional development without equivalent investment in new infrastructure. I know that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has been talking about infrastructure and that we need the right infrastructure to accommodate the growth and so on and so forth, so I want to ask what are the underlying assumptions as to the transport capacity, the education capacity in terms of the schools, the hospitals, the green spaces, the libraries and community facilities—all of the things, because I think both the Minister and I would, I hope, agree that in intensification, you have to also provide for community spaces as well; otherwise, you’re just literally going to be living in a—to use the phrasing that you might use, maybe—socialist Soviet block of towering social housing or whatever it is.

Brutalist architecture.

I just want to test—yeah, brutalist Russian architecture or whatever—what the underlying capacity assumptions actually are, because that’s a really important part of this conversation. My understanding is that there’s not yet been a conversation specifically about at what point, in the population growth or housing development enabled by this plan, will it trigger upgrading or recalibrating of the infrastructure that exists. I’m keen to hear, just to be super clear: what are the underlying assumptions around infrastructure capacity now? And what’s the plan when this modelling eventuates, if it does? Hopefully it, does.

09:24

Let me start with that last point. I mean, the key point here is we’re not master planning Auckland in this bill, OK? Auckland Council is planning Auckland and that is a really important thing to just remember. There are no underlying assumptions in the bill around where the infrastructure is in Auckland. That exists now and the council has that information and they are the appropriate body to work that through with local communities. It is true to say—and officials have done some analysis on this—that the new Plan Change 120 that is now under way is better calibrated to where the existing infrastructure is than Plan Change 78, for example.

Plan Change 78, at a high level, had 2 million homes spread broadly throughout Auckland in a much more blanket way. This focuses the intensification much more tightly around where the infrastructure is, in a broad sense. That’s obviously not true for some areas but, in a broader sense, the officials have indicated—and Auckland Council’s indicated this—where the big waste-water and stormwater networks are, where the existing infrastructure is, where the busways are, where the City Rail Link stations are, for example. Broadly, the housing capacity is more closely calibrated to where the existing infrastructure is.

As to future infrastructure, that’s a forward-looking decision. As I think the member knows, having capacity in the system is one thing; actually turning the capacity into actual houses depends on any number of different factors from market economics to immigration, supply, demand, bank interest rates, finance—all of those things. Another big factor is, of course, infrastructure. If there’s no infrastructure there to support it—like, if you can’t actually connect to a waste-water network, for example—you basically can’t build, so you need the infrastructure there as well.

Again, the importance of this plan is to indicate where the growth will be so that that can sink into the infrastructure planning to make sure that the infrastructure goes into the right place. So there is a symbiotic relationship between capacity and infrastructure and we’ve got to do both at the same time. That is actually what Auckland is doing right now. The central interceptor is near complete and is under way and is going to be big for Auckland. Watercare has got a huge bow wave of capital investment coming, for example. That’s the biggest constraint in Auckland. And, of course, the Government got the City Rail Link opening, the Eastern Busway—the last stage of that’s just been signed off. We’re making progress on the north-western busway, for example. At some point, we are going to have to deal with the Dominion Road corridor. Members may disagree, but Auckland Light Rail in its previous guise was not the right model for that; it got too big and too expensive.

On your terms.

Respectfully, no one really supports the idea of a massive overground underground at-grade all the way to the airport and all the way to the North Shore, which is what it became. I mean, the solution for that corridor started life as, basically, a $300 million tram which was probably defensible and supportable and it ended up as a $30 billion—and counting—massive transport project that the country can’t afford. Now, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I would tend towards the $300 million option rather than the $30 billion option. We are going to have to confront that in due course.

In relation to the member’s other points: look, just in terms of South Korea and minimum apartment sizes, the member’s right around sanitation, that is dealt with separately in our legislation—the Building Act, as my colleague Cameron Luxton says. I have a bit of a libertarian view about this. It’s not a legitimate role of the planning system to say to communities, “You are not allowed to live in a shoebox apartment, because we as a council have decided that shoebox apartments are bad”. Shoebox apartments are not necessarily bad. If there’s a market for them, people will build them and people will live there. If there isn’t a market for them, people won’t live in them.

Likewise, people should be able to make the trade-off about a balcony or not. There’s economic research to suggest that minimum balconies in apartments, for example, in Auckland, raise the overall cost of an apartment by, roughly, between $40,000 and $60,000. Now, if you want to have an apartment, fine, go and live in an apartment with a balcony, but people and developers and communities and the market should be able to make the legitimate choice to decide, “You know what? I’d actually rather get into an apartment and not have a balcony.” People should be able to make those trade-offs because I’d rather people make their choice—and that raises housing choice. The fundamental thrust of this Government’s policy is housing choice. Shoeboxes, moderate apartments, luxury apartments, townhouses, terraces, bigger apartments, mansions. Just let people build. Just let it go.

I must say we’re broadening it out. It’s quite hard for the Chair to keep things narrow when the Minister goes very broad.

09:30

Thank you, Mr Chair. The first thing I want to ask the Minister responsible for RMA Reform is whether he accepts that the stations that are being centrally dictated to build around are not City Rail Link (CRL) stations. For most of them, actually, the CRL ends and they’re the stations beyond that. Those stations have got no infrastructure around them. There’s no grade separation which means the trains could continue through, so it’s not actually possible for those trains to speed through those areas and get people there as fast as the CRL—those works that you would expect to be a commitment to upgrade at the same time as any focus centrally. For things like schools, which are centrally funded and centrally planned, we would expect to see those in the area of Mount Albert alongside this kind of focus centrally if that was the case.

The second thing I wanted to point out is that, while there is a new interceptor, the people building that have made it abundantly clear that it is not going to cope with the level of water in storms. It does not do that. There is no stormwater system in my area and, because it’s rock, there is a lot of space in that area where there is flooding that is very particular. I wanted to ask about the commitment in terms of the number of houses and whether there had been any attempt to look at the actual number of houses. This is something that I addressed in my submission under the old rules. It went out as a collaborative sort of effort to gather up the main points that were of concern to my constituency. One of them was this number: 2 million, 1.4 million. It’s just theory, because, in fact, there are a whole lot of places which cannot be built on because of flood issues. I appreciate there’s still the capacity to put that in, but has there been any investigation as to what the actual number of houses that can be built is?

I want to come back the Minister’s logic as I understood it. I know that we are both very interested in the book Abundance and the idea of taking zoning out of the equation and allowing there to be a lot more land available. It’s an interesting idea, but does the Minister concede that, at this point, we’ve got an absolute fail here? We’ve got a number with a big question mark over it about what that capacity looks like. Zoning will not be taken away in the same way, and, actually, we may have eroded the very fundamental concept here. There simply isn’t going to be a whole lot of cheap land available and a market produced for cheaper land, so we’re not going to see the cost of those houses come down in that way. I know the Minister has talked about how there will be other levers pulled for affordable housing in this area. I guess my constituents would be horrified by the idea of shoebox apartments. That’s not what they want in their community; they want well-planned community which has green space, which has a really good life for people living in it. I suspect most of them would reject that and be horrified that that was coming to their area soon.

I also want to ask the Minister about why, if there is this commitment here to build housing—and he said this is all about flexibility and actually practically getting it done—we’ve put a hold on the Wesley project, which was well planned, which was an amazing project. We should be very proud in Labour to have made it all the way to getting the shovels in the ground. It stopped, and that area has a whole lot of capacity for housing. It’s 11,000 houses, as I understand it, that could be built there, and they would be affordable. What is the relationship between this kind of legislation and putting a hold on that? Isn’t it possible at least to build houses we’re ready to build that are affordable, that are good for disability, that are all well planned, rather than shoebox apartments, which is what the Minister seems to be offering instead? Thank you. I’ll let the Minister go, but I’d like to come back.

09:34

Well, a few things here. One is that I encourage the member Helen White to talk to her colleagues about the economic evidence around upzoning, because she seems to be denying what is now broadly accepted by public policy experts: that upzoning and making greater use of the land we’ve already got improves affordability over time. As I said to her colleague yesterday, I refer her to the research of Dr Ryan McGreevy and others, and Dr Stuart Donovan, who found that the Auckland Unitary Plan broad upzoning—which is now internationally studied, by the way. If you go to New York, as I did last year, or go to other countries, or Australia, public policy housing experts basically now consider Auckland a paradigmatic example of how upzoning can improve affordability.

It is just true to say—almost certainly true to say—that Auckland rents are now lower than they otherwise would be as a result of the upzoning created by the Auckland Unitary Plan. That is just almost accepted as true. There are a few dissenting voices in the economics profession, but there aren’t that many. There’s also the occasional economist who’d tell you that rent control is good. There’s the occasional economist who’d tell you that tariffs are great and that free trade is a bad idea. They’re cranks, to be honest; most people don’t think that. The vast bulk of the economics profession thinks that one of the best things we can do for housing affordability is land supply and upzoning. That’s what happened in Auckland, and this is now the next step.

Correction: the loudest.

Well, feel free to disagree. I look forward to your speech.

To the City Rail Link (CRL), yes, it’s true that the City Rail Link stations in this bill are not “CRL” stations, but it’s a network, right? Once you put the CRL stations in place, it’s a network. In relation to the member’s constituency, over time, not straight away—let’s get it open—there will be more—

When?

Well, good question. Over time, there will be more trains running at greater frequency and reliability because of the CRL investments and the rest of the rail network rebuild, which has been enormously painful for many parts of Auckland over the last five years, as we get ready for CRL. That deals with that point.

The member is right about schools. One of the things that’s frustrated me, as Minister of many things, is the lack of coordination between housing and transport and planning, and that’s partly why we’re creating the Ministry of Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT), so that rather than have five different Government agencies—in fact, more than that—dealing with all of these issues, we’ve got a focused central government repository and mechanism in order to do better planning, like the member talks about, and better master planning, in particular where the Crown is making heavy investments—Drury being a notable example, where, basically by accident, we are building a new city.

We are basically building a Napier in Drury. That has happened by accident, largely caused by private plan changes. The last Government decided to build new train stations, which was great—I’m not opposed to that—and then you’ve got the development contribution with the Auckland Council, which has gone up and down, and they’ve had an endless debate about that. Kind of by accident and a bit ham-fistedly, in a classic New Zealand kind of bugger’s muddle way, we have gone into building this new city without actually having thought very hard about how to do it properly. I agree with the member around that: we do that stuff really badly in New Zealand. That’s partly why we’re creating MCERT and setting up some new institutional structures around that.

I deny the member’s point—I just reject absolutely the idea—that zoning doesn’t matter. It does. It will lead to more affordable housing over time. The member might not like shoebox apartments, but the member has to accept that there are trade-offs. The more you stop development that the market will support and that people want, there are trade-offs as a result of that. It is just true to say that cities that make it harder to build housing, that don’t allow for the zoning, have worse homelessness than cities that don’t. San Francisco is the most notable example of that. It’s really difficult to build apartments in San Francisco. It’s really difficult for San Francisco to grow. They have the worst homelessness in the United States. Cities in Texas, cities with land markets where there’s freedom to build and where the zoning is loose and deregulated, have far less rates of homelessness. There are trade-offs—there are trade-offs—as a result of always demanding nice things, nice apartments. Everyone wants to live in a nice apartment. The reality is that not everyone can, and, actually, what people need are housing choices and housing options.

In relation to Wesley and some of the other large Crown investments unaffected by this plan change, the large-scale projects are proceeding, and the member’s colleague will be familiar with the Northcote development, which is the first large-scale project kicked off by the previous Government, which, again, is taking probably a bit longer than people would like but is now coming to its end. I understand the member may wish to comment. It’s been a very successful project in Northcote.

09:40

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thanks for the opportunity to come back. Since my last contribution, the Minister responsible for RMA Reform has raised many issues, and I would like to note that I agree strongly with some of what the Minister was saying about infrastructure and the importance of the upzoning and the intensification. I am interested in how he can say that this legislation, though, is the next step in making progress, because my reading of this is that this is a backwards step. Was the Minister referring to a forward step or a backwards step? That is my first question.

I’m also interested that the Minister raised a whole lot of issues around social housing in an earlier contribution, and so I would like the Minister to reflect on his planning bill, which he raised, and where the social housing goals are in that legislation to enable the sort of decision making that he was talking about in terms of councils. I would also be interested in the Minister’s comments where he was talking about the Resource Management Act (RMA) being the problem for social housing in not being able to get consents, when, of course, in the great city of Dunedin, there are a consented 41-42 apartments ready to go in Carroll Street, yet that is not going ahead because of funding. Perhaps you’d like to reconsider that, noting that the Minister brought up the social housing issue.

Now, going back to his answer to my question on clause 6(3), which is this “32.5% less”, he said, “Well, the council’s going to continue with all of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development and the railway stations, and so it’s likely going to get to 1.6 anyway.” Now, noting I had my question around the amount of work that the council has done in the past six weeks from this Minister’s speech, which had the 1.6 number, is he now telling Auckland Council, “Well, that’s fine, just go ahead with all the work that you were doing in that past six weeks, because, in fact, this is merely a minimum that we are setting”? That is a separate question; I’ve got more.

Then I have another question. Well, if that is the case—go back to where you were six weeks ago, Auckland Council—can he also say, “well, Auckland Council, if you want to go to the 2 million, that is your choice as well; you can ignore all of this legislation that is, for some reason, in all-stages urgency”? That’s one set of questions.

I also then, related to this, want to ask the Minister: who are the bureaucrats that his colleague Simeon Brown referred to in his second reading speech yesterday? The Hon Simeon Brown was saying over and over again that this is a Government that just ignores bureaucrats who get in the way. Was that the bureaucrats who wrote this regulatory impact statement that was based on 1.6 million, but the regulatory impact statement recommends the counterfactual, which is the status quo of 2 million—is that who Simeon Brown was referring to, or was it some other bureaucrats? What was the decision that this Government is now going against with this all-stages urgent legislation?

Now, moving to a related but slightly different topic, also related to clause 6, on page 3, there is a change at subclause (4), and it relates to Schedule 3C of the RMA: in 4(2) of the schedule, insert “or”. Now, I want to take the Minister through this. If you go to Schedule 3C of the RMA, clause 4—this is the requirements for the unitary plan if Plan Change 78 is withdrawn. We’ve traversed, to some extent, the 1.2 million, the 32.5 percent issue. There’s paragraph (a), which is this amount, this number—2 million, 1.6 million, 1.4 million, 32.5 percent less, in (a)—and then there is an “and” after (a). It says, “enable, within at least a walkable catchment of”, and then it lists some stations. We’ve got Mount Eden, Kingsland, and Morningside stations. Then there’s the heights and densities. As far as I can see, there’s no change to those named stations in the legislation.

But then at the end of that, it says “in all cases, building heights of at least 15 storeys in those locations”—and then this is the critical point. The critical point is that at the moment, after the list of the train stations and the 15 storeys, there’s an “and”: “(c) enable, within at least a walkable catchment of the Baldwin Avenue and Mount Albert Stations,—”, and then some heights and density issues. I think what this legislation is doing is it changes that “and enable” to an “or (c)”. I really want to understand how that works, if I’m looking at the right part of the schedule, and what the intention is of that difference between “and” / “or (c)” in terms of how (b) and (c) of that clause 4 of the schedule work.

I see the Minister is talking to officials here. I’m looking at the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Act 2025, which inserted the new Schedule 3C, so there might be some—I don’t know if it could have changed since then. But if the Minister can comment on his—clause 6(4), what is the effect of subclause (4) of clause 6 in terms of what it is doing to Schedule 3C and that “and” and “or”? What exactly is it? I mean, he might want to comment as well—we’re going to talk about the stations that are in and out. If he can talk to why it is those stations, why there’s an “or”, and if he considered adding in any other stations to these provisions at all.

09:46

In relation to that last point, it’s, essentially, to clarify that the council can reduce intensification due to qualifying matters around those walkable catchments, which has always been the case and will be; qualifying matters, like special character—it’s not actually listed in the Resource Management Act, but it has been used by the council, and we’re not intending to change that; infrastructure of waste-water qualifying matters—a whole range of other qualifying matters in there.

The member asks around is this a forward or backward step? Well, like, objectively, it is a forward step. The Auckland Unitary Plan allows for 1.2 million. With this, we’ll end up at about 1.6. It’s obviously not as high as 2 million, but it is undoubtedly a step forward.

The member the Hon Rachel Brooking asks around social housing. The key point is that social housing is just another form of housing. Its ownership and the resident type are kind of irrelevant. At the end of the day, they’re houses, and the planning system needs to enable all forms of houses.

In relation to the member’s point around the bureaucrats, I didn’t actually hear that second reading speech, so it’s difficult for me to comment on it. It would be fair to say that there has been an enormous effort between officials at the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, and Auckland Council working very hard on this shared public policy problem in an attempt to get to a landing pad that the majority of reasonable people can agree with as a step forward for Auckland. I thank the officials for their hard work.

09:48

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I just want to pick up on some of the earlier comments of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform in response to Tamatha Paul’s questions. These are the kind of questions we would have been able to ask at the select committee, should this have not been brought in urgency. Particularly with the stuff in clause 6(3) around the reduction on the minimum housing capacity, basically, I wanted to ask if any work had been done on the modelling and changes around job creation as a result of this change. Basically, we know that unemployment is high, and the construction sector has particularly suffered as a result of this, affecting young people, Māori, Pasifika, people in our communities, including in Auckland. The changes to the minimum housing capacity will, obviously, mean, I’m assuming, that less job opportunities may end up existing, should we have kept the 2 million minimum homes required, as was previously planned. If any work has been done on modelling, job creation—I know the Minister has previously talked about how in his Government, the Government’s infrastructure pipeline, there would be a certain number of jobs created. I’m assuming that some jobs will be created as a result of this. Is there any information on this and the breakdown of who’s likely to benefit the most?

Secondly, I know that the Minister commented that he does not intend to be a master planner, or that this is not what this is intending to do, but I do want to pick up on the rationale for this change to the minimum housing capacity in relation to demographic changes. Does he believe that the current minimum housing capacity adequately accounts for any future demographic changes that may further increase the demand for housing, particularly in central suburbs? If no work has been done on this, I would like to understand why.

So just to recap, any modelling on job creation—and, if not, does he accept that the downgrading of the minimum housing capacity will likely result in less jobs available for people? And also around demographic changes. Thank you.

09:50

Very briefly: no, in relation to the modelling around job creation, we haven’t done that.

And, no, in relation to—I think the member Ricardo Menéndez March’s second question was around demographic trends. I think the key point is that there is now going to be more theoretical development capacity in Auckland as a result of Plan Change 120, and, also, that capacity is better calibrated to the existing infrastructure. There is some analysis from officials that—as I’ve said a couple of times now—it is more likely that that development capacity will be turned into actual construction, as compared to the counterfactual of Plan Change 78, or indeed the medium-density residential standards before that, where the capacity was much more dispersed at a granular level. This concentrates in the better areas, I suppose you’d say, in terms of infrastructure capacity. It’s more likely that those projects are more economically viable, but we haven’t done any modelling around that beyond what I just said.

09:51

Thank you, Mr Chair. First of all, I just wanted to reflect on a comment that the Minister responsible for RMA Reform made. I still don’t actually know how many real houses would be built, but I am really pleased to think that there is some work going on in that area of coordination of central planning in cities. That seems very sensible, and, obviously, has already been done in Wesley, but I won’t labour that.

I want to talk about the process that people who are in my constituency have to go through now. They’ve put in submissions—so this is new section 10B. They have put quite extensive submissions in, and a lot of them, and they were going through a process which is actually legislatively required—it’s a lawful process that they were going through. Now they are going to have to amend these submissions and get them ready in a shorter time frame.

What I’d like is a really practical explanation from the Minister of what they should do. I’ve got a meeting on this; I was doing an update on the plan changes; that was early May. That sounds like it might be too late for those people, so I’d like to know from the Minister: what do those people do if they’re concerned about things like stormwater capacity in their area, the connection to the facilities? The Minister repeatedly suggests that those things are more present in that area than they are in places like Parnell. I know that there will be a lot of constituents saying, “Why here? Why not evenly spread in a ring around the circle of walkable catchment in the inner city?”, which is what a lot of other models have been—so it avoids the “doughnut”. I’d be really keen to know what the Minister has to say about that process.

Finally, just on process, I’d like the Minister to tell me about the process with the regulatory impact statement (RIS). I can see that it is almost screaming at us, the comments that they just didn’t have enough time to talk to stakeholders and they continue to think this is not a good plan. I’d like to know what process has been gone through and whether, in fact, when this RIS came out and those comments were made, there was any attempt, at that point, to allow consultation. This is February, and we’ve now had a full month passed. Was there any attempt to just mitigate the damage by letting there be a further process of consultation; if so, what was it? Thank you.

09:54

The short point is it’s not for me to give advice to the member Helen White around how she deals with her constituents; that’s for her.

The short point in relation to the submissions is all the ones that have been made are valid; everyone who’s made a submission will be offered the opportunity to amend or change it or update it. They will be able to do that, and that’s for individuals and their communities. I’d encourage her to be involved in that process as a local MP, as I know she will be.

The regulatory impact statement—I mean, the member herself says there wasn’t enough time; it is what it is, so to speak. We are making quick changes, but this issue has been extensively debated backwards and forwards and I generally think what everyone needs now is just some clarity and some certainty. It’s not an ideal parliamentary process; the member knows I don’t like urgency and I don’t like not sending bills to a select committee.

We don’t know that. You keep doing it.

Well, yeah, I know that, but there are always good reasons for it and this is one of those examples where there is good reason for it.

Members, this is a situation where there has been no select committee, as has been referred to by the Minister. The responses have been broad, so it does enable us to ensure that it is well covered. Also, to members on my right, who I presume are seeking closure motions: I’d have the bill in front of you and realise there’s actually quite a bit to talk about, and be careful of not trifling with the Chair by asking too early for closure motions.

09:56

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for making that point. I know there have been heaps of questions around the underlying assumptions and the modelling used that in a housing capacity minimum that is enabled through this bill—well, OK, we’re changing out the Chairs. I was just making the point that quite a few of us have asked questions about the capacity, the methodology, the modelling, and the assumptions that underly this bill. I just wanted to raise that you could target that question in so many different ways, so that’s why there is repetition—you could ask about migration, population, jobs, schools, transport, blah-blah-blah. That’s why we all continue to ask questions around those assumptions.

I’m actually going back to the answers of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform around the provisions in the bill that relate to Auckland Council and around the modelling methodology and capacity that is being enabled through this bill. I understand that the Minister’s been saying in his answers this morning that there are no underlying assumptions underneath this bill and that the matters of infrastructure required to accommodate a population enabled by this bill, or capacity enabled under this bill, is a decision for Auckland Council. Would the Minister agree that that’s been his sentiment, largely, that this bill provides for flexibility for Auckland Council? He’s not paying attention. Is that right?

I’m listening. I said yes.

OK, cool. The problem with that, though, is—has the Minister considered this bill and those provisions that I just read out in relation to future changes to local government? I’m thinking specifically about the rates cap and I’m thinking specifically about Auckland Council’s financial position, which—look, you know, I don’t pay heaps of attention to what Auckland Council gets up to, but one thing I did learn about them is I’m pretty sure they’re at their borrowing limits in terms of borrowing for additional infrastructure. When or if the rates cap comes in, that’s really going to limit their ability—because they already can’t borrow any more, I believe, and they’re not going to be able to rate to pay for new infrastructure to accommodate for this projected modelling in this bill for these 120,000 houses.

It just seems to me really irresponsible that you’d provide for a minimum number of homes—and, obviously, Auckland Council are free to go above that if they want to, and I hope they do—but it seems there’s no thinking about how the Government can enable the infrastructure required to accommodate that population. I don’t mean that as in, “so don’t do it”, because you know and we know that we want more housing. That seems to be a question that hasn’t been covered and seems to be an assumption that is undermined by future decisions by this Government, relating to the funding and finance and revenue-raising capacity of Auckland Council and, indeed, every council in New Zealand. I’m interested to understand that.

On that, has the Minister considered using tools like land value capture? In enabling 1.2 million houses, you are creating value, so in this bill alone, you are creating value that didn’t exist before. A really great example, actually—I think the Minister might appreciate this example—is the example of Transmission Gully, right? When Transmission Gully was created—I want to get the exact figures—investment in Transmission Gully aided $6 billion in private gains, and the Minister probably knows that already. There’s a way that you can actually capture—not all of it but some of those private gains—that investment and that value and put that into the infrastructure required for this level of upzoning and densification.

I know that the main thrust of the bill is that this enables flexibility for Auckland Council, but there’s also a big question on the infrastructure support that central government can provide to Auckland Council to enable this number of houses to be built and to have the support around it. Have you considered land value capture, and how does a rates cap interact with—

10:01

The short point is, in relation to infrastructure, as I’ve said multiple times, now: those are legitimate issues for Auckland Council to deal with. The capacity and the new Plan Change 120, as has been indicated, will be more calibrated to the infrastructure and also the planned network infrastructure coming for Auckland. Obviously, there will be some changes to that over time, as you’d expect from any dynamic plan, but there is a heavy investment in infrastructure going on in Auckland, whether it’s in Drury or in the North West or in the central areas, through things like the Eastern Busway, City Rail Link most notably, as well. That’s a shared central local government responsibility. There’s legislation before the House right now to create an Auckland transport committee, which, again, is a central and local government partnership around a 30-year transport vision for Auckland, which I think has been widely welcomed as part of the Auckland transport reforms that the Government is advancing, again in partnership with the council. There’s a lot of work under way around that.

In relation to the member Tamatha Paul’s second point around value capture, the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act (IFFA) is a form of that. I would prefer to use the term “cost recovery” because it doesn’t so much capture value but it does allow for cost recovery on the basis of infrastructure investment already made. The Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill, which is before the Finance and Expenditure Committee right now makes some changes to allow the allow the IFFA to be used for public transport projects and for State highway projects, for example. It’s not currently allowed to be used for that. We are broadening out its scope. We went through quite a policy process around value capture instruments. In the end, we came to the judgment that the simplest thing to do was just use the IFFA, because it’s already there and people have got familiar with it, and broaden out its scope. That is in the IFFA amendment bill before Parliament right now. I hope the member supports it when it comes back to the House.

I’ll take a call from the Hon Rachel Brooking, but what I am going to say at this point—not to this member but to the committee in general—is that I want specific clauses and specific questions and not speeches, because it’s drifted into speeches. Let’s be really precise with the clause and what you’d like to know from the Minister.

10:04

I’m going to start with a little mea culpa. My last question was referring to an “or” but I was looking at the wrong place of where the “or” was, which, of course, is the problem when you get all-stages urgency legislation and you don’t get to see it until the day it’s introduced. Well done to the officials for preparing a semi-cogent response for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform to say to my question: “That wasn’t making much sense.” Thank you to officials who brief select committees on these issues where we could ask a lot of these questions to select committees—which, of course, we’re not doing today—and ask the Minister. I still do have questions on this topic—

OK, so just for my benefit, having just changed over, if we can go to the specific clause because I’m not familiar with the piece.

Yes, we are on clause 6 of the bill, and I was looking at subclause (4) which is a change to Schedule 3C. We have already traversed, in Schedule 3C, clause 4, the change in the number. That is it at (a). Section 4 says, “Auckland Council must amend the unitary plan to—(a) provide at least the same amount”—that’s now changing to 32 percent or less—“and (b) enable, within at least a walkable catchment the Maungawhau … Kingsland, and Morningside Stations and enable in at least a walkable catchment of Baldwin Avenue and Mount Albert stations,”—and there’s some stuff around that. Then it says, “(2) However, Auckland Council may amend the Auckland Unitary Plan to enable less development than that required by subclause (1)(b)”—and now it says “or (c)”—“or policy 3 if authorised to do so by clause 8.” This is in the legislation that was amended in August, which is now being amended in March.

The Minister just then, when trying to answer my question, referred to qualifier matters, and it was to enable those issues and see which is walkable catchments at Baldwin Avenue and Mount Albert stations to have qualifying matters apply to them. You find reference to those qualifying matters in clause 8 of Schedule 3C to the Resource Management Act (RMA). The Minister just mentioned special character when he was talking about qualifying matters, and I haven’t gone back to section 77I(a) to (i) of the RMA to look at this, but my recollection is that special character is not a qualifying matter; that qualifying matters are Part 2 matters, and so that would be significant historic heritage, and special character has never met that definition.

This is very important in terms of the planned changes that Auckland Council is going to make because special character is something that has aggrieved lots of people for much time and there’s been some misunderstanding about when something is a Part 2 heritage issue and when something is something else. I can see the Minister wants to talk about this, but before he does, I’ve got a couple more questions that still relate to this clause 4 that is being amended by clause 6(4) and that is something that he didn’t answer: there are the named stations there, Maungawhau, Kingsland, Morningside, and then Baldwin and Mount Albert. Did the Minister, in making the decision to reduce the 2 million to 1.6 million and then 1.4 million, consider specifying any other stations or any other transport infrastructure?

We heard contributions on this Eastern Busway and we’ve heard contributions about other transport issues, and I’ve already said that I agree with the Minister on his point around infrastructure and, where there is that good infrastructure, to make best use of it for intensification. So that’s my second question on this clause.

Then, to remind the Minister of my question earlier, which was about the work plan of the Auckland Council. He said the 1.4 is a minimum; they’re going to have to do 1.6 anyway because of these stations that are required. In the past six weeks, the Auckland Council has been working hard for that 1.6. Can they just continue their work? If they can, can they just go to the back to the 2 million as well? I think these are really important issues to have on Hansard. I’ll let him answer those questions, and then I’ve got a different, specific question.

10:08

As I think the member the Hon Rachel Brooking knows, special character is not listed in the Resource Management Act as a qualifying matter. Heritage is a qualifying matter, and there’s a long debate about exactly what heritage is and how it’s determined. The new planning system, as the member knows as well, will attempt to bring some clarity to this and certainly will lift the threshold for when heritage becomes something that the planning system should involve itself with, and we’re intending to make national direction around that and help clarify that because there’s a number of people—including councils and council laws—frustrated at heritage in the planning system.

Special character is a term of art used by councils pursuant to—I forget the exact subclause, but it’s the “any other matter” clause, which is the catch-all for which special character has been shoehorned in and taken on a life of its own. The Government is not intending to change that, at least not through this bill.

So it isn’t an “other matter”?

Well, yes, I mean, that’s the way it’s been interpreted. That’s the way it’s been interpreted and that’s the way councils have used it.

In relation to the other five stations: did we do any further consideration? The short answer is no. The Eastern Busway that the member refers to is a rapid transit station and rapid transit network, which is part of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development mandatory upzoning. As part of my statement of expectations to the council, I have asked them to consider the northwestern busway, both the first but also the planned route, because I think it’s really important that we zone around the route in advance of it actually being built. I’ve asked them to do that, but, ultimately, how they do that is a decision for them.

The member’s third question was in relation to the number: the short answer is yes; the council can just carry on with the plans that they are proceeding with, because they were planning about 1.6 million capacity and that’s actually what they’re legally required to do. The 1.4 million will give them a bit of extra flexibility around it and if the council decides to do 2 million, then the short answer is: yes, they can do that. That’s not an indication that they will do that, but, obviously, it is over to them.

Again, I just repeat what I said before, which is: what we’re trying to do is get central government and the Parliament out of this and delegate it down to the legitimate decision-making body for this, which is Auckland Council and its constituent communities and local boards. And within parameters—that we’ve talked about and canvassed now for a couple of hours—it’s over to them.

10:11

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister’s invitation to talk about one of my favourite projects: the Northcote housing development. It’s reflective of our community and, really, planning in two halves. Planning, in a good sense, is, in fact, the Northcote housing developments. Not only were there houses built but new schools, new water infrastructure, new recreational centres, and a new shopping centre, and that, in fact, enables what we call the “upzoning”, the discussion point today where we are able to intensify key areas on main arterial transport links for people to live, for people to build their families there, and for communities to thrive.

The fact of the matter is that in the game of two halves that is our community, on the other end, Chatswood have been quite a vocal group of residents who are really struggling with Plan Change 120. They say that they don’t oppose intensification, but they really want to ensure that the right planning tools are in place, and the right infrastructure is in place as well. It’s quite a complex gradient of the particular community. If you’re looking at me in regard to which clause I’m talking about—

That was going to be my next question.

—it’s new clause 10C of Schedule 3C, inserted by clause 6(7) of the bill, around decision making. There are some physically enclosed areas in Kauri Point Domain, Duck Creek, gully and bush corridors, Chelsea Estate Heritage Park, the New Zealand Defence Force Kauri Point base and the steep, unstable slopes in and around that particular catchment area.

The Minister says that this legislation isn’t planning Auckland; Auckland Council is doing that—and that is correct, in a sense, but we can’t devolve all responsibility and blame decisions on Auckland Council when, in fact, we have to stand up for some of them.

In this, it means that the two areas in our community aren’t comparable when it comes to planning laws. As an example, there’s a broad sweep around a 10-kilometre radius that’s been put around the Auckland isthmus, and that would capture both the Northcote housing development end and the Chatswood coastal area that would be implicated by this piece of legislation and the decisions that we make today. Hundreds of voices from the Chatswood community have spoken out and sent a submission through to Auckland Council as a part of that process. But here we are, in urgency, of course, and those voices and that submission haven’t, in fact, been heard. We haven’t been able to see those in terms of how that would implicate this piece of legislation.

Coming to the key points around how decision making is made, and some of the speeches yesterday articulated that this is a good sense of localism, that we’re enabling Aucklanders to make a decision, but I can’t actually see how, for the community of Chatswood, that they’re able to participate in this particular decision making when they are, in some respects, unfairly implicated by the decisions in this piece of legislation that will enable a 10-kilometre radius. I’m just wondering, from the Minister, how he sees those two parts of the community comparable. What advice has he received, particularly in regards to Auckland’s North Shore? We’ve acknowledged in this debate South and West Auckland, and I think there’s been the Eastern Busway link as an example, but across the North Shore I haven’t heard any voices discussing how we will upzone key areas along the Northern Busway, prime areas for intensification, how these particular communities will be considered in their planning discussion, and what implications are there, given the, somewhat, lack of infrastructure needs and coastal complexities that sit in and around that area.

10:16

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a few questions for the Minister responsible for RMA Reform. I’m going to start with the first clause, which is clause 6 (4). I think, my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has mentioned this clause, but I want to ask if (c), which is around the catchment of Baldwin Avenue and Mt Albert stations, is captured; one of the things I was curious about is the way that (b)(ii) and (c)(ii) are not exactly the same. In (b)(ii), when we’re looking at Maungawhau (Mt Eden), Kingsland, and Morningside stations, (b)(ii) states: “in all cases building height of at least 15 storeys” in those locations, and for (c)(ii) for Mt Albert Station and Baldwin Avenue Station, it is at least 10 storeys. My first question to the Minister is: why is there a difference between the height of those two buildings when we’re bringing that into subclause (4) here, in terms of Mt Albert stations? I think that deserves a little bit of attention.

My second question is: under the current Watercare plans, Epsom and Mount Eden are currently the only ones where the water security level is that none of them are at risk but is currently being monitored. In this case, how would some of the core infrastructure—particularly when it comes to supply of, let’s say, fresh water or drinking water—be done under this particular plan, or has any work been done around that?

My second question to the Minister is on clause 6(6), Schedule 3C, replacing clause 5(6) and (7) with (6) to (9), and I want to, specifically, focus on subclause (9) here, which is page 3, lines 32 to 34. I want to check with the Minister, and this could be a really simple explanation: the term “city centre” is not used in the Resource Management Act at all. The only example I could find is in Schedule 3B where the term “city centre zone” is mentioned but not defined. Would the Minister be able to—just two quick questions: is “city centre” the same thing as “city centre zones”? And how is “city centre”, again, defined within the context of the Resource Management Act?

My final question to the Minister is on—now we’re moving on to clause 6(7)—and I wanted to speak to 10B first. This is my final question to the Minister for the time being: if this bill had a select committee stage, it doesn’t add any additional burden to the council because it will be considered Parliament and parliamentary process and people could be able to submit on changes to this bill, but instead, what we’re asking for is the provisions relating to Plan Change 120, and particularly some of the changes we’re seeing in this legislation will require the council to follow the process set out. This is specifically mentioned in 10B(1)(b), where “Auckland Council must follow the process set out in those clauses for Plan Change 120”. Now, we are already seeing a lack of funding towards our local government and for our councils, we’re also seeing a requirement for councils to have a rate cap, we’re seeing local government being stretched quite thin when it comes to resourcing.

I want to check, in terms of Plan Change 120: would the Minister and the Government provide additional resources to Auckland Council to be able to fully conduct the process set out in this, in a way that allows for the kind of participation that is expected of the council? That’s my final question to the Minister.

10:20

Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back to the discussion I was having with the Minister responsible for RMA Reform about special character—and this links to the amended Schedule 3C of the Resource Management Act (RMA) that was introduced last year—he said that any other matter can be a qualifying matter. I want to be clear about this, and I’m asking the Minister for advice. Section 77I(j) of the Resource Management Act says, “any other matter … if section 77L is satisfied”. Section 77L says, and I’m paraphrasing somewhat, that you can only have any other qualifying matter if there is some good reason for it, but that it requires a “site-specific analysis”, and that site-specific analysis should now allow for blanket special character restrictions.

