Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 22 April 2026

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 the Prime Minister understand that reducing our dependence on fossil fuels reduces our exposure to imported inflation?

What the Prime Minister understands is that, actually, a failed policy that ended oil and gas exploration puts this country at huge risk, drives up energy prices, and actually puts huge pain and suffering on low and middle income working people. That’s why we don’t support the Labour-Greens energy policy. We have a different plan now.

Carnage—Carnage.

Just to be very clear, the Prime Minister doesn’t need the assistance he’s currently getting from some of the coalition members when he’s answering questions. Chlöe Swarbrick—[Interruption] No, just Chlöe Swarbrick.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is our country more or less exposed to imported inflation because of his decisions to cut former Government investment in decarbonising and electrifying industry and transport?

Well, our country is much safer and more secure in an energy security sense with this Government in charge. It is an “and, and, and”. We have a huge boom in renewables. We’re opening up. We’ve got a strategic coal reserve sitting beside Huntly. We want to make sure that we’ve got as much optionality as possible so we can lower the dry-year risk, keep power bills cheaper for people. That’s what it’s about.

Is our country more or less exposed to imported inflation because of his decision to spend at least $1 billion of taxpayer money on a liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility?

Well, our country is infinitely better off by actually avoiding the policies of the previous administration that saw us import huge amounts of Indonesian coal and actually make the rather unique global transition from domestic gas to international coal—

Tell the truth!

—twice as bad from an emissions point of view. We’ve got a renewables boom like we’ve never seen before, we’ve got emissions the lowest it’s been since 2010, and we’ve got an “and, and, and” policy where we are going to continue to invest and have fossil fuel in this country in order to lower the dry-year risk so we lower the power bills and we keep people in jobs.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Besides the tedious sanctimony, that member saying, “Tell the truth.” is an implication that he’s not and, therefore, completely unparliamentary, and she should be asked to withdraw and apologise for that.

No, sorry. You can’t take objection to something that might mean something else. There are some very specific requirements around that.

What else could it mean?

Well, it could be that it is an exhortation, and I think that would be a perfectly reasonable example.

I felt quite hurt by it. I was quite wounded.

Well, if you’re wounded, you take your own offence. Don’t leave it to your—I know that the theory is that if you’ve got a whistle and a dog, then you don’t need to bark yourself, but that’s not the case here.

Would the country be more or less exposed to imported inflation if the Government took the $1 billion of taxpayer money intended to be spent on an LNG import facility and instead invested that in renewable energy generation?

Well, as I’ve said to the member, we have an energy policy which is about doubling the amount of renewable energy in this country, and we have a renewables boom under way, thanks in part to things like fast track—and that member never supported that. We have reversed the ridiculous oil and gas ban; that member supported that. That ended up driving up $800 megawatt per hour costs, and then people in low and middle income working jobs in mills in industrial, provincial parts of New Zealand lost their jobs. The energy policy of the Labour-Greens lost people their jobs. We’re not doing that.

Is the plan—[Interruption]

Just wait, Mr Seymour. Thank you.

Does the Government have any plan to use “taxpayer money” such as that raised from income tax and GST for the proposed LNG terminal or is it to be funded by a levy on the power companies that use it—which of those would be “telling the truth”?

In answer to the first part of the question, no. I also want to reassure the House: we’re not going to go borrow another $44 billion or increase taxes by $90 billion.

Supplementary. [Interruption]

Chlöe Swarbrick, and no one else.

Tell the truth—tell the truth.

Who’s making that comment after I asked them all to be quiet?

A timing issue, sir.

Well, it’s never been your strong suit.

If hope is not a plan, what exactly is his plan to reduce our exposure to imported inflation through reducing our dependence on fossil fuels?

Well, our plan is to actually have good fiscal and financial management, which is what you’re seeing from this Government. We haven’t cranked up spending by 84 percent, driven inflation to 32-year highs, had 13 increases in interest rates, put the economy into recession where people have lost their jobs—we’re doing the reverse of that. We are disciplined spenders. We’ve lowered inflation, we’ve brought interest rates down nine times, we have an economy that’s growing, and we’ve created 15,000 new jobs in the last quarter.

14:07 · to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Earlier this month, the International Monetary Fund released its latest World Economic Outlook, which contains forecasts for the global economy, including New Zealand, and gives broad policy advice. The latest report was produced as conflict in the Middle East was unfolding. The IMF acknowledges the difficulty of forecasting in this environment. Its main forecast assumes that the conflict will have limited duration, intensity, and scope, with disruptions fading by mid-2026, consistent with what markets were indicating when the forecasts were prepared. The IMF also presents an adverse scenario and another more severe scenario.

What does the main scenario say about the outlook for the world and for New Zealand?

At the beginning of this year, before conflict began in the Middle East, the IMF was forecasting global growth of 3.3 percent in 2026; it’s now forecasting that growth to fall to 3.1 percent. In 2027, the IMF is forecasting global growth of 3.2 percent, unchanged from before the conflict. For New Zealand, the IMF is forecasting growth of 2.1 percent in 2026 and 2.4 percent in 2027. This is a little lower than the Reserve Bank was forecasting in its Monetary Policy Statement in February, but it is higher growth than the IMF is forecasting for the world’s advanced economies as a whole.

What do the IMF’s alternative scenarios indicate?

Well, the IMF’s scenarios were constructed on a top-down basis, so there are no alternative forecasts available specifically for New Zealand, but they have been done for the world as a whole. In the IMF’s adverse scenario, oil prices are assumed to increase by 80 percent and not return to pre-conflict levels until 2028. In this case, the IMF forecasts global growth to slow to 2.5 percent in 2026. In the severe scenario, there is more damage to energy infrastructure in the conflict region, and oil prices increase by 100 percent in 2026 and 2027. Under this scenario, the IMF cuts its global growth forecast to just 2 percent in 2026. While the impacts of the conflict are still very uncertain, I would observe that oil prices are currently around 35 percent higher than they were before the conflict began—so, well south of some of the IMF’s more dire predictions.

What is the IMF’s advice about fiscal support at this time?

The IMF’s advice to countries is: “Where fiscal support is deemed to be necessary to protect the most vulnerable … it should be targeted, timely, temporary and funded within current budget envelopes by reprioritising spending”. Just to clarify, that is not a quote from me; that is a quote from the International Monetary Fund. That is exactly what this Government is doing, of course. Furthermore, the IMF warned Governments not to take their eye off the ball at this time and to continue to pursue credible medium-term fiscal consolidation to rebuild fiscal buffers—fiscal buffers that will be more important in the future to countries’ resilience, arguably, than ever. Again, that is exactly what this Government is doing, as members will see in the Budget. Others may talk big about splashing the cash. We are taking a responsible approach.

14:11 · to the Prime Minister

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

Yes.

Will the Government be adopting any of the International Energy Agency’s recommended fuel conservation initiatives in response to the current international oil shock; if so, which ones?

As the member knows, we have a four-phases approach to how to manage this crisis. It’s triggered by a conversation of whether we should move between phases on six different assessment criteria. At this stage, New Zealand has sufficient supply of fuel. We see no disruption to that fuel supply, and, as a consequence, it’s business as usual.

Under the National Fuel Plan, what is the Government’s definition of “critical customers”?

Again, we are working that through with industry. One of the lessons out of COVID is, actually, we don’t believe in a parent-child relationship where Government happens to industry; we actually work with industry. We have ongoing work as we put more definition around phases 3 and 4, should we ever need it, but the focus of this Government is to make sure that we never get to phases 3 and 4. It’s about making sure that we ensure we have fuel supply at all times, and that’s what we’re doing.

How will the Government prioritise fuel supplies to critical customers, as indicated under level 2?

Again, that’s laid out in our phases. The member is well aware to look at the broad sketching that we have. But we have ongoing work with industry and with our officials. We meet regularly. We’re deeply, deeply engaged. But it requires there to be a disruption to our fuel supply. Again, we are in phase 1 because we do not have a foreseeable disruption to our fuel supply; our fuel importers are confident that they have orders out to May into June; and we’re in a good position.

Can the Prime Minister confirm that, at phase 2, it is the Government’s expectation that fuel importers and distributors ensure that they maintain supply to critical customers, but that the Government would stand ready to regulate to ensure that fuel distributors were doing that, should there be disruptions to regional supply?

That is correct, but this is a Government that has a different approach from what has been the management of the previous Government, which was all about—the approach to pandemics was about “We’ll tell you what to do.” We believe we’ll work with Government on that.

Will petrol stations be expected to check whether their customers are critical customers in order to ensure that they are given supplies; if not, how are they going to make sure that critical customers—

Look, I appreciate the member has had experience running a crisis in the past, but we have taken the mistakes of his management and we are doing it differently. The reason, very simply, is that we are a Government that will work with industry—[Interruption]

We’re going to hear the answer in silence. It’s a pretty important question.

We will work with industry—rather than do things to industry, which was the mistake of the last management of the last crisis that Government dealt with.

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

A point of order. A point of order is heard in silence.

It might surprise the Prime Minister I wasn’t asking him about the pandemic; I was asking him about how critical customers are going to be identified by fuel companies.

Yeah, an important question, and you can ask it again without penalty, and we’ll hear the answer in silence.

Will petrol stations be expected to check whether someone is a critical customer, in order to identify whether or not they have a critical need to access fuel should we reach that point?

No. As I said to the member, we are working closely with industry so that, should we ever get to phases 3 and 4—which we hope never to do—we will work together on how we allocate and prioritise the rationing of fuel in that situation. But we have got ongoing work with industry. We’ll continue to build that, and when we’re ready to share it, we’ll share it.

How is he saying that fuel companies will be expected to ensure that critical customers are prioritised if the fuel companies aren’t expected to know who the critical customers are and aren’t expected to check?

Look, I really appreciate the member’s anxiety in the question he’s raising. I’ve noticed his scaremongering about the supplies of fuel that are within New Zealand. I want to reassure him that we are in phase 1 of our National Fuel Response Plan. What that means is that the market is operating effectively and fuel is available. If we move from phase 1 to phase 2, that decision will be made because we see that there could be some risk of fuel supply in place. Should we ever need to get to phase 3, and then phase 4, obviously there is rationing, but we are working that up with industry. We’ll have more to say about it, and we’ll share that when we have it.

Will petrol stations be prohibited from supplying customers who are not deemed to be critical customers at any point; if so, how will they know who the critical customers are?

Look, I just want to reassure the member: we’re in phase 1. We’ve got plenty of fuel. Don’t worry about it, son. It’s all good.

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The only person who should be worried is you, mate.

Excuse me, what’s happening here?

Well, if he’s going to—

No, you’re going to be quiet while your leader is taking a point of order.

Mr Speaker, a lot of New Zealanders are concerned that they may experience a shortage of fuel in the near future. They are asking—

No, you’re scaremongering.

No, just a minute. No one speaks while a point of order is taken, but it would be good if the member could come to the point of order without the explanation ahead of it.

The point is that the Prime Minister has given us a detailed explanation of what he thinks the previous Government did wrong during the pandemic without actually answering any of the questions about what people are going to face in New Zealand in the near future should we end up with a fuel shortage. I’ve asked him who the critical customers are—

Yes, I know.

He hasn’t answered that.

Yes, he has.

I’ve asked him whether the petrol companies are going to be expected to prioritise them and how, and he hasn’t answered that. These are not unreasonable questions.

That’s enough. In each of those, he’s been given a question where the answer has been that the process, as far as I heard it, is still being worked through. But if the member wants to ask one more question without penalty, he may do so.

Supplementary?

No, supplementary here.

Two months after the fuel crisis started, why can’t he tell New Zealanders who critical customers are, how they will access fuel, what the role of the fuel companies is going to be, and when we might get to that point—what the criteria are for if we do get to that point?

Well, again, I’ve said to the member that we are doing it differently than he may have done the management of a previous crisis. We have six criteria, which actually trigger a conversation—[Interruption]

Sorry, we’re going to hear it in silence. It’s been clearly outlined by the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins. It’s a very important question, so we’ll listen to the answer.

As I said, we’re doing it differently. We have six trigger criteria that actually bring officials, industry, and Ministers together to make an assessment about where we should be with respect to phases. Job number one is to continue to secure fuel supply. We’re doing that job. I want to reassure the member we are in phase 1. We are delivering fuel data on Mondays and Wednesdays. We’re being very transparent with the New Zealand people. They are reassured that we have plenty of stock. There is no disruption to any fuel supply. As I said to the member, our fuel importers—we’ve worked with them from day one. We are actually working in partnership with industry, rather than the Government sitting there in an ivory tower telling industry what to do. The solutions will be delivered with industry together. As we work our way through the phases, we continue to put definition to them, in the event we should need them.

Does the Prime Minister think it is responsible for political leaders to scaremonger—

No, no—stop there. That’s not a question. We’ll go to question No. 4.

14:19 · to the Minister for Trade and Investment

What recent announcements has he made regarding the free trade agreement with India?

New Zealand and India have reached agreement to sign a landmark free-trade agreement (FTA) in New Delhi on Monday, 27 April of this year. It is an agreement that’s worth celebrating. New Zealanders will have unprecedented access to 1.4 billion people in an economy set to become the world’s third-largest. It will ensure our exporters remain competitive with Australia, the UK, the European Union, and European Free Trade Association countries who already have or will benefit from lower tariffs—95 percent of our exports will see tariff elimination or reduction, amongst the highest of any India free-trade agreement, with almost 57 percent being duty-free from day one, increasing to 82 percent when fully implemented. The benefits of the New Zealand - India Free Trade Agreement will be available to all Kiwis for many generations to come.