Could I have an answer from the Minister on whether he expects that the law as it stands and what the Auckland Council have to plan for is that qualifying matters, if they relate to the “any other matter” qualifying matter, have to have a site-specific analysis? That’s one question. From his answer, it seemed that he was saying that you can just carte blanche do special character areas, and that is not my understanding of the law. If there is some change in this bill, then I really want to know about that, because that is very important for Auckland’s planning.

I do note, and he raised as well, this issue of his statement of expectations. In the amendments that were made last year in the committee of the whole House by an Amendment Paper, the Minister got all sorts of new powers under the RMA to do all sorts of things, which is one of the reasons we ended up voting against that legislation. One of the things is the statement of expectations. The Minister has done a statement of expectations, and that is referred to as well in clause 10A of this bill, and it has been gazetted. In it, the Minister does reference “Special Character Areas Overlay—Business, Residential and General” as being a qualifying matter. I’m very interested in how the qualifying matters under Section 77L of the RMA have to be site-specific if they’re relying on the “other matter” category, yet his current statement of expectations references “Special Character Areas Overlay” as if that is already a qualifying matter. How does that work?

Staying on the statement of expectations, I asked a question about the Eastern Busway and other transport infrastructure that is not specifically listed in Schedule 3C of the RMA—so those stations. The Minister said, “Well, I’ve got in my letter of expectations that we should consider other planned rapid transport stops.” My clarification here is that in that statement of expectations, it says, at (c): “When ensuring that Plan Change 120 gives effect to policy 3(c)(i) of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020, consideration is given to whether all planned rapid transit stops have been identified”, and he specifically includes there the Northwest Busway, which my friend will be happy about. Is this the statement that should also be including planned infrastructure such as the Eastern Busway, which I understand is very important in terms of Auckland Transport? Those are some questions.

I also want to ask about something that my colleagues from the Greens just touched on there about what is the city centre, and this is in clause 6(6), new clause (9) to Schedule 3, which says: “For the purposes of clause 4, housing capacity does not include the housing capacity in the city centre as at 6 June 2025 when the Plan Change 78 changes to the city centre became operative.” There is talk in the documents that go with the bill about the fact that the city centre has already undergone some rezoning in Plan Change 78. There is also discussion generally about how important that CBD area is, yet Plan Change 120 doesn’t hit on that CBD area, and I take my colleague’s point about definitions around that, and I’m interested in the Minister’s answers. Madam Chair, I’ll just be very quick on this point.

Yep, just very quickly.

Where does the Minister expect the Auckland Council to go with that CBD area, undefined as it is? Is there an expectation that this Plan Change 120 will look at that CBD? I say that specifically because there are areas like the Wynyard Quarter, for instance, that are not at the height that you might expect them to be under Plan Change 78 if you’re really trying to intensify that area.

10:26

Moata rau ki a tātou katoa. [Good morning to us all.] It’s a beautiful day out there—it’s a great day, actually. As we know, Auckland is a very unique place, and as one of the very few members who has been responsible for property developments in Auckland, it gives me great pause to support and scaffold Minister Bishop on this matter.

Of course, our role is to set up the envelope and to enable Auckland Council to make decisions accordingly—especially for the hard-working voters of Chatswood and Chelsea. E mihi ana ki a koe e taku whanaunga [Greetings to you, my relative], and those submissions from the North Shore. I’m sure there were one or two throughout this process. The Auckland City Council can have the ability to actively curate where growth occurs, and it will use the usual processes, with councillors to decide what changes should be made to the plan change.

In relation to the city centre—that’s quite a hot topic amongst the speakers today—that matter has been determined via Plan Change 78, and I recommend and implore members of this committee to take some time to read through the work that’s been undertaken for Plan Change 78. Haere rā e te hoa. [Goodbye, my friend.]

There was a question about whether or not the Government is prepared to invest more cash and resources and maybe make a grant to Auckland Council. Well, our recommendation is that Auckland Council, amongst other councils, use their resources more effectively and more wisely in these processes. It’s up to Auckland Council to figure out how to ensure that they carry out the responsibilities that they do have rather than always rely on the Treasury and the taxpayer to fund that.

Finally, the special character. There is no change. A side-by-side assessment will continue to be undertaken by council.

In relation to the Eastern Busway, what a great place, going out there to Pakuranga-rāhīhī and all the way to Takanini if you need to. That’s already been designated as rapid transit.

10:28

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve been really patient—

Yes, you have—I’ve noticed.

—and listening. It’s because I want to reflect on some of the comments made by the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, who has left the Chamber. Thank you. I’m just going to ask my questions anyway.

In terms of what I’ve heard so far from other contributions, it’s great to have the bill before us to be able to scrutinise it. I want to raise the Auckland Airport and Māngere, because it keeps getting ignored in terms of South Auckland inequity and affordability. It’s actually a really important hub. Minister, if you were not aware, domestic trips into and out of Auckland Airport totalled 8.5 million in one year, and international was 10.5 million. That has a huge bearing on infrastructure, as you know.

I’m asking these questions, sorry, Madam Chair, under clause 10B. In terms of the intensification, one of the things that locals will know is their concern around the building height-to-boundary rules. In Māngere, it is really important for mana whenua and iwi in terms of view shafts and in terms of maunga. One of the things I want to ask, because the locals keep raising this point, is when you’ve got building planning requirements and then you’ve got natural volcanic cones, how will that nexus be considered in this piece of legislation, or is it a consideration?

My second question to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, is in terms of major infrastructure. I’ve just highlighted what comes in and out of Auckland Airport in one year, in terms of passenger trips. The Minister said earlier that there is a market for smaller apartments. A number of people who work at the Auckland Airport precinct want to live close, because that would save a whole lot of things like traffic, and also intensification around homes and schools, and also building communities. My question to the Minister is: in terms of some of the options of housing, how will Auckland Council, under this provision, be able to be a bit more flexible? It’s not just about CBD, it’s not just about north and east and west; in South Auckland, where we’ve had to give up some of the land parcels, we want better community facilities and we actually want, as a local community, to appreciate the natural volcanic area, etc. There is a lack of infrastructure specifically for the South Auckland communities which need to be connected—we have a youth population who need to get in and out of the city centre for education and jobs, etc.

My question is around those two parts in terms of the relationship of the connectivity of Auckland Airport—people working and living around Māngere, South Auckland, and also in relation to clause 10B in terms of the height restrictions and building to height. Will that be captured, and has there been any consideration? I’d really like to hear that, thank you.

10:31

Thank you for the opportunity. I will be asking questions on new clause 10C, inserted into Schedule 3C by clause 6(7) of the bill. Let me begin by quoting from the departmental disclosure statement: “[This bill] amends the Resource Management Act 1991 … to reduce the minimum housing capacity requirement[s of] the Auckland Unitary Plan … by 32.5%. In effect, [it] reduces the requirement from approximately 2 million dwellings to approximately 1.4 million dwellings.”

One of the biggest issues I see, as one of our local South Auckland MPs, is Auckland Council’s guiding principles that housing capacity reductions would start with areas more than 10 kilometres away from the city centre, and that plainly puts communities such as mine into the firing line—communities like Papatoetoe, Ōtara, Flat Bush, and wider South Auckland communities like Māngere, Manurewa—for reduced housing capacity. The Associate Minister of Housing knows that South Auckland is already an area where homeownership rates are really low. It is already an area where deprivation rates are high, and one of the worries I have as a local MP is that we continually are asked—

One of the few local MPs in the Labour Party.

That may be true, but that is actually not the purpose of this particular debate or what it is that I’m speaking about. If you would like to take a call, you’re most welcome to get up and take a call.

Just to continue on with my speech, the contrast for me as a local MP from South Auckland is really powerful, because the suburbs with the highest areas of housing stress, the lowest areas of homeownership, are the ones that are continually asked to take on these issues. These are also the areas where there is not as much railway link, and the bus routes for our workers are not as constant as they are for other areas. As local MPs, we are beginning to get not only phone calls but emails from our young people, from our workers, who cannot afford the petrol, and these are workers who need to get to and from work, and then they look at the bus routes and the train routes, and that is also not an option for them.

This is actually something that is a real concern, not just to South Auckland but to West Auckland as well, and some of our West Auckland MPs spoke about this last night. It can, I suppose, be argued that this was a bill that came through with 2 million dwellings, and then it was downgraded to 1.6 million dwellings, and now it’s 1.4 million dwellings. Who are the people who are most going to take that burden on? It is most likely South Auckland and West Auckland, as many of our MPs from this side of the Chamber have said. It can be argued that this could be seen as a transfer of planning advantage from poorer, younger, more diverse communities to older, wealthier homeowner areas.

Papatoetoe, Ōtara, Flat Bush—they are all beyond the 10-kilometre threshold that is used as the starting point for this housing capacity that is being reduced. South Auckland does not get the same City Rail Link - related intensification as other suburbs. Our communities have the lowest homeownership rates and the highest housing need in Auckland. This bill looks at entrenching a pattern where communities who are most in need of affordable housing options are the least able to get some advantage from what this bill will do once it gets passed.

My questions to the Minister: can the Minister guarantee that Papatoetoe, Ōtara, Flat Bush, Māngere, and Manurewa will not be disproportionately downsized under the revised framework? Second, what specific infrastructure investment is being offered to South Auckland in return for the uncertainty that this bill creates for our area? And, last question: why are communities with the lowest homeownership rates, the highest need, put first in line for capacity reductions?

10:36

I want to ask about new clause 10B inserted into Schedule 3C by clause 6(7) of the bill—in fact, really, new clause 10A as well—because I am interested in a practical understanding of the process here where we are realigning the plan. I have a whole lot of constituents who I worked through a process with of putting in a submission on their area and their concerns. I am going through this and I can’t see that there is a timeline for the council coming back with its notice for publication. I would like to know, in a practical sense, for constituents, what is the timeline for the publication of the result for the notice that’s going out to my constituents, and for them to then have 20 working days to get their recalibrated submission in based on what is in that notice.

I’d just like to talk about two instances where I think this might be relevant. One is the Baldwin Street area—the Baldwin Park station that’s named here is an area where there is a railway crossing one way, and then you actually have to cross the railway line again, and they’re both flat areas. It’s very hard to separate those areas, and I’m interested to know if there was a change in plan here, because this is an area of 10 storeys, but it’s actually mandated under this legislation. What would a person in that area be subjected to in terms of timelines, in terms of getting in a submission under this process, given that I can’t see any timelines?

The other question is I have an area which is near Fowlds Park. It has been promoted on the last iteration of this plan as one that would go 15-plus storeys, but it is also an area where the council has just bought out the street because it flooded so badly. It is one that you’d expect the council to do but now it seems that this is going to be mandated, this area. I’d like to know from the practical point of view of those two cases what the process is that they’re going to have to go through, but particularly, realistically, what’s the time frame on this at each stage of that process? Thank you.

The Hon Rachel Brooking—but I’ll just say at this point that we’ve covered a broad aspect of the bill, and I know that this member’s been right through the detail. I’m just looking for some specific tidy-up pieces that the member would be looking to focus on right now.

10:39

Thank you, Madam Chair, and, of course, we are in all-stages urgency and we haven’t seen this bill before—

I understand that, but we are getting a little broad.

Madam Chair, if I may go through, I have been talking about—

No, no, I’m not directing that at the member; I’m directing that at the committee. I know the member is very specific, which is why I’m asking you to be very specific.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will continue to be very specific.

Thank you.

In my last contribution, I was talking about the statement of expectation and the Eastern Busway, and there was a response from the Minister that “Oh, well, the Eastern Busway is already designated.” My question is: is he referring to a document that’s related to this bill—so the gazetted statement of expectations—or is he referring to something else? Is he just saying there is a designation in process? Where is it that the Eastern Busway is designated—which is the word he used? Has there been a Resource Management Act designation or does he mean that it is already included and that Plan Change 120 has to intensify along that Eastern Busway? That is one question in response to the Minister’s answer to my question.

Sticking now on the Minister’s statement of expectations, new clause 10A—this is in clause 6, “Schedule 3C amended”—is quite simple. It’s just saying that a reference to Schedule 3C is the amended Schedule 3C. That’s fine; that’s not my question. My question is a very specific one about subclause (3) which specifically relates to Gazette notice and gives the number of the Gazette notice, which is sl6084. There are also different provisions that enable the Minister to update that Gazettenotice—so that is the statement of expectations. What happens when or if that statement of expectations is updated through this reference number sl6084. What happens to that? That’s a drafting issue, and I presume that it can be updated. How does the mechanism work there?

I have another very specific question, and this is very important to the members opposite because that statement of expectations is a new instrument, introduced by that Government just last year, and it is overwhelming ministerial powers that go against this idea of localism and giving the council the ability to decide things, because they have to do what the statement of expectations says, and it’s just a little Gazettenotice that can change. It’s important because it does not specifically say “the Eastern Busway” in it, and it’s important for all sorts of other issues as well.

I also want to go to new clause 10C, “Decisions relating to changed capacity requirement”. It says “(1) Auckland Council must decide whether to propose any amendments (the proposed amendments) to Plan Change 120.” So my question is: can Auckland Council decide not to propose any amendments, and if Auckland Council makes the decision not to propose any amendments, what happens to the subsequent clauses? The main point is: is it possible for Auckland Council to decide not to change Plan Change 120 in line with this legislation?

I go back to subclauses (5) and (6) of clause 6—so these are the amendments to Schedule 3C. What I’m looking for here is just some comfort, because subclauses (5) and (6) make changes to clause 5 of Schedule 3C, to the Resource Management Act, and they repeal some of those clauses, and I won’t go into exactly what they are. Then it’s got a replacement bit—you can see that there are some replacements here. On a quick reading of it, it looks like the bits that are repealed are basically replaced with this insertion, but it would be very helpful to have on record what it is that these little repeals in the new clause are doing and if there is anything material in that, and, if so, what is the reason for the material change. This is obviously stuff that we would spend more time on—was it in select committee? So if the Minister could answer that. It’s not a political question; it’s a simple request for the Minister to explain what this part of the bill is about.

I want to make a point on the CBD point that we were discussing with the Minister. He encouraged us all to read Plan Change 78. I want to clarify: is the Minister saying that everything that was done in Plan Change 78 is enough for the CBD? That seems to go against the comments that are made in the regulatory impact statement and other places about the fact that there is actually not very much intensification in that CBD area. If we are doing what the Minister who was in the chair was saying about how great intensification is, then surely there will need to be more done there—more than Plan Change 78. And what is the plan for that?

Finally—and I can see that everyone’s jumping up and down—I would also like the Minister’s comments on—and this is a bigger question; I’m going up a level here—how Plan Change 120 and these changes to Plan Change 120 will relate to changes that this Government is making to the Resource Management Act generally. I think that is a totally in-scope question, because the council has been dealing with all of this, all these different things. We had Plan Change 78 with the medium-density residential changes, and then we had the changes made just last year, and now we’re changing it again. Is it all going to be for nothing? Is the Auckland Council next year going to have to start again on everything, because the Resource Management Act will be changed into the Planning Act? That is really important when going back to an original question: why are we here in all-stages urgency if that is the case? Why are we making Auckland Council continue to spend tens of millions of dollars on planning processes that may be of no relevance and may be extinguished in just a year’s time? I think that is a very important question that has not been answered by anyone yet.

To recap, I’m asking specifically about their statement of expectations and where we are with the Eastern Busway. How does that statement of expectations change? And then the specific reference in the bill—what happens to that? Can the Minister also describe these changes that are going on and subclauses (5) and (6) of clause 6 of the Schedule to the Resource Management Act? Is it just simply a tidy-up or is it something material? Again, on the CBD, does he really think that Plan Change 78 is enough? Should there be more work on that? And how is this plan change going to relate in the longer term? In the longer term, I mean, the difference between when we were last here in August making changes compared with April or March, if we’re in March—

It’s March in here.

It’s March in here; that’s right. Is it all going to be up in the air again in another six months? That seems like a big waste of time. What is the Minister’s answer to that very important question?

10:49

There’s been a number of comments this morning extrapolating the discussions about the great City of Sails. But I just acknowledge those comments around South Auckland, where I used to live, actually, down Churchill Avenue. Keep your cars locked at the Churchill Avenue location, 111—

Point of order. Could the Minister raise the microphone a bit? Thank you.

Thank you; it’s good to know you want to hear me.

Just in relation to volcanic cones, shafts, and various options that the first speaker made, those are considerations in planning. Auckland Council, by way of this bill and the following legislation, will have the flexibility to enable this; ditto in relation to the infrastructure and homeownership matter. I note the comments around the 10-kilometre zone and communities outside the 10-kilometre zone, but through this bill, Auckland Council will have greater certainty and flexibility to deal with those issues.

In relation to Plan Change (PC) 78, the Auckland Council made city centre decisions as a result of the independent hearings panel recommendations and has made a full change. I know there’s been suggestion that maybe other changes can be made. Well, that’s not the intention of this particular bill, and the council has already made city centre decisions.

There was a question around time and how Auckland Council needs the time to consider changes, and that could be articulated in the Minister’s letter of directions in terms of time frames—

Expectations. The direction that sets the expectations.

Statement of expectations—or letter of directions?

Under the direction. The Minister has direction power.

The statement of expectations.

Now, Auckland Council can decide not to change PC 120, but it does need to carry out the process and follow through the process.

In relation to the Eastern Busway, Auckland Council identified the Eastern Busway as rapid transit under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and that’s been clarified. I think it was sl6084—was it 6084?

Yep.

Yep. The drafting stays the same. Then, finally, in terms of another question that was asked about whether or not Auckland Council can withdraw parts of the plan change via PC 120, yes, that is the case.

10:51

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you. I wish to raise some questions to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, in relation to Schedule 3C, specifically around clause 6, line 21, “An SPP panel”, but my questions go broad beyond that, and it’s really to do with mana whenua. What specific statutory protection exists in this bill to ensure mana whenua are partners in decisions affecting ancestral whenua? Now, the Streamlined Planning Process (SPP) panel, specifically the question is: what is the make-up of this panel? Is there any dedicated seat specifically for mana whenua voices, to ensure that mana whenua, all 19 they whakapapa to, every parcel of land in Tāmaki-makau-rau, the greater region as well as the CBD—to ensure that not only consultation but actual decision making includes Māori?

Again, I repeat that question: what specific statutory protection exists in this bill to ensure that mana whenua are partners, and what is the make-up of this SPP panel? Specifically, are there specific details especially for the make-up of that panel to ensure that there is a threshold for understanding on how to apply to Te Tiriti in the context of planning and urban design? You cannot dismiss the fact that Te Tiriti is integral to all our planning going forward.

Can the Minister also identify where in this bill mana whenua consultation is expressly required before zoning or intensification changes take legal effect? If the Minister is unwilling to accept a full consultation clause specifically ensuring mana whenua are actually sought not in consultation but in partnership to ensure that mana whenua rights do not overlap or do not get dismissed—now, I do understand that there is mention of, there is reflection of, Te Tiriti that exists in the current Resource Management Act; however, in this bill that we are debating here in the Chamber, there is no explicit clause that gives effect to Te Tiriti. There is great concern right across Tāmaki-makau-rau about the potential impacts that these subtle changes that—the Government says, rightly so, that we need progress; however, how does that impact mana whenua?

With regards to Māori housing specifically, papa kāinga—and I know that the Minister sitting here in the Chamber and answering these questions is the expert, actually, in papa kāinga. When we talk about the design and planning, where exactly are any support systems to ensure that the make-up of the 1.6 million houses that are mentioned here, that are purposed in Plan Change 120—is there scope to address rising crises of housing and homelessness across Tāmaki-makau-rau? Is there potential to ensure that part of these houses, these new builds or existing builds, are ring-fenced for Māori specifically in Tāmaki-makau-rau—more so papa kāinga, the construction of papa kāinga in its truest essence, not in the form of high rises or town houses? As the Minister is aware, papa kāinga is about community, yes, but it also is about cultural practices in its purest form, and that exists in the dwelling of each whānau, each whare that our whānau live in.

The specific questions around papa kāinga—a series of them: can the Minister point to any provision in the bill that expressly enables papa kāinga and multi-generational Māori housing models? Does the Minister accept that standard intensification models do not always reflect Māori ways of living as whānau? Thirdly, would the Minister support a targeted amendment enabling papa kāinga as a permitted or controlled activity in relevant zones? Koirā aku pātai. [These are my questions.]

10:56

Thank you for those important and insightful questions and comments. In terms of the panel composition, which is appointed half by the Ministers—the Minister responsible for RMA Reform and myself as the Minister of Conservation, with my other pōtae on—and half by council, at least one of the appointees from the Ministers has some significant expertise around Māori involvement in the planning space and Māori development.

In relation to the consultation, the existing Resource Management Act (RMA) obligations will continue, and the Auckland Council has extensive processes around engaging with iwi and other groups within Auckland, such as the Tūpuna Maunga Authority, so it’s expected that they will continue, as Auckland Council, to maintain those processes through Plan Change 120.

Finally, about papa kāinga—which is a very important take []topic, actually, and I’m appreciative of the member raising that—many of the papa kāinga are actually built on Māori freehold land, and there isn’t a huge amount of Māori freehold land in the Auckland City Council boundaries. There is some, especially that big farm out at Waiheke, actually, and some land out at Maraetai and out through Āwhitu. But a papa kāinga national standard is being formed right now that will enable greater papa kāinga. There are iwi and other groups that are already involved in developing papa kāinga, such as up at Kupe Street and Takaparawhau. They’ve been liaising and engaging with builders like GJs and others to deploy papa kāinga not just for kaumātua but for whānau and for others, and those are taking place already. We hope that the new papa kāinga standard will better facilitate and expedite greater papa kāinga and, of course, enable whānau to have healthy and wealthy lives in Tāmaki, heading our waka, heading our tangata. Kia ora tātou.

10:58

I move, That debate on this question now close.

11:01

Thank you, Madam Chair. This the Resource Management (Auckland Housing) Amendment Bill, and, certainly, this bill is amending the Resource Management Act—again. On that point, I think it is good that we are referring to the Resource Management Act. I do note, however, that the Minister was reticent to give me answers about the changes to that Resource Management Act, and, in fact, that Resource Management Act was changed by this Government only last year to do changes to Auckland housing. Also, I did not get an answer about what the point is of this amendment going through all-stages urgency right now if everything is going to be undone by future changes to the Resource Management Act.

I would ask the Minister if he would consider changing the piece in brackets—“(Auckland Housing)”—to the “Resource Management (Making the Council Run Around in Circles Again) Amendment Bill”.

Come on, that’s not serious.

I’m hearing that it’s not serious. Well, I will tell the Minister of Local Government that this is very serious. I have not had answers to questions about how much money has been expended on making these changes and whether it will all be for nothing because, once we get this Government’s new planning reforms, they’re going to make the council start again. This is a very relevant point, as is another issue that the Minister of Local Government might be interested in, and that is the influence of the Minister—not that Minister; another Minister—in terms of the statements of expectations and general interference that can happen.

We’ve heard a lot of bravado from the Government members that this bill is, in fact, about Auckland Council having all the flexibility in making decisions, but, again, I have not got straight answers on what happens to the statement of expectations and whether that changes. Again, I ask the question: would the Minister consider “Resource Management (Auckland Housing but the Minister is Still Making all of the Decisions) Amendment Bill”? An even simpler one would be: “Resource Management (Auckland Housing Flip-flop) Amendment Bill”—

Oh, this is ridiculous.

Here he goes, from the other side, but, of course, we were here in August just last year. Here we are in March—how many months is that? August, September, October, November, December, January—the House was out of action a bit there—February, March: wow, it took seven months to change it, but, in fact, only one month to change from what the regulatory impact statement was talking about, after the barbecues, which was 1.6.

Maybe this should be the “Resource Management (Auckland Housing Amended by Barbecues but Then Some Additional Flip-flop in Cabinet Just on Monday) Amendment Bill”? Or should it be “(Auckland Housing Costing Auckland Ratepayers a Whole lot of Money Because This Government, This Cabinet, Cannot Decide on What it’s Doing)”? We don’t even know if this will be for anything—if there will be any change.

What’s the question?

What’s the question? The questions are whether the Minister will consider my more accurate titles for what this bill is doing. I’m talking about the title, Mr Uffindell.

It is that there may be no point in us being here doing all-stages legislation, pretending it’s still March when, in fact, today is 1 April in the rest of the world. What a good day to be discussing such a piece of legislation, because there may be no point to this legislation. The Minister did not clearly answer my question about whether or not the Auckland Council can just ignore it and go ahead. Why is it that we are here on a Wednesday morning, when we could all be being productive in our select committees? But instead we’re back here because this Government has chosen to flip-flop, and what a week of flip-flops we’ve had.

11:06

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask about the commencement date, because I am seriously concerned about the swift nature of this piece of legislation coming in, given that we have had so many changes and there has been so much of an investment, a genuine investment, by people in their submissions to the council. There is a process they are going through at the present time, and it’s a process that has got legal status. It’s a really important one, and while I appreciate that there are other parts of this bill that suggest it can be truncated and that it can be moved around, etc., I would like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Tama Potaka, to consider whether we change the commencement date so that it comes into force after the process of collating and looking at the submissions of Aucklanders.

We’re wedded to local democracy in words. The practicality is that those submissions are an expression of local democracy, and we should have faith in the people of Auckland to tell us what the issues are before we bring legislation to bear in a central space, because we’ll get it wrong. It’s not like we haven’t got it wrong. Let’s face it—we have to face the fact—we’ve got it wrong over and over again. It’s almost ridiculous how many times this piece of legislation has changed, and it has changed swiftly and it has been ineffective as a result. I would like the Minister to consider putting a pause on this for one year or until the point when those submissions have been collated and the knowledge from them has been assessed. That is not, I think, an unreasonable thing for Aucklanders to expect, particularly the people in my area, who are the most affected here.

I gave an example when I was asking a question, which never got answered in the last part, about one area in my electorate. It’s got 15-plus storeys scheduled in it. This will engrain it further. In that area, the council bought out the very properties—recently, it bought out the whole street—because of flooding concerns. It is seen as inappropriate to build, but that same area on the plan, I can see, is designated for 15-plus storeys. Those people in that area put in a submission. Of course they did. They all put in submissions saying that it makes no sense, “Can it be taken into account?”, etc. I’d like to see that work done first before we look at where the houses need to be, because it changes the numbers fundamentally. If you can’t build a 15-storey property on the edge of Fowlds Park, it changes the numbers.

I’d also like to see time for the transport issues to be resolved. For example, the area that I talked about in Baldwin Avenue is flat. It has got two different pathways for the rail line. They need an overpass. It’s a very expensive operation because apparently flat areas are extremely hard to build on and extremely expensive. I’d like that resolved before Baldwin Avenue station goes into this mix. It’s got 10-plus storey buildings proposed for it. They might be completely fictitious. If I was the council and KiwiRail, I’d just look at that area and think, “There’s no way that we’re going to be able to do this economically. Why don’t we stop this, close the station, and make it further away? Why don’t we take it off the agenda?” I see no attempt to get that.

I would like that period of the commencement date to be pushed out in line with gathering that wisdom for a process that is well under way. Apparently, we’ve spent $20 million on this process. That all goes on the rates. It’s quite a significant amount of people’s rates. I’d like to have time to do that. I’d also like to see a collaboration between all the parties in this Chamber on what the solution looks like, quite frankly; I don’t think there’s been half enough of it. I think it’s mad that, on something this important to Auckland, there hasn’t been a level of collaboration. In fact, what we’re seeing here is something in urgency, in such a short period—I don’t have answers to my questions. The Minister hasn’t even told me what this looks like for my constituents in terms of—

The member’s time has expired.

11:11

We intend to use the title the Resource Management (Auckland Housing) Amendment Bill, and for it to come into force on the day after Royal assent for the rest of the bill and deemed to have come into force for clause 65 of Schedule 12 on 9 October 2025.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Resource Management (Auckland Housing) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

This bill is set down for third reading immediately.

11:15

on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: I move, That the Resource Management (Auckland Housing) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This is a practical bill. No matter if you go to Calthorpe clothes out of Māngere or the hard underbelly of North Auckland—i.e., Upper Harbour—or the soft squishy part of the North Shore, out in Devonport, or out in those wealthy intelligent suburbs out at Manurewa and GI and Panmure, and, of course, one of my favourite parts of Auckland, Maraetai-Beachlands—beautiful place—it restores flexibility. It supports better decision-making, it enables delivery, it supports housing supply, and it makes better use of infrastructure investment—city regional deal coming. It respects local conditions, it strengthens New Zealand’s economic performance, and it gives Auckland—no, not Hamilton North; Auckland—the ability to move forward. Not only that; it reflects the kind and generous support of people like Christine Fletcher to move our great city, the City of Sails, Tāmaki Herenga-waka, Herenga-tangata, forward.

For those reasons, I commend this bill to the House and say that it delivers something that Tāmaki-makau-rau and the Auckland planning system need right now. It allows the council to respond to evidence, local conditions, and community input, whether or not it’s the member opposite’s friend’s building housing out at Middlemore, out at Hospital Road, that will continue to enable strong growth—Oriini, e mihi ana ki a koe e te tuahine [Oriini, I acknowledge you, sister].

It also delivers something further than that; it delivers on things that matter. When the planning system is overly rigid, it becomes harder to respond to evidence, local concerns, and local conditions, and outcomes can get locked in even where the evidence supports a different approach. That’s not what a well-functioning planning system should do or needs.

At the centre of this bill is a small but very important change. By reducing the housing capacity requirement to approximately 1.4 million homes, the bill gives Auckland Council room to respond. It gives us a degree of dexterity and flexibility, and places like Maungakiekie, up those beautiful volcanic shafts and cones—

The Cornwall Cricket Club.

The Cornwall Cricket Club. It allows growth to be focused where it works best—around transport corridors, rapid transit, and centres, places like Howick, the hard streets of Howick and Botany Downs. It allows capacity to be reduced where intensification would create poor outcomes, whether because of natural hazards, floods—who can forget those Auckland Anniversary floods?—infrastructure constraints, or other factors.

The bill does not reduce Auckland’s ambition for growth; it actually gives it ballast and supercharges it. The new capacity number remains a very high level of development capacity—1.4 million homes, people. That could be another 3 or 4 million people—well beyond what the city will deliver in the short or medium term; it’s a long-term picture.

It restores Auckland Council’s ability to operate, as the planning system is intended to do, to actively shape where growth occurs, rather than being locked into outcomes that do not reflect local traditions and local aspirations. That’s exactly what a responsive planning system should do, and it doesn’t matter whether or not you’re out in Henderson, the hard-working people of Henderson and New Lynn, by my good friend Paulo Garcia, and “Mount Rascal”, Carlos Cheung—e mihi ana ki a koe—or, of course, my favourite suburb in Auckland, Ōrākei.

The benefits of this bill are practical and real. That’s what they are. For Auckland Council, the bill provides clear national direction alongside appropriate discretion. For people on Rewiti Street and Reihana Street, and Kupe and Kepa roads—Kitemoana Street, what a great place.

King Edward Parade in Takapuna.

Yes, that’s right, King Edward Parade in Takapuna. It allows the council to actively shape that growth, informed by evidence, submissions, and local conditions, rather than being constrained by a blunt numerical requirement.

For the planning process more broadly, it restores discretion where discretion is needed. For builders and developers, it reduces risk by resolving uncertainty and avoiding projects being left in limbo—remember that, the old limbo trick? That matters because confidence drives investment, investment drives housing supply, and investment supports housing and homes and communities.

For renters and people who are trying to buy their first home—and it is great to know that we’re at the highest level of first-home buyers for many, many years—it matters because the delays in the planning system ultimately mean fewer homes and higher costs. That’s what we don’t need for our children and for our mokopuna, and for those that deserve their own home in places like Māngere, in places like Maungakiekie, in places like Manurewa, and, of course, in places like the hard-working suburb of Glendowie.

For the economy, it matters, because Auckland matters. Auckland is New Zealand’s economic engine, despite the efforts of some opposite, and if Auckland is held back, the country is held back. That’s why enabling Auckland to grow and to grow well is central to lifting not only productivity and living standards but also wealth, health, wellbeing, and a sense of cultural affinity.

Auckland Council has already signalled how it intends to respond to the increased discretion this bill provides, and it’s not going to be dictated to by people from Dunedin. It has identified a set of principles to guide its work, including retaining strong intensification around metropolitan areas and rapid transit, and reducing capacity in less-connected locations further from the city centre and along lower-ranked transport corridors. We will not allow the representative from Mosgiel to tell us what to do in Auckland.

Those principles reflect the balance this bill is designed to strike. They show how planning judgment can be exercised responsibly. They demonstrate that restoring discretion does not mean abandoning structure or ambition, but they are not final decisions; they are the starting point. The council and the elected representatives will develop their preferred approach. They will release updated maps and provisions—this is not “Mapgate”, people—and invite public submissions.

Final outcomes will continue to be determined through the planning process—

Take my jacket off.

—informed by evidence, submissions, and the independent planning panel. Aucklanders will have a say—Aucklanders, people—

Stop trying to dress like me.

—not people from Maniapoto and Ngāti Tama, I say to the member opposite. They will have a say in how those outcomes are shaped. Central government will not be making those decisions. We don’t sit up here like Titans or gods, saying, “Oh, yeah, we’re going to mix the drinks over here. We’re going to mix the drinks over there.”—no, no, no, no. Aucklanders can mix their own drinks, people. That is Auckland’s plan; that is this Government’s plan. Aucklanders can mix their own drinks. Go the Blues—second only to the Chiefs.

This bill supports a broader vision for Auckland. Auckland must be able to grow if Aotearoa New Zealand is to prosper. It means saying yes more often. We are not a Government of no; we’re a Government of yes: yes to housing, yes to infrastructure, yes to transit-oriented development, yes to growth, and, importantly, yes to Aucklanders. It means making the most of major public investments like the City Rail Link—go the Wahs!—and it means having a planning system that enables Auckland Council to shape growth responsibly, rather than locking it in to rigid outcomes and being told what to do like students in a classroom in Takapuna.

It means having a planning system that enables Auckland Council to move forward with a vision. This bill supports that vision, whether or not it’s up on Remuera Road, the tough streets of Remuera and Epsom—

Yeah, yeah—mean streets.

—the mean streets—and, of course, it is helping Auckland move forward as a more connected, more productive, more livable city, one that can adapt to change and respond to opportunity and be the global city that it’s destined to be.

This bill sits alongside the Government’s wider programme of wider Resource Management Act reform. It’s designed to deliver a new planning system that’s clearer, simpler, and more predictable—stand by, conservation is coming. As Auckland Council works through Plan Change 120, some requirements under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development are temporarily overlapping. This includes reassessing its housing capacity for future development strategy.

There’s little value now in requiring new planning and modelling work while the plan change itself is still being finalised and the new system is being established. This bill makes a targeted adjustment—where’s Dan Bidois when I need him; waiata tautoko, waiata tautoko—[Interruption]—yes, waiata tautoko, mate—to remove that duplication in the short term by removing these requirements on the council; great Harvard grad.

The bill was addressed under urgency because delay would have had real consequences. Without this bill, rigid settings would have been locked in and, of course, Aucklanders would have been worse off for it. Opportunities to respond would have been lost. Urgency was used here to help resolve problems before they became entrenched, and not to avoid scrutiny. It was about getting the systems and the settings right, and decisions are still being made.

This Government believes in Auckland. It believes in Aucklanders. It believes that people who live in our largest city, our largest metropolitan area, can make the decisions they need to with the delegations and the responsibilities that the council has to again drive Auckland forward and not to be mired in a situation where the Government continues to mix the drinks.

To all Aucklanders here, near, and afar, thank you for leading our country into the future. Kia ora.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

11:25

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s so nice to start my speech with applause—thank you so much—from the members opposite. I am interested to hear the Associate Minister of Housing just say that this Government believes in Auckland, and I wonder: did this Government believe in Auckland only in March of 2026 and not in August of 2025? Is that what that Minister meant, because that Government is the one that introduced the capacity of 2 million homes just in August last year—August last year. This is a huge flip-flop from just August last year, and it’s a flip-flop from February this year.

It’s hard to keep up with, but, apparently, we have Christine Fletcher to thank for it, and that is what the Minister has said. Should it be the “Christine Fletcher Amendment Bill” that we’re all talking about now? The power of the barbecue and, in fact, the power of whatever happened on Monday in Cabinet—and it’s all changing.

We’ve also heard from the Minister just then that this bill is to create certainty and to be efficient and to make the best use of infrastructure, and I would like to have it on record that making the best use of infrastructure is a great thing to be doing. Certainty—well, wouldn’t be nice? But, in fact, all that this bill is doing—and efficiency. There was efficiency, too. I was getting away on myself so quickly there that I missed the efficiency point, but we’re all for efficiency, as well.

Unfortunately, this bill does none of that. That is not what this bill is about. We have had incoherent arguments from the Government about the wonders of intensification and lowering house prices—which we totally agree with—and then those members are saying that they’re reducing that intensification. It is not efficient because they also have not been able to answer the question of what happens if Auckland Council decides not to change Plan Change 120, which, by my reading of this bill, it can decide to do. Why then have we been in all-stages urgency if it doesn’t have to change its plan? That seems like a big waste of the time of this House and the expense that goes with that.

We also, on this efficiency point and the certainty point, haven’t heard from Government members about where Auckland’s Plan Change 120 as modified, or even as not modified—that’s their choice—will stand in a new planning system. We’ve had Ministers refer to the new planning system plenty of times in this debate, but we have not heard what certainty Aucklanders are going to have with these plan changes. I’d say that it could be—given the answers that we’ve had during this all-stages, urgent debate—that any plan change is a total waste of time because Ministers are going to roll on in and say, “Well, no. You’ve got to start all over again with our new legislation.”, and my sympathies go to Auckland ratepayers.

As the Minister has just mentioned, I am the member for Dunedin. My colleague Ingrid Leary is the member for Taieri, which includes beautiful, beautiful Mosgiel, which is not part of my electorate. But the ratepayers of Auckland are having to pay for this, and for what point, if the Government is just going to continually interfere and flip-flop on its own decisions—decisions made in August last year, which were different from the decisions made in December 2024, when the Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill was introduced?

There was a position on the medium-density residential standards and all the backtracking on that, but then this Government, whilst they’ve been in Government, made decisions to introduce a piece of legislation in December 2024. They changed their mind through the select committee process, and that happened at some point in 2025. Then the Act was made with amendments in the committee stage at the last minute—the select committee had not looked at them—in August 2025, and here we are again. They really cannot make any decisions and this all might be a big waste of time.

In terms of talking about the lack of logic or the incoherence in the Government arguments, we also hear them say, “Well, this is about giving Aucklanders, who have to keep paying for these changes, some choice.” But we have not heard those Government members talk about some of those other changes that were made in August 2025 that enable ministerial interference. We had a brief discussion just before about the decision makers on the panel considering this plan. Some of those decision makers are appointed by the Crown, by the Ministers. That is not Wellington saying to Auckland, “Here we go, Auckland. You make all the decisions.”; that is Wellington saying to Auckland, “with these people”.

Even more importantly, there is the statement of expectations that the Minister can just make by Gazette notice whenever he wants. That is a very powerful tool and that very much is coming from Wellington and not Auckland. So for members opposite me to say, “Oh, this is all of a sudden giving Auckland a whole lot of choice.”, well, it’s a whole lot of choice that is constrained. I mean, it’s not a whole lot of choice, is it? These are huge constraints that this Government is putting on those people in Auckland who have to pay for it and have no certainty, because all of the Planning Bill to come is up for grabs, and this might end up nowhere at all.

We also keep hearing about these numbers, this 2 million, 1.6 million, as advertised six weeks ago, and now, on Monday, the 1.4 million. Whilst I don’t want to focus particularly on those numbers, I am interested in that process of how we got to 1.6 and then 1.4. We’ve had no explanation for that. We know that the council doesn’t necessarily have to make the change, so why are we here? I know I’m repeating myself, and I’m happy to repeat myself because there is no reason for us to be here. We are in all-stages urgency to do something that the Minister says isn’t particularly necessary because we are going to have those high-capacity numbers anyway.

But then we have this question of, “Well, that can’t be right?” Surely, Cabinet made a decision to do all-stages urgency for a reason, and surely that reason is the noise that was heard from some of these areas that do not have the named train stations that they did not want to be intensified. Some people did not want that intensification to happen to them. There’s no clear wording in this bill that says, “No intensification in Parnell.” That’s not what happens.

What happens is that the minimum is set. The members opposite keep saying, “It’s just a minimum. Auckland Council can do more.” But, in reality, we know the politics of the situation are that where you have that minimum and know that that minimum can be met by the intensification around the train stations, then it is going to be very difficult for any local politician to say, “Well, in fact, we are going to go beyond the minimum. Even though all these train stations are going to affect that new lowered minimum, we want to go beyond it to do some real change in the parts of the city that are close to the central business district, in the parts of the city that we know will do the most for our productivity as a nation.”

Auckland is exceptionally important. It is our international city, and we need it to be like a city and to be enabled to do that. But what this legislation is doing is trying to stop that change from happening, and that is disgraceful. It is disgraceful that those members are trying to sell this as Auckland having more choice, when all it is is increasing uncertainty and increasing the ratepayer burden.

11:35

Kia ora, Madam Speaker, for this last third reading speech. Last night in the second reading speech, I had a good rark-up about the nimbies, but I’d actually like to spend this speech talking about some practical suggestions for how Auckland could enable and actually realise more housing—the housing that it needs—in a way that would really work for everybody. We are opposing this bill because of the step-backs from 2 million to 1.6 million to 1.4 million.

However, I do acknowledge that there is truth to people on the other side of the House who have said this is just a minimum and that Auckland Council can go further. From the reporting that I’ve seen from Auckland Council where the mayor says that 2 million would have been fine, I hope that those aspirations are fulfilled if Auckland Council want to do that, so I acknowledge that.

The Auckland Unitary Plan is actually really special. To quote from a friend’s unpublished work, so I had better not say their name, “The Auckland Unitary Plan represents one of the most extensive rezoning initiatives implemented in a contemporary metropolitan context, substantially increasing development capacity across the region.” That comment means in the world, in any metropolitan modern setting.

Even the Minister was saying this morning that when he has gone and spoken in New York and other cities at housing symposiums and conferences, even international experts refer to the Auckland Unitary Plan as an example of really big, bold, transformational rezoning in order to make housing more available, and that’s to be applauded. Let’s recognise that this bill rolls back that ambition, but this is a minimum entitlement, so Auckland Council can build on that if they want to.

Now, anyone in the planning world—or as Simon Court might say, the SimCity nerdy planning world—there’s a bit of a GOAT, or greatest of all time, a bit of a legend. His name is Gehl. Everybody knows about Gehl. He’s an urban planner who has really influenced the way that modern Western, and probably Asian, countries and cities think about urban planning. His whole thing is that density and intensification and allowing more houses and cities and towns and regions is not simply about the numbers of dwellings that we enable but also about the quality of the environments that we’re creating that people live in.

I really love this quote as well from Cervero, another urban planner, who says that density cannot succeed in isolation. That’s really what I want to talk about because, in the committee of the whole House stage this morning, it was really clear to me that this bill and the housing that it enables is really not underpinned by any understanding or assumptions around infrastructure capacity. I’m not saying that in a way to say, like, the infrastructure is not there or the infrastructure is already at its maximum capacity, therefore we should not build; it’s a point to be made that the Government really has to have a hard think about what kind of infrastructure they’re supporting in order to support more housing. I think everyone in the House can agree around that, but there was very much a vibe from the Minister that “Well, Auckland Council can think about that; that’s a problem for Auckland Council.”

The problem with that is that my understanding is Auckland Council are at their borrowing limit. They have been stretched to the max. That might be down to a number of reasons. I imagine it was very expensive for them to have to deal with multiple massive natural disasters: Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland Anniversary weekend floods. That would have maxed out a lot of their capital expenditure planning into the future. As I said earlier in the morning, I don’t pay an awful lot of attention to Auckland Council, because it’s not my city, but I imagine there have been decisions in the past and in the present that have meant that Auckland Council can’t borrow more money. Many councils are in this position where they don’t have a lot of headroom in order to borrow for the infrastructure that they need to accommodate these growing populations. I really think the Government needs to think really hard about how they will support Auckland to fund the infrastructure that will be needed to accommodate this additional 1,400,000 people.

I really want to bring into the room the rates cap because you can’t consider this bill without considering the plans that this Government has for local government, which is that they want to cap rates; they want to limit the amount that councils can raise revenue through rates. So if Auckland Council want 2 million, apparently, according to the mayor, this Government is saying, “We will give you a minimum target of 1.4 million.” That’s all good and well; that’s great, we want more housing. But if nobody is considering the fact that Auckland can’t borrow and there might be a rates cap, you’re in a really bad situation where you’re going to put a whole lot of people in homes and there is not going to be the transport, the schools, the hospitals, the green spaces—all of those things to accommodate that growth. Now, the Minister, in response to those concerns, said that there is the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill, which is before the House, that might be able to address some of those concerns. That’s great, because that’s the conversation that we really need to have.

As I was saying earlier, when you zone for more housing, you instantly create more value. Let’s look at the Avondale Racecourse. That was zoned for a particular purpose, and now, through this change, it will be rezoned for housing. Overnight, that increases the value of the Avondale Racecourse land by millions of dollars—maybe even a billion. There is a way that Governments and councils can capture some of that added value, as a result of decisions by public institutions, and they can put that value back into the infrastructure required to accommodate that extra housing. Even neo-liberal Governments and councils across the world, in places like London, Sydney, and Vancouver, know this. They understand that higher density brings more economic activity into a city and a town. They know that.

It’s really weird that in New Zealand there’re still some of these attitudes that are against densification, when densification is really great for the economy. But it’s only good if the Government and the council actively intervene in that process. You can’t just sit by and let the market do it, because the market and those developers are not going to pay for the required water works, road works, and all of the added pressure on the infrastructure system. So that’s where the Government and council need to be proactive to capture some of that value to invest.

An example I gave this morning is that when Transmission Gully was built, it created $6 billion of value in private gains—$6 billion. The Government, when planning Transmission Gully—and I acknowledge that it was Labour- and National-led Governments that were part of that lifecycle of Transmission Gully. If you captured just a small percentage of that $6 billion to invest into waste water, green space, environmental stuff, whatever you want to spend it on, that’s a really good use of regulatory and financing powers to improve the public good and the amenities that we all enjoy in our living environments.

I just want to point to another couple of examples of how we can do things well. Zoning is about sharing the load. It’s really important that everybody in a city shares the intensification burden—that all of us do our part. I talked about Epsom and Remuera last night. I don’t really want to get rarked up again, so we’ll leave it at that. But I do want to point to some good examples and solutions. We need to consider land value capture. That is what I was just talking about. We can also look to cities, like Vancouver and London, where they have zoned for more housing, but they stage their development and they link the number of consents to timing and funding of upgrades of infrastructure. So when, let’s say, a suburb in London gets a certain number of consents and they build, say, an additional 10,000 houses, at that point that will trigger an additional investment in the transport infrastructure, a new park is built, and some new pipes are invested.

What we’re saying is: yes to more housing. Can we please have a conversation about how we fund the infrastructure to support that housing? Thanks, Madam Speaker.

11:45

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m taking this call on behalf of the ACT Party to support the third reading of the Resource Management (Auckland Housing) Amendment Bill. It’s really good to see that this bill is going through urgency.

I was listening to the Labour member’s contribution. On one hand, she was complaining about this bill going through urgency, and, on the other hand, she wanted more houses built. I think they need to go and make up their minds about what should happen; whether they want to support this bill going through as soon as possible or they want to oppose building more houses. They actually didn’t want urgency, but, on the other hand, they want more houses built as soon as possible.

I do understand there is the importance of a select committee process, but the main purpose of the select committee process is to hear from people. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that as soon as this planning was out—of 2 million dwellings in Auckland—there were lots of people emailing us. There was a huge amount of correspondence that was received by me and many, many of my colleagues in the ACT team, and not only by email; people were reaching out at public events, as well, and sharing their views about the initial announcement. I had many one-on-one conversations, as well, with many, many people—those who share their conversations.

I don’t understand why some members in this House, on that side, think that if people live in East Auckland, or people live on the North Shore or in some other suburbs that they mentioned in their speeches, their voice should not count. Why should only the voices of some people they like count? People living in East Auckland, if they come and share their experiences, that voice should count. And, yes, I am a list member of Parliament based in Pakuranga and I’ve heard from many, many families in Pakuranga, those who have shared their experiences of very, very local infrastructure failure. I’ve had families reach out to me who have had their backyard flooded. Not just that; I had a family reach out to me because it wasn’t just their backyard that was flooded; the house was flooded as well and the water was really filthy. So they didn’t have to just pump that water out; they had to get their whole house sanitised. I’m asking: do we ignore those voices? No, not because of where people live do we just ignore their voices; everybody’s voice should be equally valued. That is what we have done. We have listened and that is why we have scaled it down from 2 million houses to now 1.4 million houses.

I don’t want to mention any names of these families, but I do want to mention one person, and that person is Janet Dickson. She is the chair of the Howick Ratepayers and Residents Association. She had a really good meeting with me, and I must say that she really nicely articulated the concerns of the local community. I must say that she did a really good job of representing the concerns of local communities in Howick and Pakuranga. This process is about listening. This process is acting on the basis of what we hear from people, and it is not the first time that the way we want to approach things sometimes changes after what we hear from people. That is what the Parliament should be doing, and that is what every member in this House should be doing.

This is about streamlining our planning rules, and scaling back is a good idea. The ACT Party is supporting this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

11:49

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s been interesting to listen to this debate about how many future potential buildings we might have, whether it’s 2 million, 1.6 million, or 1.4 million. I think it’s interesting to reflect that this is about potential future over an extended period of time. A lot of those will never come to pass because the owners of those properties don’t want to develop them or don’t want them to develop them in a particular way up to the maximum size. That’s normal. That’s why you aim for a potential number that’s way, way higher than you think you actually need. So we are not looking to have 2 million houses; we’re not looking to have 1.6, and we’re not looking to have 1.4. We are simply providing the capacity that there are 1.4 million choices, 1.6 million choices, 2 million choices—2 million choices that people can choose from to develop those, to provide the housing stock that we think a future Auckland might need.

Just to put it in context, we’ve currently got about 600,000 dwellings in Auckland. It’s taken 180-odd years to create 600,000 dwellings. Unless we’re going very, very, very fast, we are not going to be getting 2 million anytime soon. If we do, God knows what the country is going to look like. The question really is also, if you ask Auckland, if you go and talk to Wayne Brown and say, “Do you want growth at that level?”, I suspect the answer will probably be, “Actually, no, we don’t.” Certainly the infrastructure can’t cope with it, the shape of the city can’t cope with it, and the rate of change and the pace of change will be too great.

This bill doesn’t change—and I think we’ve had acknowledgment from the Opposition—the ceiling. If Auckland wants to zone for 2 million extra houses, it can do that. All it does is it takes some of the pressure off and it says, actually, all you’ve got to do now is to zone for 1.4 million, plus some of those areas around the City Rail Link, etc. We’re actually reducing the pressure on Auckland to do that, to upzone. I do note that if you look at the map that’s there at the moment, there are some pretty significant opportunities within Auckland which are not upzoned at this moment in time, which could be upzoned at a future time. They need to be allied with infrastructure, and they are also the way of paying for some of that infrastructure. There are still some really exciting possibilities and choices that Auckland needs to make. I think that we need, as a Parliament, as a Government, to be walking alongside Auckland.

As I said, there are opportunities for upzoning allied with transport and infrastructure investment and we’ve heard that in some of the discussion before, and I said that earlier. The key, though, is we capture the upzoning value so that we can use that value uplift to pay for some of that infrastructure, because, if you try and do that through the taxpayers’ purse, the reality is it’s going to be unaffordable. Projects won’t happen and we’ll end up with a city—and a country—which is sub-optimal, as a result. What happens in Auckland doesn’t just affect Auckland; it affects the areas around Auckland, it affects the country as a whole.

It’s really important that growth pays for growth. As I said, the advice we’ve had from the Infrastructure Commission—I will repeat that, what I said in the earlier debates—is that the Infrastructure Commission has been very plain in that growth at the moment is not paying for growth. It’s not even close. They’ve said between 30 and 50 percent is their best estimate, which means between 50 and 70 percent is paid for by existing ratepayers, existing taxpayers. We need to do a lot better than that. Developers might scream blue murder about that, but if they’re not paying, it means the existing taxpayer, the existing ratepayer, is paying. That’s a problem. On that basis, even if you like the growth, you could actually understand why the existing ratepayer or taxpayer might have an aversion to that growth, because they’re paying for the lion’s share of it.

The other point I wanted to make in that aspect is about the role of greenfields. When you plan a city—and the extensive amount of planning that’s been going on in Auckland, and this is true elsewhere as well—councils will go through an extensive process with their communities to develop a plan. Then, from left field at some stage, you know, maybe 12 months down the track, 24 months down the track, somebody says “I wanna do a brand new greenfields development.” I don’t know quite why we encourage that, why we permit that sort of thing to happen so easily, because they should have got into that process and said, “Look, as part of your overall picture, your overall thinking for your city, we think this area needs to be developed and this is how the infrastructure all works together.” But that doesn’t seem to happen; we still seem to permit that. And I know that, maybe not so much Auckland Council, although I know they’re not that enthusiastic, but a lot of councils really have an aversion to greenfields development coming from left field, particularly after they’ve spent literally years and years and years with their communities planning their cities. So I raise that issue.

The next issue I just wanted to talk about is partnership. We need to make sure that Government is working with councils. I had a wee amount of time working in a council or being part of a council, and so often Governments—doesn’t matter whether they were red-led Governments or blue-led Governments—did things to councils and usually said to the councils, “You’re gonna pay for it as well.” It makes life really difficult if the rules keep chopping and changing. Literally, as I said in the earlier debate, during the development of the Wellington City district plan, the Government intervened twice. Literally, as we were about to go out to consultation, or go out to a major part of that—and we had to go back and rearrange a whole lot of things. It’s really, really unhelpful. So we need Governments—whether they are red-led or blue-led—to work with councils, to walk alongside councils.

I’ve made the point that we—the next piece of legislation, I think, we’ve got coming to this House is the Auckland Transport legislation. One of the things that does, aside from getting rid of Auckland Transport, and putting things back into the council, is the development of a 30-year strategy. Now, we don’t do 30-year strategies as Governments; Governments need to be thinking much longer term, and that’s across all aspects of what we do. Many areas need that big, long-term thinking. But that Auckland Transport Bill says that Government and the council will walk together in developing a 30-year transport strategy. In developing a 30-year transport strategy, you also have to have a 30-year plan for your city, the shape of your city. That’s what you should be doing. Those two things, transport and urban development, have to work together—and all the infrastructure that supports that. We’re sort of part-way into that partnership, but we need to do a lot more of that as this bill progresses and as thinking progresses.

The other area, which I’ve mentioned several times, is growth in the city. So we are now at the stage where we are at less than replacement. So, you know, births versus deaths, it’s gonna start turning around. In fact, our population would slowly decline over time except for one big lever: it’s migration. It is not the council who’s in charge of migration; it’s the Government. And Government—doesn’t matter, again, whether it’s red-led or blue-led—does not have a long-term, coherent, demographic, and migration strategy. That means that we would regularly say to councils—and I’ve been on the receiving end of this—“We want you to plan for 30 years’ growth”, and we will go, “Well, how much is 30 years’ growth going to be? Because you’re the ones who hold the levers.” So Government, again, needs to do some serious long-term thinking about how many people we’re providing for and where they’re going to go.

In that, I would note that—and I gave a speech quite some time ago—so much of migration goes to Auckland, and the question you ask is, “Is that necessarily a good thing?” If you look at the size of Auckland in comparison to the population of the country as a whole, Auckland is one of the biggest, I think it was, I worked out, other than—you leave the city States out, you know, the Singapores and so on, Monacos, those kind of things—but Auckland was second only to Doha, prospectively, as a proportion of the entire population of the country. Now, when you’re an outlier, you should really be thinking, “Are we an outlier for good reasons or an outlier because it’s just happened to us?” It seems to me that what we are doing in this country so often, not just in this area, is that we’re not creating the future that we want, but we’re just stumbling into it. We’ve got to do a lot better than that.

Just to finish off, there have been some comments made about Auckland, and quite a few comments made about Auckland as an engine of growth. And, yes, that’s true, but I would remind you that the vast majority of our export revenue does not come from our cities; it comes from our rural area. The population of our rural area, broadly, has not gone up; the population of our urban areas has. The question I put to you is whether in fact that means that our rural areas are carrying more and more people in our urban areas. Unless we do something to boost the export revenue generated by those urban areas—you know, through science, through digital technology, through whatever it might be—we are not going to be a more productive, more wealthy society.

We’re not productive because we put it all in housing speculation.

So we’ve got some real challenges in that area as well. I’m not quite sure what Dr Xu-Nan is saying, but I’m sure it’s good.

This bill really is leaving for Auckland the opportunities for it to decide how it grows, for it to decide what the shape of the city should be—and that’s the way it should be, but for Government to walk alongside of Auckland, particularly in transport and investment and infrastructure, so that together we can create a great city as part of a great country. This really is about trying to grow the shape of a city, the shape of a country that we should be aspiring to, not merely stumbling into. I commend the bill to the House.

11:59

Let me begin with this truth: Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland is in a housing crisis. That much is not in dispute. Heoi, for too many whānau across Tāmaki-makau-rau, the dream of a safe, secure, affordable home remains out of reach. Too many tamariki are growing up in overcrowded homes. Too many rangatahi are couch surfing or on our streets. Too many wāhine and whānau are still living in motels, garages, and cars. We all know the urgency of the need. However, urgency must never come at the cost of justice. In less than 24 hours, this House is passing significant housing legislation for Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland under urgency, without select committee scrutiny, without public submissions, and without proper consultation with mana whenua and Māori communities. That is not good lawmaking and that is not good housing policy, because urgency narrows the room, and when the room narrows, Māori are the first pushed out.

Urban Māori do not have planning consultants on retainer; they do not have legal teams ready to respond within 20 working days to complex, shifting planning proposals. Urgency does not accelerate Māori participation; it filters Māori out. For generations, decisions about our whenua have been made to us, around us, and over us. The people of Tāmaki-makau-rau know that history deeply. From Ōkahu Bay to South Auckland, Māori communities have long lived with the consequences of planning decisions that prioritise development over people, and density over belonging.

While this bill speaks the language of housing supply, the question we must ask is very simple: supply for whom? More houses on paper does not automatically mean homes for Māori whānau, Pasifika whānau, or vulnerable families. We know from previous Resource Management Act housing reforms that the Government’s stated objective is to accelerate supply in high-demand cities, but supply without equity can simply deepen inequality. Without affordability protections, without anti-displacement measures, without explicit pathways for papa kāinga even in urban centres, and without whānau-led housing, this legislation risks reproducing the same exclusion that has locked Māori out of homeownership for generations.

The people I represent are not asking for special treatment; they’re asking for fairness. They’re asking that housing law in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland recognise that Māori housing is not only about units and zoning maps but it’s about whakapapa. It’s about connection to whenua. It’s about keeping whānau close to their marae, to their kura, and to their communities. It is also about growth. What does that growth look like when Māori are continually locked out from decision making? The urgency of this bill restricted any real, reasonable, robust debate from everyone—from 1.6 million people of Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, from the 250,000 Māori that call Tāmaki-makau-rau home, and from this very House.

If time had been granted, Te Pāti Māori would have proposed, in time, amendments that give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, require meaningful mana whenua consultation, protect communities from displacement, enable papa kāinga and multigenerational housing, require reporting on Māori housing outcomes, and ensure that this House remains accountable for the impacts of this bill. Those were not unreasonable amendments; they were practical, principled, and they were grounded in the lived realities of the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland. If this Government is sincere in its commitment to solving the housing crisis, then it must also be sincere about who that solution serves.

Housing policy that does not reach those who are most in need is not reform; it is rhetoric. Te Pāti Māori and their MP for Tāmaki Makaurau simply do not support this bill in its current state, or in any form, because it has not gone through the correct processes that not only give rise to the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau but acknowledge, honour, and respect Te Tiriti o Waitangi and respect the 19 mana whenua of Tāmaki-makau-rau and the greater isthmus of Auckland. It has not considered what the impact will be to Māori communities now and in the next 30 years. E kore rawa mātou e whakaae ki tēnei, ka mutu. [We will never agree with this, furthermore.]

For that reason, we do not support this bill. I stand here for Māori housing justice and our mokopuna, and, basically, that’s our bottom line.

12:04

This bill has, effectively, always been about protecting the wealth of rich people in leafy suburbs, who have long fought to maintain their status as people who live in areas that are simply inaccessible for everyday working people.

Come to Northcote; you’ll see some everyday Kiwis there, my friend.

I would invite the members of the Government, who I think are inviting me to Northcote, to realise that the political discourse behind this bill comes from Government Ministers, effectively, caving into wealthy constituents who do not want to see intensification in some of our inner city suburbs where young people are locked out of opportunities there for affordable housing.

It’s hard to take the Government’s claims of committing to increase housing supply seriously when they are gutting public housing programmes left, right, and centre, including in our biggest city.

That’s not true.

The member just in front of me just said it’s not true. It is true: they are gutting public housing programmes. It is happening. We are seeing, in Auckland, empty lots where public housing should have been—housing that would have been for some of our lowest-income people who are currently often waiting for months, if not years, on the social housing register. The wildest thing about this is that this bill continues to put the onus on neighbourhoods such as West and South Auckland, who are facing the brunt of youth unemployment and the current impact of the fossil fuel crisis, to be the ones to carry the load when it comes to intensifying the biggest city in the country.

The Government had the opportunity to do intensification well while enabling more people to live in our city centre suburbs. They also had the opportunity to continue moving towards having fewer homes in flood-prone areas, but we can’t do that without adequate housing supply, particularly in those very same neighbourhoods that are affected. If the Government is genuinely so concerned about having adequate public infrastructure in those areas that resist intensification, we could instead have a central government that works with local government to ensure that we have the public transport infrastructure that our city deserves.

It was telling to hear the Minister in the committee of the whole House talk about light rail for Dominion Road; I haven’t seen this Government put forward a case that genuinely commits to actually building light rail on Dominion Road in a way that is achievable and realistic. The Greens, when the Labour Party was in Government, were very clear that we did want a more affordable light rail option for our biggest city through Dominion Road—ideally surface light rail—which would have been delivered sooner and more cost-efficiently. All these things can absolutely happen and be put in place, but this isn’t a bill to enable this. This is a bill that caves into some of the Government’s wealthiest constituents while leaving behind young families who are locked out of seeing themselves having secure tenure in our city suburbs.

I also want to acknowledge that in the committee of the whole House—and this is why the use of urgency is particularly problematic—we had a Minister who told us that there was no analysis done on,for example, the change in job creations from the downgrading of the minimum housing supply that will now be put in place from 2 million, to 1.4 million homes. We know, obviously, that if you’re requiring fewer homes to be built, you’re going to have fewer jobs being made available, and the security of those jobs will also be lower. Yet there was no analysis done whatsoever on this.

There was also no updated analysis being presented to us on, for example, how changes in migration patterns and population changes are informing these changes. All these things could have well been unpacked at a select committee. We could have asked for that advice. We could have had that unpacked in a more evidence-based way, but this Government does not care about evidence; it does not care, actually, about low-income families struggling to access secure housing. This Government will continue pandering to a wealthy few—particularly, in this case, in leafy suburbs—and will keep locking out low-income working people from having secure housing. You don’t have to believe me; you can just look at the Government’s housing programme, the cancellation of public housing, and the lack of enablement of affordable housing for our low-income families. The Green Party will not be supporting this bill, and we’ll keep fighting for adequate supply of affordable housing and intensification done well.

12:09

What some people on the other side of the House want to call flip-flopping, we want to call listening to our neighbours. What other people want to call caving in, we call respecting the views of everyday Kiwis. For people on the other side to talk about South Auckland, well, I’ll tell you about the residents’ groups in South and East Auckland—the residents’ groups of Wattle Downs, of The Gardens, of Waiata Shores, of Conifer Grove, of Flat Bush residents’ groups. We’ve listened to them; I’ve taken their views to our hard-working, listening Ministers, and I’m proud that we’re a party that listens. I commend this bill to the House.

12:10

What a shocking speech from that member—what a shocking speech. It’s unbelievable that she would treat such an issue with such contempt and not put any effort into her speech. But then the Minister’s not even here—not even here.

No, you can’t say that.

I can’t say that? I did. My apologies, Mr Speaker, just in case you were going to warn me.

This is a serious issue, but Chris Bishop has slapped Auckland in the face once again—no doubt about that—by ripping up his housing intensification plans, all because of David Seymour. Seymour’s rich, leafy suburb homeowners put the pressure on Chris Bishop because they didn’t want to be forced to live next door to multi-level housing. That’s what it was all about. We all know what happened there. The pressure went on Mr Bishop, so he cut Auckland’s housing limit to 1.4 million—1.4 million, having cut the Plan Change 120 capacity from 2 million to 1.6 million.

After all the talk from Chris Bishop, all the talk about what he was going to do in Auckland, how he was going to look after Aucklanders and workers and everything else, he buckled—he buckled to the ACT Party, who said, “Oh, no, no, not in our neighbourhood—not in our neighbourhood. Oh, it’s just terrible. We can’t be in this neighbourhood.” It’s a kick in the guts for many Aucklanders trying to find a home, and it’s an attack, as Wayne Brown just said, on the Auckland Council, all because ACT and National nimbies in the leafy suburbs have been unleashed, basically, on Chris Bishop.

Chris Bishop has buckled—buckled. After all the big talk, all the bravado from this Minister, he totally buckled in the end, collapsed so much that he sent Tama Potaka in to save him. So much for the great urbanist Chris Bishop, that we now have to water down housing intensification, basically, to suck up to the right-wing nimbies. That’s what this is all about. I think that we’ve pointed that out through this debate.

Chris Bishop wants to tell us he’s solving Auckland’s housing crisis, but what he’s really done is invent a new political sport, and it’s called “backward progress”—that’s what we would call Chris Bishop’s new sport. It’s such a nonsensical and humiliating move from Chris Bishop. We were told intensification was the answer: build up, build smart, make room for people. Then along comes Chris Bishop with a plan that says, “Yes, more housing; but also, less housing; but also, don’t worry about it.” That’s what we ended up with, Chris Bishop, in the end. It’s just crazy.

This Government talks endlessly about decentralisation, letting communities make their own decisions, but when Auckland Council actually tries to plan for growth, suddenly it’s, “No, no, no, not like that.” Apparently Auckland can make its own decisions, as long as they’re the same decisions Wellington already made.

Let’s talk about the numbers. We had capacity for more homes, more density, more opportunity. Now we’ve quietly shaved that back—not enough to fix the crisis, but just enough to say, “Oh, we tried—we tried.” It’s the policy equivalent of turning up to a marathon, jogging 200 metres, and then just asking for a medal. That’s what this Government is doing.

It is a sad indictment, and New Zealanders are waking up. They’re waking up to this useless coalition Government who buckle at every turn. They buckle when it comes to tobacco lobbyists. They buckle when it comes to oil and gas lobbyists. They buckle when it comes to ACT supporters who put the pressure on the Minister Chris Bishop, who had all the talk in the world and buckled. This is what this Government’s all about. That’s why they’re crashing in the polls. Crashing—26 percent in the last poll last night. What a shocking poll result, and we’re watching very closely if there’s going to be any moves in terms of leadership. Sadly, no one on that side of the House is a contender.

Meanwhile, young Aucklanders are still locked out of the market, rents keep climbing, and the dream of affordable housing drifts further away, probably to a low-density suburb somewhere. What’s the plan? Here’s the key: what’s the plan? Let’s clarify. Less ambition and a lot more spin, because in the end, this isn’t a bold reform. It’s a cautious retreat dressed up as leadership, and Auckland deserves better than a housing policy that builds confusion faster than it builds homes. Kia ora.

The Hon Jenny Salesa—this is a split call from call No. 8.

12:15

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This Resource Management (Auckland Housing) Amendment Bill is disappointing. I know that the Minister, the Hon Chris Bishop, tried. He tried really hard to keep the number of dwellings at 2 million, and, unfortunately, that number has been downgraded, initially to 1.6 million dwellings, and then we know that Cabinet—this is according to an interview with the Minister earlier on this morning—actually agreed to downgrade that number to 1.4 million houses.

It is actually a lot of our folks in not just South Auckland but West Auckland that get to take on that extra burden of where these houses, which—we know that Auckland is our largest city. It is our largest city, and I think the approximate number of folks that live in Auckland now is about 1.6-1.7 million people, and it is projected to continue to grow. With that growth, it is actually really practical, and it is great that there is planning for the future, to ensure that there are more homes built.

However, when the numbers like this keep on being dropped, that actually does not provide certainty. It certainly doesn’t provide certainty for developers and it certainly doesn’t provide certainty for Auckland Council and not certainty for the families who are locked out of homeownership, including many in my electorate in Panmure-Ōtāhuhu. We agree that Auckland definitely needs to grow; however, it does not mean freezing change in the leafy suburbs that already have excellent infrastructure while shunting that growth into communities that are already carrying an infrastructure deficit.

The wider framework that this bill introduced makes sure that intensification will actually not happen in some suburbs. Even though the legislation does not actually spell out which those suburbs are, we kind of know what those suburbs are likely to be. It is the ones that have the City Rail Link (CRL). It is ones that already have good schools, good water infrastructure, frequent public transportation, and strong political representation. In many of those areas, the message from Government seems to be: “Don’t worry, we’ll find somewhere else to put this housing growth.”

Now, that somewhere else is too often South Auckland and West Auckland. In my area, it is Papatoetoe, Ōtara, and neighbouring areas of Māngere and Manurewa. It is those communities that are more than 10 kilometres out of the CBD of Auckland, and it is the areas with the highest deprivation rates. It is the areas also with many of our youngest populations.

In terms of infrastructure deficit in South Auckland, anyone who spends time in our areas knows that there is already congestion. There are already buses that are not frequent or direct. The train stations are also not treated as seriously as the shiny CRL stations in the city. Overloaded stormwater systems cannot cope with heavy rain, and we already saw the effects of that during the Auckland floods.

When this Government comes to the House with a bill that reduces the overall capacity requirement and tells Auckland Council to make it work, what they’re really doing is making it easier to say no to intensification in comfortable suburbs and harder to say yes in communities like mine in South Auckland. If the Government was serious about growing in the right places, this bill would be paired with a plan to address and fund the infrastructure deficit in South Auckland.

Labour opposes this bill, because Auckland cannot solve a housing crisis by aiming lower. We oppose it because it shifts the burden and opportunity away from those who are already having the most and towards those who already have the least. We oppose it because it entrenches in Auckland, where some suburbs are, effectively, protected from change while others are told to grow without the infrastructure, the buses, the rail, the parks, the schools that they need. I do not commend this bill to the House.

12:20

It is a great day for communities right across Auckland, from Mount Roskill to Unsworth Heights, to Takanini, to my suburb of Northcote, Chatswood, Beach Haven, Birkdale, even Northcote Point, where members opposite live. This is a great day for Auckland because it gives council the flexibility to determine where intensification should actually happen and occur in our city. Intensification where it makes sense; that is the key theme of this bill. And where it does not make sense? Certainly on flood plains, certainly on cliffs, and certainly where there is a lack of infrastructure.

It’s a very good bill. It’s going to allow for intensification across the City Rail Link, across main arterial routes, across the CBD. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

It’s a five-minute split call.

12:21

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I begin, may I take one moment to acknowledge the passing of Sir Barry Curtis, who was the Mayor of Manukau City for 24 years. He is someone who has served his community with heart. He’s been a champion for many communities and has stood for the expansion of marae in the area, in South Auckland, and has stood for mana whenua having a greater voice in planning, the example of which has been followed around the country. Moe mai rā, Sir Barry. We acknowledge you and your service to a place which you loved.

It’s appropriate to acknowledge the service of our mayors, of our council, when we’re considering the huge scale of the challenge that Auckland has in developing a city that we can be proud of in the future; that, in 2040, when we are celebrating 200 years of the modern conception of our nation, we can also look at a city which has grown and which we are proud of on the world stage. That is a challenge that only the two major parties can grapple with; that only National and Labour can find the kind of long-term cross-partisan consensus which leads to the funding and financing of infrastructure that we need; that leads to the planning reform that the city needs. But, unfortunately, we’re seeing a stepping back from that collective obligation that we have, that can only be reached by the two major parties. Nowhere else is it possible to introduce that tension in the system—not at local government level, not within the minor parties, not within any other place is that tension going to be resolved for those long-term challenges. Yet here we are.

Unfortunately, after years and years of growing public call for longer-term planning, for taking the short-term politics out of the planning for infrastructure, and for the sort of planning reform that would enable greater supply of housing, now we are back here having set an aspiration which was reasonable and that there could have been long-term consensus around for the enablement of 2 million homes in our city to grow over the long term. Now, we are back here with a law that takes that down; that says that that aspiration was too much; that our hopes for first-home buyers to be able to buy their homes in Auckland City, and for rents to come down over the long term, was too far. And we have members on the other side of the House who have lorded that because they know they have an election coming up and they know they have communities who will be hurting because of this. Yes, you’re right that we need to listen to those community groups. Yes, you’re right that we need to listen to ratepayers’ associations who want to have a say, but the answer will never be giving in to those short-term incentives over those long-term areas that we know desperately need attention.

When, after every election, both major political parties stand up and they—politicians from both sides—say, “Yes, we need longer-term planning. Yes, we need consensus. Yes, we need to find cross-partisan support.”, remember this debate, which was about exactly that and the fact that we couldn’t find it. It’s so disappointing for those first-home buyers who will lose out because of this, and those areas in our city which are ill-equipped to soak up the intensification, which they are already being asked to bear, which will continue to be asked to bear more—I’m talking about those areas in South Auckland and in West Auckland, which are poorly provisioned for stormwater, for roading, for transport infrastructure already, and will now face more poorly planned infill housing because that is the alternative to large-scale intensification; the sorts of apartment buildings that we could have had along the corridor, the Eastern Busway, which will be harder and harder for councillors at the Auckland Council level to argue for in the coming years.

It’s not just about now; it’s about the politics of the next decade, and this bill, that sets an unambitious limit, will make it very, very hard to realise the aspirations of those communities, even with them campaigning alongside the locally elected representatives, even if that were possible in today’s modern environment, where exactly the people who need us to stand up for them are working two jobs, grandmothers and grandparents raising children, and who cannot participate in it at that local level. They needed the central government politicians who battle for the centre and who are battling for the rights and interests of most New Zealanders—most New Zealanders in the middle, who are struggling but can afford some assets and want their children to afford some assets; this was the moment where we could have advocated for their interests, and, unfortunately, that is not what this bill does.