What benefits will this agreement deliver for New Zealanders?

The FTA will create jobs for Kiwis and give us more options in a challenging international trading and geopolitical environment. New Zealand has secured tariff-free access for lamb, wool, coal, leather, forestry, most industrial products, infant formula, and seafood; and reductions of duty rates for our wine, as an example, from 150 percent to as low as 25 percent. For the first time in any India FTA, New Zealand has secured preferential access for apples, mānuka honey, and a tariff-free quota for kiwifruit, almost four times what we currently sell them. Trade grows the economy, and it creates jobs. The New Zealand - India free-trade agreement is about futureproofing our exporters and allowing Kiwi companies to continue to punch above their weight.

What support has there been for the India free-trade agreement?

Well, last week, 28 companies and organisations published an open letter calling for support of the agreement. In their letter, they said—and I quote—“An FTA with India is not luxury; it’s a strategic necessity for our economy security.” Support for that letter has grown to 97 businesses and organisations. The chambers of commerce across New Zealand have called on parties to support the agreement. For instance, Business Canterbury said, “Opportunities like this are rare. We urge all parties across Parliament to get in behind backing our business community and our economy, through ratification of the FTA.” ExportNZ said, “This Agreement was hard fought and represents New Zealand’s best opportunity to secure meaningful access to one of the world’s most important growth markets. It also keeps the door open for further engagement … The time to act is now.” Finally, the New Zealand Indian community has described the agreement as once in a lifetime.

Will the India-NZ FTA allow Indian temporary employment entry visa holders to bring their family members with them to New Zealand, as is the case with temporary entry visa holders from other FTA partners, such as China, Thailand, and the Philippines?

One of the things that we agreed with India is that, every year, 1,670 high-skilled workers that New Zealand needs—because we have a shortage in our economy—can come to New Zealand under a special visa that would be created. The visa will be for three years. At the end of that time, they would need to return home. In as far as that special visa is concerned, it is different to other trade agreements that the Minister has spoken about. It does not give them a right automatically to bring family members here, because that was not part of the negotiation. However, should they be able to in other parts of New Zealand policy around migration, they, with every other person in the world, are able to make an application for a visa.

Following signing of the agreement, what are the next steps?

Well, upon signing the FTA, we will go through the normal parliamentary process, enabling all parties and the public to consider the agreement in full. The agreement and a national interest analysis will be tabled in Parliament to be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for public hearings, and then they will report back to the House. The EU negotiated better access for their wine and services sectors in their recently concluded FTA. A most favoured nation clause in our agreement, negotiated by our negotiators, means that if these additional benefits must be extended to New Zealand, should our FTA enter into force before the European Union’s, this will be worth tens of millions of dollars in extra exports to New Zealand businesses, and so we’re going to work hard to make sure this can happen.

Will this FTA reduce the cost of butter chicken for those who love it?

I’ll tell you what: he’s responsible for a lot of things, but I wouldn’t want to eat his butter chicken, so we’ll go to a supplementary question.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. To ask if a trade agreement will have an effect on the price of things that people can buy is a perfectly legitimate question that actually does deserve an answer.

Yeah, look, it does, but—

So let him answer it.

No, it might deserve an answer, but certainly not in the context of a trade agreement.

So is the Minister’s position that an Indian chef coming here under the Indian FTA will have fewer rights than a Chinese chef coming in under the China - New Zealand FTA; in other words, that an Indian chef is worth less to the National Party than a Chinese chef?

Well, I welcome the member’s concern that all migrants should have the same rights and opportunities within New Zealand, but, no, I’m not saying that; I’m saying that every time you negotiate a trade agreement, you actually negotiate it with a partner. As far as the questions you ask, that was not part of the negotiation, nor is it part of the trade agreement. No commitments were made in that area. However, all Governments of New Zealand decide that they want to set migration policy and the rules that sit around that. This Government, as with the previous one and future Governments, has that ability, because that has not been part of the trade agreement negotiated with India.

If that’s the case, has the Minister or the Prime Minister directly and explicitly informed their Indian counterparts that they intend to implement the India temporary employment entry (TEE) visa scheme in a way that treats Indians worse than Chinese, Thais, and the Vietnamese, and, if so, what was the reaction from Prime Minister Modi and trade Minister Goyal to the admission of this planned discrimination against Indian citizens?

I reject not only the characterisation of that question but its intent and its meaning. Indeed, I have had many conversations with my counterpart in India, as frequently and most recently as a few weeks ago in Africa at the World Trade Organization trade negotiation. He—and I and almost every other New Zealander I have spoken to—thinks this is a historic occasion. It’s a high-quality agreement and it deserves to be celebrated.

If that answer is in the affirmative, and given the data shows that, on average, a visa holder will bring their partner and two children with them, doesn’t the 5,000 TEE visa and the FTA mean that up to 20,000 more Indians are able to come to New Zealand?

Well, it wasn’t in the affirmative—that’s not what my answer was—but, very clearly, in the case of these 1,670 high-skilled Indian workers that the New Zealand economy needs, decided upon by a green list set by Government because there are skills shortages, they will be able to apply for a visa. They’re also able to apply for the existing shortage visa with the rights and obligations that come with that. I caution suggestions of large numbers of people from anywhere in the world that would come to New Zealand. The reason for that is it does a disservice to the migrant community, many of whom work very hard and help us grow our economy. There won’t be the number of people coming as a result of the agreement that has been suggested by many in the media.

Why does the FTA, for the first time in any New Zealand FTA, state that the number of international students coming from India to New Zealand will be uncapped, and does the Minister agree with Indian Government officials who have described this as unprecedented and “a huge win for Indian students”?

Well, I think it is a huge win for Indian students to have the opportunity to come to New Zealand, one of the most beautiful countries in the world, to get an education and then to return home, but it is important to note that there are no caps that have ever been put on the places of any students from any country in the world coming to New Zealand. What successive Governments have done, on both sides of the House, is use criteria that we set to have an effect upon the number of students that may come from somewhere—for instance, in the last period of Government, changes were made that reduced students from many parts of the world coming to New Zealand, including when they came from India. This Government has upheld those and looked for other areas to tighten that criteria so that the students that come, particularly at higher levels of education, can benefit and that it is a fair match with New Zealand, and so that, actually, we can continue to make sure that the balance is right. The India free-trade agreement allows current and future Governments to continue to make decisions in the best interests of New Zealand around what requirements are needed for students to get a visa to come to New Zealand, and that is an extremely important part of a negotiation. It is something that both the Indian Government and New Zealand Government are more than aware of.

Why does the India FTA include an investment clause with a completely unrealistic and unachievable $34 billion target over 15 years, when no previous New Zealand FTA has ever done so?

Well, whenever a trade agreement is entered into, trade increases in both directions, as does opportunity for investment. I want to be very clear and say this very carefully: the New Zealand Government, through the India free-trade agreement, has not taken on a commitment to invest an amount of money in India. In fact, a month or two ago, the Indian High Commissioner to New Zealand stated this publicly and said the figure that has been mentioned is aspirational. What the Government has done is taken on a commitment to promote investment in India, and already we see New Zealand businesses that are interested to go to India to invest. In return, the Indian Government—not only around all of the access we have for the areas of tariff-free trade that I mentioned—has agreed to set up a single desk to make it easier for New Zealanders to invest in India, something that no other country in the world can rely upon. New Zealand is already an open country that’s easy to invest in if that investment is in the best interest of New Zealand. I back Kiwi companies to go over there and do well because, as we’ve seen everywhere in the world, when New Zealanders invest, it grows our economy at home.

Is the Minister saying that his counterpart, trade Minister Goyal, was misleading when he said that “If they do not invest, there will be a clawback of benefits”; in other words, if New Zealand does not invest $34 billion over 15 years, then India will claw back the benefits it has given New Zealand in the FTA?

Well, no, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is our commitment is to promote. It is very clear in the advice the Government’s received and in the text of the agreement: New Zealand must promote investment. That is the obligation that the Government has taken on. As with every Government and every trade agreement, the New Zealand Governments take their obligations seriously. We are probably the standout country in the world when it comes to meeting requirements of trade agreements and upholding the rules-based approach to trade. In the case that there was a decision that was made that any party in a trade agreement is not meeting its obligation, there are processes it could go through. But it is to promote investment and this Government will—as I’m sure future Governments will—take that obligation seriously.

Does the Minister consider that it’s in good faith for New Zealand to include an investment target in the FTA which the Government knows will never be met, and, second, why is there a monitoring group out of India to see whether this target is met or not?

Well, aspirational targets are very important. Parties of this Parliament have a lot this year; they all want more MPs. Aspiration is something this Government backs. But what I would actually say to you is: ultimately, what we have agreed between the two parties is 12 months after the agreement enters into force, a committee is formed that will meet annually to look for ways to improve the agreement, to continue to get better access for New Zealanders, and so on. As part of that, of course, we monitor the agreement. We have similar types of arrangements with the UK and the European Union and many countries around the world. We monitor it to make sure it’s working, to make sure that it is being implemented as we wanted it to. Actually, that’s a very good thing. The committee that the Minister is speaking of will be of significant benefit to New Zealand exporters. A country of 5 million people selling to a country of 1.4 billion people—I don’t do maths well, but that works well for New Zealand.

Given that all politics is about realpolitik, why is there a massive chasm between the understanding of the Indian Government—the Prime Minister and the trade Minister—and their officials and what the country is being sold in New Zealand?

Well, I don’t think there is a massive chasm, but it’s election year and there’s always going to be a bit of kicking and screaming in New Zealand.

14:34 · to the Minister of Finance

Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that we are seeing “falling food prices, a sustained drop in inflation, and early indications that interest rates could soon begin to fall”; if so, what was the increase in food prices for the year to March 2026?

Yes. The Prime Minister made that statement in July 2024. At that time, the most recently available data showed that food prices had actually fallen for the year by 0.3 percent—a feat not achieved by the last Government. There had been a sustained drop in inflation, and a month later, interest rates started to fall as the Reserve Bank began reducing the official cash rate—so, yes, the Prime Minister was absolutely correct. To the second part of the question: in the year to March 2023, food prices rose 12.1 percent, and in the year to March 2026, they rose 3.4 percent.

Is it correct that the price of fruit and vegetables has increased by 9 percent since she claimed, “the era of crushing price rises is over”?

Seasonal—seasonal.

Well, it is the case that food price increases vary across product ranges, some of which do reflect seasonal variation. It is also the case that Kiwis are paying lower prices for groceries than would have been the case if the last Government had been re-elected with their record of adding pressure to inflation.

Question No. 5 interrupted.

14:40

I withdraw the statement. Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Finance, before withdrawing her statement, gave a detailed explanation of what she was referring to and why she didn’t think she should have to.

I appreciate that.

I’m just asking that we both be treated by the same standard.

Well, now you have been—now you have been. We’re going to—

Déjà vu.

Excuse me.

Is it correct that the price of meat has increased by 3 percent in six months since she posted on Facebook in September 2025 that the Government is “speeding up the supermarket consent progress to bring in more competition and lower grocery prices”?

14:41

Yes. Both statements are correct. I also share, helpfully, a visual aid for the member which shows a record of food price inflation. The bit where it’s going up extremely steeply occurred in the period between 2021 and 2023. The period where it is coming down occurred under National, and this is what food price increases have looked like under this Government, as compared to that very steep mountain that New Zealand shoppers were climbing under her party’s Government.

She can’t read her own graph.

We’re all just listening to the question.

Why, then, in March 2023, did she say that National will take action to get food prices under control once more, considering that food has actually increased by 22 percent?

Because that was what we wanted to do and that is what we have done. I once again wish to rehearse the figures which demonstrate the progress that we have achieved. Here are the inflation percentage changes for quarters in the period March 2022 through September 2023: 6.9, 7.3, 7.2, 7.2, 6.7, 6, 5.6. Here is the record since we were elected: 4.74, 3.3, 2.2, 2.2, 2.5, 2.73, 3.1, 3.1. You don’t need to be a mathematician to realise that food price inflation has dropped dramatically under our Government when compared to the last.

Therefore, is that a decrease in food prices since she took office?

No. If the member would like a lesson on inflation then I’m very happy to give her one. In part of that lesson, I will take her through the history, which is that, under her Government, inflation was higher and, Lord alive, if another Labour-led Government was elected, you betcha, inflation will be higher again, borrowing will be higher again, and taxes will be higher again, too.

Why did she promise Kiwis to “help bring down food prices”, “get food prices under control”, and that they would “pay less for home-grown food at the checkout” when she had no intention of keeping those promises?

Question No. 5 interrupted.

14:43

I withdraw the last part of the question.

Thank you.

14:44

When can hard-working Kiwis, who are paying more week in and week out for food, finally expect that she will keep her commitment to “lower grocery prices”?

I am determined to make progress on that commitment. One of the ways I will ensure that is to work very hard every day to ensure that that member and her party of people who drove food price inflation through the roof are never re-elected, because that is the biggest risk to Kiwi shoppers concerned about grocery prices.

Nasty, nasty, nasty.

Carlos Cheung—

I don’t think you should be calling anyone nasty today, Chris.

Sorry, hang on. You can both go in a minute.

Oh, I’ll go if he goes, absolutely.

Well, if you volunteer. We have question No. 8 from Dr Carlos Cheung.

You mean question No. 6, is it?

Yeah, OK.