And what about the rest of the Government’s building reforms? Labour has supported those because they will enable supply of more housing. That all hinged on the ability to reform the planning process, which is now no longer happening to the extent that it should be. All of those reforms, which enabled supply, will not be able to have the effect. And this is a National Government, where in the days of Keith Holyoake, they would have voted for something like this, they would have voted for more homeownership. They’re turning away from that legacy, and they’ve become a party that will fight for entrenched interests.

12:26

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge all the residents who have taken the time over the past two years to share their feedback and concern on both Plan Change 78 and Plan Change 120. Your voices have been heard and they matter. As your local MP, I’m proud to work with you, advocate for you, and see this bill as a victory for the people of Mt Roskill. I also want to make special mention of councillor Christine Fletcher and Puketāpapa local board chair Roseanne Hay and member Fiona Lai for their strong advocacy for better and more thoughtful planning in our communities.

A key change in this bill is reducing the minimum housing capacity under Plan Change 120 from 2 million houses to 1.4 million. I’ve heard concern from the Opposition that this is limiting housing supply or taking decisions away from local government; in fact, this does the exact opposite. This legislation sets a minimum, not maximum, and it returns decision-making power to the council, giving Auckland Council the flexibility to plan based on the needs and the voice of the communities.

Housing policy isn’t just the numbers; it’s about smart and sustainable planning. It’s about building in the right place, backed by the infrastructure to support it. If there is a demand, council can still enable more housing in the right places. Now, it is up to Auckland Council to work with Aucklanders, including people in Mt Roskill, to decide where growth should happen and where it should not. I commend this bill to the House.

It’s a five-minute split call.

12:28

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, well, well, look where we are. What an absolute mess this Government has made of the housing decisions that they purport to hold so dear to their heart. We are here, under urgency, all-stages urgency, deciding the housing policy of our biggest city.

And why are we in urgency? I was here for some of the committee stage; I’ve yet to hear a good answer. I think the reason is—we all know why—that Minister Chris Bishop has purported to be an urbanist, has purported to support intensification, but every time anyone of his Cabinet colleagues or other coalition partners looks at his proposal around housing, he loses another 200,000. We started off with 2 million, then we had 1.6 million, and now, in the House, that’s 1.4 million. As the days were going to tick by in select committee, who knows how many fewer housing opportunities Aucklanders would have had with the input of ACT, with the advice of David Seymour and the local constituents who do not have the same vision of intensification that we know is needed for Auckland; with the people like Christopher Luxon, losing their nerve and not wanting more houses in Auckland, we would have gotten fewer and fewer. So, as he is Leader of the House, we’re in urgency because he wants to get this through, but, sadly for Aucklanders, it is a much weaker proposal that shows that he has lost the fight around intensification in Auckland—because make no mistake: this bill will result in less housing opportunities and fewer houses for Aucklanders. That’s what this bill will do.

If we look at the history of this, we have had Auckland Council doing the heavy lifting in relation to planning for Auckland, and despite what this Government is doing today, we see them again frustrating Auckland Council through not only taking their unitary plan and saying they have to fundamentally change that but they’ve said, “OK, now then, we’re going to have the Medium Density Residential Standard.” We’ve seen flip-flopping from Nicola Willis, supporting intensification, to her then being overruled again by some of the conservative voices in her caucus.

Then we saw Plan Change 78—I think it was. There are so many different numbers here. Then we saw Plan Change 120, and we thought we had the policy moving forward for Auckland housing but we were wrong. This was going to be changed again and again for no good reason that Aucklanders can find out, and this is a huge disappointment because we need more houses in Auckland.

We know that housing is fundamentally important to people. When we were in Government, we had a Housing First policy. We believe that everyone has the right to a warm, dry home. We believe in homeownership, and we believe that the way to get there is to allow more housing. But what have we seen from this Government? We have seen the watering down of opportunities for people to build houses—and it’s been said again and again in this House. When we talked about 2 million houses, we were talking about opportunities for those people who own those properties to consider planning decisions on their own property.

It’s so ironic that we have seen the libertarian party in this Parliament decide that people do not have the right to do that and will not have the opportunity to build on their own property despite the fact they may want to. So it is just quite ironic that we have landed in this place, where, once again, we’re seeing this Government turn their back on an opportunity to create more houses for Auckland.

Of course, it goes without saying that these decisions around housing need to be carefully planned. They need to be not put in places where they’re going to be at risk of natural disasters. They need to be put in sensible places where there is opportunity for them to be close to public transport networks and close to all the things that people need in their lives. There needs to be careful planning around that.

What we’ve seen from this Government is the opposite of careful planning. We’re seeing them once again pass the buck to Auckland Council, so every time someone has an issue with planning, they can say, “Well, it wasn’t our fault. We passed a bill and said it’s Auckland Council’s decision to put in place everything that needs to be considered when planning is in place.” So it’s all going to be Auckland Council’s fault. We’ve already seen “mapgate”, where the Minister and the mayor were having a public stoush over whether Auckland Council is going to spend more money doing very, very complicated maps that the Minister said would be so easy, and it’s not the case. So, again, we see this Government turning its back on housing.

12:33

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Here we are, rewriting Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland’s housing plan through urgency unnecessarily. Over the past few hours, we have debated the merits of this particular legislation, without hearing the voices of thousands of Aucklanders via their submissions, who sent them in in good faith to enable Auckland Council to hear their views on housing intensification in the future of Auckland.

I go back exactly three years to when Megan Woods and Nicola Willis stood on a stage together in a bipartisan way, making a commitment to growing the number of houses in Auckland. That is what New Zealanders wanted to see between this party and that party, because anyone that understands infrastructure in Auckland knows about the importance of bipartisanship, and of taking a joint approach to addressing the housing crisis, the housing needs, that we desperately need to resolve in Auckland. But three years ago, just prior to the election, the National Party bailed on that plan, the work that had been done, and, in many respects, the ideas they had put forward that we supported. And here we are, three years later. We’ve gone from a plan that enables 2 million houses in Auckland to then 1.6 million as outlined in the impact statement, to now, lo and behold, a plan, dropped before us last night, that only achieves 1.4 million houses and protects leafy suburbs as directed by David Seymour and Simeon Brown, in Epsom and in Pakuranga.

How is it fair for a city trying to address a housing crisis to enable young people to purchase their own homes in our largest city in Aotearoa, when suddenly these suburbs are exempt, and suburbs like those on the North Shore aren’t exempt or aren’t having their concerns heard because this legislation has been pushed under urgency before hearing the submissions that thousands of Aucklanders have put up? How is that fair?

In Northcote, we understand what good design looks like. Under a Labour Government, we invested in increasing the number of houses, and—listen to this, Minister Potaka—we invested in good transport links, in schools being available, in recreational centres, and in water infrastructure. But at the other end, what we see are communities who have had loud voices on this issue, hundreds through the submission process, not be acknowledged through this Government’s forcing this legislation to go through under urgency. Their community has unique points of difference. They come from a coastal area that makes building and intensification in their relevant community far more complex than those that are in areas like Northcote that have good transport links, like the Northern Busway, and have the housing and infrastructure in place. And today I’m asking: where is their voice being heard in this legislation?

Most people in Auckland believe in upzoning areas. They understand the need for growth, but growth needs good planning, good design, good amenities, and good local schools in and around that. Today, the Minister responsible for RMA Reform put forward legislation that has fallen short in many respects. It’s pandered to politics today because this Government and the National Party are feeling the pressure of the polls that sit in front of them. Their more conservative members and their Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, and Simeon Brown have undermined Chris Bishop, as the Minister, and the decisions that he needed to make to unlock the housing issues that Auckland sees, but, most of all, to fulfil the urbanist mantra that he said that he believed in. This is a shocking outcome from a Government that can’t make decisions and cannot plan for the future.

12:38

What a pleasure it is to take the final call on this excellent piece of legislation. At the heart of this legislation is one of the best parts of this House when it operates at its best—it is listening to the people, and that’s what this bill is about. It really is nothing less and nothing more. The fact is that the people of Auckland said, “Hey, we’d like some changes to this.”, and we’ve listened and we are making those changes.

We have reduced the minimum limit—not the maximum limit—to 1.4 million houses. We have put in place a transitional system for those who were building under the previous plan change, Plan Change 78—the three by three rule—and we have ensured that the ongoing consultation process will be rigorous and will be complete. That is why this is a great piece of legislation. It’s a great piece of legislation for Maungakiekie. It’s a great piece of legislation for Tāmaki-makau-rau. It’s a great piece of legislation for Aotearoa, and I commend it to the House.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill.

12:41

As the Associate Minister of Transport, it’s a real pleasure to sit in the chair for this committee stage of the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill, and as the Minister for the South Island, I am particularly proud to stand here and support my “Northern South Island” colleagues in this important transport bill. Can I just begin this contribution by thanking the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for all its work on the bill. To the submitters who made their submissions and made their views heard, particularly those from Auckland, thank you for your contribution.

There is a widespread view that the current model for transport governance in Auckland is not working, and I think the Mayor of Auckland expresses this as strongly as anyone in this House possibly could. There is a lack of democratic accountability for transport decision-making in Auckland. Unlike other proud, strong regions around the country, in Auckland the unelected Auckland Transport board is responsible for most local transport functions usually performed by local authorities. I understand that public trust and confidence in Auckland Transport is quite low at the moment, and Auckland Council elected members have little say over transport decisions, despite being responsible for setting the rates that help fund the local transport system.

There is also a lack of long-term aligned transport planning between Auckland Council and the Crown. Duplicative planning processes happen across transport agencies, without coherent overarching direction. The aims of this bill are, therefore, simple: to increase democratic accountability and to strengthen long-term transport planning between Auckland Council and the Crown. I do look forward to members’ contributions on this issue from across the House.

The structure of the bill is as follows: Part 1 amends Parts 1 and 2 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act—or LGACA, as I think we’ll all be referring to it throughout this bill, as an acronym—and then Part 2 amends Part 4 of the Act, and Part 3 amends Part 8 of the Act. But I’ll go on to the general scope of the debate, in terms of the number of key policy proposals, because we don’t need to talk about the structure too much.

The bill does a number of important things. It establishes the Auckland Regional Transport Committee—or the ARTC—which is a joint Government and Auckland Council committee. It will shift most local transport functions from Auckland Transport to Auckland Council. It will reform Auckland Transport into a transport council-controlled organisation—or CCO; it’s a bit of an acronym city here this morning—which is focused on providing public transport services in Auckland. Within Auckland Council itself, the bill will confer specific transport responsibilities to local boards, and the bill also provides for a six-month transition period to allow implementation to take place.

I’ll also draw the committee of the whole House’s attention to an Amendment Paper in the name of Minister Bishop. That is Amendment Paper 564, which is on the Table for people if they would like to refer to it. The amendments are mostly minor in nature. They do things like replace references to “Auckland Transport” to “Auckland Council” in the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024. The Amendment Paper removes a clause relating to delegations by Auckland Council to the transport CCO, as it is inconsistent with an earlier clause. It clarifies the intended scope of one of the employment provisions, and it removes reference to Auckland Transport in the Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Act 2025. The final amendment in the Amendment Paper provides a safeguard to ensure that local boards do not obstruct regionally significant transport projects or services.

The bill itself confers local boards’ decisions over matters that relate to identity of place and where community engagement and expertise are seen to be beneficial. The governing body makes decisions that are of regional importance and where a network approach is required to ensure connectivity and an efficient flow of traffic, including for freight and public transport, but there may be some times when regional and local decision-making intersect, and this amendment is intended to mitigate the risk of local boards obstructing regionally significant transport projects or services. The Amendment Paper makes a number of other changes that I’m sure members will talk to throughout this debate.

12:46

Kia orana, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take Labour’s first call in the committee stage of this bill. I just want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, for a fairly comprehensive overview of the bill and where we’re going to head, albeit we’re at Part 1. Perhaps it was somewhat of an audition for tomorrow? I am looking over there and thinking, actually, he’s my pick for promotion tomorrow. There we go. I do thank the Associate Minister of Transport for taking us through that.

One of the things that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee did make a change around, and it is in Part 1, is in relation to clause 4. Often when we come to the interpretation clause, a lot of that is, effectively, dealt to, but one of the changes that the committee did recommend, and unanimously—all the parties that are represented there were of the same view—was in direct response to submissions received around the requirement for the new agency to pull together a 30-year transportation plan.

We’ll get to how that approval process comes in, between the Minister and the Mayor of Auckland, later in this bill, but one thing we did hear about was the need for the plan to be in a format that is accessible. This is very important, because what was referenced was the fact that if a plan is being pulled together that is seeking to meet the needs of all of Auckland, an important part of that would be for those folk in the community who have a disability to be able to engage effectively as part of that process.

My first question to Mr Meager is whether he is satisfied with the definition, in terms of the interpretation in the new clause 4(3), “ ‘accessible format’ means a copy of a document in an alternative form that gives persons who have a print disability access to the document”. Is he satisfied that that is, effectively, a catch-all that covers the various needs of those who may have a disability? It is around print; there is nothing there that talks about audio, audiovisual, or visual issues. It may be that the Minister is actually comfortable that the acknowledgment of those who have a print disability means that it, effectively, can encourage perhaps non-traditional means, as some might describe them—I’m not describing them as that myself.

The second question is further down, in relation to clause 8. This is about the functions and duties and powers of local boards. We all knew, when the committee was working through this particular bill, that the arrangements for Auckland are discreetly different than for any other community in New Zealand. They are the only community to have a local board set-up. One of the things we did spend a wee bit of time on was ensuring that the local boards, vis-à-vis the governing body, had the right form of responsibility to be able to deliver for the transportation needs of their local communities.

When we see, under clause 8(2), there’s a change in “allocated” to “conferred”—and that might just mean that, actually, for all intents and purposes, it is exactly the same thing, but it’s more around the responsibilities that are conferred upon or given over to the local boards. That means, perhaps, I assume, that local boards could choose to do something about it or not do something about it, whereas an allocation implies that there needs to be some sort of positive action around taking up some opportunities.

Now, that change in terms of the powers has also been inserted further, as they relate to not just undertaking the functions but being able to exercise those that are conferred, under new paragraph (db), inserted by clause 8(2). I think I’ll just leave those questions now. I’ve still got some more to go.

12:50

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate having a chance to contribute to this committee of the whole House, because I have an amendment on the table. This is Amendment Paper 568. Look, the reason for this amendment, and I’m hoping the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, will have a chance to speak to it after my brief contribution—

I think the member—is this Part 1, or is your amendment for Part 2?

Clause 14.

I believe it’s Part 2, clause 14. See it as a practice run.

12:51

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in response to the new definition of “accessible format”, I think the term is broad enough to encompass a situation where if someone has a disability related to the ability to digest or comprehend print documents, an alternative form is made available, an accessible form is made available. We think it’s broad enough to encapsulate a broad range of disabilities that might impact someone, whether that is visual or comprehension. As long as something’s provided in a format which makes it accessible, that would meet the test, I think, in that section.

Dr Tracey McLellan—and I’ll just indicate to the member I will be interrupting at five to 1, so if she does have a question, then she might like to time it around that.

12:52

OK, well, bearing that in mind, Mr Chair, I will select a question that can be delivered in a very concise manner and limit my opening statements to another section where I may give them a little bit more airing.

Let me just skip straight ahead and note one point before asking my question. If I look at the regulatory impact statement, I think one of the key constraints on the analyses that have been done with this bill is clearly stated that there were not the normal opportunities to, essentially, consult with the public. That’s notwithstanding the fact that the Minister and the Mayor of Auckland were afforded the opportunity to have lots of conversations, so it’s not a criticism, per se; it’s just noting that public consultation perhaps didn’t happen in the way that it could have.

I want to also pick up on my colleague Tangi Utikere’s question about local boards, because it is an unusual situation compared to the rest of the country—21 local boards; they have a lot more powers, so to speak, than what we might be used to elsewhere in the country. I just had a very specific question about whether the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, can just give us a brief—given the time that’s remaining available to us—little bit of commentary about the policy that sits behind this in so far as whether the changes better align Auckland with transport governance arrangements elsewhere in the country, or whether this bill, he feels confident, strikes that right balance between what the local boards are now empowered to do versus the coordination that’s going to be required to make sure that those are integrated correctly within the broader sense.

12:54

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think, speaking generally, the changes in this bill will allow for more direct decision-making at an elected representative level. In terms of some of the comments made around consultation at the start, of course we had the select committee process, and the Mayor of Auckland I think was pretty forthright and vocal on this being a focus of his throughout his election campaign. These kinds of issues, I think, have been aerated and circulated around Auckland—and I’m sure Mayor Brown would point to his significant mandate as a justification for having aerated these issues—quite thoroughly. Of course, the select committee process also had the opportunity for people to make quite a significant contribution as well. I think that was the gist of most of that.

Members, the Government has indicated that it wishes to end urgency. Therefore, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Local Government (Auckland Council) (Transport Governance) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.

Members, the House is adjourned until 2 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 12.56 p.m. (Wednesday)

14:03 · to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Which regions will experience fuel shortages first, and has the Government modelled the impact on rural and Māori communities?

Well, as the member will well know, we are in what we call phase 1, which is watchful, and that just means the market is operating effectively and fuel is available nationwide.

Will the Prime Minister release all internal modelling on fuel supply risk so New Zealanders can see the full picture?

Well, again, what we did last Friday was we outlined the four phases of our National Fuel Response Plan. We are very much in a place where we have sufficient stocks and sufficient supplies, and so there is no significant supply disruptions. All we are doing is preparing for the eventuality that that may possibly happen in future months. That’s why we’ve laid out the four phases.

Has the National Fuel Plan been operationally tested, and what role do iwi have in its execution?

We are meeting with officials every morning, and many times through the course of the day. But, at this point, our major focus, as you know, is to secure fuel supply; without it, that is the thing that can do the most damage to incomes and jobs. That is why we are doing everything we can to secure fuel.

Will the Government commit to using the extra $11.8 million in GST revenue per week that they are making off the back of this fuel crisis, to increase mileage subsidies for essential workers; if not, why not?

Well, I heard the Leader of the Opposition say something similar last week and I just want to say to the members here that there is no windfall gain or benefit from higher fuel prices for the Government. Petrol excise tax, as everyone will understand, is fixed. While there may be a slight increase in GST theoretically increasing, there is an offset as people spend less money on other categories other than fuel.

Supplementary?

Um—Rawiri Waititi.

How could you forget me that quickly, Mr Speaker?

Yes, quite; you’re not exactly forgettable!

Will the Government be harmonising our fuel excise tax with Australia by cutting it by 50 percent, just like they have harmonised our fuel requirements with Australia?

As we’ve said before: actually, for us, in our response to supporting New Zealanders at this time, it is important that we have timely, targeted, and temporary support. Obviously, making reductions to excise tax is not particularly targeted. It often benefits higher-income people and, importantly, can also drive more consumption. For us, it’s not meeting the criteria of what we need, which is timely, targeted, and temporary.

Will the Government consider freezing road-user charges during the fuel crisis to support whānau in Hauraki-Waikato, who are frequently impacted by the closure of the Karangahake Gorge, have limited access to public transport, and are paying more than $230 to fill a diesel tank?

We well understand how important diesel is, particularly for the New Zealand economy. Again, that’s why our focus is very much on securing extra supply.

What support, beyond the limited package announced last week, will the Government be giving to whānau in Papakura, who commute daily to mahi with no option to work from home, who are paying over $170 to fill up with 91, and who are trying to keep up with the rising high prices?

Again, the criteria for this Government, as we’ve outlined from day one, is to make sure that we are offering temporary, targeted, and timely support to our most vulnerable New Zealanders. We’re freely admitting that we will not be able to alleviate the pressure for everybody, but we have also learnt the mistakes from COVID, which is to make sure that we are also being economically responsible and not creating more of an impact on rising inflation and also growth. That is very much our frame. We’re very pleased to say that we’ve been able to extend support to 143,000 working families, as we announced last week—an extra $50 per week. That comes to about $375 million of total cost for the Government. We will continue to look at what more we can do, but we’re doing it through that lens. It’s important that we don’t repeat the mistakes from COVID.

What assurance can the Prime Minister give to the people of Tāmaki-makau-rau that fuel security planning is keeping pace with escalating global risks, and why has there been no clear public communication about what a level 3 and 4 escalation would mean for households, essential workers, and Māori communities?

Because, as we’ve been reiterating many times in regular media engagements, New Zealand does not have a fuel supply problem at this time. The market is operating effectively. There is plenty of supply and stock in country. That’s why we’re working so hard to make sure we work on phases 1 and 2, so that we never have to get to phases 3 and 4.

What impact will the fuel and cost of living crises have on homelessness in Tāmaki-makau-rau and Aotearoa, and what real solutions does his Government have for homeless whānau beyond his cruel move-on orders?

I’d just say to the member—and we’ve discussed homelessness in this House before quite significantly—it’s a very complex issue. This Government is supporting, with $550 million a year, agencies and organisations on housing—$5 billion a year. We’ve opened up 300 extra Housing First places. We’ve put $10 million into rough sleeping. Auckland Council now are doing a daily count of homelessness in the Auckland CBD, and typically the numbers are running at 24 to 30 people.

14:08 · to the Minister of Finance

How is conflict in the Middle East affecting the New Zealand economy?

14:09

The most immediate and noticeable impact of the Middle East conflict has been on the price of oil and, therefore, on the price of refined fuels in New Zealand. Prices have risen markedly since the start of the conflict. Petrol has gone up 34 percent and diesel has gone up 86 percent. Petrol and other fuels make up just under 4 percent of the basket of goods and services in the Consumers Price Index, so these price rises will have a direct impact on overall inflation.

How do fuel prices affect inflation more widely?

As members know, fuel is a key input for a whole range of industries. An increase in fuel prices will tend to flow through to higher prices for other goods and services in the economy, to the extent that producers pass those costs on. That won’t just happen domestically; we will also import inflation from overseas. Food prices, in particular, will be affected by the present conflict as food production depends on both fuel and fertiliser, both of which are impacted by oil and gas prices. We can anticipate that inflation forecasts will be higher than previously expected, at least in the short term. The Reserve Bank will release its next set of forecasts on 27 May, and the Treasury will follow suit the day after, in the Budget update.

Given the importance of fuel, is there enough supply in New Zealand?

Current advice is that fuel supply remains sufficient. New Zealand has 58.7 days of petrol, 52.2 days of diesel, and 46.2 days of jet fuel in country, within our exclusive economic zone, and on the water heading here. That data is updated twice-weekly using maritime tracking and cross-checked against shipping information, giving us a high level of confidence in its accuracy. Overall stock levels remain within normal operating ranges, and there are still no indications of supply disruption. We will continue to monitor fuel stocks, shipments, and international developments closely, and act, if needed, in a measured, targeted, and evidence-based way, ensuring New Zealand remains well supplied and the economy keeps moving.

How will the conflict affect growth in the economy?

The conflict will have a negative impact on the economy, through prices, but also, potentially, through other channels like shipping disruptions, freight costs, reduced demand for New Zealand exports, financial markets disruption, and greater uncertainty. The Government can take the sharpest edges off for vulnerable New Zealanders, and you’ve seen that with the $50-a-week increase in the in-work tax credit, but there is a real cost from this conflict; New Zealand is poorer because of these global events. How big that impact is depends on how the conflict evolves and how it gets resolved. Again, the Reserve Bank and Treasury will release their updated forecasts in May.

14:12 · to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Why has the Government prioritised an almost 80 percent pay rise for the directors of Fire and Emergency New Zealand, while front-line firefighters are getting no pay rise and have to continue to work in unsafe conditions with equipment that keeps breaking down?

Well, as we’ve previously discussed in this House, obviously, our new Government framework on director fees is designed so that we can attract good talent to make very important decisions on governance. There is about $60 billion worth of Government spending, and as that member knows, having lost half of the $66 billion of COVID spending, it’s important that it’s well-governed.

Why did the Government decide that many families with children who work part-time won’t be eligible for the extra $50 a week fuel payment his Government’s offering?

Because, again, we’re working through the lens of being timely, targeted, and temporary. We’ve got 143,000 families and households that have $50 a week extra to support them. We continue to monitor the situation as to how much more we can do, but we’ll continue to look at it through that lens.

So if the support is timely and targeted, why is it not targeted towards the families on the lowest incomes with children, who are facing the same fuel price increases as every other family?

Well, again, it is. That is why we’ve gone through the in-work tax credit where 143,000 families are earning $50 a week. We have been up front: we are not going to repeat the mistakes of COVID that that member created when he was the Prime Minister.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The questions weren’t about COVID-19 or the previous Government; they’re about the decisions that this Government has made. They’ve said that they’re targeting support to families; all I’m asking is why they have chosen to target the support in the way they have. It’s nothing to do with the previous Government. New Zealanders aren’t getting this support, low-income New Zealanders with kids, in work, aren’t getting this support, and I’ve asked the Prime Minister why that is. It’s not unreasonable to expect an answer that doesn’t attack the previous Government.

Yes, and I was about to say that the Prime Minister would do well not to reference the previous Government in a way that’s not related to the immediate question. You can sort of say, “Well it is related because of this or that.”, but the particular point that a member was responsible for the actions of a whole Government is also quite unreasonable.

Why did his Government decide that low-income workers who don’t have children won’t be eligible to receive any additional financial support, given that, in many cases, they will still be facing the same increase in fuel costs as New Zealanders with children?

Well, as I have previously explained, this is a Government that recognises there is huge pressure on households and businesses up and down this country because of this fuel crisis. We are doing everything we can to support Kiwis, but we are also not going to repeat the mistakes of COVID that led to a 32-year high in inflation and $180 billion worth of debt, and so the frame is very simple. We need to be economically responsible so we don’t drive, and have a further impact on, inflation and debt, which ends up causing huge pain and suffering to New Zealanders, which is what they’ve experienced. On the other hand, they need timely, targeted, temporary support, which is what we have done through the delivery of relief to 143,000 families.

Does the Government have a finite amount of money to spend, or does he subscribe to the economic philosophy of Fred Dagg that we can always borrow a few billion more?

Well, I think the learning from COVID, as talked about in the royal commission of inquiry, was that it’s all very easy to fire a cash bazooka around. That creates lots of short-term gain, but it creates endless long-term pain. We only have to look at the last two years to see the pain and suffering that low and middle income working New Zealanders have endured because of reckless economic management through the COVID period.

Does the Government believe that low-income New Zealanders with children and who are working part-time are less deserving of additional support than low-income New Zealanders with children and who are getting the support?

As I said to the member, this is a Government that will continue to look at what more we can do to support vulnerable New Zealanders in this difficult time. The first initiative that we have supported is that of 143,000 working families with children having $50 per week. That’s a temporary increase, it’s targeted, and it’s very timely.

Is the Government now considering extra financial support for care and support workers; if so, does he regret unilaterally cancelling their pay equity claim that could have seen them getting that support two years ago?

I’d just say to the member, it has been well canvassed. The Minister has been taking advice on that particular topic about healthcare workers—we’ll have more to say about that very shortly. But with respect to pay equity, there is still a pay equity regime in this country.

You cancelled it.

No. What has happened is that it was unworkable and it was unaffordable, and I look forward to the member saying whether or not he will reinstate another $10 billion to be able to go back to what he previously put in place.

If a pay equity regime is still available to care and support workers, why did his own Government pass a law that specifically prohibited care and support workers raising a new pay equity claim?

We have a pay equity regime in this country that is now workable and affordable. We encourage members to actually launch claims. We have put money aside to support those claims. But I just say that the member needs to be very up front with New Zealand about where he is going to find the $10 billion to $11 billion to support his policy and the reversal of that change.

Is he not aware that his Government specifically passed a law that prevents care and support workers raising a new pay equity claim?

I’m well aware that our Government passed a law to make sure an unworkable system and an unaffordable system is now workable and affordable.

14:18 · to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

What changes to welfare supports will come into effect today to help respond to cost of living pressures?

14:19

As global fuel price challenges continue to impact Kiwis, from today more than 1.5 million New Zealanders will receive extra support in their pockets. The increased support will come from the Ministry of Social Development’s annual adjustments. The people who will benefit include students, working-age beneficiaries, and superannuitants, as well as non-beneficiaries getting supplementary assistance. Our Government is determined to keep progressing sensible, measured changes that provide some relief to those impacted by the cost of living challenges.

How will students be better off as a result of these changes?

From today, students will receive a boost in support for living costs. Around 52,000 students receiving student allowance and loans will get an increase in financial support—for example, a single person over the age of 24 receiving the student allowance will gain an additional $22 a fortnight.

How will seniors, like those in Kāpiti, be better off from today’s changes?

Nine hundred and sixty thousand Kiwis receiving superannuation and veterans pension will get more money in their pockets. Superannuation for a married couple who both qualify will lift more than $50, to $1,708 a fortnight. This is an increase of over $180 since the 2023 general election, which, of course, has helped to ease the cost of living pressures.

Who else will benefit from these changes?

Four hundred and thirty-five thousand working-age beneficiaries will get increased support for the cost of living, and approximately 67,000 non-beneficiaries will get an increase in their supplementary assistance. A couple with children, receiving jobseeker support, will receive an increase of more than $40 a fortnight. A sole parent receiving sole parent support will receive an increase of more than $30 a fortnight.

How can she claim that this is a new cost of living measure when this happens automatically every single year?

I haven’t.

14:21 · to the Prime Minister

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

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

Yes.

Does he stand by his statement from question time yesterday that “We care about working New Zealanders and we’re making sure that we can support the most vulnerable as best we possibly can.”, and, if so, what will he do today to address the impacts of rapidly rising fossil fuel prices on care and support workers?

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

What does he think the impact is on people who are sick or need health support when care workers are reporting, “I had to call in sick on Monday because my car was too low on fuel and I had to wait on my partner’s student allowance so I could put fuel in my car and go to work the next day.”?

That’s why the Minister’s taking advice on it. We’ll have more to say about it shortly.

I seek leave to table a document that is not publicly available, with feedback from providers under the Home and Community Health Association.

What’s the source of it?

It is feedback from the Home and Community Health—correspondence.

Where did you get it from? Where does it come from?

Correspondence, Mr Speaker, that is not publicly available.

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

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

Thank you. Is he comfortable with care workers having to use Afterpay to recover their fuel costs?

In answer to my first question, the Minister has been taking advice with respect to care workers, and we’ll have more to say about that shortly.

Is he comfortable with reports of support workers reducing or refusing visits to remote clients because they can’t afford to fill up their cars?

As I’ve said, we are a Government that is freely admitting we will not be able to alleviate the pressure on everybody across the country. We know it’s an incredibly difficult time for households and businesses, but our frame is very clear. We need to be economically responsible so we don’t hurt working New Zealanders with higher levels of inflation and more debt, but, equally, we need to make sure we’re doing everything we can to give them timely, targeted, and temporary support.

Will he commit to providing temporary, targeted, and timely relief to care workers by implementing immediate, short-term, in-between travel funding increases to cover the gap between current fuel prices and existing reimbursement rates?

I’ve already answered that with my previous answers. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker—

Just before you go—when a question is being asked, all the way through, the House listens to it.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table two letters addressed to the Minister of Finance, both from the Home and Community Health Association, requesting the Minister consider urgent fuel cost relief for care and support workers, and neither of these letters are available publicly.

Yeah, but they’re not—whose letters are they?

Correspondence from the Home and Community Health Association.

Copied to you? Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

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

14:25 · to the Minister of Finance

Has Treasury revised its inflation “worst case scenario” on 16 March of 3.7 percent; if so, what are its latest inflation forecasts?

In answer to the second part of the question, Treasury’s latest inflation forecasts are in December’s half-year update, but they are clearly out of date. Treasury is developing its next set of forecasts for the Budget update in May, and I anticipate that, alongside their central forecast, they will present another of upside and downside risks to those forecasts. That, of course, reflects the uncertainty around how the conflict in the Middle East will evolve. In terms of the first part of the question and the 16 March scenario referred to, I can confirm the Treasury has subsequently developed further stylised scenarios to highlight possible macroeconomic impacts associated with the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. These involve a number of judgments and assumptions about how severe the disruption will be, how long it will last, and how oil prices will respond; these do not describe a worst-case scenario but, rather, the worst among a group of illustrative scenarios. They are not forecasts.

Why can’t she share the latest stylised, high-level, and general scenarios and assumptions, given that she has just confirmed that she has received some?

I will absolutely present the forecasts in May, and I expect that they will be significantly worse than the forecasts previously presented. I’m not going to give a running commentary on all the discussions Treasury has with me as they develop their understanding of how the conflict will impact the economy. The member will be well aware that a number of economists in New Zealand and across the world have developed varying views on how the conflict will unfold and its impact for macroeconomic conditions. It is fair to say, as I said in my answer to the earlier question today, that events in the Middle East have made New Zealand poorer, they will be negative for our inflation rate and for the cost of living, and they will be destructive of growth.

Does she agree with ASB’s forecast of inflation reaching 4.2 percent by the middle of the year?

It’s not my responsibility to agree or disagree with a particular forecast. As I just noted in my earlier answer, there are a range of forecasts from bank economists and others that predict a higher rate of inflation this year than would have been the case without the Middle East conflict. It is my view that I concur that inflation will go higher this year as a result of the Middle East conflict. How much higher it goes depends on the decisions and judgments of leaders in countries on the other side of the world. I join the Prime Minister and our Government in wishing for a cessation to the conflict, a negotiated outcome, and the resumption of the normal passage of oil and refined fuels in the world, because that is what is required to bring down the price of fuel in New Zealand and to strengthen our economy.

Does she agree with Nicola Willis, Opposition finance spokesperson in May 2022, who said, “it can’t simply blame these issues on overseas factors”?

Absolutely, I do. It’s not enough to just say, “overseas factors meant I had to throw out the rule book and take bad decisions”. The grave responsibility we now have as a Government is to take these world events and control our response to blunt the impacts, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are making sure that we have a plan for responding to disrupted fuel supply. We’re making sure that our own spending decisions don’t make that inflation spiral more vicious than it might otherwise be. We have choices, and we will take our choices responsibly. I remain of the view, which the royal commission shares with me, that the last Government did not take those choices responsibly, made our inflation spiral deeper, and our debt hole deeper than it need have been.

Would the right policy response to this crisis be to borrow billions to spend it on things “that we were going to do anyway”?

I am aware that that is the position of some members of this House and the way they responded to previous global events. What is the case—and I’m sure that members opposite would quite agree with me on this—is that our world is more fragile today than it has been in some time. In the midst of that fragility, our Government has a responsibility to ensure that New Zealand is as strong as possible, to see its way through not just the next few weeks and months, members, but potentially the next few years. Putting us in a position where we are highly indebted and fragile, subject to global interest rate fluctuations, and unable to finance public services is not a position I am prepared to take. It is also the case that we need to be careful that our choices don’t inadvertently add to the inflation fire.

Supplementary. [Interruption]

Just a moment. Only one person speaking when a question’s called.

How will she “blunt the impact” on care and support workers who are reportedly having to refuse jobs because they cannot afford the fuel to get there?

The Government will make an announcement on that tomorrow.

How will she “blunt the impact” on a net 93 percent of businesses who are expecting costs to increase?

It is not within my power to end the conflict in the Middle East. However, I know that to blunt the impact on New Zealand firms, it is essential that we do everything we can to ensure they continue to have the fuel supplies needed to support jobs, incomes, and economic activity. It is also the case that the Government must take a measured and careful fiscal response, which should include temporary, timely, and targeted measures to offer support where it is required, and which should include engaging extremely closely with business and industry to make sure their views are at the fore as we continue to execute our fuel response plan.

14:32 · to the Minister of Transport

What announcements has he made regarding Cyclone Gabrielle recovery work in the Napier to Wairoa corridor?

As we know, transport infrastructure across the North Island was hit hard in recent years by intense rainfall and events like Cyclone Gabrielle, which caused widespread damage, triggered slips, and forced the temporary closure of key State highway connections, which I know the member will be well aware of as the local MP. Our priority has been restoring these connections as quickly as possible. Yesterday, we announced that recovery work on the Napier to Wairoa corridor following Cyclone Gabrielle has been completed. The final asphalting is now done, meaning the 4-kilometre road rebuild at State Highway 2—known as “Devil’s Elbow”—is once again open to traffic. It’s a major milestone in recovery works in Hawke’s Bay and will mean a more efficient connection between Wairoa and Napier.

What was involved in the rebuild of State Highway 2, Devil’s Elbow?

There were crews from local contractors working alongside Transport Rebuild East Coast (TREC) since 2023 to repair that extensive damage. It’s a particularly narrow and winding section of the road—very challenging conditions—and I want to thank all the contractors who have worked hard on that. Since Cyclone Gabrielle, there have been 11 recovery projects along this corridor. Major underslip repairs include a 12-metre high retaining wall where a 40-metre long and 10-metre high underslip took out the southbound lane. They’ve also completed a full culvert replacement and repair programme to improve stormwater management, helping ensure the impacts of any future adverse weather events are minimised.

“Waste of money.”

What progress is being made on other Cyclone Gabrielle works required for Hawke’s Bay?

Quite to the contrary of mutterings from the other side that these projects are a “waste of money”—the local residents of Napier and Wairoa and the Napier electorate will be interested to discover that members opposite consider these projects a waste of money—we are, in fact, making good progress. The final repairs are under way on Rail Bridge 217, the rail line between Hastings and Napier, expected to be completed by the middle of the year. Crews are also still working hard on underslips at State Highway 38 between Lake Waikaremoana and Tūai. Repairs will help restore the road to its original width, improve resilience, and keep communities connected. Work on these projects will continue into the middle of this year and will be the final TREC projects delivered in Hawke’s Bay.

14:35 · to the Minister of Education

Will she commit to maintaining at least the current level of delivery for school transport and access to learning during the fossil-fuel price spike?

In the face of increasing fuel prices, the Government is committed to students being able to access and attend school. It is this Government’s priority to ensure that students are learning in school as learning was significantly disrupted by COVID, and our Government will be prioritising making sure children are learning in classrooms. The situation in the Middle East is dynamic, and, as you would expect, the Ministry of Education is planning for a range of different scenarios.

Has she sought advice on options to support school transport providers—which includes specialised school transport assistance providers—with the extra costs they are facing to continue delivering current services, and, if not, why not?

As I have told the media this week: at the moment, the Ministry of Education, at my direction, has been out contacting individual schools and working with school transport providers to understand the range of different challenges in different situations. We’re gathering all that data and information, and, as you would expect, we’re planning for a range of different scenarios, depending on what happens in this very dynamically shifting environment.

Will she commit to increasing the specialised school transport assistance conveyance allowance above 27c per kilometre, given Auckland Transport has said that with current fuel costs, a typical 15-kilometre trip costs around 80c per kilometre in fuel, and, if not, does she accept that the status quo will drive some families further into hardship?

As I’ve already stated, the Ministry of Education is gathering that information at the moment. All options are on the table, as of course you would expect in that dynamically shifting environment. We are planning for a range of different scenarios. There is a range of different challenges, and we will plan accordingly.

Does she accept that if she does not put in extra funding for greater access to school transport, school attendance will decline when around half of all students drive or are driven to school in private passenger vehicles, and transport costs have risen by at least a third in the last month and are projected to climb much higher?

Firstly, can I say that I need to congratulate and thank parents for prioritising getting their children to school, because what we have seen is that school attendance has held at broadly the same rate as it was at this time last year. There are, as I’ve already said, shifting things happening—there is a dynamic situation happening. We understand that, as these things change, we will need to change our settings. The Ministry of Education is already out gathering all that information and putting together future plans, depending on what happens.

Will she make a temporary and targeted and timely relaxation of school transport eligibility requirements to allow currently ineligible students to catch school buses to get to school during the fossil fuel crisis, and, if not, why not?

As I’ve said in every answer to every single question today, everything is on the table, depending on what happens in a dynamically shifting environment. We’re gathering together a range of options, we’re responding to this, and, at the right time, we will be able to announce those. But my job is to make sure—as this Government has already said—that schools remain open, that children are able to get to school, and that school transport is available to them. That is my priority.

14:39 · to the Associate Minister for Energy

Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Yes, especially when the Minister gave her consent for the decommissioning of the refinery.

No—sorry, Mr Jones. We’ve been through this yesterday and the day before—

Speaking to a point of order—

No, no, I’m speaking, so I’ll give you a point of order in a minute. It’s not appropriate for a Government Minister, answering for the Government, to make an interpretation of a Cabinet paper which is of a type not unusual for Cabinets to consider.

Point of order. It falls to me to educate the House—

You don’t do that by way of point of order.

Figuratively, Mr Speaker.

Well, a point of order has to be about order.

OK. The point of order that I’m raising is my reference to a statutory consent issued by that member pertaining to her role where she agreed with Ampol purchasing the refinery and agreeing with the continuation of the decommissioning of the refinery, which would not have happened had she not issued her consent as an overseas investment officer.

Well, I’m in a position now where I don’t know what that procedure was, and that puts me in a difficult position. [Interruption] No, no; it’s all right, I don’t need your help. I would just suggest that if you’re answering something in the nature that you were, make it very clear what its relationship is to the Government’s response to the topic of the questioner.

Did he see advice that it was possible to fund a 70 million litre strategic reserve of diesel with the surplus built up in the Petroleum or Engine Fuels Monitoring levy fund account?

It is time for us to strip the fiction away. At no point had Megan Woods either sought a budgetary allocation, nor did she have the necessary permits.

Hang on. You can’t talk about what a previous Government did.

Point of order, sir.

No, no. it’s not a point of order because I’m still talking. And so the question was—[Interruption] No one else is talking while I am. The question was “Had he received information?” Anyone’s welcome to come to the Standing Orders and change the way we do things. But at the moment, it has to relate to the Government’s activity. That’s what question time is for.

Point of order. In actual fact, in seeking the information and seeking advice, I was advised about the proposal pertaining to additional storage, pertaining to advice that the Crown spent money on adding to storage capacity in New Zealand, and I was advised that the former Minister had no budget, no necessary statutory consents. So I can’t answer the question unless I share with New Zealanders what is the truth. After all, I said yesterday that I just represent righteousness and truth on this issue.

Well, thank you for the point of order. It has been interesting for the House. Now, to the question; what’s the answer?

Could she ask it again?

Did he see advice that it was possible to fund the 70 million litre strategic reserve of diesel with the surplus built up in the Petroleum or Engine Fuels Monitoring levy fund account?

Ah, yes. I have sought advice on this issue and I have been advised that the 960 million litres worth of fuel we may have access to by dint of international options was paid for by money in a levy account. That money has been well spent, and, of course, it could not have been spent on an imaginary non-existent dream.

Did he see the advice that the accumulated surplus in the levy account fund would grow to $74.4 million by 30 June 2023 and $110 million by 30 June 2025?

Yes. I’m very happy to report that the funding, having gone into the levy account referred to, has enabled us to secure 960 million litres of fuel. Had that money been squandered to meet the threshold of some scribbling left behind by the member as she fled from her office, we wouldn’t have access to the 960 million litres.

The latter part of that is not at all helpful. The authoritative part at the front most certainly is of use to the public, but the last part not at all.

What is the current balance of the levy account?

If the member would write me a letter, I will respond appropriately.

Point of order. The Minister can’t possibly stand by the previous answers that he’s given if he doesn’t know what the balance is. Megan Woods’ question was specifically about the surplus. Shane Jones has said that the surplus wasn’t available to fund the storage that the previous Government had committed to, yet he can’t say whether the surplus even still exists. How can he have given the previous answers if he doesn’t know that answer to that question?

No; in sequence, he said that the money had been used to buy some 900 million litres of fuel and is therefore spent. The question asked, “What is the balance of the account?”, and that would obviously change on a day-by-day basis. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say a written question might get an answer that tracks it over time.

Is he still making claims about Labour and Marsden Point because he scrapped Labour’s fully funded plan and is now trying to cover up his own failure to prepare our country in a fuel crisis?

Far be it for me to add to such tawdry discussions. This is a serious issue where Kiwis are deeply concerned about the cost of living, the security of fuel, and options going forward. It really doesn’t uphold the status of the House—that tawdry contribution.

14:47 · to the Minister of Health

What recent announcements has he made on health infrastructure in South Auckland?

Last week, Health New Zealand began the next step towards delivering a future hospital for South Auckland, with a targeted process now under way to identify and acquire land in the Drury area. This is about getting ahead of growth, ensuring we secure the right site early, and laying the foundations for a major new health precinct that will serve its surrounding communities for decades to come. We’re getting on with the job so Aucklanders can have confidence that their health services will be there when they need them.

Why is South Auckland a priority for future development?

South Auckland and North Waikato are some of the fastest-growing regions in the country, whilst also having some of the highest health needs in New Zealand. These communities experience higher rates of infectious disease and long-term conditions, while existing hospitals like Middlemore and Auckland City are already faced with increased demand. The next step recognises both the scale of growth and the need to ensure access to timely healthcare in this part of Auckland.

What will new health facilities in South Auckland mean for patients?

A new hospital in South Auckland will mean better access to care closer to home. Drury was identified as a strong location due to its proximity to key transport corridors, including our roads of regional significance and planned public transport connections, making it easier for patients, staff, and visitors to access care. Over time, this will reduce pressure on existing hospitals, improve wait times, and ensure that Aucklanders can have confidence that high-quality healthcare will be there when they need it. This is all part of our wider plan to improve health infrastructure across the country.

What are the next steps in this process?

Health New Zealand has issued a request for a proposal to landowners identified following an earlier request for information, released to market in October 2025. The site of the land being sought would enable a wide range of future health developments, including a major general hospital. This is a critical early step that allows us to plan with certainty, ensuring the future investment is well located, properly scoped, and able to meet the needs of a growing population.

14:49 · to the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery

Does he stand by his answer to oral question No. 10 on Tuesday, 31 March regarding civil defence and emergency services, “they’re already well prepared but there is a lot of contingency work going across all Government agencies because we have to take a responsible approach to this as a country”; if so, why?

14:50

on behalf of the Minister for Emergency Management and Recovery: To the first part of the question, yes. To the second part of the question, because the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) is leading work to coordinate with Government agencies as well as non-Government entities to consider coordination in the future hypothetical event of fuel shortages. Of course, at the moment, it’s business as usual for them to be planning for emergencies of various types, including the possibility of concurrent emergencies of a natural disaster type, but also in the event that an emergency of one category coincides with any future fuel shortages.

How will he ensure civil defence and emergency services can access critical fuel in the event of a shortage?

On behalf of the Minister, I’m very comfortable and confident that NEMA is leading work among emergency response - type agencies, including Police, ambulance services, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, as well as various responding and recovering entities in the communities, including iwi and hapū but not limited to them, of course. I’m comfortable that work’s taking place. Of course, NEMA is in the business of understanding what prioritisation decisions would need to be made in the event of an emergency, and I’m encouraging them to continue that work.

Will there be an all of emergency services response or a response for each of the emergency services in each of the National Fuel Plan’s phases?

The Government’s consulting on what some of the detail of further phases might look like—in particular, phases 3 and 4—and so it’s the Government’s advice to submit to its process of understanding critical activities across the economy and society, including but not limited to emergency response. Of course, if in the circumstance where fuel shortages were to occur, then there would be rationalisation or coordination or prioritisation decisions that would need to be made then in response to those unique and particular circumstances. In the meantime, effort to understand what those decisions might need to be based upon is exactly what’s occurring now.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specifically in relation to whether there would be an all of emergency services response or a response for each of the emergency services. He explained process that might go around making that decision, but it was very specifically about whether it’s all of emergency services or a response for each of the emergency services.

Yes, but the member knows that you can’t expect answers in the nature of a yes or no, and when the Minister said that this is under discussion at the moment, then, clearly, there can’t be an answer as strong as that.

Who has the authority to trigger priority access for emergency services in the event that diesel stocks decline faster than forecast?

On behalf of the Minister, as with the previous question, the fact of a consultation taking place as to what might take place in phases 3 and 4, should we need to reach those levels, decisions will be made, no doubt, about the prioritisation of fuel but also the command-and-control aspects of who would make what decisions and at what junctures in terms of any fuel shortage. So it’s impossible to answer with clarity at that point, but, suffice to say, the considerations that the member’s raising, I think, are good ones but are being contemplated as part of the Government’s planning and submission process for those phases 3 and 4.

What is the trigger point at which the Government would formally activate priority fuel access for civil defence and emergency services?

On behalf of the Minister, it’s not clear to me that it would necessarily be within my ministerial remit to make such decisions.

14:54 · to the Minister for Food Safety

What advice, if any, has he received on the potential impact of the current global fuel supply disruptions on food safety in New Zealand?

The availability of hygienic food-grade packaging underpins New Zealand’s world-class food safety system and relies on the supply of both oil and fuel. Businesses report that sufficient packaging is available. We are working closely with domestic and export-focused food businesses to ensure their on-hand stocks of packaging are sufficient. We are monitoring medium to long term availability as part of the work of the Government’s ministerial oversight group.

How can New Zealand’s food safety regulatory system respond if needed?

Our regulatory system is well placed to support companies to meet any availability challenges because it is not prescriptive about packaging. The legislation is focused on outcomes and is flexible enough for food producers to pivot to alternative supplies without a whole lot of red tape. Food producers will just need to continue to ensure that packaging protects food from contamination, that it is not a source of contamination itself, and that it preserves food quality and advertised shelf life.

What has he heard from food suppliers about the availability of inputs?

I’ve had a number of farmers contact me with concerns about the availability of both fuel and fertiliser. While I understand there have been some local challenges with getting diesel delivered, overall fuel supply remains sufficient, with good levels of fuel in the country and more on the way. I understand from the fertiliser industry that there is enough product both in New Zealand and ordered to meet demand until spring, and our co-ops have options for securing future supply that they are working through now. Having said that, of course, we are seeing the price of both fuel and fertiliser go up. I just want to say to farmers that, at this stage, we just have to keep calm, plan ahead, work closely with suppliers, and make sensible business decisions about the use of inputs, just as we have always done in the past as costs go up.

That concludes oral questions. We’ll take 30 seconds before we move to the general debate.

14:57

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

Today is 1 April. Apparently, April Fools’ Day stopped at 12 o’clock, but the fools are still sitting over there, fooling themselves that they’re not responsible for the degradation of fuel storage in New Zealand, and fooling themselves that they’re not responsible for the loss of Marsden Point, the erosion of economic resilience, and the weakening of national security. They can dance on the head of a pin, but it was Megan Woods—when she let the foreign investors come into the company owning the refinery—who signed off, as an overseas investment Minister, the decommissioning of the refinery. That fact cannot be eradicated. It will be understood. It will be repeated until midnight before the election as to where true blame lies for this terrible situation that we have inherited.

Of course, there’s something worse: there is the confusion, there is the ambiguity, and there is the running and hiding from accountability and responsibility related to all of the perfidy of COVID. Now, Ayesha Verrall—where did this woman come from? How come, from utter obscurity, Jacinda Ardern plucked that individual and appointed her as the cleverest person in the history of New Zealand on public health? Then, when she is challenged by my leader in recent times, she’s skulking, hiding, and refusing to stand up and explain to the public why she and the current Leader of the Opposition refused to stand up for the parents and the children who were unnecessarily vaccinated against scientific advice warning the Government of the time “do not endanger the lives of our children.”

No. We have something as authoritative as the royal commission, who has clearly identified where that blame—where that culpability—lies. But, no, this hitherto unknown personality of obscure origins plonked in here by Jacinda Ardern now won’t say a word. I doubt whether her public health qualifications actually enable her to hold that position. Fortunately, she’ll never be the Minister of Health. I see a Simeon Brown long arc of leadership and responsibility in health.

I can’t go much further without sharing good news such as the tremendous response that my leader and I have had about minerals policy. I look forward to advancing the prospects with suitable partners—indeed, the United States of America—so we can open up, we can exploit, and we can create value out of our critical minerals. I don’t want to hear all these Green fairytale Luddites who don’t understand economics; people who hate fossil fuels but, every day, demand to know how the Government’s going to find more money to pay for fossil fuels. None of them has arrived on a 10-speed, because, at best, they’ve got one-speed minds.

No; mining, digging, drilling—if there’s one thing that the Iran war shows us, we must use our own resources. Sadly, I’m going to be proven right. It’s actually quite a common experience in my whānau. We see an ongoing need for the utilisation not only of gas but also of coal. Who on earth are these CEOs of gentailers of New Zealand—who are for the knacker’s yard, as I’ve said on earlier occasions—to try and undermine our Minister for Energy and make fun, parody, try and get a cheap laugh out of the audience about his policy of proceeding to bring to us a commercial proposition pertaining to the building of infrastructure to receive gas? What do they do? They try to parody; they try to belittle.

Gentailers, a message from the Matua: your days of gouging, your days of bullying—

You’re doing nothing about it.

—your days of corporate thuggery are coming to an end. Wait until the end of the year—no, please don’t listen to all these fairytales of those who have had every opportunity. We are not going to be driven by Green Luddites or ill-informed people about energy security.

15:03

No New Zealander would want to be facing the challenges that we are facing now as a country; conditions that have nothing to do with any decisions any New Zealander has made. It’s very clear that we can’t control oil prices, we can’t control the conflict in the Middle East, but what we can control and what we can do as a Government is respond in a very considered and deliberate way.

I’m really proud of the work that the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon; the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis; and other senior Ministers are doing to ensure that New Zealand gets through this challenge in a way that doesn’t scar our nation for years and years and years. You imagine if we were coming into this challenge around fuel prices with inflation at 7.3 percent. Think about that for a moment; think about what fuel prices would be doing right now. What is really important is that a Government rises to the challenge of whatever it confronts, but having made sensible decisions to get inflation under control, we are in a much stronger position to confront this.

Also, this is a Government who has absorbed and listened and read through the royal commission report into COVID, to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes that the other side made—because who has been affected the most deeply by high inflation? Those on low income; those on low incomes with fixed incomes.

That’s why every decision our Government is making is taking into consideration the need to respond and the need to provide targeted, temporary, and timely support, but not getting the firehose out and splashing the cash around so the very households that we’re trying to support right now are damaged for years and years to come. That’s why our Government has provided relief to 143,000 families to ease the pressure of fuel prices—as of today, 143,000 families. Yes, we have targeted those working families with children, because we know the additional costs that they face.

What we do know also is that from 1 April, 1.5 million New Zealanders—whether they are superannuitants, whether they receive the veteran’s pension, whether they are students, whether they are main beneficiaries, or actually whether they are non-beneficiaries who get additional support—also will see a lift today, on 1 April, to support the cost of living challenges. Our Government is responding in a very sensible way.

One of the other stark differences between our Government’s response in this challenge and the previous Government’s to COVID is we’re actually listening to industry. We are listening to the experts. We are working with them, we are getting their intel, we are using that on a daily basis to ensure that we are very lined up in terms of our response, because it is not something the Government can solve on our own. Working with industry is going to be absolutely critical in terms of how we come through the challenges that we face in the weeks and months ahead.

The fuel plan: considered, sensible, designed with industry. That is where I’m incredibly confident about the response that our Government has to what will unfold—and it is unpredictable. But I want New Zealanders to be very reassured that our Government has a plan. We have laid it out and announced that for the public on Friday, but we are very connected to the very people that we need to be—whether it’s overseas, whether it’s diplomatic connections, whether it’s industry here, we are planning for what might come. Also, we have responded: 143,000 households will get support for their fuel bills, and 1.5 million New Zealanders get additional support today.

I want to assure the New Zealand public that the coalition Government is working incredibly hard, staying very close to what is shifting and changing with these unpredictable times, but we will guide New Zealand through these challenging days. I want to finish my contribution with a tribute to my member and friend the Hon Judith Collins, who has provided a great service to our nation and our country, and to wish her well in her future career.

15:08

For at least the past three decades, the Greens have consistently set out a pathway to better protect our people and our living systems against the inevitable topple of fossil fuel dependency—to a stable planet that we can all be proud of passing on to our mokopuna. In 2001, Rod Donald set out the Green Party’s vision for Aotearoa: “A crucial part of our vision involves New Zealand becoming a world-leader in ‘fossil-fuel proofing’ our economy. We are already seeing the high cost of car dependence as fuel prices accelerate.” That was 25 years ago. In 2024, the Greens put out He Ara Anamata, our plan to reduce climate emissions five times faster than this pamphlet plan of this current Government, to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel dependency, and improve people’s quality of life at the same time.

The best time for Governments to have listened to the Green Party would have been over 30 years ago; the second-best time is right now. I have my colleague Hūhana next to me, who has just returned from the North, where the Hokianga in the North and other parts of the country have been facing, at the front line, the climate change weather impacts that are seriously impacting on people’s life, livelihoods, and their daily stress.

I want to acknowledge Hūhana being on the ground with our people in the North, including in my valley in Hokianga, Te Hikutū hapū in Whirinaki, where we have lost houses, we have lost māra kai [food gardens], we have had to face the silt clean-up, the pollution that is to come, where people have lost their livelihoods, where our marae have had to open up to be able to house people and care for them, and where people are living on the edge and with the stress of not knowing what the future—the immediate future and the long-term future—for their life is.

We ask the Prime Minister and all of his Ministers to make sure that they are properly funding and resourcing local government to get on the ground urgently. There is no civil defence payment opened up for Hokianga and the North right now. Why? Why is their stress not enough? We urge the Prime Minister to urgently ensure that Crown and Government departments are on the ground, supporting these people so that local governments and regional governments can do the work that they want to do, and to better support these people who have been plunged into these crises and climate disasters.

At the same time, this Prime Minister is locking us in to further dependency on fossil fuels. How absolutely maddening is that? The very people who are bearing that the most right now, who are paying for the results of a war that they did not decide to have—a war that this Prime Minister refuses to condemn even while it still continues to have a very real impact on our people right now. The Clean Car Discount wound back, the billion-dollar liquefied natural gas terminal, the $200 million for fossil fuel companies, a range of energy funds and efficiency funds that have been pulled back, and $20 billion a year on fossil fuels—$29 million a day. Imagine what we could do—to instead invest that in our people and an Aotearoa that is truly resilient; for a planet where everyone has their needs looked after, where we can live with dignity, where our living systems continue to provide the life that we all depend on: our clean water, our clean oceans, our clean soil, our healthy air. The actual basic human needs that we depend on instead of the climate-destroying and environment-destroying policies that this Government has put through.

I stand today to link all of the things that are happening today that the Greens have always understood were connected: our people living well, our energy systems, looking after our climate, making sure that we are sharing wealth in a way that is just, and in a way that our people deserve. Where is the action and the actual plan for moving us away, for generational thinking, and for ensuring that our mokopuna are not still clinging on to the fossil fuel - dependent systems that this Government is putting into place with even more concrete?

Meanwhile, the Greens continue to put up the solutions and the pathways to ensure that we are resilient and that what is in our control prioritises the wellbeing of our people and our planet. Thank you.

15:13

For me, parliamentarians who are parents, and also for those that were brought up in the late 1980s—I think they’re called millennials, which I think I am actually; just—there is a very famous series of children’s books called Where’s Wally? Now, Where’s Wally? is a book. It’s a brilliant illustration, and there’s a lot of things happening in the picture. The whole point of it is just being able to spot where Wally is. At school, I remember it was one of our favourite pastimes to sit down with a Where’s Wally? and try and find Wally, and it wasn’t actually that hard because you just had to find his glasses. That was the key.

But it reminded me very much of “Where’s the Prime Minister?” Where is the Prime Minister? When he was asked just a couple of days ago in the media where is his leadership in relation to this Middle East conflict and the fuel plan that supposedly is needed for New Zealand, his response was, “Well, I’m the CEO.” No, no, no—the book’s not I’m the CEO; the book is Where is the Prime Minister? He is the leader of our country and has been remarkably missing from this fuel crisis. At a time when we have care and support workers who cannot afford to go to their jobs, who are having to decline jobs because they cannot afford the fuel, where is the Prime Minister? At a time when it’s going to cost, for some families, over $170 to fill their tank, where is the Prime Minister?

That is a question for the National Party MPs, because it’s quite clear that given the current polling, there may be other discussions that are happening, and there might be a new Prime Minister. But coming back to the fuel crisis, there are some serious questions that need answering about how prepared that Government is for what we are facing. The entire economy relies on the Government getting this right, from our food packaging to our threads, to any of the compartments that are needed for microchips. It is all interrelated, and it all comes from the feedstock that comes through that strait, that goes to those Asian countries, which are therefore exported to New Zealand. It’s not just about refined fuel—it’s not just about refined fuel.

I acknowledge the Minister Andrew Hoggard, who tried to give assurances today to suppliers, because what I’m hearing from suppliers is they are concerned around food packaging. This isn’t a niche issue; the whole economy depends on fuel. Members know—tradies, farmers, care and support workers, our nurses, our teachers, our students who need to get to school. The interesting thing is the possible closure of this strait wasn’t just happening this year; it was actually initially happening last year, in June 2025. When the Government saw that that was happening—because they get good advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—what were you doing? Where was the Prime Minister? Why was he not thinking about the plan for if that strait had closed, or what is happening now, which is barely a trickle coming through that strait?

The Government published its own criteria for moving between phases. The interesting thing about that is it took them a couple of weeks just to give us more clarity on what the triggers were for phase 1 and 2, and they’re still considering stage 3 and 4. This has been four weeks since that strait has been closed. One of the important things is around the restrictions from source refineries. We should be concerned in this country if the countries that we source our refined fuels from are bringing in restrictions. We should be paying attention. Other countries all across the world are looking at restrictions; they are looking at packages to support their workers to ensure the economy runs. But this Government, because of their poor management of the economy in the last two years, where they borrowed more, they lost the fiscal headroom, we are now in a position where they can only help 7 percent of households; where 93 percent of households—“Too bad for you”, according to this Government. “Too bad.”

Tomorrow, we will finally hear how this Government, if the Prime Minister turns up, will support care and support workers. That comes down to the advocacy by those care and support workers and the people on this side of the House, who have been asking the right questions. Those Ministers need to ask more.

15:18

I know it’s April Fool’s today, but I just heard what I thought was a speech from the Labour’s finance spokesperson. I was fooled, actually. But let’s turn to the seriousness in the Middle East. I do want to acknowledge the uncertain times facing this country and New Zealanders right up and down, and to acknowledge the speeches in the House.

There are many things outside of our control, and some things that are inside. The war in Iran is something outside of our control. As finance Minister Nicola Willis said, this is not our war. We did not sign up to it, and we want the hostilities to end as quickly as possible so that oil can flow as freely as possible. But we have no say and control over that. What we do have control over is our own response. We heard from the Reserve Bank Governor—she made a speech a few days ago—and her view was very clear on the economic effects from the Middle East: higher inflation and lower growth. We cannot control those impacts, but we can control New Zealand’s response to that.

I want to talk about three aspects of our response for this crisis. The first is around fuel security. I heard the member saying, “Where’s our Prime Minister?” Well, he is on the phone talking to foreign leaders, making sure that we secure the fuel that we need to power up our economy. The good news is that New Zealand is well positioned. We have far better fuel stocks than other comparable countries like, say, our neighbours across the Ditch. We’ve established a ministerial oversight group that is getting briefings twice daily—twice daily—from a talented group of people that are monitoring the situation.

The second is cushioning the negative effects from inflation on those that are most vulnerable. Today is a good day for those, because we have got timely, targeted, and temporary support coming to over 143,000 people right up and down New Zealand. That is through the targeted tax changes that will help provide support for families—up to $50 a week for those across the country.

The third area is maintaining our strong fiscal position. This is not a time for splashing around the cash. It is about maintaining the fiscal prudence to ensure that any support is timely, targeted, and temporary. That is from the lesson from COVID, as articulated by the New Zealand Treasury.

We have debt levels—nominal debt—of nearly $200 billion. The interest on that debt this year alone is nearing $10 billion. If we borrow more, like the other side were wont to do, what’s going to happen is the interest cost for servicing that debt goes even higher. We already had a downgrade by Moody’s, who have put our economy and Government on negative watch as a result, so there is no alternative to our approach. The only alternative that I’m hearing is to tax more, spend more, borrow more, and hope more.

I know that the next few months will be extremely tough for this country. There’s no doubt about it. We cannot sugarcoat that we cannot get away from the effects from the Middle East, but this too shall pass and I remain optimistic in this country. Brighter days will return because this Government has a good plan.

I do want to acknowledge the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis. She’s doing an outstanding job to articulate the Government’s plan. The phases—we’re not in COVID 2.0. You’re not going to be going home to make sourdough. This is a different time and a different crisis, but I do want to acknowledge the leadership of our Government, and they’re doing a tremendous job to provide stability through this time.

I just want to finish with a quote from Victor Hugo: “Even the darkest night will end and the sun will rise.” I’m optimistic about this country. We’ve got a good plan. Brighter days will be coming ahead.

15:23

If someone is trying to clear things up to explain why everyone has got it wrong and he should be believed, no matter how implausible that might seem, given the evidence available, well, it always pays to check the record against the latest version of events. So it has proved with Chris Hipkins, who wandered across the parking lot last Friday to waiting reporters and told them he had “refreshed his memory on the COVID-19 vaccine advice timeline”.

Yes, a paper that he took to Cabinet in late March 2022 contained advice from the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group on the “unnecessary risk of teenagers getting myocarditis if they received a second dose of the vaccine”. He couldn’t recall it, but, yes, he took that to Cabinet and, yes, that advice was originally in a paper dated 9 December 2021, but, of course, he never saw that. He says it was never put to Ministers.

He also moved, during Friday’s stand-up, to distance himself from ever really getting involved in the issue of medical advice or vaccine safety when he was the COVID-19 Minister. That wasn’t appropriate. He left that stuff to the health experts. His new version of events was, “All of those 1 p.m. press conferences were fronted by a Minister and a public health official, and I, certainly for the ones that I was fronting, always left the advice on vaccine safety, health advice—I always left that to the relevant health officials at those meetings and I think that was appropriate. I’m not a health practitioner. I think it was appropriate that we left that to the relevant health officials.”

To be clear: Chris Hipkins didn’t get advised about myocarditis risk in young people from vaccinations, even though, on 5 November 2021, the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group provided advice to the Ministry of Health that says that younger groups are “more at risk than older age groups of myocarditis after the second dose” and it recommended consideration of one dose for those 18 and under for the education mandate.

Then, on 9 December, even more advice was issued. It upgraded advice to say that two doses of the vaccine “may add unnecessary risk to increasing the likelihood of myocarditis”. The paper recommended considering one dose for under-18s for all vaccine mandates.

Chris Hipkins’ position today, as of last week’s memory refresh, is that, in December 2021, he wasn’t getting specific advice from anyone about myocarditis risk from COVID vaccines, and he certainly would never give public health advice about vaccine safety or even health advice. He’s not a health professional; it’s not his job. It wouldn’t be responsible.

Here’s the problem with this story so far: only 12 days after the 9 December advice that he never saw, he was fronting the media next to a public health official, and he was speaking about the death of a young man who recently died of myocarditis following a COVID vaccination. He wasn’t just speaking broadly about it; he seemed to be well briefed on the medical risks of the vaccine. The 1News headline read, “Risk of COVID far outweighs the risk of myocarditis - Hipkins” “Chris Hipkins has assured the COVID-19 vaccination is very safe after a Dunedin man’s death from vaccine-related myocarditis.”, the story says.

He then went on to do precisely what he said last Friday that he never did at a 1 p.m. press conference: “My overall message to all New Zealanders: the vaccine is very safe, that any small risk associated with the vaccine is by far outweighed by the risk of getting COVID-19 and so vaccination’s absolutely the best course of action.”, he said.

Well, thank you, Dr Hipkins. You managed to get vaccine safety and health advice into the same sound bite. His claim about something so important as the safety of young people and whether they should be legally mandated to have a second dose of the vaccine wasn’t brought to his attention simply defies belief. They were developing advice. They were issuing advice. He was clear he wouldn’t go in front of the media and speak so forcefully about it just 12 days after the paper he never read, or would he?

Fundamentally, there are only two possibilities here. Either he really did manage to avoid reading anything through this whole period, and when he spoke to the media doing the thing he now says he never did, he was doing it without having read any of the advice. Or when he did it, the Ministry of Health, who were issuing that advice didn’t think to get on the phone and say, “Excuse me, Minister. Given the advice we’ve sent you lately, you shouldn’t have said that.” I don’t think that that is remotely credible.

Here we have yet another contradiction of Chris Hipkins. He did it with Charlotte Bellis. He did it with the two women who were going up north, accused of being prostitutes. This is somebody who wants the trust of New Zealand just to be Prime Minister and here is yet more information as the story unwinds that he does not deserve that trust.

Just before I call the next speaker, Mr Seymour, in general debates, generally we don’t read the whole speech. It’s unusual for you, but just a general warning that in general debates, reading speeches is a no-no. We expect there to actually be ideas here.

15:28

Well, Mr Speaker, I’d like to present you with my blank page of no notes that I’m about to not read from. It’s a pleasure to take a call in the general debate—

I love it when people listen to me.

—to speak about the fuel crisis that we’re in front of at the moment. It’s very clear to me, from the speeches that we’ve heard from members opposite, that what they see in leadership is seeking the limelight in the theatrette, rather than quiet work in the background to secure fuel supply.

Now, if you talk to the people out in the community, as I do in Napier—and I’d just like to remind everyone, as I always do, that Napier goes from Hastings all the way to Gisborne—the people want us to be working hard for them to make sure that next week, the week after, and the week after that, they don’t turn up to the pump or they don’t go to their bowser on the farm and find it empty. In fact, that is the work that our Prime Minister is doing day after day, working with international leaders to make sure we have the supply.

Now, actually, it doesn’t matter to us who stands in front of the community to give them the message. The message is the message.

What I want to talk about is what we are doing. We are doing a number of things to give the community certainty and stability. We heard about the targeted, timely, and temporary response of funding and support to families. We’ve heard about the adjustment to incomes for those on benefits and pensioners. This all makes a difference. Now, yes, this happens every year, but, gosh, isn’t this a good time for it to happen. It all means more money in people’s back pockets—the adjustments necessary to cover the costs.

Now, aren’t we so lucky that, in fact, the work that this Government has done has put us in the best possible position we could be in heading into this crisis—a crisis which, we are reminded, is outside of our control. Something that we can control is our response to it—now, our leader is out there securing fuel so that we aren’t in the worst-case scenario position and so that we don’t have to get to phases 3 and 4.

The rest of our leaders are working very hard to communicate with the public, to talk to industry, and to make sure we are doing the right thing. Yes, you could stand up and make a convoluted announcement on day one without talking to anybody. What’s that going to achieve? Now, actually, these people are at the table, speaking for their people—whether it’s farmers, whether it’s manufacturers, whether it’s transport providers. All of these people need to give certainty and sustainable responses to our community.

Now, very fortunately for me, tomorrow me and my colleague Mike Butterick and my other colleague Catherine Wedd are going to be at the Hawke’s Bay Primary Sector Awards. What an amazing event this is. It’s actually the highlight of our year, isn’t it, Mike? We get to sit around a table and celebrate the success of our primary sector. Now, our primary sector—these ships are actually leaving our country, leaving our port, and going to the rest of the world; it’s not just the ships that are coming from the Middle East and Asia and coming to New Zealand with all the supplies we need—we are actually an export nation. Isn’t that amazing? These free-trade deals that the Hon Todd McClay is going around the world and securing for us are another part of the leadership that we require to make sure that we can keep fighting the good fight and be a viable and great-representing nation around the world.

Now, these farms, these growers, these amazing primary production leaders, are continuing to work. What they need from this Government is a sense of certainty and assurance that we are not going to freeze. We are not going to stand there in front of them and say, “We don’t know what we’re doing; we don’t know what to do.” Well, in fact, we do. We have given certainty every single day of this crisis, and the people appreciate it, and we listen. We listen, and we make changes, and there is nothing wrong with that. I get sick and tired when I hear members of the Opposition stand up and say, “Oh, they’ve U-turned; oh, they’ve changed their mind.” You know what? Isn’t that amazing leadership. To listen to the people and adjust our response to make sure that we are delivering for Kiwis and what they want.

Like fisheries.

Like fisheries. That’s a great example, Ryan Hamilton. Didn’t we see a wonderful result in that amazing case of listening to the public, right? This is exactly what we’re here to do.

Once again, 1 April comes around, and there’s more money in people’s back pockets to be able to deal with the consequences of global crises that continue to occur. A strong, stable Government that’s out there delivering for New Zealanders, listening to them, communicating, not seeking the limelight in the theatrette and making a big song and dance about it—strong, stable leadership, getting the job done, listening to the people, and giving them a sense of certainty so that when Mike and Catherine and I go to the Primary Sector Awards tomorrow night, we are going to be able to celebrate an industry that’s able to listen to the people, work really hard, and deliver in growing our economy, in continuing to grow our economy, which is what we’ve set out to do and will continue to do.

We will not freeze. We will not sit back and think we’re going to do nothing and spray the cash around as we’ve heard. We’re going to continue to grow this economy despite international effects, and that is why we are the Government.

15:34

At a time when this country is facing a crisis, David Seymour spent his time in the general debate raking over events from four years ago—very complicated events—using the death of a 26-year-old to talk about the mandate for 12- to 17-year-olds, whether they should get a second dose of the vaccine, ignoring the fact that if you get COVID, you have a greater risk of myocarditis than there ever was from the vaccine. That was what David Seymour spent his time on, and that shows why the ACT Party is losing in the polls at the moment.

Let me set some of the record straight on what is going on with the crisis that is affecting our country at the moment. We need to remember that the parallel crisis when we were in Government was COVID, a completely unpredictable virus where no one knew what might happen in the world. In response to that crisis, when we saved 20,000 lives in New Zealand, when we saved businesses, and when we saved jobs, they say we got it wrong. Well, that’s absolutely ridiculous.

Here is the comparison with the current crisis. Although this crisis might be beyond our control, its consequences are highly predictable. We know what will happen if this country and other countries run out of fuel. We know the consequences. That Government, through its own reckless actions, has made those consequences even worse for us.