14:45 · to the Minister for Auckland

What recent announcement has he made about progressing a city deal for Auckland?

On 10 April, I joined our Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure to announce Auckland’s landmark city deal. Auckland is the economic engine of our country; it accounts for 40 percent of New Zealand’s GDP and it’s our gateway to the world. When Auckland succeeds, New Zealand succeeds; and when Auckland grows, New Zealand prospers. That’s why this city deal matters. It sets out how this Government and Auckland will work together in the future to unlock the potential of our biggest city.

What’s in the Auckland city deal?

To name just a few of the commitments in the deal, we’re unlocking Eden Park’s ownership and operating model, and recognising Eden Park as New Zealand’s national stadium. We have agreed to work together on key transport projects to unlock growth, including the second harbour crossing, the Northwest Rapid Transit, and City Rail Link level crossings. We’re jointly going to develop a destination and major event strategy to grow tourism and hospitality in Auckland. There is a lot to be excited about in this deal, so I encourage everyone to take a read.

How will the Auckland city deal change the way that Wellington and Auckland work together?

Let’s be clear: the way of working between Auckland and Wellington, in the past, has been fragmented and uncoordinated. This deal recognises the size and significance of Auckland, it sets out joint priorities, and it levels the relationship between central government and our largest city. Based on a foundation of mutual respect, central government and Auckland will be working from the same plan, heading in the same direction.

What reactions has he seen to the deal?

A lot of positive feedback in regards to this. Infrastructure New Zealand welcomed the announcement, saying “Auckland’s City Deal will boost New Zealand’s economic growth”. Business New Zealand called the deal “a long-overdue step toward unlocking economic growth,” with “innovative funding mechanisms” being “particularly encouraging”. The deal is the first step to a stronger relationship between central government and a more productive Auckland. That is good for Auckland and, ultimately, good for New Zealand.

14:48 · to the Minister for Children

How many Oranga Tamariki front-line sites has she visited since becoming Minister?

Since becoming the Minister for Children, in November 2023, I’m proud to say I have visited all 72 front-line Oranga Tamariki offices and secure residences, as well as a number of Oranga Tamariki - and community-run supervised group homes and remand homes. These visits and my discussions with front-line staff have been hugely important in how I’ve approached this job and my work programme. I want to take this opportunity to thank the many hundreds of staff for taking the time to meet me, sharing their concerns and their solutions to the challenges they face and, on many occasions, sharing, what I call, their “why”—the reasons they get up every day to do the important work that they do. They make the lives of children and their families better and ensure that children have the opportunity to grow up in safe environments and be the best versions of themselves—something that every child in New Zealand deserves.

What is the benefit from visiting front-line offices and speaking to front-line staff?

No disrespect to my officials on The Terrace, but I have found that there is nothing better than hearing directly from the people on the ground, doing the actual hard work every day. I think that most people in this House would agree there is no substitute for making informed decisions than by actually getting out of this place and talking to those who are directly impacted by the decisions that we make here in this place. The smallest things can make the biggest difference. I think of the example of visiting one rural site and hearing about a fleet issue with the new vehicles that national office have been rolling out. These new vehicles might have been great in Auckland or Christchurch, but they weren’t suitable for the sorts of distances and roads that these social workers had to travel each and every day. I was able to take their concerns back to national office, and they were able to resolve this issue for them quickly.

What do front-line staff tell her at these visits, and how has this changed over the period that she has been the Minister?

There have been some common themes that are raised at almost every site I visit. The commitment these staff feel to the children and the families that they serve and the dedication they have to their work to help make people’s lives better is clear across the country. We should never forget this and never take this for granted. They also tell me about the generational issues many of these families are struggling with and how, despite their best efforts and going above and beyond for them, unfortunately, that is not always enough. More recently, I have been hearing from front-line staff that they are seeing some positive changes with the system, which includes the likes of Health, Police, Education, and the Ministry of Social Development working better together for the benefit of children and families. There is still a lot more work to do, but I’d like to thank my ministerial colleagues and the staff at those agencies for breaking down the silos that, for many years, have not been putting young people first.

What changes has she seen in the culture and professionalism within these offices over the period that she has been visiting these sites?

When I was in Opposition, I regularly heard stories of poor practice and behaviour, as well as sites and facilities that were no longer fit for purpose. To address this, I made the professionalisation of the workforce a priority for Oranga Tamariki leadership. This Government has invested $41 million in their professionalisation through Budget 2025, and I’m pleased to confirm that the Oranga Tamariki sites I visit today are significantly improved in both culture and practice. Harm within youth justice and care and protection residences has seen a 14 percent decrease since 2024, and staff are telling me that they now feel safer, supported, and heard. As a Government, we have also made significant investments into upgrading facilities, with $22 million for repairs and upgrades to Oranga Tamariki residences, and $33 million in safety and quality improvements to the facilities at youth justice residences.

Has she visited Birthright in Lower Hutt, which is a front-line service who will be forced to close their doors to over 1,000 whānau as a result of Oranga Tamariki funding not being able to keep up with cost of living pressures, including rising fuel prices?

I’m not going to talk to individual contract decisions. Those are operational matters. Yes, I will say I have visited Birthright, but I will not be going into operational matters.

14:53 · to the Minister of Housing

Does he agree with the reported findings of The Urban Advisory’s second annual housing survey that New Zealanders are dissatisfied with the quality and insecurity of the rental homes available to them; if so, is he doing anything to improve the quality and security of rental housing?

on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Sat sri akaal and kia ora, Mr Speaker. The housing survey found that issues, like quality and insecurity, are not short-term fluctuations but structural characteristics of the New Zealand housing system. That is why this Government is absolutely laser-focused on fixing some of the structural defects through, for example, some of the work championed by Minister Jones around granny flats, or the reinstatement of interest deductibility by Minister Seymour, or the absolute support by Minister Willis and others around ongoing mahi to build supply through Māori community housing providers and Kāinga Ora, and, most importantly, of course, the grand work of Minister Bishop around the fast track—yesterday’s 19th approval, with the Ashbourne development in Waikato to enable more housing. I particularly agree with the survey where it says that providing the right houses in the right places is not only a social necessity but a primary driver for commercial success. Yes, we’re concerned about security and quality, but that’s why I’m pleased to see some softening in the rental market, which allows tenants more choice, and I’m pleased to see credible measures such as the Stats New Zealand rental price index showing flattening rent prices.

If he is so concerned about security of housing, then why did the Government proceed with introducing no-cause evictions?

Namaste anō, Mr Speaker. The no-cause evictions are part of a broader suite of changes that were made right across the housing system to ensure there is a higher level of supply. That flexibility, which is given to landlords and also tenants, who are now able to terminate their tenancies with three weeks’ notice, is absolutely right square in the middle of a suite of changes that we have seen, and, as a result, a flattening of rent prices, which I’m sure parties opposite would be absolutely enthusiastic about.

If he is relying on increasing housing supply as a response to structural issues with housing, why did he cut Auckland’s housing capacity targets by 33 percent, or up to 600,000 new homes, under urgency?

That question absolutely demonstrates the lack of awareness of parties opposite about what’s actually going on in Auckland, and I recommend they take a flight and get up there and see what’s happening. We have landed in the right place—[Interruption] I can’t even hear myself, Mr Speaker.

I think you can stop for a minute. The people who are heckling from the other side just need to draw a bit of breath and recognise that a constant barrage—[Interruption] It’s still continuing. You can’t do that. Make a comment if you need to, but make it brief and succinct.

E te Māngai o te Whare, kia ora this time.

Āe, tīmata anō.

Well, he’s one of yours.

Yes. My sense of the situation is that many parties on this side of the House want to see more supply and want to see more growth in Auckland and, of course, to ensure that rental prices continue to remain flat and remain affordable and accessible for Aucklanders. But what we’re not going to do is come up with some random number, right out there in the gazillions, in order to justify 2, 3, 4 million more houses being built. It’s absolutely ridiculous to think that 2 million houses are going to come on stream in Auckland in the next 10 years. That is not what’s going to happen. What we are going to do is ensure that there is a balanced approach to the supply of housing in Auckland that accommodates not only Aucklanders who are moving to Auckland but also those who live there now and the needs that they have in their communities.

If housing is to “remain affordable”, why have one in four respondents been having to skip meals in the last year, mostly due to housing costs?

I think the implication in the question was that skipping meals is a direct result of the flattening of the rental market across New Zealand. I think that is very disingenuous and has no legitimate connection.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. That wasn’t the question. The question was, in his previous answer that housing affordability will remain—I am saying: how can there be housing affordability when one in four people, according to this report, are skipping eating to pay housing costs?

That’s what you just said. The question you asked related to that, and he answered that question. You can have another supplementary.

OK, all right. Does he consider it a systemic failure of our housing system that over a quarter of New Zealanders in the housing survey have delayed medical care to make ends meet, and, if not, why not?

Again, there continues to be a connection between choices that people have made around housing and choices around things like food and medical costs. We are very confident that we are resetting the housing system to enable not only more supply of houses but to ensure that affordability continues, whether or not it is in a rental space or an owner space. We are very confident that we are heading in the right direction, particularly with fast-track approvals that are coming on stream in places like Nelson and places like Morrinsville and, of course, famous places like Hamilton.

14:59 · to the Associate Minister for Energy

What advice, if any, has he seen on the impact of Kuwait declaring force majeure on shipments of oil and refined petroleum on New Zealand’s future fuel supply?

I have been advised that the Kuwait Petroleum Corporation first declared force majeure on 8 March. I have also been advised that, globally, we consume 100 million barrels of crude oil per day. Twenty million barrels was previously going through the strait; 2.6 million barrels of that volume came from Kuwait, and less than 10 percent of that crude oil makes its way to South-east Asia.

What advice has he received on potential price increases for Kiwis at the pump, as a result of Kuwait’s most recent declaration of force majeure on shipments?

As I said, given the minuscule amount of the crude oil which feeds the refineries in South-east Asia, where New Zealand derives its refined fuel from, such an insignificant amount is highly unlikely to show a long-term impact, and I’m advised there is no immediate impact.

Has he sought advice on using the additional powers put in the Fuel Industry Act that allow him to increase minimum stockholding levels from their current levels?

Naturally, we have, as a country, a just-in-time fuel importation model. The fuel companies are operating within their statutory thresholds, and whilst there may be a small matter of ebb and flow, they are well within their legal parameters. It is not my intention, with the current advice, to place more pressure on the fuel importers; I’d rather see them manage their business and keep their pledge to Kiwis that the model of just-in-time can be made to work whilst our Government deals with other options.

Has he sought advice on using the additional powers put in the Fuel Industry Act that allow him to require more detailed reporting on fuel stocks and supply chains?

Obviously, a system, in order for it to have integrity, should be buttressed by quality information. I’m advised that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment does have access to different sources of information. Where previously there may have been some reluctance from the fuel import companies to provide information, that is no longer the case.

Why has he not sought advice on using the full statutory powers put in place by Labour, but instead has chosen to rely on voluntary cooperation from fuel companies, under his National Fuel Plan?

I say, once again, I most certainly will not emulate anything to do with Labour, given the tragic outcomes at the Marsden Point refinery.

Will he now commit to immediately consulting on higher minimum stockholding levels and tighter reporting, or is he still confident that his bare minimum approach is sufficient for New Zealanders in the face of escalating global risk?

I say, once again, that the law outlines what are the thresholds. This is not a time for reckless assertions, adventurous language—and I only wish that the member showed passion, zest, and advocacy, rather than acquiesce to the closure of the refinery at Marsden Point.

15:03

on behalf of Rawiri Waititi (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

15:04

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Absolutely, I stand by all of the Government’s statements and actions, particularly those that have benefited Māori in the form of five charter schools, which are lifting achievement and showing real tino rangatiratanga in action, allowing communities to take charge of their destiny, with education.

Does he stand by voting against the Treaty principles bill?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, absolutely. One of the things that the Treaty promised was the rule of law, but the rule of law needs to be clear and accessible to all people, and that is why, as part of a coalition agreement between New Zealand First and the National Party, we are clarifying and, in some cases, removing references to the Treaty principles in law.

Will he commit to opposing any similar legislation that comes from the Treaty clause review?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, no. I’ve just given a rationale for why the Government believes it is important to clarify and, in some cases, remove Treaty clauses from legislation, and so it would be rather strange to commit to opposing legislation designed to give effect to the policy intent that I’ve just said the Government has.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Question No. 1 and question No. 2 were very specific. One was: does he stand against the Treaty principle—

Yes, I heard them. What’s the problem?

Question No. 2 was: will he commit to opposing similar legislation?—full stop. It was a yes or no.

No, you can’t ask for a yes or no answer. The Standing Orders will tell you that.

What has changed in the Prime Minister’s position?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, it would appear by the member’s references to question No. 1 and question No. 2 that she is not thinking for herself, but simply reading off a sheet, and the next question that might be asked is: who wrote this stuff? None the less, the Prime Minister has not changed his position. If the member would like to point to a specific position that she believes the Prime Minister has changed, then I will attempt to answer on his behalf.

Why should New Zealanders trust the Prime Minister’s position on Te Tiriti when it shifts, dependent on what keeps this coalition together?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, New Zealanders should trust the Prime Minister’s position on the Treaty because this Government has actually delivered for Māori—

No, you haven’t.