Let me talk about the reckless actions of this Government. When they first came into Government, they cancelled the Clean Car Discount, and what happened as a result of that? The number of electric vehicles (EV) being bought and put into circulation on our roads in this country fell dramatically. That’s a real shame because the more cars we got into the fleet three, four, five, and six years ago, the more electric second-hand vehicles there would be available now. That was the first mistake. The next mistake they made—and they did this in March 2024—was they removed the exemption for light electric vehicles and for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. They have removed the exemption for road-user charges. They made it more expensive to own an EV. They made it harder to own an EV. They further discouraged the take-up of electric vehicles. Then, in November 2025, in another absolutely reckless action, they decreased the clean car importer standard. What does that mean? They have incentivised car importers to bring in many more internal combustion cars than electric vehicles.

In the last week or two, there has been an absolute run on electric vehicles. Dealers are sold out because, in this current crisis, people are seeing that the way to get around this country, that the way to preserve their access to all the things that are good in New Zealand, is through electric vehicles. But, step by step by step, that Government has removed all the advantages of electric vehicles. Step by step by step, they have taken away the incentives to own an electric vehicle. That is so short-sighted. It’s short-sighted in terms of the climate, and it is very, very short-sighted in terms of New Zealand’s energy independence. The reason we are in trouble now is because we are dependent on overseas sources for the great majority of our energy, and they have actively worked against that.

Shane Jones—I think he’s the only one who calls himself Matua—said, in his speech, if there’s one thing that the Iran war shows us, it is that we must use our own resources. How right he is. We must use our own resources of wind. We must use our own resources of solar. We must use our own resources of hydro. We must use our own resources of geothermal. We must electrify our transport, and we have the resources to do it right here.

15:39

Our oceans and the resources that are bound in our moana are a precious resource to all of the people in Aotearoa, and the people of Te Tai Tonga have some serious reflections to consider. What the people need at this point in time with regard to the reforms and what they expect out of a Minister, is to put the people’s interests first. To have the people’s needs foremost: sustainability, kaitiakitanga, and the longevity of the kai moana, the moana, and its resources at the heart of regulations, as we consider how to preserve those things going into the future. To ensure that our tamariki and mokopuna have got kai moana in the moana going into the future—that’s not something that we can just hope will materialise; we have to be intentional.

What we don’t need is a Minister who puts the interests of the commercial crowd in the front—short-term gain and short-term profit over long-term sustainability and leaving something for the future. Unfortunately, the reforms that are before Parliament failed to address the root cause of our declining fisheries: namely overfishing, over-allocation, destructive fishing practices that have persisted for far too long. In the meantime, instead, he’s chosen to privilege these practices and risk worsening the problem; leaving a mess for our tamariki and our mokopuna to pick up and clean as we move forward. We can’t afford to put short-term financial gain ahead of the long-term sustainability of our moana.

For decades now, our fish stocks have been in decline—serious decline. The evidence is undeniable. If we think about our deep-sea species like hoki and orange roughy, they have almost been pushed to the brink of extinction. Our local fish in the South Island—the blue cod fishery—are in peril, right now, as we speak. We think about things closer to everyone around the country; our scallops, our pāua, our crayfish have all been in decline for years, and we have failed to take the steps to look after their longevity and ensure that they are there for the future. As we continue down this road, many of these species are being completely closed off. Scallops, off the menu; crayfish, off the menu. This is the reality for many places in the country, and it’s time for us to wake up. We must take steps that look after our fish stocks and leave something better for the future. Not just dwindling stocks; thriving stocks—this is what our children and our grandchildren deserve.

Yet here we are, giving more fish to commercial interests, making it easier for them to catch more with less oversight, blocking camera footage on boats, legalising the dumping of fish. All of these things only serve to undermine the fish stocks that we currently have. Allowing quota to be carried over for successive years; thinking that somehow a stock is going to miraculously recover itself—I tell you, it is a recipe for disaster, not to mention the proposal of removing minimum size limits, catch limits for commercial fishing. I tell you, we really need to get back to the drawing board.

All the while, the Minister has managed to ignore the Māori customary rights and ignore the recreational interests. Those are the people’s interests. Whilst the Minister might also talk and speak about the prevalence of the use of scientific data and the management of the stock, it’s been that same scientific management that has got us into the predicament we’re in right now. I doubt that it will be that same scientific management that will get us out. In fact, it could be time for some tangata whenua management. There are plenty of examples all around the country—all around the country. Rather than prioritising short-term commercial and financial gain, we need to make sure that there’s true transparency across the industry, that our children’s legacy, that our grandchildren’s legacy is looked after. It’s our tamariki and mokopuna who stand to lose the most under the current reforms.

Te Tai Tonga has a simple message for the Minister: leave some fish for the mokos, Shane—leave some fish for the mokos. That’s the message from Te Tai Tonga: be a good kaitiaki—be a good kaitiaki. Māori have always stood in our power as kaitiaki, and we will always look after the resource. We have to do better. We have to ensure that our people have access and that the resources are left in better condition than the one that we inherited. Kia ora tātou.

15:44

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s great to stand and speak in this general debate today. With the fuel crisis going on at the moment, it’s started to, I guess, trigger a few of us into those hauntings of COVID, when you’d wake up and feel controlled, you’d feel misled by the Government of the day. We’d hear about the “podium of truth”, and now we see so much deception. We heard from David Seymour talking earlier about the papers that Mr Hipkins read or didn’t read or remembered or couldn’t remember until his refresh. The Opposition might say, “Well, why is that important?” It’s important because it’s about trust. The Government is responsible for leading and communicating to people in times of crisis. A lot of that trust has been damaged—a lot of that trust has been damaged. So while we remember the “podium of truth”, like my good colleague Tama Potaka, we’re more interested in the crucible of outcomes—the crucible of outcomes. We’re interested in reality. We’re interested in pragmatic solutions.

So whilst there was so much wasteful spending—we saw the COVID royal commission of inquiry, and we saw $60 billion wasted, half of that not even associated with the direct response to COVID; shovel-ready projects that were nowhere near a shovel; lump-sum payments to dead people; a large-scale asset programme which left us with $10 billion in debt—a bit of a debacle. In the last two years, this Government’s been working very hard on restoring fiscal discipline, and you’ve started seeing signs of growth returning to the economy. We’ve seen GDP return. We’ve cut billions of dollars off the last couple of Budgets in reprioritisations and savings. Thank goodness we have, because imagine not having any buffer at all. Imagine that continued wasteful spending, that debt—we would be turning into a Third World country. I’m so pleased that we’ve got a Government that’s focused on doing the basics right.

Of course, our Prime Minister’s leading the charge in a very proactive way with this fuel crisis. Most people would have seen the four-phase fuel plan—very pragmatic; very straightforward. And, of course, the Prime Minister assures us this will be nothing like COVID, where people woke up every day in fear, wondering what the Government would say to us next; whether they’d extend the lockdowns they were overprescribed and shut down Auckland; whether they’d double-jab teenagers that didn’t need it. The four-phase plan that we’ve seen, that’s now in the public domain, is simple yet pragmatic, and it’s so good, even the Australians are starting to copy it.

The other thing, which is really important to note, is our Prime Minister on the proactive phase is reaching out to countries like Singapore, like Korea, like Australia, and working out how we diversify our reliance on fuel. We know that the Gulf supplies 20 percent, but there’s 80 percent of other alternatives, and we’re keeping all options open. The Prime Minister is proactively looking. There’s good communication with our community—it just shows the importance of resilience and diversification.

I’ll give you a good example of resilience and diversification: when our Prime Minister came to office, he said straight away, “Let’s do a trade deal with India.” The largest populace on Earth, the largest-growing middle-income economy in the world—over a billion people. He employed, he empowered, and he disembarked the wonderful Minister Todd McClay, who, within 18 months, essentially, turned around an incredible trade deal with India. We’re just waiting for when Labour’s to sign it. We’re just wondering when Labour’s going to say, “Yep, we support New Zealand, we support diversification, we support resilience.” But do you know why they’re not signing it? Do you know why they’re politicking in the midst of a campaign year? Because they’re jealous. Because they didn’t do it. They had six years. Did they even go to India? Did they establish any relationships? No, nothing at all.

We’ve got a first-class agreement ready to sign with one of the most populous countries on Earth, and Labour won’t do it because they’re jealous because their foreign Minister hardly hopped on a plane. She hardly picked up a phone. She was so worried about co-governance and three waters that the relationships across the globe were stranded. Our Prime Minister and our Minister for Trade, Todd McClay, have had to rebuild those relationships. And it’s good news.

In the midst of challenging times in New Zealand, I’m pleased to report that the adults are in the room, and this Government will steer New Zealand through these rocky waters. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

15:49

We’re at the 11th call for this general debate, and I find it absolutely outrageous that the Government backbenchers, with their speaking lines over there, haven’t even bothered to talk about the people that are actually doing it tough in our communities.

I want to speak to the people who feel like they have been an afterthought in this House and that’s our rural communities. Right now, they’re doing it tough and this Government is nowhere to be seen. Fuel prices are soaring. In rural New Zealand, it’s not an inconvenience; that is a lifeline being cut to our people in the rural areas. You can’t shop around when you live an hour from town, you can’t take public transport when there isn’t any, and you can’t just absorb rising costs where every litre of fuel underpins your livelihood, whether that’s farming, forestry, tourism, or simply trying to get your kids to school.

This crisis was always going to hit rural communities the hardest. Kieran McAnulty knows that in the Wairarapa. Tangi Utikere, he knows that out in Ashhurst. However, the Government has no plan. Reassurance is not a plan, talking points are not a plan, and rural New Zealand knows it. While fuel prices spike, this Government is still pretending that everything is under control, when families, farmers, and small businesses know that it’s not. Let’s be clear: this crisis didn’t arrive in a vacuum. People were already struggling before fuel prices surged. The cost of food, power, and healthcare are all rising, and wages are not keeping up—and that pressure is building. The Government made choices that made things worse, and our rural communities are paying that price.

Today, I met with two remarkable members of the communities, Sandra Kirby and Anna-Grace Somerfield from Rural Women New Zealand. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work that they are doing across our rural communities. It’s organisations like Rural Women New Zealand who are stepping up. They are advocating for something as basic and as critical as school bus access, because for many in rural areas, getting their children to school is not guaranteed; it’s a daily logistical challenge, and families are carrying that burden alone. They are delivering programmes like the Activator programme. This programme is about improving rural pathways for rural women to develop their business start-up ideas and build capability and confidence so they can take those ideas to the next level.

They are running the ConnectHER programme, a vital initiative to tackle isolation, support wellbeing, and build networks for rural women who might otherwise be completely cut off. Here’s the key point: the need for these services is not decreasing. It’s increasing, demand is growing, and pressure is rising, and these programmes are now up for funding renewal. The question for this Government is simple: will you listen? Will you back the organisations that are doing this important work? Because if the ConnectHER programme loses funding, it is rural women already under strain who will pay the price.

Earlier this week, I also met with Aviva, in North Canterbury, who do fantastic work right across Waimakariri and North Canterbury. They delivered a message that should concern every member of this House: when financial stress increases, so does family violence. That’s not theory; that is a reality. When households are under pressure, when bills stack up, when fuel costs surge and income doesn’t, that stress compounds, and, in too many cases, that stress turns into harm. It’s not just an economic issue we are facing; it’s a social issue and it is a community safety issue. It creates a clear responsibility for the Government to ensure that support services are funded, accessible, and ready to respond—especially in rural areas, where services are already stretched thin.

When the Government fails to manage that cost of living, and when it fails to respond to crises like the fuel shock, it doesn’t just show up in bank accounts; it actually shows up in people’s homes. Rural New Zealand is resilient; it always has been. But resilient is not an excuse for neglect, and, right now, rural communities are being asked to carry too much with too little support. They’re paying more for fuel, they’re paying more for food, and they’re paying more for the basics. Instead of trying to help these rural communities, this Government is making it worse.

It’s the first time in three years the member has done a general debate speech; I know in future, he’ll have a lot less reliance on the script in front of him.

That’s why we didn’t heckle.

15:54

Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, congratulations to the Lynfield College robotics team for winning—

Sorry, am I hearing a comment from my right, criticising my ruling?

No, not at all.

Oh, good. I’m pleased about that.

Can I start my time again?

We’ll restart the time.

First of all, congratulations to the Lynfield College robotics team for winning the national robotics competition for the third time in a row. Well done to them.

Today, my contribution is focused on three things: support, opportunity, and the people. Hard-working families in Mt Roskill are having a tough time. The rising cost of living combined with increasing petrol prices is putting real pressure on household budgets. We understand that, and we are here to support them. From today, around 143,000 low to middle income working families will receive an extra $50 per week to help with the cost of living. This is targeted, practical support, delivered where it’s needed most. Superannuation is also increasing. A married couple will now receive $1,708 a fortnight—an increase of more than $180 since the 2023 election. This is about ensuring our seniors can live with dignity and security.

It doesn’t stop here. Family tax credits, benefits, and student allowances are all rising from today. Now, we are honest about this: we know this support may seem modest; we know it does not solve everything overnight, but we know that every single dollar counts. For families in Mt Roskill, that extra support means a bit more breathing room and a little less stress at the checkout, at the petrol station, or at the kitchen table. This is what it’s about: backing our people through the tough times.

Second, I think this is why the National Government is focusing on building our economy, making it easier to attract investment, support businesses, and create opportunities here at home. The Investment Boost: our recent survey has shown that 40 percent of businesses have reported increased spending on capital assets over the last 12 months, due to the policy. Guess what! When business grows, jobs are created; when jobs are created, incomes rise; and when incomes rise, families in Mt Roskill are better able to get ahead.

A key part of this is strengthening our international connections. A high-quality free-trade agreement with India has the potential to significantly boost our exports, opening up new markets for New Zealand businesses, from agriculture to technology and services. For a diverse community like Mt Roskill with a strong connection to India, this creates real opportunity, more trade, more business activities, and more local jobs.

We are here to unlock the potential of Eden Park as well: Robbie Williams; Tottenham Hotspur coming for a football game; State of Origin. This is not just entertainment; they are job creators. They generate employment across hospitality, event management, transport, retail, and security. Importantly, they provide flexible and entry-level opportunities, especially for our young people in Mt Roskill who are looking to get experience and enter the workforce. For many, this is the first step, a first job, a first pay cheque, and a pathway into long-term employment. When we talk about economic growth, we are talking about real outcomes for real people, more jobs, higher incomes, and better opportunities for families in Mt Roskill.

Finally, I want to talk about the people in Mt Roskill. Mt Roskill is one of the most diverse communities in New Zealand. It is home to migrants and ethnic communities who bring skill, education, and incredible work ethics. Many arrive with a strong qualification and professional experience. They work hard, contribute to our economy, and support a family, but, too often, they work harder and receive less in return. Their qualifications are not always fully recognised, opportunities do not always match their abilities, and their contribution can sometimes be overlooked. This is something we must address. Also, we must make something very clear: ethnic communities must never be used as a political football. Politicians have a responsibility to speak carefully and respectfully to address the issues without targeting and singling out any groups, because when we divide communities, we weaken them. One thing I know is that diversity is our strength, and when we are united, we are stronger—stronger as a community, stronger as an economy, and stronger as a country. Thank you.

Just for consistency, I did note that the member didn’t stray far off his written notes there. I just repeat that this is general debate. It’s a time that we should—it’s a very broad range of issues; we should be able to debate them and bring those ideas here without necessarily sticking to a script. So just for consistency, for all those I’ve advised during this debate.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Carter Trust Amendment Bill.

16:01

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ve got a few questions I want to ask the member in charge of this bill. It’s a local bill, a private bill in the name of Mike Butterick, who is the MP for Wairarapa, and the Carter Trust is an important part of his Wairarapa community. I think it is important for us to sort of go through the legislation and to get a bit of a greater understanding around the Carter Trust and the intention behind this bill and why Mr Butterick has brought it to Parliament, and the select committee process it went through as well.

The first question I want to ask is related to the purpose and the background of the legislation, and I would be keen to hear from the member in charge if he could just explain to us why this private bill, in the first case, is actually necessary. What’s the problem that the bill is intending to seek and to solve for the Carter Society and the Carter Trust?

16:02

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks very much to the member Tom Rutherford for that question, and a very good question that is indeed, and I’m sure there will be plenty of other questions. The bill is necessary because the Carter Trust Act is a 1961 Act and it’s actually just simply now outdated, and it’s actively impeding the efficient operation of the Carter Court care home.

Private bills generally affect an individual, group, or organisation with a specific interest, and follow a very prescribed process to get to this point. It would be remiss of me at this stage to not acknowledge the Social Services and Community Committee; the chair of the Carter Society, Sharon Parker, who’s been involved all through this; the Public Trust, for 129 years as trustee of the bequest from Charles Rooking Carter; David McLay, for his legal guidance and expertise in navigating the process that this bill is currently going through in this House, and the complexities involved there; and then, last but not least, Charles Rooking Carter for his bequest.

This bill is necessary to ensure that necessary changes actually do occur. When you look at the big picture, what began in 1901, as a home for six to 10 “aged poor men” or “inmates” as they referred to at the time, has now grown into a modern 100-plus bed facility serving the wider Wairarapa—which, thankfully, now also includes women, as well. The 1961 Act imposes redundant ministerial approvals, leasing restrictions, and administration hurdles that no longer actually make any sense. This bill winds up the redundant trust, distributes the assets sensibly, clarifies the Public Trust’s liability, and gives the society the flexibility it needs while still honouring the legacy of Charles Rooking Carter.

16:04

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to, before I ask my short question to my colleague Mr Butterick, also acknowledge that this is putting into action the legacy of Charles Rooking Carter, who is an interesting character in that he was a wealthy landowner by the end of his life, but he also advocated for better working conditions and so forth. As a fellow import from England, I feel a great kinship, and I live in Carterton, named after Charles Rooking Carter. My question to the member who’s leading this bill is not about the substance of the bill, I’m comfortable with that. It’s been through an adequate select committee process, and I think we can all be comfortable with it. I would just like to know what steps the member has taken to convey progress through the different stages of this bill to the Carter Society and its members. Thank you.

16:05

Thank you very much for that question; a very good question. We’ve been in direct and continual contact with David McLay, the person providing the legal advice; Sharon Parker; and the Public Trust, as well. All the way through, everyone’s been on the same page and having very good conversations and keeping each other up to date in terms of the progress. Thank you very much for the question.

16:06

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I wanted to make a short contribution. We, the Labour Party, have no concerns whatsoever about this bill. We are fully in support of it. It has been a long time coming. I remember first having conversations with the Carter Society about this bill probably about five years ago. They’ve put a lot of effort into this, it is long overdue, and it is required. But, of course, the risk in this place is that when you are fully supportive and content with the way that a bill was drafted and it’s progressing through the House, if you don’t say anything, it could be misinterpreted as a lack of interest, and that is certainly not the case. I wanted to put on record, yet again, the support of the Labour Party for this bill, and acknowledge the amount of work that has gone into it—and that includes the member who sponsored the bill, Mike Butterick.

It is important for local and private bills, wherever possible, to not be political. Too often in this House—as, actually, frankly, we’ve just witnessed in the general debate—we can’t help ourselves. In this instance, this is a bill that has been rigorously assessed, that has been debated in the House, has gone through a full process, has the full support of the local community, and it warrants passing. It doesn’t warrant being delayed, but it warrants due recognition of the effort that’s gone into it and the benefit that will be brought to the community. We commend it to the House.

16:07

I would just like to acknowledge the contributions from Kieran McAnulty and Celia Wade-Brown as fellow MPs that live in the Wairarapa. It is important and it is great that sometimes we can show that we do agree on issues. Thank you very much for your support.

16:08

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I actually do have a couple of specific questions relating to it, and I appreciate that there is general consensus and support across the House on the legislation, but it’s still important to scrutinise it as it goes through the committee of the whole House stage. That is our part in this Parliament, to ensure that we scrutinise the legislation even if it has universal support—

It is, Mr Rutherford. But I will make the point in the case of a private bill that it has been through a select committee, so I’m not going to look favourably on any prolonged debate on this in the Chamber this afternoon, out of respect for the people that bring it, so I am expecting genuine.

Yep. Yeah, and unlike the other side, I don’t intend to take full five-minute calls to ask my questions.

In that case, you only need to ask your questions in one call.

Oh, happy to, Madam Chair, if you’d like me to. The first I want to talk about is in the Social Services and Community Committee’s report, they talk about the upkeep of Mr Carter’s grave. I actually think that’s a really important point for us as a committee to just scrutinise, because the select committee have actually written quite a substantial part of their report on the upkeep. They’ve said things like “Section 7(a) of the Act includes a requirement for net income from the Trust to be used for ‘paying the costs of keeping in proper order the grave of the testator’ ”, which is Mr Carter himself. Why has the upkeep of Mr Carter’s grave not been included in the legislation, and can the member confirm that the grave ultimately will still be maintained? I’ll come to my next questions after that.

16:09

Thank you for that question. Yes, I can confirm that the grave will still be maintained. It’s a very good question, and I actually managed to sit in at the Social Services and Community Committee when they were asking about that—and quite right that they should be asking that. The Carter Society has already given a formal undertaking to continue maintaining the grave. The select committee was satisfied with that assurance. The obligation was actually never in the 1896 will; it was added in the 1961 Act. The society will continue this very respectful practice as a condition of the scheme.

16:10

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I also just want to talk about the staggered commencement, which are clauses 7 and 8, because that too is actually quite an unusual thing for us to see in legislation in that sense. In the bill, it says that clauses 7 and 8—and now 7A—come into force six months after Royal assent, rather than immediately. I’m keen to understand from the member in charge, why have the inclusion of a staggered commencement, rather than just having it straight after the private bill is passed?

16:11

Thank you for that question. Well, as anyone that’s ever run a business and has to file their accounts with the accountant and spends an inordinate amount of time waiting for the final accounts to be done knows, it is simply about that: giving the trust the necessary time to complete those final accounts and to make the distributions and wind up the trust in an orderly manner. The rest of the bill, including the immediate repeal of the outdated ministerial powers, can commence straight away, giving the society that immediate flexibility, while the financial housekeeping is, effectively, being completed.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, I appreciate your patience with this. I am trying to move through a variety of different questions on the legislation. One I do really want to focus on, as we come to the end—as we come to the end. I see Ingrid Leary up there; I’m sure she’s got plenty to contribute from diary on the Carter Trust Amendment Bill. But my question’s actually on the impact on the residents who are in the care home that is provided by the Carter Trust. Now, the member in charge, Mike Butterick, said in his opening contribution that initially it was just for boys, and it was widened and the scope now includes men and women, but how’s the bill actually going to affect the residents of the Carter Court care home? For example, are those residents going to face higher fees? Will they see any material impact for them as day-to-day residents of the Carter Court care home—or, for example, will they see potentially reduced services that could impact them as well?

16:12

I would thank that member. It’s actually a very important question and one that does deserve some clarity as well. Residents will see no negative impact. Fees for contracted long-time residential care are actually already set nationally under the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Act 2018. Removing the outdated ministerial power in section 12 does not change what the residents may pay. Society will continue to provide high-quality care. The winding up actually gives it greater flexibility to focus the resources on the residents. Thank you for the question.

16:13

Thank you, Madam Chair—it’s really great to hear the amount of due diligence that’s been done by the member Mike Butterick on his bill. He may be aware of some of the advocacy I’ve been doing around retirement villages and capital payments. I can see that there is independent living under the auspices of the Carter Trust. With that in mind, I’m interested to know what the member has done to understand the impact of any potential legal changes to the retirement villages legislation certainly being flagged by his party and his Government to capital repayments—whether he is supportive of those repayments being within a mandated time period of a year and whether they should apply retrospectively or not.

I get that this is about—

It’s a very narrow bill and it’s out of scope. I will give the member in the chair an opportunity to answer that question, but we’re going very broad.

That would be great, Madam Chair. Thank you.

16:14

Yeah, I thank the member Ingrid Leary for that question. Look, it’s not in this specific bit of legislation, so it’s not something that I’ve considered per se. That’s speculative in terms of what changes there may be, but this bill doesn’t speak to those as well.

Just my final question—thank you for the indulgence. Noting that by all accounts, Mr Carter was a really honourable and upstanding citizen—and there’s been acknowledgment of that in the committee today and in the other readings that we have—I do note that, in one of the clauses of the bill, clause 2(2), it talks about trust lands. The member will be aware that at the period of time when the will first came into being was a period of unsettled time in New Zealand where there were confiscations of Māori land and there were other things happening around indigenous land. I am not at all suggesting that was the case with this particular will, but I am curious to know whether the member has researched that and has satisfied himself that he’s really comfortable with what happened at that period.

Of course, there’s no going back in history, but I’m curious to understand the depth of research that the member might have done around that to allay any concerns. I know that when we were speaking about this previously in the House, there may have been some sensitivities for some of those who were in the Parliament listening to a farewell speech from one of our Māori colleagues. I’m just curious to understand what the member has done to make himself very comfortable with the history of this, or reconciling the history of it, as the case may be.

16:16

Thank you for that question. Certainly nothing that I’m aware of, nor fellow Wairarapa MPs. It’s never been raised. I still come back to the very generous legacy of Charles Rooking Carter that he has left for his Carterton community that continues to provide for our elderly.

Just a quick question, and also congratulations to the member Mike Butterick—great to see you in that spot. Why has the bill chosen to distribute $50,000 specifically to the Anglican parish of Carterton and the balance to the Carter Society? I was just wondering, is that fair and consistent with the original will, in your opinion?

Thank you for that question. It certainly is a very different position sitting up here in the Chamber. Yes, so why has it chosen to distribute $50,000? Thank you very much; it’s a very good question. Is it consistent with the original will? Yes, it is. It’s fair and consistent. The original will provided an annuity to the Anglican vicar of Carterton. The $50,000 is an agreed lump-sum equivalent that both the parish and the society have accepted in full satisfaction of that obligation. The balance then goes to the Carter Society, which has been delivering, actually, care for decades. Public Trust, as executor, has confirmed that this is the most practical and equitable outcome.

16:17

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Just don’t take a call might be another way.

Would you like to withdraw that motion and I’ll take the vote? Or do you want that motion to stand?

I withdraw the motion.

Preamble and clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Carter Trust Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

16:20

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

It’s quite a special moment that this bill has got to this stage when you consider that all recent attempts to adjust the liquor licensing at Easter have not got to select committee. I think that a big part of why it’s got to this point is the way this House has conducted the debate but also the way in which members have worked together in the Justice Committee and outside the debating chamber.

The intention of this bill is extremely simple: it proposes to change the rules that currently exist for on-licences on Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Anzac Day morning, and Christmas Day. As it currently stands, on-licensed premises—bars, clubs, and restaurants—don’t operate on these days under the same rules that they do on every other day, and the question has to be asked: why is that? If it were the case that they couldn’t open at all, then that, it could be argued, is consistent with the rules that are in place for the likes of retail and most other services, but it’s not. These businesses are allowed to open on these days, but they have to follow different rules, and those rules, I would argue, don’t make sense.

Why is it that on these days, if someone goes and wishes to buy a pint, they have to buy what’s deemed to be a substantial meal? Why is it that a substantial meal isn’t actually defined? If someone is ordering a bowl of wedges, it isn’t clear whether that is a substantial meal, but if they made that loaded wedges and added cheese and sour cream and bacon, is that a substantial meal? Is a pizza a substantial meal? It is ridiculous that this is where we are at, and those owners and operators and workers in hospitality have to guess what a substantial meal is before they can serve someone a pint of beer. What is even more ridiculous is that, actually, they’re not required to eat the meal; they’re only required to purchase it. It can sit there while they drink, and it could also be argued that they then can go and buy another substantial meal in order to keep drinking. That doesn’t make sense. This bill clears that up.

Now, it’s important to note that the bill as originally drafted actually went wider than that. My intention was only ever to focus on those businesses that are already allowed to open, because I have seen the debate in this House up to this point. It is clear that there isn’t a majority in this Parliament to change the trading laws at Easter, and that is exactly why I have not proposed that; in fact, I have voted against that, myself. But when all we’re talking about here is businesses that can already open, this is not expanding access to alcohol. When we’re only talking about those workers that are working anyway, this is not taking anything away from those workers that would otherwise enjoy a guaranteed day off. All this bill does is concentrate on the rules for those businesses that are already operating.

The problem with including all businesses that are allowed to operate is that that includes supermarkets, and I was comfortable with that to begin with. But, as we’ve found out through the select committee stage—and I do want to acknowledge the work of every single member from every party in this House for the collaborative and constructive way in which they dealt with that—we found that, actually, what would have happened was that these days, for those businesses where you can order alcohol online and get it delivered, the current rules are that you can order on the day but it can’t be delivered until the next day, and they would have actually been able to deliver on the day. So bottle stores couldn’t open, but online deliveries could, and there was no way to get around it. Basically, we either had to include all off-licences or none at all, and I supported the select committee’s view that we include none at all, because if we had included them all, it would have gone beyond the intent of the bill to focus on those businesses that are already allowed to open and we would have lost the debate, like it has been lost every other time before. By bringing it on to on-licensed premises, it becomes extremely clear and extremely simple.

I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge Cameron Luxton because his amendment at the committee stage actually did what the bill was intended to do in the first place—and this is always the risk when it comes to members’ bills. Most members have submitted a bill to the ballot and they will know for themselves that we don’t have the resources that Governments do when it comes to drafting bills, and so it’s quite common for select committees to identify gaps, etc., and look to improve it—basically, that’s the point of a select committee. When it became evident that in the absence of Cameron Luxton’s amendment, there still would have been anomalies, I was very happy to support it and I was very pleased that Parliament chose to, as well, and so now, here we are, with this bill, which is extremely clear-cut and extremely simple.

I do want to acknowledge the way in which this debate has been conducted, because this is a conscience vote for a reason. Parliament treats these issues as a conscience issue because it recognises, by convention, that even within parties, who will share the same values and share the same principles, it’s quite possible or probable that you may have different views on this matter, and, indeed, that’s how it has played out in the various stages of this bill. But it’s not just the way in which the debate has been conducted in a respectful and courteous manner in this Chamber; it’s also the way in which it’s been conducted through the submissions process of the select committee, and also the various correspondence that I’ve received from people either thanking me for bringing this issue forward or expressing concern and urging me either to withdraw the bill or to not support it.

Those that oppose it can broadly be put into two camps: those that have genuinely held legitimate concerns around increasing access to alcohol and the harm that that might cause, and those that hold these days to be sacred and wish for this change not to go ahead on that basis. I respect both of those views. While I disagree, I do recognise that they are legitimate and I do respect them, and I will respond to them briefly.

Because these businesses are already allowed to open, we’re actually not increasing the availability of alcohol. People can go to these premises on these days anyway, but they have to go through, basically, a farce of a process to be able to purchase a drink. There is no evidence that has been provided that what is being proposed in this bill will actually increase harm, and increasing access to off-licences would have had a much larger chance of increasing harm because that doesn’t come with the restrictions and monitoring that it does when people are purchasing on-licence.

To those that hold these days to be sacred, again I say that I respect that view. When I go to Mass on Easter Sunday, that should have no bearing on the choice of others. If they choose to go to Mass, fine; if they choose not to, fine—that is entirely their choice. But why should people feel that their perceived views that people should not go to the pub—that’s fine: don’t go to the pub, but let’s not stop others from making that choice. Also, let’s recognise that, actually, the vast majority of Christian denominations do not prohibit the consumption of alcohol on those days.

We’ve got to ask the question: why have we got these rules? We will still hold Easter and Christmas Day and Anzac Day in high regard and as having a special standing in our society. Enabling people to purchase a drink at the pub will not take away from that.

This bill also—very finally—enables RSAs to serve members of the public that are joining veterans after an Anzac Day service on the morning of Anzac Day without having to get a special licence. This is a change that has been welcomed by the RSAs. They have had to jump through hoops to welcome in their community after an Anzac Day—a very special day for this country. RSAs are the focal point of the community, and they will no longer have to go through this burden.

I thank everybody for their consideration of this bill. We’re on the third reading. On the verge of passing it, I would strongly urge you to continue your support for it, and thank you for it thus far.

I just want to reiterate for those people who have just come into the House that we are taking five-minute calls from here on. For those people who have actually indicated to me that they want to take a call, if you wish to take a call, please come up and indicate that to me. At this stage, I will say that the question is that the motion be agreed to. I’m going to try to balance it up, and so I’m going to call Dr David Wilson.

16:31

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you to the Hon Kieran McAnulty for laying out some of those issues. I fit into both of those categories, so thank you, Kieran. Yes, I believe and we believe that access to alcohol has many harms associated with it. I won’t go through all the evidence because I think most of you will have covered a lot of that evidence. I wish to add one little one that I found in the US, and that was called “holiday heart syndrome”—simply put, access to alcohol increases arrhythmia and strokes. It’s a lot about the access, and, whichever way you cut it, you are opening access through this bill.

I wish to switch now to the kinds of values that we hold. In my understanding around Anzac, Christmas, and Easter, things like remembrance, reflection, reverence, respect, and tradition are important. I’m reminded of when my wife and I were in a beautiful place in France called Amiens. We walked into a church, and in that church—it’s a beautiful church, of course—which was over 500 years old, it had pillars reaching to the roof, as high as you could see. Then, when we walked to those pillars, we realised that those pillars had names carved in them all the way to the roof. We also recognised that they were New Zealand names. Two wonderful women who were there that day came up to me and Anna, and said, “Where are you from?”, and we said, “We’re from New Zealand.” She said, “Thank you. Thank you so much for defending our city.”, and we said, “Thank you so much for remembering us.”

We think these things are really important. I’m lucky to have such a beautiful wife who actually adheres to tradition. In fact, she builds traditions for our home. She has brought into our household the tradition of Christmas every year, and it then falls to me to find a relevant 12-foot tree to get into our house and make sure it doesn’t fall down, decorate it, and then do something with it at the end of the break. But, yes, I have taken that on board, and it is a wonderful tradition. I think that what we’re dealing with here is that these are really, really important traditions for us to own and have and to carry forward.

I’m thinking about the Māori Battalion, and the new memorial and museum at Paihia. You must visit this. The warriors and what the Māori battalion had to go through in terms of how they had to become noticed and accepted, and their bravery—it warms the cockles of your heart to understand how important these people are to us, as New Zealanders, and, in their case, as Māori. It’s part of our inheritance, it’s part of our nationhood, and it’s part of our values: fairness, empathy, respect.

Most of all, these holidays are part of us. They’re part of our history, and part of who we are as a nation. They all have meaning, and that meaning goes far beyond having a tipple or a few drinks. I think it’s a small price to pay for us to actually take that meaning on board and think through carefully what it means to us—what these things mean to us in this day and age. Remembrance is so important for us, and it is so important for our youth to know who they are and where they stand in this nation.

It’s not much to ask to take some time to reflect, to revere, and to respect, and then to celebrate with friends and family. A small degree of restriction for a few days to reinforce shared traditions and values is a very small price to pay. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

16:36

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. As members may know, I had a crack at something similar early in the term, but, back then, I got some sage advice from the Hon Kieran McAnulty. He told me I was biting off a bit too much, and, as it transpired, he was right. My bill was voted down. It was dealing with a much broader issue around restrictions on Easter trading. It was defeated at first reading, but here we are with a much narrower bill reaching its third reading. I have to say Kieran McAnulty has done a bloody good job in getting his member’s bill to this point, and I really do give him all my support.

Why are we here? Kiwis have matured a great deal in the 110 years since prohibition was so very nearly the law of this land, and if it were not for the votes of the soldiers overseas, it well would have been. We recognise the harms now, increasingly, that alcohol can cause, and we have developed laws and norms which regulate ourselves. These keep us safe for 360 days of the year, and so this is not a vote for having no laws; it is a vote to expand the laws that work on all of those days to the 3½ restricted trading days.

As Kiwis, when we are asked to justify or debate the minor points of a substantial meal, or are turfed out with that classic song playing too early in the night—you know it, members—“You Don’t Have To Go Home (But You Can’t Stay Here)”, we can all recognise the absurdity of treating responsible adults this way. It is the absurdity of treating licensed venues, the operators, and the managers this way, as not worthy of hosting their guests for celebrations with friends and family in a way they choose and on a day that matters to them.

Then there’s the celebration that will be cut short in Christchurch on what could be the biggest celebration of the year, a spectacle of rugby long awaited with the opening of Te Kaha One New Zealand Stadium. There will be much of memory and revelation, I’m sure, with teams from across the Tasman recognising our shared Anzac past.

I realised that this bill as originally drafted, while making important changes, would unintentionally leave out many bars and pubs across Christchurch and force them to close at 11.59 p.m. on the day before Anzac Day, as a restricted trading day. For a city like Christchurch, which has been through so much and waited so long, that would have been devastating. The House has backed and voted for my amendment to fix up that part and I am grateful for the support of the sponsor of this bill, and I think that might be why it got over the line.

I’ve had many questions asked of me about this, and so I want to take this opportunity to address precisely what my amendment does. The amendment says, “The premises for which an on-licence is held may remain open during the permitted trading hours that apply to the premises.” Some have questioned whether the words “may remain open” refer to a bar being allowed to open on that day, or whether it means that they must remain open and stay open past the 11.59 p.m. deadline on the day before. So, Madam Speaker, if you’ll forgive me, I’ll go into some detail and read a little bit, not only for the benefit of honourable members but also to ensure that Parliament’s intent is absolutely clear when interpreting this law.

The wording “may remain open” is deliberately used because it reflects the established terminology of the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990. That Act uses the same phrase as provisions such as “Certain shops may remain open” and “Garden centres may remain open on Easter Sunday”. In that context, “may remain open” has never been understood to mean that a business must already be open immediately prior to the restricted trading day, rather it is simply meaning that those businesses are permitted to open and trade on those days. The same meaning is intended here.

New section 45A in new clause 4A on Amendment Paper 532 is intended to allow a premises holding an on-licence to operate on restricted trading days in the same way that they would on any other day of the year, subject only to their ordinary licence conditions. That includes both remaining open if already operating and opening at a time permitted under their licence, even if the premises was not open immediately prior to the restricted trading date. To be clear, this provision is not limited to allowing trading past midnight; it is enabling a licensed premises to open for the day, and close and reopen in accordance with their usual licensing hours.

Should this bill become law in time for the weekend, an on-licensed business may, subject to their licence conditions, open on Good Friday and Easter Sunday, or remain open. That is the intent. It is clear, and it is aligned with the original intent of the bill. If this—

The member’s time has expired.

16:41

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I really appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution. I do want to acknowledge the member the Hon Kieran McAnulty for his considered, respectful approach in terms of this bill. It has been helpful to understand the components and the aspects that’s he’s strongly supporting, and he has explained that today.

I speak on behalf of our community members across Aotearoa who have emailed me to continue opposing this bill, and I have a number of reasons that I just want to outline the reasons for that. In my hood in South Auckland, specifically in Māngere, we have got the most faith communities across South Auckland, with a number of churches and mosques and those who come together. Whilst they do acknowledge that there is a time in their busy diaries when they do appreciate alcohol, for the sale and supply with this specific bill, a number of them have said to me in their personal views verbally and personal views in writing that they want to keep Anzac Day morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday—specifically, Good Friday and Easter Sunday. For many of the faith communities, they hold those days quite dearly.

We have a number of challenges with alcohol in Māngere in South Auckland. A number of our youth, unfortunately, are not as respectful. We have quite a diverse group of young people, which is colourful in many ways, but some of them just cannot handle alcohol and overconsumption.

I have appreciated the different view, or the respectful way in which my colleague the Hon Kieran McAnulty has explained this bill, and also what is written in this bill. However, I need to stand up and say something for those who oppose it, because they want protection specifically for those Easter days, and also for Christmas Day. I think, with Anzac Day, the issue there is that we have had many soldiers and the families of returned services members and they deserve to be respected on Anzac Day, and so there is provision there. However, for those three days, one of the things that I’ve heard from submitters is the cultural significance of faith communities, and why is it important? They want to see that there are continued restrictions in terms of protecting those specific four days, and also Easter is very important to Christian communities.

I take the opportunity to speak out and continue opposing this specific bill, and even if we get to the point where we lose the vote, that’s all good—at least I’ve managed to voice our concerns from people across Aotearoa. They might be small in numbers, but it is significant that they want protection and preservation of those specific cultural days, and the significance is that with a 24-hour, seven-day open dairy online and all the different platforms, people do need to take a rest and acknowledge the significance in different communities.

I’m not saying that’s all communities, and, like I said in another contribution earlier, there is a place for alcohol. People do like to relax. They do like to go to a place where they can feel comfortable and where they’re able to purchase, but, on this occasion, I do have to stand with the members of my community who are saying that enough is enough. In my neck of the woods, there is far too much accessibility to alcohol and we have a real problem with some of our young people who are probably only 15 years old and look like they’re 21, and so they get away with purchasing different things at different times.

The last point I want to make is about the significance of Christmas Day, Easter Sunday, and Good Friday. Those are really important times for different members of our community. We have a very diverse community in Māngere and across South Auckland, and so it is important to highlight those reasons because they want to see that members of Parliament hear both sides. Whilst there is a large group of our members who will support this bill, there are those in our community who have opposing views. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

16:46

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to stand and take the first opportunity for a call from the National Party, which is proudly a party that is a broad church. There are a variety of views on this side of the House on this specific piece of legislation, and I think it’s really important that members of the general public get the opportunity to hear that representatives from different political parties—just like we’ve heard from the member Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who’s just taken her seat—can have differing views within their own party on a specific piece of legislation, based on whether it may be religious values, whether it may be cultural values, whether it may just be something that is on their own conscience, or whether it may be the views of their wider community. But I think it’s really important that, through this debate, you’ll hear a variety of views from this side in support and in opposition to the legislation.

From my perspective, I am in support of the legislation. I have supported it from the first reading, through the select committee, at the second reading, and now at the third and final reading.

I had the privilege of being a member of the Justice Committee, where we considered the legislation. Alongside particularly my National colleagues Carl Bates, the Hon Andrew Bayly, and Rima Nakhle, in and amongst ourselves, we held different views on the legislation. We listened intently to those who made submissions on it, whether it was hospitality groups or the retail sector—who said, “Please tidy this up. Make it more workable for us. It’s confusing. We are the ones on the front line who have to let the customers down. Please just make it more straightforward for us.”—and then we heard the other side of the argument, including those from church or religious organisations, who said, “These are cultural or really important religious days for us and please give us the opportunity to breathe on those days.”, and I think David Wilson was articulating that in his earlier contribution, as well.

The reason I’ve settled on being in support of the legislation is not for self-interest. In the last reading, the Hon Erica Stanford said I wasn’t old enough to drink alcohol, but I don’t actually consume alcohol, and it’s a personal decision that I’ve made.

You’re a married man.

“A married man.”, Rachel Brooking says. Yes, but I make my own decisions, sometimes. [Interruption] It was going so well.

I couldn’t possibly adjudicate that.

Yeah. I must not tell lies in this place, Madam Speaker, but I don’t—

Then withdraw and apologise!

Yeah, thankfully it’s 10 to 5, and she’s definitely not watching—she’s got far better things to be doing with her time.

The reason why I support the legislation is because there’s no self-gain from it, but who am I to stand in the place of someone who on Good Friday or Easter Sunday or Anzac Day wants to go down to the pub, or wants to go to a restaurant or to a bar to enjoy a beverage with their friends?

Can’t be bothered cooking.

And that’s right, Suze Redmayne. It might just be that day that they go, “Actually, why don’t we as a family”—or as whānau or as friends—“just go out and have a nice time.”, and not have to face that hurdle that they often face of “Oh no! All right, well, we’d better order a substantial meal.” Well, someone was on a diet and they were just going to order a side salad, but they can’t have an alcoholic beverage now, and now they must order the entire caesar salad so that they can enjoy having the cider they were going to have to accompany it—it’s just ridiculous. It’s outrageous, and in 2026, it’s an anomaly that I think, ultimately, this piece of legislation is going to tidy up.

One of the really good things that we did through the progression of this legislation was remove the ability for it to focus on supermarkets and bottle stores, because that’s not actually the intention of what this legislation is aiming to remedy and fix. It’s not about people being able to pop out to the bottle store because they had opportunities to be more organised, to have things at home, or whatever else; it’s for those who go out to the pub, to the restaurants, and to the bars.

The other thing that is really front of mind and is coming up near the end of this month is Anzac Day, which is a really, really important day for us as a country. We have heard from numerous RSAs across the country who face rigmaroles all the time around the challenges they get into to be able to serve alcohol on Anzac Day to their patrons. Now, it’s not about everybody getting intoxicated, but it’s about having the opportunity to remember and to be with one another on a really special day for New Zealand, for our history, and for where we are going as a country.

As I said at the start of the contribution, the National Party, on this side, has a variety of views. We are a broad church. You’ve heard from me in favour of the legislation and you’ll hear from colleagues opposed to it, but, ultimately, I think that’s what makes politics really, really important in this place and that is why this conscience issue is really important for us all to take a stand on.

I’ve got a bit of a roster going here, and I’d like to now call the Hon Mark Patterson.

16:51

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Can I just start by acknowledging the member Kieran McAnulty for bringing the bill forward and for carefully and skilfully shepherding it through the House to this point—a little too skilfully for my liking, because, in an hour’s time or so, or less than an hour’s time, we face crossing the Rubicon. Individual members will be voting according to their conscience. Will they vote to uphold their traditional New Zealand values, history, and traditions; will they respect our Christian heritage and our sacred Christian celebrations of Christmas, Easter Sunday, and Good Friday; will they acknowledge the solemn commemoration of Anzac Day morning; or will they sacrifice that heritage at the altar of consumerism and consumption?

Do members fully understand the cultural shift they are being asked to endorse? Are they comfortable that on these sacred days, people will be spilling out of bars and night clubs at all hours? It’s a slippery slope—making them just another day.

Don’t get me wrong—I’m no wowser here. I’ve spilled out of my fair share of pubs and nightclubs over the time, but it does not have to be on those days, those 3½ days of the year when the world doesn’t stop, but it slows down. It’s a time for families, it’s a time for commemorations, and it’s a time for celebrations of very important events.

The status quo might be a bit clunky, but it is not the end of the world. Business has found the ability to perfectly work through that in the past. It’s a very small sacrifice to make. I will be voting to protect these important days from the scourge of consumerism, and I’m proud to stand by my New Zealand First colleagues in standing up for our Christian heritage, standing up for our traditional Kiwi values, and voting against this bill. Thank you.

16:54

Madam Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. First of all, can I acknowledge, as my colleague Tom Rutherford did, the complexities of this and acknowledge the range of views that are present in this House.

For me, this has been an interesting bill. I am the co-founder of, I think, New Zealand’s only conservative public policy think tank, the Maxim Institute, and, many years ago, I would have voted against this bill, but I rise today to vote for it. As a conservative, I’m not opposed to change. I am in favour of incremental change, and that is one of several reasons why I do support this bill. I think it is a wise and incremental change to legislation that does need adjustment, and I want to speak to that very briefly.

I have found sometimes as I’ve sat through the earlier stages of this bill—and this is the first time I’ve taken a call on it because I’ve been thinking about it carefully. On occasion, when I have considered what the content of this legislation is, my mind has turned to the joke of the ham sandwich that walks into a pub, goes up to the bar, and orders a drink and is told by the publican, “I’m sorry, mate, we don’t serve food in here.”

At the heart of this legislation is a very simple and, as I mentioned, incremental change. It is simply an adjustment to 3½ very special days of the year, 3½ days that are very special to New Zealanders, and particularly to some, including myself—and I’ll speak to that in a moment—where it is currently the requirement, as has been spelt out well by a number of colleagues, including in detail by my friend and colleague Cameron Luxton, for one to buy a substantial meal if they want to consume a beverage. All that this bill does is remove that requirement. It doesn’t change the liquor-licensing laws and it doesn’t change shop hours, and all of that has been laid out. It just makes that simple change, and I believe that that is a good and incremental change.

I do not believe that that change, in any way, affects the sanctity, the sacredness, and the specialness of those days. As a keen follower of Jesus Christ, my Christian faith is absolutely the foundation of my life, and it’s the prism and the lens through which I see the world and understand what a human being is and what we’re here for. I love particularly three of those days, and I love Anzac Day as well for different reasons. But those three days—Easter Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day—are, for me, the most special days of the year, and I will most certainly be at church this weekend and at the end of the year, as well. Whether or not my colleagues and friends—whether they are church attenders or not—are having a steak and chips with their beer that afternoon does not in any way affect the sacredness of those days, and, in fact, I’m very likely to be found to be having a drink on those days, as well.

The final reflection I want to share is, again, as this conversation has been going on in this House now for a few months, that I was reminded of a time many years ago, when my wife and I were first married and we lived in London. We went away to a church conference one weekend in north London, and at the end of the meeting on a Friday night, it was actually a guy called Nicky Gumbel who had finished speaking. He invited people to the front for prayer while the musicians played softly, and then he said, “For those of you who aren’t in for that, if you just look around behind you now,”—and we looked behind—“you’ll see that the bar is open.”

That was a memory that I haven’t had for a while, but it spoke to me quite powerfully of, I think, a very healthy relationship with alcohol. I do think that this legislation, amongst other things, is an opportunity for us to make a considered, incremental, and mature step forward in terms of having a healthy relationship with alcohol, a healthy respect for differences, and not being fearful of what this means to our sacred days.

For all those reasons, I thank the member for bringing this bill to the House. I thank all members for their careful and respectful consideration of this bill. My favourite time in this House was the committee of the whole House on this bill. It was us working together—that was something else. It was a vision of what this place can be. I commend this bill to the House.

I’m going to call Kahurangi Carter next, and I just want to indicate that I’ve only got two further names of people who have indicated that they wish to speak. If anyone has come into the House over the recent little while and wishes to add their name to the list, please come and see me.

16:59

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today, we’re talking on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill. There is a drug that is the leading cause of preventable death and morbidity around the world and here at home. It costs our country upward of $7 billion annually, according to a leading economics firm. This drug features significantly in emergency service call outs, many times where violence and aggression are involved. We know that prohibition doesn’t work. It has never worked and it only makes those drugs far more harmful because of the circumstances it creates.

This drug—the nation’s most harmful—is, of course, alcohol. Drugs, like alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis, exist. The question for legislators should always be: how do we create law to reduce harm? There’s a broad spectrum of approaches. Here and at both extremes you see the maximisation of harm. At one end, you have criminal prohibition, and, at the other end, you have an open slather free market. At each extreme, whether it’s criminal organisations or commercial entities, you see those who are making money exploiting vulnerable communities by selling as much of these substances as possible.

The evidence shows that New Zealand has among the highest rates of alcohol harm on almost every metric. The law is a complex and unwieldly beast for both communities and small operators to navigate, and this tells you that the law is not fit for purpose. We need a common-sense approach to drug and alcohol harm reduction and we, as a country, won’t fix these serious issues with the way successive Governments have approached it—like Luxon’s Government in this term of Parliament, who have done nothing to advance drug law reform to make our communities safer; in fact, the only drug law reform has been to make purchasing alcohol easier.

We need bold leadership to do what successive Governments have been too scared to do, which is what communities and public health experts—the ones at the front lines—have been calling on politicians to do for decades: to overhaul the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. The Law Commission told this House that in 2010, and they told us about the Misuse of Drugs Act in 2012. When are we willing to do the logical and consistent thing and regulate according to reducing harm? As our communities wait for sensible laws, the Government does less than the bare minimum and in ways that is cheered on by industry, which probably gives you a hint as to who amendments like this actually benefit.

The Greens have a long history of fighting alongside communities through alcohol harm reduction laws to minimise drug harm. In 2022, our current Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick’s member’s bill the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill was drawn from the biscuit tin. This bill had extensive support from Alcohol Healthwatch and local councils, including Christchurch City Council and Auckland Council and many other local councils, supported it.

In June 2025, the Christchurch City Council agreed on a new set of rules for how alcohol can be sold and supplied across the city, which was the local alcohol policy—or the LAP. It took the hard work of our communities, who, throughout the process, consistently told councillors that the wider community wanted a sensible local alcohol policy, and the key aim of this LAP was to address the harm caused by alcohol in our Christchurch communities. The result of the LAP is a focus on making alcohol less available at certain times, particularly in areas where easy access to alcohol can increase harm in the community.

During the select committee process, the Alcohol Healthwatch said that this bill could further perpetuate the harm caused by alcohol and that extensive research tells us alcohol-related harm in Aotearoa is at unacceptably high levels.

The Green Party is united in our position that we cannot support this bill. The Green Party have always stood for sensible evidence-based drug harm minimisation.

17:04

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s certainly a fascinating debate, and I listened intently to the contribution of the member Greg Fleming, who talked about incremental changes being a positive, because I also recognise that this is very incremental. For that reason, in fact, I am going to vote against this bill, because my vote is really a protest vote.

I do want to add my voice to those acknowledging the work of the Hon Kieran McAnulty and acknowledging the very, very, very small incremental change this bill would make. However, I can’t in good conscience continue to see bills come before the House that incrementally change small, nuanced parts of a wider architecture that urgently needs reform.

My protest vote is to say that, while I don’t have an issue with the content of the bill, I do have a very big issue with the way that this House approaches alcohol. There is a need for reform, and there are some of those evidenced-based statistics we have heard around New Zealand’s relative harm profile and around the impact on communities, including in South Auckland, where there is evidence that some schoolchildren are going past five or six alcohol stores every day on their way to school, saturated in the visibility and saturated in marketing and advertising through sports clubs that might not otherwise be thought to be able to survive without that advertising. I did support Chlöe Swarbrick’s reformist member’s bill, that was referred to by Kahurangi Carter, for those reasons.

This is not a moral stance. I believe that we have wonderful Christian people in this country; we also have people of many other faiths who may not acknowledge those days or those traditions, and so, for me, this is not a Church versus State kind of debate; this is about what we can do responsibly to try to respond to the issue of legislation that is well out of date, as has been said. The fact is that it is so difficult to bring reform to this House that even the cross-party mental health group cannot get a discussion about alcohol harm reduction and a meaningful piece of work on to our agenda because some political parties will not support that, and yet, at the same time, we have the Online Casino Gambling Bill going through the House—not as a conscience vote, yet with all indications that there is extensive harm to be caused—and the admission that this is a bill, which, essentially, not only opens and regulates a market but expands it and makes it competitive, which incentivises marketing to our young people.

There are all sorts of contradictions that take place in this House, and, today, we have seen the best of the good parts, which is collegial, really thoughtful, and well-considered debate and respect about something complex. But I do worry that we are not having the real conversation, which is about how we have a proper comprehensive look at alcohol reform that might do things like tweak the Easter and Anzac Day rules in the way that this bill does but that might also reduce the harm and exposure on our young people. I question the reason why we are not able to have that debate, and that is a very big issue for me.

Finally, I don’t have a problem with our Anzac people having a tipple on Anzac Day. In fact, my understanding from insiders in the Defence Force is that it’s quite normal to do that prior to the Anzac Day services.

Again, this is not a moral position; it is merely a protest vote. But I think—wearing my mental health spokespersonship hat—my commitment is to want to make laws, in a good way, that are transformational and reformist, and not let incrementalism stop us from having the big debates. I will continue to vote against all incremental alcohol bills, including this one.

17:08

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Like my colleague Tom Rutherford just mentioned, the National Party is a very broad church, and we have different views. I think that’s very similar to my electorate, Mt Roskill, which is very diverse, as well.

I am here to stand on behalf of the people of Mt Roskill to oppose this legislation. The reason is not only because this is about our faith communities but I think this is also about alcohol harm, as well, and about the failure of our country. When I did my survey, I asked my constituents “Are you guys opposed to or do you agree with all this legislation to allow alcohol sales on Anzac Day?”, and the majority of people said, “Yes, we are happy to allow people to have a drink and to enjoy themselves on Anzac Day—there’s no question for us on this one.” But once I said, “How about on Easter and Christmas?”, well, the result was actually completely the opposite. The majority of my people said no—they said no. This is the reason I’m standing here to oppose the bill.

Let me give some of the comments my constituents have been mentioning. One of them is that “New Zealand has long been a country of faith and many of the founding laws and policies were instituted for those core moral reasons, and having alcohol sales at Christmas and Easter is against that value.” Another constituent actually emailed me to say, “Alcohol is definitely not contributing to the spirit of a composed or reflective state of mind. Those guarded memorial days deserve, or are probably even required to help us to understand ourselves and our shared culture.” You can see that a lot of feedback has been sent in—I appreciate it was not only to me but to a lot of our colleagues here as well—to tell us to stand against this legislation. As I say, those 3½ days are special days for our faith communities, and I think most of the people will like it to remain the way it is.

Let’s talk about the business side. A lot of people are also lobbying and sending us emails saying, “Hey Carlos, allowing us to sell alcohol on Easter or even Christmas will help us to go through the tough times and allow the business to be in a little bit of profit.”

I’ll share a story with you guys. One of my friends actually opened a takeaway in my electorate. He is a Christian. What’s happened is this. He believed that “Yes, I need to open seven days in order to maximise my profit.” What’s happened? That’s led to his health going down. He was not feeling well and he went into hospital, and then, after that, he changed. He talked to God and he asked God for advice. He changed the opening hours to only six days a week now. He takes the Sunday off, and everyone was telling him, “Hey, if you do that, will that mean that your income will be less? Is that sustainable?”, and I asked the same question. The answer from him was “Carlos, no. Actually, my profit is pretty much the same because people are willing to go to the shop to buy food on the other days. It’s not really affecting the business.” They didn’t see any drop in the business turnover.

I think this bill doesn’t really help businesses to get a little bit more profit, but it actually creates a problem, which is called “alcohol harm”. With alcohol, as has been mentioned, a lot of family violence—physical or verbal abuse—is caused because of people being intoxicated, or alcohol harm.

I also think that the main thing here is that we want our veterans to have a glass of wine. Yes, I think the intention of that is very good, but one thing I know is that they have sacrificed themselves fighting for a better country. Is this the country they’re actually fighting for, with people suffering from alcohol harm or other alcohol-related abuse—is that what they’re fighting for? Has the member actually talked to them and said, “Now, I’ll give you an option. You can choose to enjoy having a glass of wine on Anzac Day, or you can see someone actually suffer due to alcohol harm.”, and I’m sure that the answer for our veterans is, “No, I want a better future for New Zealand. I don’t want anyone getting hurt or being harmed.” Because of that, this is why I’m here to stand opposed to the bill.

17:13

It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call in this debate today, at the third reading. I wasn’t actually going to take a call, but I listened to a couple of my colleagues who I felt made really good speeches, and so I thought I’d come down and make a contribution so that it is on the record. It’s not where you stand in moments of calmness; it’s actually where you stand in moments of controversy that matter, and I want it to be known for the electorate of Northcote—the people I represent—what my position is. I am supportive of today’s legislation.

I want to start out by saying I am a person of Catholic faith. My priest would probably say I’m a lapsed Catholic, but that is the perspective that I bring to this place. I don’t talk about my faith because I believe in the separation of Church and State, and I don’t think that that should be brought into the debate in this House in any way whatsoever.

That is the perspective that I bring, but, for the reasons that my colleague Tom Rutherford outlined, I don’t believe that I or this House should be telling others what to do on those special days. “Who am I?” is what he said, and I reflected on that and I thought, well, actually, who are we, as a House? We’re no better than the people of New Zealand. The Ministers have the same flaws as members of the public, and so we are no particular gurus and we have no higher authority to be telling others how they live their lives. If you want to have a beverage on those days, we shouldn’t be telling you what type of beverage it is.

There’s no obligation.

There is no obligation, and so I think that’s what brings me to support this bill.

I have a personal view, which is that I think New Zealand is far over-regulated for the size of our country. If you look at why we are low income, with low productivity relative to the rest of the world—and I’ve lived all over the world and seen that, actually, we are well over-regulated. We go to the nth degree when we shouldn’t do that, and I think this bill goes some way to rectifying that. I did actually support some of the amendments to widen the scope of this bill. I don’t actually know if they made it through, but I was broadly supportive of giving power back to the people, from this House, for them to determine the way they go about their conduct during those special days.

This bill updates the law for, I think, current society. To the member who has spoken from the other side who talked about alcohol issues—if I can just indulge the House. I lived in France for a few years, and I was amazed at how liberal the alcohol laws were in France but how the attitude of the French actually—

Self-regulating.

—yes—played out. I got speaking to a number of my French colleagues, who said that the attitude and the way they bring up their kids with regard to the respect for alcohol is very different to what I would term “Anglo-Saxon culture”, and it was only on a weekend trip to London, via the Eurostar, that we realised that the Anglo-Saxon culture was very similar to New Zealand’s culture—and Australia’s, Canada’s, and the United States’—of binge drinking. I think, actually, that that is at the heart of the discussion. It is not legislative; it is cultural, and I would love to have a debate about how we improve the cultural attitude towards alcohol in this country.

I just want to end by acknowledging the member Kieran McAnulty, who has brought forward this bill—congratulations—but I do want to acknowledge the member Cameron Luxton for your bill several months earlier, which we had an opportunity to vote on. I supported it, but that was voted down because of particular party positions. It is great that we’re here today, and I do hope this bill goes through, but it would have been great to have been here six months ago. To play politics with things like this is utterly unacceptable, and I do hope that members on the opposite side reflect that with future debates. I commend this bill to the House.

17:18

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the fact that I’m also getting an opportunity to share my views with respect to this bill in the name of the member the Hon Kieran McAnulty. As I mentioned during the committee of the whole House stage, I do oppose this bill and I continue to oppose this bill, notwithstanding the fact that I respect the views—particularly from my colleagues in the National Party and the Government and also across the House—on this.

For many years now, I have attended Papakura Marae on Christmas Day. What happens on Christmas Day at Papakura Marae is there’s a charitable trust called Whaitiaki trust, which is run by many very good decent folk, including my good friend Whaea Anne Kendall. What they do is they provide a Christmas lunch for many families that are otherwise in need, or people that just want some community or to be around community. Papakura Marae is a no-smoking and no-alcohol venue, and there’s a reason for why they’re no-alcohol. I suspect that one of the reasons is because alcohol is a very big problem for families in South Auckland and all around New Zealand.

I love the fact that my colleague Dan Bidois spoke about the attitude to alcohol, which I touched upon in my last speech with respect to this bill. Attitudes are different around the world, and I see very clearly that in New Zealand and where I grew up, in Australia, our attitude towards alcohol is one where it is “Let’s all get drunk. We can’t have a good time”—not for all people, of course—“unless we get drunk.”

Unfortunately, the maturity towards alcohol is not necessarily the case here in New Zealand, and that’s why I do oppose this bill. It is, as I’ve said before, allowing extra access to alcohol on days when particularly children have a right to have their parents fully present on these days that, to many, are sacred, and, to many, are not necessarily sacred but are days where they get the opportunity to switch off from everything else and just allow themselves to be in the presence of their kids, or for their kids to have their presence, unhindered by the desire to go to the pub, to go to a restaurant, and “Let’s start going on the booze.”

It saddens me that the quiet moments that a lot of us reflect on when we were younger—I reflect very clearly on days when, with Mum and Dad, we would go start off our Sunday at church, and then we’d come home and we’d have lunch underneath the fig tree at the bottom of the yard, all together. That was our family quiet time. I reflect on some of the kids I see coming to Papakura Marae and to other places around South Auckland, kids that love their parents so much. Sometimes, I’ve seen the parents obviously hungover or obviously coming down from just taking drugs, and I reflect on them, Mr Kieran McAnulty, when I think about whether we couldn’t just leave these 3½ days alone for these kids to have their parents fully present.

It saddens me, because it’s maybe confusing for some businesses and patrons to have to figure out whether a bowl of hot chips is the same as a substantial meal. But what I worry about more is the confusion of kids this coming Christmas, when they’re used to their parents just being at home—and, now, where are the parents?

They can stay at home.

Yeah, they can stay at home, my good friends say, but what about those parents that don’t have control? I’m not talking about the parents that have self-control; I’m talking about the parents in South Auckland that don’t have a lot of self-control because of their unfortunate addiction to alcohol.

I want to reassure members of the public that the National Party values families. Indeed, one of our 10 values is strong families and caring communities, and notwithstanding this bill perhaps going through today, our party values strong families and caring communities. I don’t commend this bill today.

17:23

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wish to take a short call in response to some of the issues that have been raised. I think it’s important to acknowledge that this bill is about on-licences that are already able to operate on these days, and so it’s not that these days—which, I acknowledge, are very important days—are being opened up. That’s the first point: people can already drink at the on-licence on these days.

The change is that at the moment, if people want to drink in the on-licence on these days, they have to have a meal, and that is what this change is about. It’s about the meal; not about whether or not you can drink on these days, and, of course, when I say “on-licence”, that means somewhere where you go into a building and you buy your drink and you consume the drink in that venue. It is different from an off-licence, and we have huge problems in this country with off-licences. It’s not about the off-licences, where you go in, you buy your alcohol, and you leave and you drink it somewhere else, and so it is discrete in that manner. This is about meals, and whether or not a meal has to be served on these days. It’s not about the days themselves, which are of course very important days.

I want to just comment now on two other issues. One was a contribution from my friend and neighbouring colleague Ingrid Leary. She was talking about the need for a fulsome reform of our alcohol laws, and I agree with that point, as well. We do need that, rather than lots of piecemeal conscience votes, but that needs to be done on a first-principles basis about alcohol harm. There is some legislation floating about at the moment, but that legislation is not what we need, and so that is a piece of work that needs to happen in the future.

My third point is that I noticed that New Zealand First is opposing this legislation because it is, to quote the Hon Mark Patterson, “the scourge of consumerism”, or “consumeralism”—I’m struggling to say the word. So there’s going to be too many people consuming too many things, and I do wonder what their policy position then leads to.

I think a lot of issues are being conflated here. I very much respect the position that these are important days to Christians and there is a lot of history in New Zealand around these days, and they are days that are important to me, but alcohol can already be sold on these days, and so that consumption is already happening. There’s no change to the consumption of alcohol; the change in consumption is not having to have a meal provided. That is the consumption change. So I respectfully disagree with that point. On that note, I’ll sit down.

17:27

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill. I have listened today to the arguments for and against, and I think there are some things that people in this House have forgotten. I rise to speak on the fact that, in reality, you could think that Kiwis should enjoy a drink, and I think that’s the discussion that we’ve heard from people who are for this piece of legislation. But it’s the consequences of that happening on these days, and we will unleash far-reaching harms on our society.

Through the Justice Committee, we heard the submissions on this, and that there was really powerful testimony from our healthcare community. On busy holidays such as Christmas and Easter, the hospital emergency departments (EDs) are overrun with alcohol-related cases. The reason I rise after listening—because I wasn’t going to rise tonight and speak on this, because I have spoken in other readings—is that one survey found that one in eight ED admissions on Christmas Day was due to excess drinking. Why I say that is that it is one in eight on Christmas Day, and we have healthcare people, I believe, that deserve a break on Christmas Day. They deserve not to have to be dealing with those types of issues. It’s Easter and it is Christmas Day, and they are special days.

I stood in this House in the second reading, and the religious side of this and the Christian values of it, I understand, and that’s a really important part of not allowing alcohol sales on those days. For me, I said that it was about the fabric, and it was about the importance of those Easter holidays. It was the importance of Christmas Day and of protecting those days as the fabric of New Zealand. We’ve heard through other speakers that we’re talking about 3½ days here when we just slow down a little bit and we can enjoy those days, but now we’re putting that extra strain on our police and on healthcare. I just think that’s unacceptable. Like other speakers in this House, I actually feel saddened and disappointed that we’re here today, at this point.

There are, as I can hear across the House, those that have got the mentality that this has to happen, and, unfortunately—I’m going to say this; I’ve been thinking would I say this or wouldn’t I, but I will—we’ve almost got to the point that this bill has to be passed because of a rugby game. I love rugby and it is our traditional sport, and I understand there’s a brand new stadium in Christchurch, but the rush and thought of having to get this through for a rugby game has actually disappointed me more.

We have heard from the promoter of the bill that this isn’t a major change. Following the first reading, where it was said that these are minor changes, the Amendment Paper on this opens up the shop trading hours. What I put to this House right now—and people that may be thinking, “How do I vote?”—is that on Boxing Day, there will be bars and restaurants open, and they can now open to normal shop hours. Those shops, those restaurants, and those bars could be open to 3 a.m. on Christmas Day, they could be open to 3 a.m. on your Fridays or your Sundays—there is no restriction.

To me, that is absolutely wrong, and the bill has been opened up so far that it goes away from looking at this to help businesses. It has actually opened up that so far that we have now got the health issues, but we have also got no restrictions, and no one is looking after those sacred days. On that point, I just think we’ve gone down the wrong path.

17:32

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise to make a short contribution on this. I just note, for any of those watching who might wonder why we’re focusing on this, that this is a members’ afternoon, and this is a member’s bill, so I congratulate the member Kieran McAnulty on having this bill pulled from the ballot, as is tradition. It’s a relatively simple one, and I’ve certainly heard a variety of views from my electorate, but I’m comfortable voting in support of it.

The reason why I’m comfortable voting in support of it is because this is a minor change which affects those on-licences that can already sell alcohol on these days, and it just changes quite a minor thing. Currently, unlike on every other day of the year, when they don’t have to sell a substantial meal with the alcohol, on these days, they do, and so I think this is just a bit of a regulatory thing that’s been in place for a long time and hasn’t really been looked at. I don’t see a good reason for it. It doesn’t change the alcohol consumption. It doesn’t change the hours or times. My understanding is that alcohol is already being sold on these particular days, and so I’m comfortable supporting the bill.

I do note that reasonable minds can disagree on this, and certainly we hear that in this House. I do acknowledge the longstanding history and importance of these days, which are also important to me. It does not stop anyone, and I don’t think it would result in behaviour changes, because these are on-licensed premises, which are already opening. It is not allowing additional ones to open, and, like I said, the alcohol can already be sold from these on-licences on these particular days already.

It’s pretty simple, from my perspective, and although I note that there are some strong feelings about this, I do think that this is one of those things that I can comfortably support. With that, I will be voting in support of this bill.

17:34

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this piece of legislation. I also want to acknowledge the Hon Kieran McAnulty for having his bill drawn. I think there’s a chance of, like, 1.6 percent or something of getting a member’s bill drawn from the tin, and so congratulations on that. I also want to acknowledge my colleague Cameron Luxton for his efforts in liberalising this part of our liquor laws, which we think has been inconsistent and not sensible for quite some time.

I wasn’t going to take a call, but I thought that I would, just based on some of the conversations that we’re having. The great thing about conscience votes is that we all kind of break rank a little bit from what our party normally may think on an issue, and it means that we can actually discuss them openly. I really do want to acknowledge all of the members and all of their views because I do know that there are quite a lot of different views on this.

For me, personally, I think there are a couple of things. For these premises that are already open—particularly, pubs and restaurants—at the moment, it is just absolutely ridiculous that they have to decide what a decent meal is in order to serve alcohol with it. I know that Jamie Arbuckle mentioned that this is going to go into shop trading hours and that these bars will be able to stay open all kinds of hours, but it doesn’t actually affect their normal trading hours, and we are not changing the Shop Trading Hours Act. I get where that concern may land, but this piece of legislation doesn’t actually do that.

Talking about some of the alcohol harm, my colleague Rima Nakhle gave a very powerful speech about thinking about children and those who are exposed to alcohol harm and addiction harm. I know firsthand that my mum grew up in a family where her father was an alcoholic, and she had all kinds of issues that came with that. One of the key things she learnt was that, no matter what, when you’ve got an addiction you will find a way to get your hit, and that doesn’t change just because our trading hours have changed.

It’s completely discredited that people are going to go out and get drunk in bars and restaurants on particular days like our days of, say, Easter and things like that, as opposed to getting drunk at home. What we know has actually been happening is those that do want to—those that might have an addiction, for example—tend to stockpile and they tend to go harder, and I know that Jamie also talked about the hospitalisations. Well, that is happening right now, without the safety of our bars and our restaurants.

I know our licensed premises have to adhere to really strict rules when it comes to intoxication. One of the safest places you could probably have a few beverages in is a licensed premise like one of our pubs or one of our restaurants. While I do appreciate that there are concerns about alcohol harm, I do think that keeping it in the on-licences is actually a really smart first step. I’d like to see it actually go a bit further to the off-licences—as you’ll probably hear from quite a few of the ACT members—but I do think this part in the bill is sensible, and it’s a good change to be making.

It would be remiss of me to not discuss Christchurch and what is happening, and I know that a few members have said that these amendments have been passed in a hurry just to open up a stadium for the sake of a football match. That is actually not true. I think there has been more interest from the public and the media because of this anomaly that we’ve found ourselves in, but I do think that this would happen anyway. Whether or not it happens right now, it was going to happen anyway, and it’s just standard process.

But, because it is happening, I can’t wait for Christchurch and to see the punters coming in. I hope our bars and restaurants—actually, all of our shops—do really well on that weekend. I commend this bill to the House.

Just before I take the next speaker, I’ve had some queries about how long—if we go to a personal vote—it is likely to take. It will probably be about 20 minutes, and we will be voting before dinner.

17:39

Thanks, Mr Speaker, and I won’t take my full call. I spoke in the second reading, and my position remains the same as what I shared in that second reading speech. However, there have been a few comments that have been made in this third reading that I thought needed to be put on record in terms of the way we could address some of the challenges that have been raised without changing the law and without taking a step on a slope towards these days ultimately ending up being free rein.

I don’t have any issue with the changes to Anzac morning, as I expressed in the second reading, but there’s a lot that’s been said in this House this evening about this idea of a substantial meal. Well, we could clarify that through regulation. We could make it clear that a burger is a burger, and a salad with a glass of champagne is OK. We could make it clear that a big bowl of chips with bacon and cheese on it is a meal if you’re having a beer with it.

The idea that the only way to solve this problem is to remove the law, and to take a step on that slope towards removing the importance of these days in New Zealand’s history and in its culture, is in itself absurd. So, rather than continuing to make that argument and sharing again the points made in the second reading, I just wanted to put it on record that the idea that the only way to solve this problem is to remove this piece of legislation is, in my humble opinion, not accurate nor correct. Therefore, I do not commend this to the House.

17:40

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It gives me pleasure to rise and have a speech in this debate on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill. I’m very privileged to be able to speak again, and I actually think I’ve spoken in all three stages of this bill.

I want to again acknowledge Mr McAnulty. It’s great that he got this bill to the House, and, obviously, initially, we’ve had some disappointment because we wanted to kind of make reforms in other areas related to this. But, look, we were very happy to come on board and actually get something done, and this is really a very practical bill. Again, Mr McAnulty calibrated it so it could get support across the House, and I really do want to acknowledge that because he is actually about getting something done, which I think is great—just as we, in ACT, would be.