—in practical ways. Someone has said that, no, we haven’t. Well, let me tell you a little bit about it. The number of Māori new entrants who are at or above expectations was 25 percent. Only one in four Māori students, the new entrants, was at or above expectations for things like reading and maths and writing, things that give people a future—only one in four. In the couple of years we’ve been in, we’ve got it up to 43 percent. We’ve nearly doubled the number of young Māori new entrants who are meeting expectations for critical skills that will give them real mana in the future and the ability to navigate their century on their terms, equipped with the taiaha of knowledge. That’s why we should be trusting this Prime Minister on the Treaty, because we’re getting actual practical results, and these guys say that we’re not getting results. Maybe they think that young Māori reading and writing doesn’t matter. Certainly, from the results they got in Government, it seems that’s exactly what they think.

Is the Prime Minister saying—[Interruption]

Hang on.

Kia ora. Is the Prime Minister saying that his position on Te Tiriti is dependent on political convenience?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, no, but I think we’re seeing a very good example of what happens when you give a job to the wrong person. You see, this question was down under the name of Rawiri Waititi—

No, no. Sorry, Mr Seymour—

—and we’ve now got a member who can’t think on her feet, just reading off a script.

The member knows that you can’t refer to matters in that way.

The question was also to the Prime Minister.

Neither is the Prime Minister here. Can the Prime Minister explain—[Interruption]

Just a moment. Absolute silence, apart from the person asking the question.

Can the Prime Minister explain why his Government is prioritising Treaty clause changes over urgent action on the cost of living, fuel security, and climate resilience?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Government is not prioritising changes to Treaty clauses over action on the cost of living and fuel security. As important as the changes to the Treaty clauses may be to the future of this country, Ministers are meeting every morning at quarter to 8 to get situational updates and check on progress in relation to the fuel situation. Ministers are meeting several times a day—Nicola Willis is here, and she’s probably getting sick of seeing me; I think this is our third meeting in 24 hours before question time—about the Budget, which is designed to take the pressure off inflation and interest rates, which were so devastating to Kiwi households when those guys were in power. The priorities of this Government are the cost of living and the fuel crisis, and the number one way to understand someone’s priorities is to see how—

Good—shorten it up.

—they spend their time. You can see how we’re spending ours. I hate to think how that member has been spending hers—obviously not preparing for question time.

Shorten it up.

Does the Prime Minister accept that stronger partnership with Māori under Te Tiriti would improve national resilience, and, if not, what evidence does he rely on to reject that?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, we actually believe that strong partnership with all New Zealanders strengthens resilience. We do not believe that New Zealanders should be ranked in a hierarchy of when their ancestors came to their land. We should be united by the fact that we are a nation of pioneers, with a spirit of adventure, who took huge risks many times to live in these beautiful islands—that is what unites us.

Does the Prime Minister stand by Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) funding decisions that will result in the loss of nearly 200 emergency coordination and prevention roles at a time of increasing extreme weather events?

On behalf of the Prime Minister, I’m advised that that is not true. What’s more, if you look at what’s happened with FENZ, the budget of Fire and Emergency—which is funded primarily from levies on people’s household insurance—has stayed the same; in fact, it’s risen slightly. However, money has been taken out of the back office and put in the front line, fixing up the fire trucks, buying the diesel, and ensuring that our firefighters are well provided for.

Is that why they’re striking twice a week?

As a great New Zealander once said, it won’t happen overnight, but it will happen, because dealing to decades of neglect—

Go talk to your firefighters in Parnell.

Chlöe Swarbrick says, “Go and talk to the firefighters in Parnell.” Well, she’ll be pleased to know, I do exactly that. Let me tell you what firefighters I talk to say, Chlöe Swarbrick: they are saying—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer is putting her arms up; she wants more attention. The fact is that they understand there’s been neglect for years of their fire trucks, and this Government, under Brooke van Velden, is finally fixing it.

15:12 · to the Minister for Veterans

How will this Anzac Day be different to previous years?

15:13

Anzac Day is a significant day for New Zealand, and this year it will be historically different thanks to changes brought about by the Government and supported by the whole of Parliament—I thank all colleagues for that. I also acknowledge the member asking the question; I thank her for her service, along with others in this House who have done likewise. The Anzac Day Act has been modernised to acknowledge the service and sacrifice of all who have served New Zealand in times of war. Prior to the changes that we have made together, the Act failed to acknowledge conflicts and operations after 1966, meaning that many service personnel were technically excluded from official commemorations under the law.

Why is Anzac Day important to New Zealanders?

Honouring our service personnel on Anzac Day is one of our most enduring national traditions. It binds us to the history that surrounds us in the form of memorial plaques and wreaths in this very debating chamber. Anzac Day connects us to the story of who we are as a nation and provides us with an opportunity to reflect on the courage and extraordinary sacrifice of those who have served to defend and protect New Zealand, our ideals, and our interests.

Can the Minister give some examples of individuals who will be covered under the new legislation?

The new legislation is also more inclusive about those who participated in the first landings at Gallipoli. It covers personnel from countries such as France and India in that campaign, along with civilians serving in medical units, members of the Merchant Navy during the world wars, and those who died while training for conflict. It also extends to post-Vietnam service, including veterans of Timor-Leste and Afghanistan, including the member herself, as well as personnel deployed on UN and other multinational missions, such as this Sinai peacekeeping force.

What else is the Government doing to support veterans?

Further to amending the Anzac Day Act, the Veterans’ Recognition Bill has been introduced to Parliament to formally recognise more sailors, soldiers, and aviators under the term “veteran”. For those who have worn a military uniform, that term carries profound personal meaning; it speaks to identity, pride, and a recognition of service and sacrifice. There are some in our military community who feel that the current legal definition creates an unnecessary divide. The Government is also working towards establishing a national veterans’ day—not a statutory public holiday, I note—to be marked annually with veterans’ service awards. I’d like to finish by thanking our current Defence Force personnel for their service and by acknowledging those passed: we will remember them.

15:15 · to the Social Development and Employment

Does she stand by her statement of 3 December 2025 that “I accept that there will be households who are finding it tough right now”; if so, why?

Yes. Our Government has always acknowledged that many Kiwis have been finding it tough during a prolonged cost of living challenge. Over the last two years, we’ve focused on fixing the basics such as lowering inflation and reducing taxes because New Zealand needs a growing economy to create more jobs and lift wages. Higher wages and more jobs are ultimately what will help ease Kiwis’ cost of living burden and that is what we’re focused on. That’s also why our Government’s welfare reset is shifting the dial. We are driving policies to support job growth and preparing job seekers so they are ready to seize the opportunity of work.

Are things getting better or worse, when Auckland City Mission is reporting that people needing their services due to the cost of living has jumped to 60 percent?

Well, I accept that the immediate challenge that we’re facing as a country due to the conflict in the Middle East that is completely outside any New Zealander’s control is adding a layer of pressure to organisations at the front line. I would just say to the House and to those listening: if anyone is experiencing difficulties in meeting the costs that they face, I would encourage them to get in contact with the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and seek assistance.

Are food grant requests going up in response to the fuel crisis, and, if so, does that show that fuel support is reaching everyone who needs it?

What I can say is that we have seen an increase in the number of special needs grants that have been granted for food for the month of March, which tells me the system is working. Where people have needs and requests for assistance, they go to MSD and they get them.

Are St Vincent De Paul Society’s reports that increasing numbers of people can’t collect the food they need because they can’t afford fuel a sign that Government assistance is reaching everyone who needs it?

What we’ve been really clear about in terms of the response to the current fuel challenges is that support needs to be temporary, targeted, and timely. That is why we have provided several rounds of support, the first being the $50 for working families. The second is the support for in-between travel for people like carers, for example. The third we have seen is the increase for over 1.5 million New Zealanders that came into effect on 1 April.

When will she realise that accepting that people are doing it tough without doing enough to help isn’t good enough?

Well, what we’re really clear about is we will not be making the mistakes of the previous Government in response to COVID, where money was hosed around and the long-term impact and the long-term pain hits those on the lowest incomes the hardest. What we will ensure is that the response to the current fuel crisis will be targeted, timely, and it will be specific so that we don’t create long-term pain for those who can least afford it.

OK, so that’s the conclusion of question time. We’ll take a 30-second break while those who have to leave can leave quietly and without conversations on the way.

15:20

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

The world is experiencing the worst oil shock in history. We are experiencing a conflict in the Middle East with an uncertain trajectory and no certainty of an enduring peace anytime soon. New Zealanders are feeling the impact: rising prices and anxiety about what a less stable world means for us here at home. For our part, as a Government, we are offering a responsible economic management approach, a proactive approach to securing fuel supplies, and ensuring we’re providing temporary and targeted relief to those who most need it.

Meanwhile, colleagues, what are we getting from the Opposition at this time of democratic debate? Well, let me paint a little picture, because, once a week, I get the joy of heading up to Radio New Zealand for a weekly joint interview with Carmel Sepuloni—sometimes Tangi Utikere fills in on her behalf—and here’s how it goes each and every week: Ingrid or Corin, and soon, John, ask me a question—next week, I suppose it might be John—and I answer the question. Carmel says that my answer is “terrible”, that the Government should be doing “something else”. The interviewer says to Carmel, “Well, is that what you would do?”, and Carmel says, “Well, I can’t commit to that. We haven’t released our policy yet.” The interviewer says, “Well, what would you do?”, and Carmel says, “Well, I’m not going to tell you that; we haven’t released our policy yet. We’ll be doing that closer to the election.” And then the interviewer says, “Well, how would you pay for it?”, and then Carmel says, “Well, I’m not going to tell you that; we haven’t yet finalised our policy. We have to wait until after the Budget.” And then the interviewer says, “Well, yes, but how would you pay for it and what would you do differently?”

Well, just as an aside, Labour’s policies invariably involve committing to spend more money that the Government doesn’t have. Then Carmel, of course, continues to say that they will have more to say about that when the books have been opened; which rather leads me to think, what do they think is going to happen when we open the books at Budget day? Is it their view that when we open those books, we will report to the nation: “We have discovered the forest of magic money trees that Labour has been looking for, and now they’re free to come up with some ideas”? Because—newsflash, Mr Hipkins—that ain’t happening. Or is it that they think, colleagues, that we’re going to discover oil, and the discovery of oil is going to mean we’re flush with cash? Well, here’s another newsflash, you banned oil and gas exploration, so that won’t be happening anytime soon either.

These interviews go on, colleagues. It’s very tiresome, I think, not just for me but for the listeners at home, and certainly the interviewers. It’s got to the point where I could spare Carmel and Tangi the long trek up The Terrace from Parliament to Radio New Zealand’s studio, and I could just stand in for them. If I know the answers before they’ve even started speaking, I could say, “Well, we don’t have a position on that. We don’t have a policy on that. No, no, no, the Government’s idea is bad, they’re bad, it’s bad. We have no alternative plan, and we would spend more because we know where the secret money stash is hidden.” I would do a great job of filling in for Carmel and Tangi. What we are looking at, my friends, is an Opposition with no plans, no policies—actually, no principles.

Mr Hipkins likes to speak of kindness, if not back it up with his actions. And in fact, what we have is the same simple formula they’ve always had. What is it? More tax, more borrowing, more inflation. So my message to New Zealanders today is: yes, it is the case that our country finds itself in a very challenging time, and, yes, it is the case that New Zealanders have endured a very difficult economic recovery following a period of sky-high inflation and interest rates. But the question for New Zealanders is not, “Is it bad or not?” It’s not, “Who can describe how bad it is the best?” It’s “How do we fix it?” It is the time to stick to a responsible course of economic management which sees us through this crisis and through to the other side stronger. It is not a time for a change to a bunch of people who can’t even answer a single question.

15:25

At a time of huge global uncertainty with an international fuel crisis, a breakdown of the rules around the world as we know them, a cost of living crisis here in New Zealand, a shrinking economy, jobs being lost, higher unemployment, and business liquidations reaching a 15-year high, New Zealanders are naturally looking to the people who are currently in Government for leadership. They’re looking for some reassurance that the Government has a plan, and they’re looking for answers about what the Government will do if indeed things get worse with regard to the international fuel crisis.

Unfortunately, they’re not getting answers on any of those questions. They’re getting slogans, blame, and excuses; a Government more obsessed with their own jobs than obsessed with the jobs of New Zealanders who are losing theirs; a Government that wants to spend all of its time talking about the Opposition and not talking about what they are actually doing to support New Zealanders through the current crisis; a Government constantly looking backwards rather than looking ahead; a Government that’s offering a warped nostalgia rather than a future for New Zealanders to get excited about.

We can do better than that, and Kiwis deserve better than that. Yes, the world can feel pretty overwhelming at the moment, but we are not powerless. We have options. We don’t just have to sit tight and wait for other things to happen around the world and see how they affect us. We can shape our own future. We have choices and we have opportunities. From all of the chaos that is happening around the world at the moment, there are opportunities for New Zealand. Renewable energy is a huge opportunity for New Zealand—an opportunity with jobs, an opportunity for competitive advantage, an opportunity to do not what’s just morally right but what’s economically right as well. The rest of the world is trying to catch up when it comes to renewable energy, and our Government is going the other way. They think our energy future lies in imported liquefied gas rather than renewable energy, which we have an abundance of.

Rather than focusing on building more resilience and on recognising the fact that these severe weather events that we’re currently experiencing aren’t just one-off events anymore but are a regular pattern, the Government is turning the other way. New Zealanders want to know that their current Government has a plan to deal with New Zealand’s lack of resilience, because it’s clear we do have a lack of resilience when it comes to extreme weather events. We can build a New Zealand that’s far more resilient, one that has far more self-reliance, one that is independent and confident in the world, not because we are the biggest, the boldest, or the strongest, but because, as a country, we’re worth listening to.

More self-reliance doesn’t mean living in the past; it means embracing the future. Renewable energy, food security, these are major concerns for New Zealanders, and they’re hearing nothing from their current Government about those. Food security is massive. As a food-producing nation, we produce so much food for the rest of the world, and yet the closure of food manufacturers and food processors in New Zealand is making us more beholden to international supply chains at a time when they are more and more uncertain, and yet they’re hearing nothing from the Government about a plan to provide food security in food-producing country like New Zealand.

When we should be embracing science and innovation and the Kiwi entrepreneurial and innovative spirit, we’ve got a Government that’s doing the opposite: cutting funding for science, cutting funding for research, and blocking support to the innovators—the people who can grow the jobs of the future in New Zealand. A Government that, rather than bringing people together to solve the challenges that the country faces, are more intent on creating divisions for their own political purposes.

Haven’t we seen this? Because a Government that is divided cannot lead the country to unity. This Government is more divided than any Government that New Zealand has seen in recent history. A Government that turns a blind eye to outright racism and race-baiting and will not call that out. Well, we will call that out on this side of the House, and I will be very clear that there will be no room for racism in any Government that I lead. The world might feel overwhelming at the moment, but with that comes opportunity. We can embrace it and we have so much to look forward to. New Zealanders deserve a Government to lead us into the future with optimism—they’re not getting it from this Government.

15:30

I’m not sure if it was ChatGPT or Copilot who wrote that speech, but clearly when he was putting it in, he said, “Give me a speech which is five minutes and 30 seconds.”, and it spat out one a bit long. But every single member of the Opposition was looking and saying, “I could do a better speech than that that I just got from Chris Hipkins.” They were all saying that. You could see it in their eyes—“I could deliver a better speech.”—particularly Willie Jackson up the front here. He knows he could deliver a better speech than something written by Copilot or ChatGPT, and, of course, it was just full of spin, with not one single word about what Labour’s plan is to deal with the challenges facing New Zealanders.

The only thing they did: they talked about race. I find it absolutely offensive that they get up there and talk about race-baiting when they are the ones whipping up anti-migration rhetoric in this country with their opposition to the free-trade agreement with India. They should be getting onside with the free-trade agreement, which opens up jobs, opportunities, and industry here in New Zealand. That is a solution that is needed for our country, and they are sitting on their hands rather than getting on the side of New Zealanders, and, at the same time, whipping up anti-migration rhetoric in our country, which I find, frankly, appalling, and I know that many, many New Zealanders do, too.

The Labour Party does have one policy, and I do think it’s worth highlighting what their one policy is: it is a capital gains tax on New Zealanders—capital gains tax. Their only policy that they’ve so far announced is a capital gains tax on New Zealand. Of course, it fits within their frame. They have a three-point plan: tax, spend, borrow.

Now, they’ve only announced the tax part so far, but of course we know there’s more coming on that front, because, last week, Labour’s tax spokesperson, Dr Deborah Russell—who, of course, we remember her doctorate is in taxation; that’s the type of doctor she is—has spent her career lecturing university students on ever more creative ways to tax New Zealanders more. She was asked six times whether her capital gains tax goes far enough—six times. Now, of course, if you listen to Chris Hipkins on the radio, he goes, “Oh no, it’s a very confined policy.” Well, six times she refused to answer the question about whether it goes far enough, and, of course, we know what happens to Labour Party taxes: they grow—they grow.

Then we had Kieran McAnulty, their campaign chair, saying, “No, no, no—no other taxes.” Very reassuring, except, in the very same week, Ginny Andersen popped up and refused to rule out changes to the brightline tests. She refused to rule out changes to interest deductibility. The same party in the same week, and entirely different positions.

Then, when you thought you’d just about had enough of Dr Deborah Russell, she popped back up in another interview and let slip—and I quote—“Well, of course we’ll have more tax policy.” Of course they will, because it’s part of their three-point plan for the election: tax, borrow, spend. That’s the same party, and that’s what they do to everything.

Of course, this all came in response to their mates at the Council of Trade Unions (CTU), who put out—

Best friends.

Their best friends, says the member for Takanini. Their policy was to have a tax rate of 50 percent on income over $150,000, a more comprehensive capital gains tax, inheritance tax, wealth tax, windfall profit tax, and higher trust taxes. Labour’s tax spokesperson said, “Well, of course we’ll have more tax policy.”, and we know who writes their tax policy: it is the CTU.

My question to the Labour Party is: who holds the pen on tax policy in the Opposition? Who’s actually making the decisions? I think Kiwis deserve real, straight, non - Copilot and ChatGPT answers to the question of what a Labour Party would do if elected to Government.

I can tell you that, on this side of the House, we are focused on reducing taxes for hard-working New Zealanders. We provided tax relief in the 2024 Budget, for the first time in 14 years. We didn’t put in place the 12c increase in tax on fuel, which Labour would have done if they were elected in 2023. We axed the Auckland Regional Fuel Tax.

Of course, Labour has learnt nothing in Opposition and nothing from their time in Government. If they are elected in November, they will go back to their same old policies of tax, borrow, spend. New Zealanders know better, and that’s why they’ll re-elect National in November.

15:35

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope you’re having a good day. Toitū Te Tiriti to you, Mr Speaker, and to all of us here in this House.

A mature conversation is really the opportunity that, actually, all politicians could be taking right now. At the front of a mature conversation is really understanding the beautiful vision, in fact, that Te Tiriti always has been and always is, and that the vision for mana motuhake and tino rangatira—self-determination for iwi and hapū—actually is essential to creating an Aotearoa where we have social justice; where everyone has what they need to live good lives; where we are protecting te taiao and our environment, because she is our mother; where we are creating a future planet that is stable for our mokopuna, because we have obligations to at least the seven generations ahead; and where we are upholding the mana and dignity of every single one of us because that is inherent to te ao Māori, and that our own mana relies on us upholding the mana of all.

These are longstanding, well-established principles and understandings of Te Tiriti. They always have been and they always will be, and it is our communities, every single day, Māori and non-Māori—tangata Tiriti—working together for the better of their communities and people who show that leadership. They show us, every single day—generations now, in fact—everyday examples of care and manaaki and aroha, of ensuring that people are living quality lives with dignity, of working out together how to address some of our most pressing crises and issues: how to save the local lakes by working together with our shared knowledge, how to improve the health of water by working together with indigenous mātauranga Māori expertise and knowledge, and how to ensure that we can properly house our people and feed our people and have healthcare that serves all of our people.

That is what Te Tiriti offers, and that is why the Greens are not surprised but are absolutely outraged at the further attacks that this Government is bringing in by way of trying to weaken the legal standing of Tiriti clauses across legislation. It is pure ideology, and National members actually know it is wrong, and that’s why they are quietly trying to go about it, because they themselves even understand that that is a backward step. It flies in the face of generations of the maturing and evolving understanding that Te Tiriti has always been about people taking the best possible care of each other. Instead, it is being used and weaponised to cause division and to create further attack against Māori people, Māori communities, and against Te Tiriti, which the Greens are proud to stand behind as the founding document of our nation and, more specifically, its upholding of the tino rangatiratanga of iwi and hapū over our people, our lands, our treasures, and our resources.

Actually, we signed up to it to work in proper partnership with the Crown to achieve quality lives for all, and then this Government, with its coalition partners, is instead choosing to use their resource and energy to focus on further division and on trying to make out that Te Tiriti is something that it isn’t. While we’re in the middle of a war and a fossil fuel crisis, and having people literally swimming in the streets of Wellington, and people going without housing and kai and healthcare, this is what they choose to focus their energy on? While, at the same time, their own experts have advised against taking this forward with this process, which has never thought to properly engage and work with the very Māori who will be impacted by these legislative clawbacks and weakening of Tiriti responsibilities and obligations. This is where they are choosing to put their focus?

The Prime Minister needs to answer as to why he is continuing to give any credence and energy to weakening Te Tiriti when all that we are seeing every single day is marae around the country constantly stepping up first and without question to look after everybody, and they can do it quickly because they have been set up for centuries to immediately step into gear and take care of the masses, no matter who they are. In the face of all of that example of Te Tiriti beauty, this Government is choosing to create hate. Kia ora.

15:40

Tēnā koe e te Pīka. I want to talk about the last 511 days of this chaotic coalition and the crisis plus crisis plus crisis that it seems to have put Aotearoa in. It’s made me extremely angry and really sad, and I think what we need to be really clear about here is that what we have seen is a Government that has dismantled every kaupapa, every solution, everything that can be part of a growing, positive Aotearoa.

We shouldn’t take away from what it is. At the moment, we have a country experiencing three major crises: a cost of living crisis, a fuel crisis, and a resilient climate crisis. And what have we got? We’ve got a Government that’s continued to attack and to deny what exactly it is that is taking down everyday New Zealanders—everyday whānau, hapū, and iwi. And what do we see this Government do during this crisis? What do we see it does? Does it come up with solutions to help look after those women that it took equity funding from? Does it sit there and talk about those that are having hauora aspects equities? Does it sit there and help the working whānau that have been pushed back the harder they work? Does it sit there and address our reo? No.

What does it do during a fuel crisis? Does it sit there and give a plan so that our whānau know how they’re going to cope; how our kaumātua can choose to go between “I’m going to get kai.”, and “I’m going to travel to the GP.”? Does it sit there and help our whānau who have to drop off their tamariki to kura? Does it sit there and help our whānau who have to sit there and go out and do their jobs every day, based on fuel they can’t afford? No. It sits there and continues to make big profit from these fuel taxes.

We’ve got a climate crisis—a resilient climate crisis. We literally have seen cars on fences, and people hugely affected and fatally affected. What does it do? I’ll tell you what this Government does in its 199 days left that it has to govern: it starts a culture war, because that is exactly what the playbook of Trumpism does. What does he do? We’ve got Epstein files. What does he do? Start a war. What does this Government do? Starts a war on Te Tiriti—slyly, quietly, without any integrity. For years and years, we have seen legal experts, our leaders—our iwi leaders, our hapū leaders—go into urgency after urgency after urgency to hear our Te Tiriti claims. But, no, what does this Government do in 511 days? It pretends it doesn’t have to honour Te Tiriti. It pretends it doesn’t exist, and that is the crisis that we’re dealing with here. A Government that continues to show it’s not only run dry of fuel; it’s run dry of solutions, and so it deflects. It sits there and reminds people what we don’t agree on. It sits there and deflects from the whole fact they’ve run dry of solutions for the cost of living. They are hurting our whānau in a way that they’ve never been hurt before. In Te Tai Hauāuru, we have food banks that are 60 percent increased—increased. We have whānau that are making decisions on whether to eat or whether to be able to go to the hospital.

What are we dealing with here? We’ve got a country governed by a Government that doesn’t care about its people, so what does it do? It rage-baits. It goes out and creates a culture war. And we continue—

You would never do that.

And we hear the deflection over there. Let me remind our whānau what, in 511 days, this Government did: it cut Māori housing by $624 million; Te Ahu o te Reo Māori—it cut our reo by $30 million; kaupapa Māori education by $36 million; Whakaata Māori by $10 million; iwi Māori radio, Whānau Ora, all being cut, all at risk. Why? Not because it has an affinity with Māori or cares about Te Tiriti—$1 billion in 511 days. This Government has taken us back 60 years—60 years—and we don’t even want to talk about the healthcare situation; we don’t even want to go there.

I want to remind our whānau: we have 199 days to get together to fight against what it is that this Government is doing to us, and let me tell you, we have the power to constitutionally protect Te Tiriti. We have the power to get this Government out, but it will require that we have the power to turn up, to get on the Māori roll, and to make sure you participate, because they’re counting on us not mobilising.

For Māori, oneness is not sameness, but I tell you one thing that we’re really great at is coming together and protecting our Tiriti. That is my call to action for all of us out there who can no longer handle the pain that this Government has inflicted on us: 511 days of pain. We’ve got 199 days to get them out. We have the power, whānau. We have the ability to do that. Take it seriously, take people with you, and get them out now. Kia ora rā.

15:46

Two years ago, the people of New Zealand made the right decision to get rid of that Labour Government that was hopeless and had overcooked the stimulus, driven up $100 billion of extra debt, driven up inflation, including 30 percent house price inflation in one year, and they talk about housing affordability. They drove up house prices 30 percent in one year, and then, as a “Surprise, surprise!”, there were higher interest rates that made New Zealanders struggle. At the same time, we had a rise in crime, mainly driven by their culture of excuses—it wasn’t your fault if you bashed somebody over the head; it was society’s fault. It was somebody else’s fault.

Surprise, surprise, we had a rise in crime and we had very poor educational outcomes, including in maths, which we’ve just had a beautiful example of with the previous speaker talking about 511 days of this Government. I think you’ll find that we’ve been in more than 511 days. I think it’s 877, according to Copilot. We’re nearly up to three years in Government. I’d just encourage the member to think about that a bit more carefully.

What have we done in two years, under the great leadership of the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon? What we’ve achieved: we’ve achieved a path back to surplus, so we’re not adding to our debt. We’ve focused on real changes to bring about growth in our economy, such as the changes to the Resource Management Act, such as the infrastructure, such as changing the tax investment rules to encourage businesses to invest and get immediate relief from their taxes, and such as the India free-trade agreement that our good friend Todd McClay’s going to be signing in the next few days; 5 million people trading with 1.4 billion people, what an opportunity that is. It also includes extra tax relief so that there’s more money in New Zealanders’ pockets. And—what’s that? The disciplined spending that we’ve had has led to a reduction in inflation and a reduction in interest rates.