This is a very sensible change. I’ve had the opportunity to listen to some of the contributions while I’ve been up in my office, and it’s been a very respectful debate, with people putting forward their different reasons for or against voting for the bill. But this does really address an issue—one of inconsistency—and, again, as we’ve already heard, we had places opening on these days, but having to serve what was called “substantial meals”. There was a lot of discussion and submissions at the Justice Committee about what constituted a substantial meal.

This bill, if passed today, will give a lot more options for premises already with on-licences to continue to operate as they would on every other day of the year, except on what are currently the protected days, and so that’s very exciting. It’s going to make things a lot clearer, both for the public but also for businesses and operators. We’ve also had agreement across the House to make a small amendment to make sure it’s very clear around trading hours, and so I think that was great. Again, Cameron Luxton worked with people to get that across, and so that was excellent.

I reflect on it in two ways. One is, of course, that I’m a member of ACT, and so we always want to increase people’s freedom. What that means to us is that’s freedom for people to make their own decisions and their own choices to decide whether they want to go out to an establishment to have a drink with their friends and family, or not. We’re not forcing people to do anything, and, again, that’s very much how we think about things in ACT. We’re not forcing people to do anything, but we’re allowing them choice and responsibility to do it, and so that’s very exciting.

The other thing that I think about is that from where I live down south, I’m lucky to live in Queenstown, which is one of the premier tourist destinations of New Zealand.

“One of”—that’s right.

Well, yes, Mr Meager is yelling out behind me. I know that Timaru is very important, Mr Meager, but Queenstown is regarded as one of the premier tourist destinations of New Zealand. Of course, we have a lot of tourists, and they come at all times of the year, including Easter and Christmas Day and Anzac Day. Again, this will just make the establishments in places like Queenstown but also Wānaka, Tauranga, or wherever you are in the country that are catering for overseas visitors—it will make it much easier to cater for those people.

The other thing which I’ve heard referenced is, obviously, the Christchurch stadium. I think this is a sensible change for actually boosting events and things that we actually want to encourage in our cities. Again, this isn’t being done just because of the Christchurch stadium, but, look, if the timing happens to fit, let’s actually get this done so that we can celebrate the wonderful stadium in Christchurch—which I, hopefully, look forward to attending sometime in the future—and giving them the opportunity this Easter to operate in a way that’s going to cater for the guests.

Look, I’m very happy to unite with other people across the House in favour of this bill. It really is increasing people’s freedom in New Zealand, and that’s the reason that I’ll be supporting it, and also other ACT MPs will be supporting it. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I’ve determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case, I know there are members who will want a personal vote, and I am prepared to accept one. This is the process we’re going to follow: I’m going to put the question, I’m going to announce the result, and, at that stage, any member can call for a personal vote.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Sales on Anzac Day Morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 66

Andersen (P)AndersonBayly (P)Bennett (P)Bidois (P)Bishop (P)Boyack (P)Brewer (P)BrookingButterick (P)Cameron (P)Campbell (P)Chhour (P)Collins (P)Costley (P)Court (P)Dansey (P)Doocey (P)Ferris (P)Fleming (P)Halbert (P)Hamilton (P)Hipkins (P)Hoggard (P)Jackson (P)Kapa-Kingi (P)Kirkpatrick (P)Kuriger (P)Lu (P)Luxon (P)Luxton CLuxton J (P)McAnultyMcCallum (P)McClay (P)McClure (P)McKeeMeagerMitchell (P)MooneyO'Connor D (P)Parmar (P)Radhakrishnan (P)RedmayneReti (P)RosewarneRussell (P)RutherfordSepuloni (P)SeymourSimpson (P)SmithStanfordStephensonTangaere-Manuel (P)Tinetti (P)UpstonUtikerevan Velden (P)Verrall (P)Watts (P)Webb (P)Wedd (P)Weenink (P)Willis N (P)Woods

Noes 56

Abel (P)ArbuckleBates (P)Belich (P)Brown (P)Brownlee (P)CarterCheungCostello (P)Davidson M (P)Davidson M (P)Davidson R (P)Edmonds (P)FosterGarcia (P)Genter (P)Goldsmith (P)Grigg (P)Hernandez (P)Jones (P)Kaipara (P)LearyLee (P)Lyndon (P)MacLeod (P)Maipi-Clarke (P)Marcroft (P)McLellan (P)Menéndez March (P)Nakhle (P)Ngarewa-Packer (P)Nimon (P)O'Connor GPattersonPaul (P)Penk (P)Peters (P)Pham (P)Potaka (P)PrimePugh (P)Salesa (P)Simmonds (P)SoseneSwarbrick (P)Tuiono (P)Uffindell (P)van de MolenWade-Brown (P)Waititi (P)Walters (P)WhiteWilliamsWillis S (P)WilsonXu-Nan (P)

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

19:30

I move, That the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider the bill.

At its essence, this bill is about empowering artists to create and do what artists all over the world do every day, without the threat of being sued because of an archaic law. Art is a powerful tool for social and political change. There’s a lot going on in the world right now, and so we must lean in to art to help us make sense of the world. Oh, what a grey world it would be without our artists. Thank you to all the artists, academics, and politicians who have championed this bill to finally make it to Parliament.

I mihi to former MPs who have worked to modernise this law, like in 2011, when Green Party MP Gareth Hughes first put this bill in the biscuit tin. More recently, in 2018, National MP Simeon Brown introduced his own bill, seeking to introduce a similar parody and satire amendment within the pre-existing fair dealing exception for criticism and review.

This bill amends the Copyright Act 1994 to clarify that a fair dealing within a work does not constitute an infringement of the copyright of the work if it is for the use of parody or satire. This amendment follows the common-sense approach taken by Australia’s Copyright Act 1968, section 41A, which explicitly recognises that parody and satire are legitimate exceptions to copyright infringement. Let me make it crystal clear: this bill does not provide a free pass to use copyrighted material without considering originals, nor does it override protections for Māori cultural work. Instead, it brings clarity to the law, ensuring that fair dealing applies to those who use existing works in a transformative and critical manner. This bill clarifies what fair use means: the right to critique and create in ways that strengthen our democracy and contribute to public discourse.

Parody and satire sits at the cornerstone of any democracy. It holds power to account, challenges social norms, expresses views, and encourages creativity, prompting us to reflect on the world around us. Satire and parody is the tool that so many of our beloved artists and commentators have used to highlight these very things, encouraging discussion and its use.

Currently, it’s hard to quantify what art hasn’t been created or shared due to the threat of costly legal bills and repercussions posed by the current law. Over the past year, I have met with artists, comedians, academics, digital creatives, and legal experts, and the message has been clear: this change is long overdue. We have wide support across the arts and legal sectors, and a special thankyou goes to meme creators like The Whakataki Times, Cindy With Sign, Jordan Rivers, and Political Editing 2.0; satirists like Christchurch’s Andrew Gunn; comedians and artists like Kura Forrester, Courtney Dawson, Keisha Castle-Hughes, Joe Daymond, and Thomas Sainsbury, who have used satire to define their art and create creative voices in Aotearoa; and academics like Professor Graeme Austin, who have provided their insights on the subject. Thank you to all of you—thank you.

Many have spoken about the effect of the current legal uncertainty, where fear of litigation has stifled creative expression. From small-scale content creators to established satirists, there is widespread support for a more modern and balanced copyright framework. This bill responds to that call, ensuring that New Zealand’s creative community can continue to challenge through their art and make us laugh. You only need to scroll through Instagram to see the success of our comedians and content creators on the world stage, proving exactly why we need to even the playing field.

This bill is about balance: balancing the rights of copyright holders with the fundamental freedom of expression that is essential in a democratic society. It is a small but important step in modernising New Zealand’s copyright framework. The UK, Canada, France, and Belgium already have these laws in place, showing why it’s time for us to make this move—and, you know, Australia has it too, and you know that we hate trailing behind the Aussies!

Our copyright laws, which were created three decades ago, do not reflect the changes since then in our media landscape. Emerging artists, in particular, have described the financial and emotional toll of navigating a legal grey area. In an age where digital content spreads rapidly, the law must be clear, accessible, and fair to our artists, the content they make, and its reflections on our society.

This bill would be in alignment with article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, specifically around tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake, to help promote and advance Māori storytelling and perspectives. Māori have a long tradition of using satire as a means of social commentary. From waiata ngahau to pūrākau and whaikōrero, the delivery of pointed but light-hearted banter is felt on the paepae, whether you understand te reo Māori or not. Teanau Tuiono’s dad jokes hit just the same in te reo Māori.

Māori artists and commentators often face significant financial and institutional barriers in their creative endeavours. By clarifying that parody and satire are legitimate forms of expression under copyright law, the bill provides greater access and equity for Māori creatives to share their perspectives without the burden of prohibib—prohibitive—

Yeah, I think we’ve got it.

—legal constraints. I think we’ve got it—hey, there’s a meme idea, everyone! It is also important that we uphold protection for Māori intellectual and cultural property.

This bill offers an opportunity to reinforce protections and include the Wai 262 recommendations through the select committee process, ensuring that tikanga Māori remains central to how we approach copyright and artistic expression in Aotearoa. We encourage submissions and conversations to ensure we’re achieving this.

This Green Party bill is a narrow, carefully considered change to the Copyright Act 1994. It provides certainty for our creative sector, aligns us with international best practices, and strengthens the foundational principles of democracy and freedom of expression. Now I will quote Jeff Bromski: “Art has always been a powerful tool for social and political change. From the earliest cave paintings to contemporary Street Art, artists have used their work to express their views on society and the world around them. Typically created in response to social or political issues, protest art can take many forms, including paintings, sculptures, murals, posters, and street art.”

I urge the House to support this bill so we can move it to the select committee, where we can hear submissions and refine it further to ensure our laws are fit for purpose and reflect our society. New Zealand is a modern society, and we need our laws to reflect that.

For all our artists out there: thank you for making the world a brighter place, thank you for continuing to create art to get us through tough times and to help us shape the conversations around us. I’d love you to send me your memes. Now, I might not understand them, but I promise I’ll try. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

19:41

Good evening, Madam Speaker.

Good evening.

It’s a pleasure to stand and represent National on the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill in this first reading. National will be supporting this to select committee.

Yay! Good stuff.

Yeah, it’s great. This is the second time I’ve got to be the person from National who gives the good news. I did think about drawing it out, but I thought that’s a bit—

Oh, mean!

Yeah. But I won’t. I won’t hold you in suspense.

There was only one way that National could go with this because this is a bill about freedom of speech. Also, previously, the speaker Kahurangi Carter mentioned that the Hon Simeon Brown had a very similar bill in the ballot, previously; it was, I believe, drawn and voted down. This is something that goes to the fundamental values of our party. Freedom of expression is an absolute requirement for democracy in our country—for democracies everywhere.

This is a very small bill. It does make one small amendment to the Copyright Act 1994, by inserting new section 42A, which allows those “fair use”, copyrighted materials to be used for the purpose of parody and satire. That exempts them from having an infringement. So that will, hopefully, take away any chilling effect that not having that provision under the law may have held. Now, it’s a little bit hard to prove that because there haven’t been any cases brought to trial about this in New Zealand; however, there are international cases where these kinds of things have come to the fore and highlighted the issues where there are no exemptions. However, New Zealand is just coming into line with most other countries that we like to compare ourselves with, like Australia, the UK, and many countries in the EU. Like you say, in Australia, their Copyright Act was from 1968. That shows you just how far we are behind. We’re just bringing ourselves into the 20th century—let alone anything else.

In this day and age, how fast things can be transmitted through electronic means over the internet is completely outside of what anything would have been imagined when our laws were first being drafted—although, the Copyright Act does allow for some software and other digital products to be protected, in some ways. So we already have some provision, but it didn’t go far enough to see the extent of what the internet has become.

When we think about what satire is and what parody is, we often think of them almost as the same thing together, but they actually are two quite distinct things. Parody is where it’s making fun of the original work in some way, or the original statement, or using that original statement or artwork to highlight something. One example of a visual parody that’s often used is of the very famous photo of The Beatles walking across the crossing, and people often put themselves into the same situation, or they might then dress up in funny clothes or in cosplay, even, and be crossing a crossing. That has enough of the reference to the original photograph that people understand what the reference is. That’s parody.

Satire is actually using a situation or a real-life event or an artwork or a work to highlight a social issue or a political point or just to make fun of people. A good example of satire is some television shows that we all may have watched—especially political geeks who like things like Veep or—you’ve never heard of it, Madam Speaker? You should watch it; you would love it.

I’ll take a note.

It’s one for the watchlist. Or one of my favourites is Utopia. Maybe one that you would know, Madam Speaker, is Yes Minister.

Actually, I do know it; I’ve actually got the boxset!

Ha, ha! That’s all right, Madam Speaker. I thought I was sailing close with that one!

There are lots of examples, and people can understand what they’re saying. It’s interesting with things like some of those satire programmes that we watch, many of us will get the impression that “Gosh, we could almost be watching a documentary. This is so close to the reality of what we are living and things that we’re experiencing.”

In this day and age, where we have AI-derived material, we’ve got deepfakes of people making comments, of politicians making statements, even. It becomes quite difficult because we have some real-world politicians making statements at the moment that it’s hard to believe is actually truly what they’re saying—for example, some of us might struggle to know, at times, whether the President of the United States has actually said something, or if somebody has created a deepfake and put this out as a satirical moment, because it’s so hard, often, to believe what we’re seeing on TV. This is one of the issues that, I think, will come up in select committee, that we will drill down quite hard into, to discover what the boundaries are around this and what some of the danger areas are that might come up where there’s quite a broad interpretation of what both parody and satire are.

It’s really important to make sure that we keep the intellectual property rights of the artist and original whakapapa that things come from protected. It is absolutely fundamental to the continuation of art that the original artists have the ability to have some control over their work. This is not a means by which somebody can say, “Oh, well, it’s just parody.”, but that they’re clearly using artistic material as, say, for a basis of an advertisement or something that they’re going to gain commercial benefit from. Absolutely, that would be a different test under the law.

This particular provision, while it’s still quite narrow, would still involve quite a bit of interpretation. I think we’re going to have a good time at the select committee really thrashing this one out. I look forward to all of the submissions that, I’m sure, we’ll get on this. I hope that this is going to be one of those really entertaining and informative debates that we have. I do hope that people will come forward and bring their perspectives on this.

For me, the most important thing is that we are opening up and maintaining ways of having critique and debate that is a really constructive and informative part of our democracy. Everything that we can do to strengthen our democracy, I think, is important for our Parliament to take on. Recently, we had a forum on, basically, democratic resilience across the world—and in New Zealand, in particular—that was held here in Parliament. I think that was a good start to how this Parliament can work to strengthen our own democracy. Having bills like this supported across the House—or at least widely supported across the House—I think, is a good thing for us to be able to debate it. It also shows that where things are important for our democracy, where they make sense—nobody’s really got a mortgage on good ideas here—we should all support those that are good ideas, not because of what colour of party the person comes from. Members’ days give us an opportunity to really do that: to explore these ideas and to be able to debate them on their merits.

As the deputy chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation (EDSI) Committee—which I’ve got to hope that maybe this is coming to? No? Oh.

Sorry.

No? Oh. OK, well, that’s a shame.

Where’s it going?

I thought it might be coming to us.

Well, we can vote for it. Yes.

Well, we can still vote for it.

Send it to EDSI. They’re not doing anything.

Yeah, exactly. Anyway, this is a bill that I look forward to seeing the process as it goes through the House and through the committee. I commend the bill to the House.

19:51

Good on that member for what I’m sure will be a debate about this bill which is light-hearted and which acknowledges that all of us have an interest, as politicians, to see a thriving public discourse that includes taking the mickey out of us. It’s in our DNA; part of the Kiwi approach to our politics is that we can have a bit of a laugh and enjoy a robust debate as well as, at times, taking the mickey out of politicians as a form of legitimate discourse.

It will be very surprising to most New Zealanders to realise that there is not a carve-out in our law for that kind of free-spirited debate already. We should have been there many decades ago, but here we are trying to find a way forward on this in a member’s bill. I congratulate Kahurangi Carter for having this drawn and for taking it through. Well done to you. I know, behind the scenes, you have done a lot of work to ensure that there is a level of cross-partisan consensus on this. That is the best of us when we can get together and make sure that we can find a way forward that everyone can agree on.

Madam Speaker, when I think about what I would like to see more of, because of this bill, do you remember when I was growing up in the Helen Clark years—and I thought Helen Clark was really my auntie for quite a long time—that we would have these ads on ZM and mainstream radio of Helen Clark singing to an Eminem song and later John Key doing the same? Satire was a real part of the discourse of my generation growing up with politics in our everyday lives.

We don’t do Eminem on this side.

They don’t talk about Eminem.

You were listening to—well, let’s talk about Eminem. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry—legitimate discourse; legitimate discourse. But part of growing up in New Zealand and engaging with politics was about satire; was about being able to laugh at our leaders Helen Clark and John Key. Now, for instance, there is a play about Helen Clark on—the Auckland Theatre Company is running Helen Clark in Six Outfits, which will also be funny and poignant. But being able to have that as part of our culture is absolutely essential to a thriving political discourse. It’s not all about the cost of living—although most of it’s about cost of living, isn’t it? Housing, health, jobs, got it? But also it’s about seeing politicians as people; seeing people who are part of our communities who we can laugh with and at.

This is a bill which helps that along. Good on the member for bringing it, and I hope we pass it into law.

19:53

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m glad you can remember who I am. No—maybe that’s a bit of a parody. Look, I rise on behalf of ACT. I consider myself probably the most famous arts, culture, and heritage spokesperson in the New Zealand Parliament. But I also have some background in intellectual property and, of course, I probably am one of Parliament’s greatest free speech advocates. I want to congratulate Kahurangi Carter on having her bill drawn from the ballot. It’s great. It’s very exciting, isn’t it? I know I’ve had one of my own bills drawn—it’s very exciting.

I can indicate, straight up, ACT will be supporting this through the first reading because we actually do believe in free speech. If you hadn’t had this bill in the ballot, it’s quite possible an ACT MP would have, so I do want to congratulate you on getting it drawn. I think it’s going to be a really interesting discussion because, as some of the other speakers have talked about, there are some legal issues to kind of tease out. How far does the fair dealings go? What is parody and satire? I think it’s going to be really interesting.

I’m a bit sad it’s not coming to the great Justice Committee, but it is coming to the Social Services and Community Committee. My colleague Laura McClure is on there and I think she’s going to really enjoy being a part of the select committee discussing this. Again, members will know Laura has her own interest in, obviously, technology—in fact, we’ve heard already about deepfakes. Again, she’s very interested in these issues. As Kahurangi Carter said, we have had a lot of changes in our media landscape and what technology can and can’t do, and what it can deliver.

I also think it’s quite fun that it’s April Fool’s Day when we’re actually talking about this bill—I just thought of that as I was sitting here. I haven’t actually checked out every political party’s, but I’m sure every political party had a little gag before lunchtime today. Maybe later on, I’ll be looking around to see—oh, the Labour Party didn’t? Well, you had better go and check out ACT’s gag about giving—

It’s hard to tell with your stuff, Todd.

You’ll have to yell louder—giving cows the vote. You’d be all in favour of giving cows the vote down there, Mr Patterson, wouldn’t you?

But I did think that’s quite fun about it being April Fool’s Day. Maybe The Office, Madam Speaker, is something you’d be more familiar with? Yes Minister—you’re way too young to have watched Yes Minister—

Thank you, Mr Stephenson.

But, I mean, again, everyone will be familiar with The Office—you’ve got the UK and the US versions, which are a great kind of parody of office life. I think this is going to be a really interesting discussion to have.

I would also note that what we like about this bill is it is narrow and is going to do something to actually protect free speech and artists’ rights as they are undertaking their work, which is great. But I think we also all need to think about what we can do to do other protections in relation to free speech. In fact, today we’ve had what I would call quite an outrageous decision by the Broadcasting Standards Authority to actually try and police the internet. Again, that’s quite a bit of overreach there and, again, it fits in where we’re looking whether some of our laws and our bodies are now fit for purpose in this new age. I do think we just need to be very careful, but I think this is great the way this bill is constructed because it’s going through something very specific. The select committee will be able to get some really great submissions on what this is actually going to mean for people in the community, and then they can make sure that actually how the law is drafted is fit for purpose. I think it’s going to be really interesting to talk around the issues of fair dealings and “fair use”—what that looks like.

As Kahurangi Carter so eloquently outlined in her opening, we’re wanting to protect artists’ rights here, but we’ve also got to think about other copyright implications. But I think they can all be ably managed by the very capable Social Services and Community Committee. ACT looks forward to supporting this through its first reading, hopefully—I think we’re almost there, actually, getting it to the select committee already, but I do commend this to the House. Congratulations again, Kahurangi Carter.

19:58

Thank you. Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege always to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to a bill, and, in particular, a member’s bill. I’d just like to congratulate Kahurangi Carter for having her bill for the first time in the House this evening. It’s been a bit of a joke getting it to the House because it’s been on the Order Paper and back off and on and on. It has taken a bit of time, so it’s great that we’re here this evening to speak to the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill.

Copyright applies automatically when something’s published or created. It’s a form of intellectual property right. It gives the person who creates that original work exclusive rights. Copyright balances the right of the authors and creators to choose how they want their creations to be used, and also it balances that with society’s interest in allowing people access to use those works of intellectual creative endeavour. The basic premise of copyright law is that the creator of those works has the right to decide how their work will be used. I think that’s a really important concept to be held at top of mind through the course of the discussion if, in fact, this bill goes to select committee—which it appears to be doing so, based on the indications of support from across the House.

This bill will introduce a copyright infringement exception for fair dealing with literary, artistic, dramatic, and musical works for the purposes of parody or satire. The question I have to ask, though, is: what is the problem that we’re trying to solve here? There have been no specific guiding court cases in New Zealand that have established a clear precedent or defence for copyright infringement based on parody or satire. Legal experts actually have noted there is a distinct lack of litigation in this area.

Quickly looking at what is satire, it’s the art of making someone or something look ridiculous. It raises laughter in order to embarrass, humble, or discredit its targets. In fact, Arena Williams said that taking the mickey out of politicians is part of our social discourse; it’s been going on for years. In fact, it was even recently with us last year with a billboard that appeared in Wellington saying, “Defund da Police”. Actually, the Green Party complained to the billboard company, asserting copyright breaches—hmm, curious.

In terms of satire, Kiwis are very familiar with satire on TV: Fred Dagg’s shows, A Week of It from the 1970s and 1980s; Eating Media Lunch, bro’Town, Wellington Paranormal, 7 Days. Now, one that actually challenges social norms as satire, as the member in charge of the bill, Kahurangi Carter, has stated in her opening address, I all recommend you go and look at Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby. That absolutely addresses the social norms. It’s actually doing a bit of a re-tread at the moment on YouTube.

Parody, on the other hand, copies the original artwork. It transforms it through creative processes to create something brand new. Radio, of which I was a member for 30 years in my broadcasting career, uses parody quite a lot. Radio Hauraki was one of the proponents of radio or music parody—parody songs. Back in the 1980s, there was a song which featured in the top of the charts for many, many years, 27 weeks. It was called “The Bridge”. The pirates on Radio Hauraki turned it into a parody song called “The Fridge”. It was all about electrical appliance love. That song, the parody of that, there was no court case. There was no legal component. They weren’t attacked for the parody of that. In fact, there’s been a whole bunch of parody songs across the years: “Rugby, Racing and Beer”; “Puha and Pakeha”; “Stole My Car”, a parody song based on that very popular hit song, “How Bizarre”. Any court cases about parodies? No, not one.

The only other thing I’d like to quickly mention is that this bill does not address moral rights. It’s silent on moral rights. How will moral rights be assessed? They are personal, unassignable rights which vest in the author of the work the right of attribution to be identified as the creator, the right of integrity to object to derogatory treatment or alteration of the original work, the right against false attribution—to not have a work falsely attributed to them. They are primarily focused on protecting the creator’s personal and reputational connection to their creation.

New Zealand First, for these reasons of moral rights not being identified in this piece of legislation, does not support this bill.

Before I take the next call, I just have to put the question, which is that the motion be agreed to.

Tēnā ra koe, e te Pīka.

Can I just remind the member of the dress code for the House.

20:03

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te pō nei, i tēnei o ngā pire nā Te Pāti Kākāriki, otirā te mema o Kahurangi Carter. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe mō te kawe mai i tō pire ki tēnei Whare.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker; indeed, greetings to us all in the House. I stand to give voice to the Māori Party’s comments this evening regarding this particular bill from the Green Party; indeed, from the member Kahurangi Carter. Many thanks to you for bringing your bill to this House.]

I rise on behalf of Te Pāti Māori tonight to talk to the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill. This bill amends the Copyright Act 1994 to provide the fair dealing of work that does not infringe copyright if the purpose is for parody or satire. This amendment allows for a much wider interpretation of current copyright laws in favour of the public wishing to use copyright works through parody or satire to promote an issue freely.

Parody and satire are among the oldest forms of criticism and play an important role on making light of an issue members of the public may feel strongly about. This bill would protect artists from being sued by large companies if they use copyrighted works for parody or satire purposes.

Within our policy platform, when we look at Mana Ōrite, we support this bill on the side of small creators, regular people rather than big companies. Mana Mokopuna supports the importance that our mokopuna are able to express themselves freely without the fear of being sued.

Ko ētehi o ā mātou nawe, ētehi o ā mātou āwangawanga ki tēnei o ngā pire [Some of our issues, some of our concerns regarding this particular bill]—some of the concerns we do share, though, is that we must be mindful of the relationship between this parody and satire expectation and when we look at the Wai claims, such as Wai 262 and the protection of taonga. We do live in a future and world of artificial intelligence, and I also just want to say, along these lines, supporting the bill from Laura McClure of deepfakes is also the opportunity that we can bring to the House when we have members’ days like this and members’ bills, to see how we can make changes to laws or bring in bills like this one.

Within the Wai 262 claim, just the protection of taonga and cultural appropriation—that’s what we’ll hear from the select committee. Then, also, I’m relieved and excited to hear that the National Party and ACT Party are supporting this member’s bill. Tēnā rā koe Kahurangi mō ō mahi. [Thank you, Kahurangi, for your work.]

So, the protection of artists and, also, freedom of speech. I runga i tēnā, e tautoko ana a Te Pāti Māori i tēnei o ngā pire ka kawea mai ki roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata i tēnei pō. Tēnā koutou. [With that, the Māori Party supports this particular bill that has been brought before this House of Parliament tonight. Thank you, all.]

20:06

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand and take a call on this Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill. I would like to add to the congratulations in the House tonight to the member Kahurangi Carter for bringing this bill into the House.

Now, some of us grew up not with Yes Minister, but with McPhail & Gadsby. In that era, the creation of parody content was significantly different and a lot harder—took a lot longer than it does today for people to make memes or to make parody or satire content. I, myself, was very lucky to work in an industry where we made a lot of parody and satire content on a show called What Now, and I wanted to acknowledge also Andrew Gunn, who skirted a very fine line around what you could get away with in the world of parody and satire, and did it masterfully.

I think what we all know is that the world has changed significantly since 1994 when the current Act was drafted. This amendment in this member’s bill does a lot to bring the Copyright Act up to date to be able to include parody and satire in it.

Now, there are a couple of things I just wanted to take note of that have been referenced in earlier speeches tonight. The first was an ACT MP saying to a Green MP—this sounds like a meme, right? An ACT MP says to a Green MP, “If you hadn’t done it, one of us would have.” It’s not often that that happens. The other was a member of New Zealand First being in opposition because they claimed that meme and parody and satire makes someone or something look ridiculous. Fair point; New Zealand First manage to do that in this House every single day, of themselves, so they don’t need a change to the Copyright Act for that to happen!

The main reason I think it’s so important to progress this is because—and that we support this—it does strengthen freedom of expression. It also means that unintentionally funny things like people claiming they can do their weekly grocery shop for $60 can be immortalised in a meme, and we can watch that over and over and over again. So—

What about someone asking 12 questions of the Minister of communications?

—when that member has finished, I’ll take this time to commend this bill to the House.

20:09

It’s a great pleasure to rise in support of the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill’s first reading, in the name of Kahurangi Carter. The interesting thing is that this is not the only bill that’s been pulled from the biscuit tin under the name of Kahurangi Carter; there’s been a second one since that. Some MPs spend decades in this House and never manage to actually get one drawn. This member has struck gold early in the parliamentary term.

I tried to calculate the odds. It’s actually very rare to be able to get two pulled, but, actually, she’s not the only member in this current Parliament that has had two bills pulled. I would mention that Catherine Wedd has also had two drawn: one for a three-day maternity stay, and then the other regarding a social media ban. I was lucky to get one of my bills drawn earlier this term, which was about fairer taxation on ACC payments, which actually ended up being part of a Government bill. Anyway, I’d better get back to the substance of the bill. I see you looking at me, Madam Speaker.

The purpose of this bill is to introduce, into New Zealand copyright law, the authority to use copyright work for the purpose of parody or satire. This does bring us in line with other countries, such as Australia, the US, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain, and Germany—I could go on. Currently, our Copyright Act, from back in 1994, is a bit of an outlier. This amendment ensures that creators and commentators have legal breathing room to use works for a bit of comedy or for critical effect without the fear of infringement.

I actually thought it was already the law—if you see some of the Green Party’s social media—however, it turns out that’s not parody or satire; they’re actually being serious. Of course, I joke, but, as they say, many a true word is said in jest. Better to try and fail than never to try at all. I believe that, in some quarters, this has already been coined the “meme bill”. While it sounds modern, the reality is that this is not really a new idea. We have been trying for many years to finally address this gap in our law. It has been left open for nearly two decades.

It’s worth noting the history of this bill. Back in 2008, a then Labour-led Government considered a fair dealing exemption for parody and satire, yet it never saw the light of day. In 2011, a former Green MP drafted a member’s bill to do exactly this. He argued that it was essential for protecting free speech and reflecting realities of internet accessibility and technology. However, that bill fell by the wayside. Then, in 2018, Simeon Brown introduced his own bill to seek a very similar thing. What we’re debating today is, in effect, the resurrection of these early efforts, updated for the modern age.

It is ironic, perhaps, that it has taken this long to protect the rights of a good joke. We New Zealanders, as has been mentioned, do like to take the mickey. There is more colourful kind of language that can be used to express the same thought, but I think it’s important to note that defamation or offensive misuse and other rules will still be enforced.

The Copyright Act hasn’t been updated for a number of years. I think the last time was in about 2008. A lot has changed since 2008. Technology has changed. Our consumption of media has changed. Nobody in 2008 would probably have envisaged watching videos that now dominate social media or the internet. YouTube was only three years old at that stage. Streaming services weren’t a thing; iTunes definitely wasn’t a thing. Some of my colleagues were still in primary school. These advances are impacting the way we create, distribute, consume, and adapt material. Who would have even thought of TikTok back in 2008?

I think it’s important that we also have a wider review of our intellectual property laws, which I think the Minister is looking at. I think what we have here is a very simple carve-out, a small change to the Copyright Act, which I think will have a good effect on humour, comedy, and also free speech. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

20:14

Kia orana, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take what will be a short call on this bill. Can I, firstly, just acknowledge my colleague and friend Kahurangi Carter for having this bill drawn from the biscuit tin. She certainly is starting to have the touch in terms of having bills drawn from the tin. I want to acknowledge the hard work that she has done in bringing this bill to the House. It looks, from the contributions of members thus far, as though its trajectory is on the way to a select committee of her choosing. I want to acknowledge the work that she has done.

This is a bill that will provide an update to reflect what is, I think, a modern approach to the way in which we all go about our lives; in particular, being able to debate and participate within a democracy and as part of a democratic process. Ms Carter herself talked about the fact that we don’t want to stifle creative expression. We certainly don’t want to do that. As someone who is a child of the 1980s, believe it or not, I reflect on and remember The Billy T. James Show. At the time, actually, when you’re growing up and you’re watching that and you’re experiencing that, to know that aspects of that particular show now would perhaps be questionable, based on the behaviour of people, perhaps, in this place, I think lends itself to a further conversation.

Whilst this will have a broad applicability in terms of journalists, those involved in social media, creatives, and others, I think the actions and the contributions of members in this House will naturally provide some fodder for content. I look forward to seeing the progress of this bill, and we’re very happy to support it.

20:15

It’s a pleasure to round off, from the Government’s side, the first reading speeches for the Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill. I certainly echo the sentiment of previous speakers in welcoming Kahurangi Carter and congratulating her for having her bill drawn. As my colleague Hamish Campbell said, the odds are certainly in your favour, so maybe consider buying a Lotto ticket this Saturday!

Also, I do wish to indicate that I too am a 1980s baby, so I do remember fondly the Billy T satire, who was whanaunga, actually, if you think of those who are from the mighty Maniapoto area. He’s buried just outside of Ngāruawāhia. If you’re going along State Highway 1, you’ve got a lovely hill up near Ngāruawāhia—that was where he was laid to rest. I certainly acknowledge his contribution.

There are bills of consequence in this Parliament, bills where you think, “This is why I came to this House.” Sadly, this is not one of those bills, but I do wish to acknowledge that it is an anon-nomoly.

Phenomenal.

This’ll be the first one they use!

Ha, ha! There you go. I think it is worth tidying up. It’s no disrespect to the member, but thank you for raising this issue in the House.

When I think of my own experience with satire, of course Billy T. James comes to the fore, but in nearer times, actually, looking at the regime that they have in America—I spent a few years living in America and follow closely a lot of satire shows that are in America. One particular show is Real Time with Bill Maher. I don’t know if anybody on the other side—

How good is Bill Maher.

He’s good. He’s a good centrist. He’s a Democrat, but he doesn’t mind criticising the Democrats, and he also gets the Republicans in. He is, I think, probably one of the most well-known satirists, who has fallen afoul and gotten on the wrong side of presidents. I think Donald Trump has had a massive run in with him in the past. It is so important for the functioning of a free and liberal democratic society that we enable these satirists to contribute to the public discourse in a way that connects with the public. That’s why people like Bill Maher and The Daily Show and Yes Minister and The Thick of It and Veep. I don’t know if anybody remembers the show Veep. That’s a great satire show—also American. I think they have a huge role to play in helping to engage a wider audience with public discourse.

It is on that basis that this side is going to be supporting this piece of legislation. I just want to do a plug: if the member does want to send it to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, we will have a bipartisan approach on that bill, or the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, as my colleague Vanessa Weenink suggested. Look, we look forward to the submissions on this bill and to tidying up the piece of legislation. It is well worth reviewing this, after what has become an outdated piece of legislation.

My colleague Hamish Campbell again indicated the history that this bill has been through. I look forward to following with interest the submitters that may come, and I wish to do a call to all two viewers at home that are tuning in, that if you feel strongly about this piece of legislation, submit on the bill and you will be heard as part of the select committee process. On that basis, it is a great privilege to commend this bill to the House.

20:20

Well, it’s been an engaging and fun debate. I’ve enjoyed hearing about the other members’ bills that have been pulled from the biscuit tin in this term and in previous terms. Thank you to everyone who contributed to this debate, inside and out of the Chamber. I’ve really enjoyed working across the House and getting to know lots of you better so that we could get almost full consensus across the House for this really important bill.

I want to reaffirm why this bill is necessary and to talk about some of the ideas that were raised. There was a lot of talk of 1980s babies as well, so I just want to say, shout-out to the 1984 babies—that’s right.

As we close this first reading, I want to affirm why this bill is necessary. This Copyright (Parody and Satire) Amendment Bill has been coined the “meme bill”. When memes first came out, I actually used to call them “me-mes”. It was about a couple of years later that someone said, “You know they’re not called ‘me-mes’, right? They’re called ‘meems.’ ” So, for everyone out there still calling them me-mes, they are memes.

At its core, this bill is about balance and fairness. It ensures that fair dealing applies to parody and satire, while maintaining protections for copyright holders and for Māori cultural works. Internationally, similar provisions exist and function effectively without undermining creative industries.

Now, National talked about the importance of our parliamentary work and the importance of taking on this bill and how important the select committee process will be. National also talked about this post-truth era that we are living in and how it will be important to modernise this bill and to really needle in at select committee to make sure that it is fit for purpose. ACT supports the bill and that is not satire, everybody. In fact, it’s not even an April Fool’s joke. There we go. The self-coined most famous arts and culture spokesperson—Todd Stephenson—said that we need to look at that “fair dealing” and really solidify what that means in law, to provide clarity to artists and to our legislation.

We heard from Labour—thank you very much—around how taking the mickey out of ourselves is part of the fabric of our country and is in our DNA, and talked about shows that we’ve all grown to love, like The Billy T. James Show and Yes Minister. Actually, our lovely colleague Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke said, “Yeah, bro’Town!”, and I said, “Were you born when bro’Town came out?” So, yes, we all have had that parody and satire touch our lives.

Now, New Zealand First did talk about intellectual property rights and spoke about the lack of litigation around this bill and why we actually need it. I just want to say that it is hard to quantify how much art has not been created or shared due to the fear of massive legal fines.

I would like to say, ultimately, this bill is necessary and is a carefully considered step forward. It provides clarity and supports creative expression and upholds democratic freedom. I urge the House to support this bill, and now we get to voting and I guess we will see if National and ACT indicating support is the ultimate April Fool’s joke or not.