Great progress has been made—great progress has been made. I don’t like to be claiming any credit, because there’s been great work from Mark Mitchell and a whole host of colleagues in restoring law and order. We’ve had a reduction of 49,000 fewer victims of violent crime in the past two years since we’ve taken over in power. What an amazing transformation that’s been, as well as the changes in education. So, yes, we’re in a time of global challenges and global uncertainty, but in six months’ time, New Zealanders will have to decide whether they continue on with the progress that has been made over the last 2½ years to restore our country and get ourselves back in shape—or do we return to the mob that got us into the strife that we had 2½ years ago?

The point I would make to people tuning in on their crystal sets this afternoon would be to say: has anything changed on the other side? Has Chris Hipkins changed in the last 2½ years? My answer to that is absolutely not. As the economic maestro Simeon Brown has pointed out, their policy can be distilled into three words: spend, tax, borrow—and the combination of those three things. If you need to spend more, well, you tax more, and so the only thing that they’ve come up with is the capital gains tax. They’re also floating, I’ve heard, a windfall tax, so just think about that. They will be taxing the feijoas that fall off your tree, because they’re so desperate. Such is their lust for your money that they will go anywhere to get more taxes out of our people, and they will continue to borrow.

Apart from this capital gains tax, there have been no proposals from Labour in 2½ years. I remember about a year and a half before the previous election, as an Opposition spokesperson, I basically couldn’t open my mouth when talking to the media without those members saying, “I’m not listening to you until you say what you’re going to do. What is your policy, Mr Goldsmith?” That was a consistent message for 18 months. I couldn’t say anything without coming up with proposals, and we had serious proposals all lined up a year and a half before the elections. We were cranking stuff out. This mob have come up with nothing.

Yes, there needs to be a contest between the centre-right—this Government—and a proposed Labour - Greens - Māori Party coalition, and I’m very confident that we will win, but it’s a very important matter for this country. In the meantime, of course there will be competition between the three parties on the centre-right. My simple message to anybody tuning in today is that if you want to be sure of having a centre-right Government leading this country after the election, you’ve got to vote for National because anybody else is a bit of a risk. I wouldn’t say that it’s a terrible risk, but there is a bit of a risk, and if you want to be sure of a centre-right Government, you’ve got to vote for National.

15:51

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was interesting to hear that speech by the Minister of Justice, going over all of the different things that he wanted to discuss. One significant piece of work that he has been secretly working on was conveniently omitted from the list of policies that the Government has been focused on, and that is the work that the Government has covertly been doing to undermine existing legislation, which includes provisions with relation to the Treaty of Waitangi, or Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

I was lucky enough to grow up in a New Zealand during a time that is known as the Māori renaissance. That was a period of time where you could go to school, you could learn te reo Māori, you could learn about New Zealand history, you could learn about Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and, whether you were Māori or Pākehā, no matter where your ancestors came from, you could learn about our history, and you could look towards a future of how we could grow together as a nation.

It has been incredibly disappointing for everyone who has grown up in that period of time to hear the rhetoric from the Government, to see this coalition Government voting for a Treaty principles bill, and to then learn that not only was that bill—which they blamed on the ACT Party—part of their work to undermine the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand but they are secretly looking through every other piece of legislation in this country with a Treaty clause to see how they can weaken that provision.

Now, the Treaty of Waitangi is not a document which relates only to historical grievances; the Treaty of Waitangi—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—is a living document that can only be a living document if there are provisions within our legislation that look to enforce it. What the Government is doing, through Paul Goldsmith, who purports to have a background as a historian, is shamelessly going through and undermining every single document.

Why are they doing that? They say in their policy proposal that it is because they do not think that when these policies were put into place—when they were passed democratically by this Parliament—they had robust and detailed Treaty policy analysis. What does the Government do in response to that? It decides to go through a process which, by its own regulatory impact statement, states that it has not had enough time to go through the detail of what the impacts would be, that there has been no robust analysis, and that there has been no in-depth look at what the policy of this would be, but the Ministry of Justice itself says that there is a risk through their work that it will create further division between Māori and Pākehā, between Māori and Crown relations. This is an absolutely shameful piece of work that they have decided to go ahead with.

What is the impact of that going to be? We know that many, many of the principles that are set out in legislation do important things, like protecting the environment. The removal of this, we fear, may lead to greater environmental degradation because there isn’t a Treaty clause which is strong enough to protect that from happening.

We’ve heard a lot from the other side about what policies Labour stands for, and I can tell you that Labour does not stand for this. When we get elected at the end of this year, we will either repeal this or we will stop this work because we know that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is one of the founding documents of New Zealand. It has constitutional importance for this country. It is important for Māori—yes—and it is important for Pākehā, too. It is important for everyone in this country, and we will not take this Government’s trying in secret to undermine this very foundational document in up to 40 different pieces of legislation where we see Treaty principles.

This is of huge importance to New Zealand, and we have to ask: why are they actually focusing on this? We know that cost of living is the most important issue to New Zealanders. New Zealanders are not focused on changes to Te Tiriti provisions, and neither should the Government be. They are clearly desperate to do anything to take away from showing that they, in fact, have not done anything to fix the cost of living; in fact, they’ve made it worse. National members are too busy fighting with themselves and doing covert, secret operations to remove Treaty clauses to actually focus on what matters to New Zealanders, which is having jobs—the fact that people can actually go to work—warm homes, healthcare, and real action on the cost of living.

15:56

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just thought that I’d take the opportunity with the recent Cyclone Vaianu and the weather events that we have faced, although I’m not going to go back past December and Christmas-time because we’ve had a significant amount of weather events that have hit us as a country in the last three or four months. I just wanted to take this opportunity to firstly acknowledge all of those responsible who have stepped up to actually respond to these events and, of course, also the people that we’ve lost and their families and their loved ones and their communities, and I’ll come to that a bit later.

Basically, I want to start with acknowledging in this House the MPs who I work very closely with: Camilla Belich, who just spoke, who, in my view, has been an outstanding Opposition spokesperson for emergency management, and she has recently been promoted into the justice spokesperson role. You’ve been outstanding working with me. You often turn up to these events. You’ve taken it really seriously, working on the legislation as well, and I want to thank you and acknowledge you for that.

Francisco Hernandez—who is not in the House—for the Greens has taken a really responsible approach to our emergency management in this country, as well. I want to acknowledge him and the work that he’s done on the select committee.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—she will hate me acknowledging her, but the fact of the matter is that when we have these events, we work together for what is best for the country. There are two things that I believe this Parliament should always be united on: one is national security and the other one is emergency management. We do have a good working relationship.

I want to acknowledge Mark Patterson from New Zealand First—who is in the House—and just say that it is not only the leadership and the support you provide to the rural communities but Mark is someone that turns up to these events as well, and is always there and is always available.

Andrew Hoggard—who isn’t in the House—from the ACT Party, is exactly the same. He is deeply connected, especially to our rural communities, and is always there and present and ready to assist and provide any support that he can.

When I first became Minister, I had several reports, with the most recent one being from Sir Jerry Mateparae in relation to Cyclone Gabrielle, where he highlighted that one of the issues that we face inside our emergency management ecosystem in this country was what was called an optimism bias and, in sort of Kiwi terms, a “She’ll be right.” attitude. That was one of the things that was highlighted.

One of the others was the fact that we didn’t have clear command and control. We had our heroes step up to do the work but they didn’t really know where the information was coming from, where they could feed it, or where they were going to get it from. We fixed that with a lot of work with the current bill that is going through the House, and I thank all of those people that are working on that.

Obviously, I want to acknowledge my own National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA) team. They have put an enormous amount of effort in the last couple of years into the professionalisation of the service. They have had a constant cadence of work of dealing with this. They’re not always visible, our people out on the ground. Our NEMA people obviously are. They do incredibly hard work and I want to thank and acknowledge them for what they do.

To our mayors, to our chief executives, to our Civil Defence Emergency Management teams, the same. Thank you for the vigilance, thank you for the focus, thank you for taking these events seriously and for being prepared to make decisions early and not waiting until it’s too late, not waiting until you’re trying to play catch-up and you risk losing the confidence of the people that you serve.

To our first responders: we have world-class first responders in police, Fire and Emergency New Zealand, St John’s, Wellington Free Ambulance, and our surf lifesavers, who are really stepping up and really getting involved with the likes of Swift Water Rescue teams.

To iwi and hapū, thank you. You are outstanding partners in these events. You are very good at emergency management. I just want to address one point, and that is the Prime Minister, who is often on the ground with me at these events, recognised the importance of being able to actually make it much easier for marae to replenish supplies and has removed a lot of the red tape and compliance and went to a high-trust model so that we can do that. That has made a fundamental difference.

To our rural sector, to our rural trusts that stand up, to our communities—and I keep saying it, and I’ll say it again and again: the best way and the strongest way we can have a response to these events which leads to a much stronger and better recovery is whole-of-society, everyone working together, everyone has got some skin in the game and can take good personal decisions.

I just wanted to take the opportunity to be able to say thank you. Thank you to everyone who has been involved and put the effort in over the last three or four months. Thank you.

16:01

I want to talk about seniors, because seniors are really hurting right now. They’re hurting in a cost of living crisis. They have had no fuel relief because they’re not in that thin wedge of 150,000 New Zealanders who qualify, and yet they rely on fuel, many times, to have connection in the community. We heard from Simeon Brown today about tax relief. Many of the seniors got as much as $2.15 a week in the Government’s tax package. They face a bleak winter of coldness, many of them in cold, isolated houses, and food prices are up around 9 percent since this Government took office.

Now they’re hurting even more, because the Government is failing to respond to them in terms of the retirement villages law that they are planning to bring into the House. I am so thrilled to see that Consumer NZ is supporting, effectively, my bill and has launched a campaign today—which I would encourage everybody to get online and have a look at—saying that it is time that the Government actually did right by seniors and by retirement village residents and made sure that there were fair, mandated repayment times of three months, with 10 percent within five working days. Now, that exactly mirrors my bill. It’s what I’ve been asking for.

In fact, if the Government had taken up the opportunity to support or even adopt my bill, we would not be here today arguing over this point. But it is great to see that Consumer NZ has. They’re looking for 65,000 signatures. They already know that eight in 10 New Zealanders support the repayment times to be within three months and with some immediate money upfront. In fact, Jon Duffy, the chief executive of Consumer NZ, has described the current situation as ludicrous, and the proposals from the Government as unfair.

What’s happening at the moment is it’s costing around $700,000 cash for somebody to move into a retirement village, and they get about 30 percent taken off immediately. They only get their capital repayment, depending on how long they’ve stayed in there and when they exit, when the right to occupy is on-sold. Many of them—in fact, the majority—do not get a capital gain, and therefore the operator wins on every level.

Now, the Government is proposing to change this, after enormous pressure from the Retirement Village Residents Association, and from quite a lot of pressure from myself and from many wonderful residents up and down the country who’ve been writing to MPs. They’ve finally said they’re going to do something, but the proposed time that they are mandating, is 12 months, which is ludicrous—as has been said by Consumer NZ—and, perhaps even more unfairly, it will not apply to existing residents.

I asked the Associate Minister of Housing, Tama Potaka, about this in the House yesterday, and his reasons for failing seniors were limp. He talked about the one-year mandated time frame period as being to help operators with their liquidity. Well, when I look at the big six operators, they don’t have any problem with liquidity. One of them reports in its 2025 annual report that it has $600 million worth of undrawn debt capacity—in other words, that’s the capacity of the retirement village residents’ money—but also, they have 27 percent of uncommitted arrays in stock, and also 31 percent of a contract pipeline increase. Now, that shows that they definitely have liquidity, so that argument doesn’t fly.

He also talked about sanctity of contract, but that doesn’t make sense when, actually, in his own proposed legislation, he is mandating the requirement to stop fees when somebody dies or exits a village. It’s abhorrent that that should even happen, but it also shows that there is an inconsistency in how he is cherry-picking the so-called sanctity of contract. He tried to say that chattels and fixtures would not be included when I asked about repairs and maintenance, but his own advisers are telling people that they will be included, so I think the Minister has shown some confusion.

When he says he talks to villagers and they support his bill, I wonder who he is speaking to. Is it the Retirement Village Residents Association, who are absolutely against the proposals, or is it the village council, which is funded by the operators? They have no mandate, no elected representatives, no credibility, and yet they were busy contacting media last night, trying to make sure that they could be seen to be purporting the views of village residents.

If you’re in the eight out of 10 New Zealanders who are supporting this, get online, make sure you sign that petition, and let’s do right by our seniors.

16:06

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a short but important speech about the politics of delivery: $20 million - odd dedicated in a rapid period of time to recommission, restore, and save the legacy of Marsden Point by creating up to 100 million litres of storage for fuel in the midst of geopolitically driven uncertainty worsening our prospects for fuel certainty in New Zealand. I tell New Zealanders and I tell the Labour Party: I didn’t enter into long-term seances. Our Government made a rapid decision, dedicated capital, and, within eight weeks, New Zealand will have this additional fuel storage capacity either for an additional buffer or, in time, for it to be used by the fuel companies.

Of course, the fuel companies need to bear in mind that in the law, if they do not abide by the restrictions—and I heard the member from the Opposition the Hon Dr Megan Woods say, “Are we going to lift immediately the burden of obligation upon them to store more fuel in New Zealand?” At this stage, we’re taking them at their word, but fuel companies’ integrity depends on quality information, timely information. That is a key portion of the understanding that New Zealanders have with this particular model of just-in-time.

Of course, I don’t want to just champion my efforts at Marsden Point and reviving that once proud and magnificent asset which slipped from our grasp. I also have to move on to the $200 million dedicated to accelerating the delivery of gas in the short term. Now, it was a fateful and very bleak day when Jacinda Ardern made her captain’s call and condemned the oil and gas industry to a deep-freeze virtual type of termination. It took our Government to come, change the law, reverse that juvenile climate-riddled type of analysis, and provide an opportunity for investors to help New Zealand assume a common-sense and defensible position.

You cannot maintain electricity without fossil fuels, whether it’s access to coal, whether it’s access to gas. It’s absurd that Kiwis have mountains of coal under their feet in New Zealand, yet we are relying on Indonesian coal. Wait—wait, that is going to change. Obviously, these matters will be keenly contested at the next election, and I look forward to that fight. Over $100 million dedicated to thermal energy. I think the trick that was missed by Jacinda Ardern was that, when she cancelled the oil and gas industry, she dedicated nothing to the rapid development of an alternative source of electricity to keep the price of electricity affordable in New Zealand. She did nothing. She hoped that stardust—she hoped that forlorn hope—would provide a solution to Kiwi businesses, and what do we have now? A host of firms in “Strugglers Gully”, unable to cope with the escalation of fuel prices associated with gas and looking for assistance to transition to other sources—i.e., electricity.

What have I said: $100 million of actual delivery in super-critical minerals. Now, I have to acknowledge the member of the Opposition the Hon Dr Megan Woods, who did contribute, as science Minister, a relatively modest sum of money, and, as reflects my rhetorical approach to life, I turbocharged it. That means: well over $100 million to accelerate the delivery of geothermal energy. Now, what about the super-critical minerals? Super-critical minerals are key to our future. You cannot have a net zero journey without being mineral rich. We have them in New Zealand, we’re going to use them, and if the opportunity arises and we can do that in association with the United States, Japan, Korea, and other countries, I’ll do it in a nanosecond.

16:11

We are witnessing one of the most significant oil shocks in our lifetimes, and the role of this Government, and our focus, is to limit the economic impacts of this crisis for New Zealand people. That is primarily through fuel and prices, we’ve announced some targeted, timely, and temporary support for 143,000 middle and working class New Zealanders out there. We’ve recently announced some fuel relief for people in rural areas and our schools. We’ve got a fuel response plan, of which we’re currently in phase one. We’ve got a ministerial supply chain group that’s coordinating across ministries on the Government’s response.

Our Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, has requested the US Government to provide fuel tanks right here in the Pacific, we’ve got the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority out there actually driving really positive messaging around how to save more for New Zealanders, and we’ve got diplomatic cooperation through our Prime Minister, who is working with the heads of State of other countries to make sure we are top of the queue. The message is that we will come through this as a country. Through a measured, targeted response, we will come through this.

The choice at this year’s election is clear: a strong and stable coalition or a tax, spend, and borrow Labour - Greens - Te Pāti Māori coalition; a choice between National, a party of delivery, or Labour, the party who hasn’t released any significant policy to date and whose main strategy is to do nothing, say nothing, and hope and pray that gets them across the line; a choice between Christopher Luxon, a person who has the skills and economic credibility to lead this country to better days, or Chris Hipkins, a person whose only job has been in politics and who has managed, basically, an “F” in every portfolio he has managed. Let’s go through his performance. Police: under his watch, crime went up. The Public Service: numbers went up. Education: outcomes went down. COVID-19: he locked New Zealanders out of this country. As PM, we all know what happened. He got booted out loud and clear in 2023, and that is just his professional performance.

For National, we know we’ve got much to do to communicate our plans and policies to New Zealanders, but we know that the majority of Kiwis back National’s core values: personal responsibility, private enterprise, small and limited Government, and strong families. My message to Kiwis up and down this country is this: if you reject socialism and believe in our values, back National at this year’s election. Our plan is simple: we’ve got to get us through this economic crisis by limiting the impacts on New Zealanders.

Being responsible.

We’re going to be doing so, as Rima Nakhle said, in a responsible, fiscally prudent way. We’re not going back to the days of spending, borrowing, and raking up New Zealand’s debt.

It’s all about the economy, powering up the economy through Resource Management Act reform, which Minister Chris Bishop is doing a great job with. We’ve got education reform—isn’t Erica Stanford doing a great job? Core education reform. We’ve got Nicola Willis making sure we actually get back to surplus, because without that, your kids and our kids have no future in this country. We’ve got Minister Simeon Brown, who is doing a great job of turning our healthcare system around. At the helm of this is our Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, who’s knitting together three different coalition partners and knitting together a broad coalition of National MPs, getting us moving in one simple direction.

I’m excited about this year’s campaign. I am really excited about 7 November. We’ve got to back National to make sure we get a better, brighter future for New Zealand.

16:16

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m really excited about next week, because the New Zealand - India free-trade agreement is going to be signed on Monday. It is not something to be feared; it is an opportunity to be seized, because it is going to give us access to 1.5 billion people. Imagine the opportunities for our farmers, exporters, and manufacturers. We cannot replicate that scale here in New Zealand.

What does that mean? That means real economic growth. That means higher-paying jobs. That means more money coming into New Zealand. But, despite all these things, there are some members who are trying to spread fear about this free-trade agreement. This is nothing new; we have been here before. I would suggest we recall that, with the China - New Zealand free-trade agreement, similar comments were made at the time. We recall the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. There were so many protests. Some protests were really loud and fierce. What is really interesting to see is that some members who took part in those protests, are still members of this House. Do we hear anything from them now? No, nothing, because they have realised that those free-trade agreements were really good for New Zealand. History tells us that those people who oppose free-trade agreements are short-sighted.

I don’t intend to make this speech about immigration, because immigration is not a major component of this free-trade agreement, but I must say this: I hear again and again that people coming from other countries, migrants coming into New Zealand, are taking away opportunities from locals. Yes, that is true: when people migrate from one place to another place, they are looking for opportunities. They are looking for better opportunities. It applies to people who migrate to New Zealand, and it applies to people who migrate out of New Zealand. But another thing is also true, and that is: when people come here, they also create opportunities for others.

If some members in this House want to reduce this very serious debate on a free-trade agreement, and on immigration policy, to butter chicken, I would say this: let’s think that through in a logical manner, because it doesn’t just stop at butter chicken. If you look at all the positions being filled on our farms, and if you look at all the positions being filled in processing plants, all those people who are working in supermarkets stocking shelves, we see so many migrants working in these roles. Without migrants, it will not only be butter chicken missing from people’s dining tables; there will be no hāngī in community events and there will be no bacon and eggs for breakfast.

Migrants are not on the sidelines of our economy; they are part of our economy, and this “butter chicken tsunami” is just a slogan. It’s a slogan that has been created to do two things: one is to create fear; and the second is to grab attention. I say this to New Zealanders: don’t fall into that trap.

If I just pick one group—I’ll pick senior citizens—I say to senior citizens: don’t fall into that trap. Why? I want them to imagine for a minute, look around—you know, those people who come to help them. Look at that person who comes to provide help in their house. How many times is it an immigrant face? Senior citizens, those who are in rest homes, I say to them: look around, how many of those people are migrants, those who are providing you dignity and comfort at your rest home?

I say to these people, when you turn up to hospital, how many nurses and doctors around you are migrant faces? When you had that knee or hip surgery, how many people around you—those who helped you—were migrant faces? When you call for a taxi because you can’t drive, how many times is it a migrant face that turns up to your doorstep and takes you safely from one point to another point? Now, I want these senior citizens to imagine if these migrant faces were not there, what will their life look like?

That is why this debate on immigration policy is a serious debate and we need to do it in a respectful manner, and we know that the ACT Party is going to do that. Coming back to the free-trade agreement, it’s not a threat; it’s an opportunity. It’s up to us. The question is not if the opportunity is there or not; the question is whether we are willing to take it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

16:21

I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the remaining stages of the Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill; the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill second reading; the Online Casino Gambling Bill third reading; the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill second reading; and the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill second reading.

Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2024/25 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises, as reported on by select committees.

There are four hours and 39 minutes remaining in this debate. Tākuta Ferris has transferred his remaining five minutes to the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. The remaining times for each party are as follows: New Zealand National has one hour and 25 minutes; New Zealand Labour has one hour and 26 minutes; the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 40 minutes; ACT New Zealand has 34 minutes; New Zealand First has 32 minutes; Te Pāti Māori has 17 minutes.

Following a Business Committee determination, the annual review debate will be arranged by portfolio rather than sector. Specific Ministers will be available each day to respond to specific portfolios. The Government has indicated that the Minister for Energy, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Minister for the Environment, the Minister of Climate Change, the Minister for Pacific Peoples, and the Minister for Māori Development will be available today to respond to members’ questions. Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered annual reviews most closely related to the Minister’s portfolios. The Minister for Energy will be here until 5.00 p.m. to respond to member’s questions. It is also my understanding that Minister will be available later this evening from 9.00 p.m. to 9.20 p.m.

Once again, the question is that the report of the Financial and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the 2024-25 financial year be noted.

16:24

Thank you, Mr Chair. As the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, I am very happy to open this debate and report to the committee that the select committee worked really hard and scrutinised the energy portfolio. The discussion and the scrutiny revolved around delivering energy security and value for resources. We discussed making energy more affordable; we discussed investment and renewable energy. The Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) told us that, on several key issues to drive energy costs down, they were working on many, many measures. They also talked about the electricity market performance review which happened earlier in 2025.

We also talked about giving consumers more power, and MBIE in the select committee told us that, to give consumers better ability to control their own costs, they were working on various measures. Examples included removing the need for consents for rooftop solar, developing a consumer data right for electricity, and working with the Electricity Authority so consumers are rewarded better when they feed energy back into the grid.

We also talked about dry-year cover. MBIE told us that they were setting up a regulatory regime to ensure that the energy sector is able to cover a dry year. Along with these topics, we also discussed the efficacy of energy initiatives and funding. Thank you, Mr Chair, and I really look forward to this debate.

16:26

Thank you, Mr Chair. The energy and the plans that we as a country have around energy sit at the heart of who we need to be as a nation. It drives our economy, it creates jobs, and it underlies industry. It also sits at the heart of our wellbeing as a country. Having well-heated, well-insulated homes means a healthier population, so examining this appropriation is critically important, not only for understanding our health and wellbeing but understanding our economic health and wellbeing. Our energy system exists to support both its citizens and its industry.

There’s a number of questions that will cut across both the Minister and the Associate Minister, given the divide that sits in this portfolio. I will start with some questions around fuel and the fuel plan that the Government has in place. This afternoon, we heard from the Associate Minister for Energy that he hasn’t considered using the powers that sit within the Fuel Industry Act, as Labour amended it. He’s quite content to sit at the minimum powers that that piece of legislation offers. I’d like to know what plans and what would be the triggers for the Minister to start using both the additional minimum stockholding obligation powers that sit within the legislation, and also the regulatory backstop that was put in place in order for there to be more information for New Zealand businesses and New Zealand households around what the stockholdings would look like.

16:28

Thank you, Mr Chair. We’ve certainly realised just how vulnerable we are to dependence on fossil fuels, given the US and Israeli warmongering this year. We’ve also seen how hard people are doing it. There’s been a 12 percent annual increase in power prices, and the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment identified the lack of backup for dry years as a key issue, and that’s affecting energy affordability. We’ve also heard the previous Minister give a bold claim that importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) will provide dry-year cover and will lower household electricity bills from what they might be. That’s some impressive crystal ball - gazing.

Why on earth did the Government not model the cost of an international price spike, and will the Government now reconsider spending over $1 billion of public funds on the LNG import terminal? That’s one question. If the Government does not proceed with LNG, have there been any alternatives considered, and would those alternatives be the same as considered by Concept Consulting in their modelling that was released or are new alternatives being put forward? And I’ll follow up.

16:29

Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the members for their questions. It is good to be able to have a debate in this committee of the whole House stage on energy policy, which is foundational to our economy. Energy policy is the foundation of a strong economy, and this Government has had to clean up the mess left behind by the previous Government and the decisions that they made that led to a New Zealand energy market that was less secure, less affordable, and more reliant on international coal to fire up Huntly Power Station.

Those are the decisions made by the previous Government that we have had to clean up. We’ve had to remove the 2030 100 percent renewable target, which, of course, was an absolute fantasy—an absolute fantasy. We’ve stopped the last Government’s obsession with a lake at the bottom of the South Island that wouldn’t provide dry-year cover until the year 2037 at a cost of $16 billion at least, and, of course, we’ve had to reverse their ghastly ban on oil and gas exploration, which, as I said, has led to us not only being more dependent on international coal but it has also led to the deindustrialisation of New Zealand businesses across the country. That means fewer jobs. I would have thought the Labour Party, where one of the things they like talking about is jobs—well, I saw a report just the other day that said that their decision to ban oil and gas exploration led to the direct result of 2,000 fewer jobs in Taranaki—2,000 fewer jobs. That is ultimately the result of the previous Government’s decision, which is to deindustrialise New Zealand and reduce and remove regional jobs.

We’re now making the tough decisions to ensure we have secure and affordable energy here in New Zealand. We’re seeing good progress against all of those things, whether it’s making sure that we get the long-term agreements in place so that Tīwai smelter provides certainty to the electricity market—whether it’s making sure we have a strategic coal reserve so we can provide the dry-year cover that’s needed; whether it’s making sure we actually pass fast-track legislation which is seeing a renewables boom in this country. I just saw last week that the Waitaha run-of-river scheme in the South Island is being opposed by our Opposition—the very Opposition who think we need more renewables are opposing fast-track consent for that project. Our focus is very much on affordable, secure supplies so that Kiwi households and businesses have the affordable energy that we need.

There have been a number of questions about dry-year cover, and, of course, that is a critical issue that we must face, and many of the decisions we’ve made have helped to address that. There, of course, have been a range of options that have been considered, and I encourage the member to go and read the Cabinet paper and the business case and all of the documentation, which looks at all of the options and all of their different costs. Ultimately, if the member is suggesting that the option he would prefer is more coal—which is ultimately one of the alternatives—it has twice the emissions of gas, and, ultimately, means more dependency on imported coal from Indonesia. Now, I didn’t think that was the Green Party policy, but that’s what it looks like.

Just before I take any further calls, obviously the scope of the debate has probably been increased somewhat by the range of the Minister’s answer, so be aware of that.

16:33

If the Minister for Energy wanted to try and tie his answers back to Budget 2024 and 2025—of course, we can see that that was the Budget where a range of initiatives to support New Zealand businesses to keep people employed and people in work were scrapped. That was one of the effects of the mini-Budget, and then through into Budget 2025, which is the one that is under scrutiny. The Minister had a range of issues that he talked about, so I have several questions, and then we’ll come back later in the debate—I’m sure the Associate Minister will welcome the Minister making him stay in the Chamber longer; the Minister in the chair will welcome the fact that he has to stay through to the latter part of this allocation.

In terms of the Minister’s claim that the oil and gas ban is somehow responsible for what we are currently seeing, I would like to know specifically what advice the Minister has seen about how long it takes to bring something from exploration to production; what the average period of time in New Zealand has been from a permit for exploration being issued through to be actively producing well, and whether or not ever in New Zealand’s history we would have seen a well go from exploration to production in the period of time from 2018 to 2026. I’m specifically asking about the advice he has received on that. I’m also asking the Minister whether he received advice about the over $1 billion that was invested by the oil and gas industry into existing permits post 2018 to go looking for additional gas in the existing permits, but commercial finds were not found.

I’d also like to ask the Minister, around the dry-year cover—he said that Scott Willis should go and read the documentation. Well, I can assure the Minister, I have read all the documentation, I’ve read the Cabinet paper, and what I know from the Cabinet paper is that is says that there wasn’t time to produce a regulatory impact statement to adequately assess all the alternatives that were in there and that were being considered when the Government made a rash decision around liquefied natural gas (LNG). That cost-benefit analysis was not done, Minister—but since you seem to have that knowledge, I’d like to know exactly what the other options were and how they stacked up against LNG. Certainly, the documentation that the Government released did not show that—neither the Cabinet paper nor any of the supporting information that sat around it.

I wait with bated breath to hear from the Minister. Fundamentally, we have a Government that cancelled work that was under way for the most important part of New Zealand’s energy system, and that is how it is that we adequately store energy for dry-year risk. The Minister will say, “Lake Onslow, Lake Onslow”—the Minister killed the New Zealand Battery Project. The Minister killed a programme of work that was not just looking at pumped hydro and Lake Onslow; it was looking at a range of options of how to store energy for a dry year. This was thrown out by this Minister in his first time as Minister for Energy. The Government then had to scurry and has come up with an unaffordable plan in LNG that is going to put the price of electricity up in New Zealand.

In terms of the plan that this Government has for giving affordability and security to New Zealanders, we still haven’t seen an energy strategy. the Government has been in Government for nearly three years, and it is still yet to emerge. Businesses are continually asking for it.

In terms of helping businesses in the transition, I’d like to know what the Minister thinks of Business New Zealand’s plea last week for the Government to assist businesses to transition away from gas so that they can keep operating and keep people in employment after the Government slashed all the funding that Labour had put in place to assist businesses with that transition.

16:38

It’s lovely to be back as the Minister for Energy, isn’t it? It’s great to be back, and it’s great to talk about some of the decisions I made last time, such as stopping her boondoggle of a project, Lake Onslow, in the middle of the mountains, which, of course, wasn’t going to produce a single kilowatt of electricity until 2037 at the earliest, at a cost of $16 billion at a minimum. That was the solution. The Government has worked very hard, very fast, and put other options on the table, which we’re now working through a process to make decisions on.

I’d point out to the member that making a decision this decade and implementing a solution this decade is far more important than waiting for 2037, because the impact of higher prices is having a real impact on our economy today—today. The advice I’ve seen is that by 2025, higher energy prices, caused by many of the decisions made by her Government, are estimated to have worsened New Zealand’s trade balance by $275 million, reduced our GDP by $5.2 billion, and cut household spending by 1.65 percent. Of course, we saw the impact of what that looked like in 2024, when the sun wasn’t shining, the rain wasn’t falling, the wind wasn’t blowing, and they killed the oil and gas industry. That is absolutely shameful—shameful for our economy, shameful for Taranaki.

She has the audacity to stand up and say, “Well, how long would it take to find some gas?” Well, I can tell you what: if she hadn’t banned oil and gas exploration eight years ago, I’m pretty sure there would have been “Drill, baby, drill!” happening right now up and down New Zealand so we can have our own indigenous gas here in New Zealand, which, of course, she killed, making us more dependent.

Of course, we saw the Leader of the Opposition, the wannabe PM, in question time and, of course, Chlöe Swarbrick, talking about how we want to be more resilient, more independent, more of these things—they are the very people who have destroyed the very industry that would make us independent.

That’s why we reversed the ban on oil and gas exploration. That’s why we have got rid of the chilling impact of the Lake Onslow project on the energy sector. We’re now seeing our renewables boom here in New Zealand, with solar, with wind, with geothermal projects. We are seeing fast track getting more projects delivered faster than ever. That is good news. We will keep delivering; Megan Woods will keep moaning.

16:41

Thank you, Mr Chair. Given that the Minister for Energy has been unable to answer the question previously about why the Government did not model the cost of international spike price on liquefied natural gas, I’m assuming that they don’t care about the price, because consumers will pay for it.

We also heard in the 2024-25 annual review of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) that MBIE is working to give consumers a better ability to control their own costs—examples include removing the need for consents for rooftop solar, and working with the Electricity Authority so that consumers are rewarded better when they feed energy back into the grid. But the Government rejected advice to provide financial mechanisms like a ratepayer assistance scheme and hasn’t legislated for a feed-in tariff.

Given the energy crisis we’re in and given the pain that households are feeling at the moment, will the Government look again at financial mechanisms to enable greater solar and battery uptake to help households with high electricity bills and/or legislate for a solar feed-in tariff? I’d like to hear from the Minister.

16:42

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just to remind the Minister for Energy of some of the questions that are still outstanding: how does he respond to Business New Zealand’s call for the Government to step up and partner with industry to help businesses that are suffering and where we’re seeing businesses close down and people lose their jobs? Business New Zealand put out a very clear plan last week, and I’d be very keen to understand whether the Minister has asked for advice on that and whether the Minister is planning to step up and do something to support our businesses who are struggling, or whether he’s going to ignore that plea.

I also would like to ask the Minister—he hasn’t addressed the issue that Scott Willis raised about the advice they may have had about international liquefied natural gas (LNG) prices, but given, in the Cabinet paper, it was laid bare that a group of Ministers were going to be making the commercial decision, rather than officials—a delegated group of Ministers—and given the Prime Minister’s call to see whether or not this stacks up, whether the Minister still intends, as per his predecessor’s plan that was laid out in the Cabinet paper, that, at a time of such global uncertainty, it will be politicians making a commercial decision about who should be the final procurer of the LNG scheme.

16:44

Look, I thank the members for their questions. In regards to the questions around solar, my understanding is that the Electricity Authority has made decisions in regards to feed-in tariffs, with that implementation later this year, and that, of course, is alongside the reduction in consent requirements for rooftop solar. We are seeing a significant increase in people putting rooftop solar on their houses, which does make a big difference. We’ll continue to look at what other initiatives may be needed to support increases in rooftop solar and the role that that can play for households across the country.

In terms of the question around the war in the Middle East and the impact that has, of course that has an impact on spot prices, but, of course, as Genesis has mentioned in relation to this issue, there is what’s called “hedging” and managing contracts, and a whole range of other financial and commercial tools which can be used to manage price.

To answer the member who’s just sat down’s question, we’re going through a procurement process. We’ll be taking into account a range of factors for making a final decision.

The last question was in relation to Business New Zealand’s call for subsidies and, I think, a reimagination of the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund, which, of course, was the previous Minister’s—

Boondoggle.

—boondoggle. We are not in the business here of just simply subsidising businesses, but we are in the business of lowering energy prices so that we can ensure New Zealand businesses and households have access to affordable energy. That requires all of the initiatives that we’ve done as a Government and more, because we need to make sure that we have an energy market which works and which is driving investment forward. I am pleased to let the member know that we have a renewables boom currently under way in this country, which is doing a fantastic job. There, of course, is much more work to do.

16:46

Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s a couple of questions. I just want to start with the first one. Of the 30 permits that existed in the oil and minerals sector, how many were forfeited and how many were actually producing?

Then I’d like to go into the questions about renewable energy. On paper, it looks like we’re 80 to 85 percent renewable, except electricity, except that when you go into those reports more, that excludes our reliance on the transport industry, which is still extremely fossil heavy.

I’m going to push through these questions, if it’s OK with the Minister for Energy, because I’m aware that we have limited time as a party. How I’d like the line-up of questions is: does the Minister accept the quoting of 80 percent renewable electricity masks the reality that less than half of our total energy use is actually renewable, and why is the Government relying on statistics that exclude industries such as transport? That’s our biggest risk to resilience, as a country.

The other thing is the cost of living contradiction. There are 140,000 homes that have taken up the loan opportunity. Is the Government happy with the fact that there are many that haven’t? If we’re having a renewable boom, how is it going to be accessible and how are you claiming that transition is working?

Also, I’d like to understand from the Minister what percentage of Aotearoa’s renewable infrastructure is owned offshore, rather than by communities or the public? Enjoy the conversation of indigenous oil—do we have indigenous solar?

The other aspect is that we talked about dry-year risk, and we have a heavy reliance on hydro. What is the Government’s plan to guarantee supply during those dry years, without reverting to coal and gas?

Just a couple more—bear with me. What investment is being made in regional grids to enable local generation, particularly in rural communities?

Are we building a system, in your mind, from a renewables perspective, where energy is generated locally but controlled and priced centrally; if so, what’s the difference between the issues that we have now? Thank you.

16:49

I thank the member for the questions. Of course, when it comes to what percentage of our electricity comes from renewable sources, those statistics are very clearly stated. That is around the percentage of our electricity and its generation from renewable sources, and it’s around 85 percent as a country. That is something we should be incredibly proud of.

There is a significant pipeline in, in particular, indigenous solar—that is a big part of the pipeline. I’m advised that the total forward pipeline of indigenous solar is 1,867 megawatts, which equates to 2,697 gigawatt hours of indigenous solar in the pipeline, 2026-29. I can also confirm to the committee that that indigenous solar does not need to go through the Strait of Hormuz; it comes straight from the sun to New Zealand, and there is a huge amount of it getting built under this Government. Isn’t that a good thing? I hope the member would be welcoming it and celebrating it, because that’s what happens when you have fast track, and it’s what happens when you have a National Government focused on making sure we get rid of the roadblocks, and getting things done. There’s a lot happening in the energy space and lots more to do.

16:50

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, there’s so much going on under this Government in terms of energy generation and resources. It’s really hard to keep up but just this very morning, the public notification—

Breathtaking.

—and I’m interested in the Minister for Resources’ knowledge of this, and perhaps you could illuminate, because a major announcement was publicised this morning in turning Southland’s lignite reserve, I believe it’s something like 9 billion tonnes, into urea, and also electricity generation from the hydrogen.

On top of that, my understanding—and perhaps the Minister could illuminate, the impact that fast track has had on drawing that investment—is that we’re actually competing with Victoria in Australia. If the Minister could answer those questions, please.

16:51

Somewhat unusually, I’m going to stand to address, because the portfolio is split, the questions from the honourable shadow Minister for Energy, first. A question has been raised: why do we not increase the obligations upon the fuel importers, very quickly, so that they go straight up to 28 days, and that creates a problem as to where this additional fuel would be stored—not only that; the costs associated with demurrage if this additional fuel was brought to New Zealand and left in a vessel bobbing on the coastline.

Now, of course, none of this would have happened had the situation been handled differently with the closure of the refinery, and I’m not going to tempt an admonition from you, other than to say the fact: had the 700 million - odd litres of storage capacity not been terminated in 2021-22, we may very well have had tanks fit for use. However, I inherited a situation where there were a lot of aspirational paragraphs; no budget, no plan of execution. Within eight weeks, New Zealand—eight weeks—I’ve achieved, on behalf of the Government, what the last regime could not do for 1,000 weeks; simply dedicated a small amount of money, relatively speaking, to upgrade 100 million litres’ worth of storage; recommissioned a crude tank, to the best of my knowledge, for the purposes of holding additional diesel.

The acid is on the fuel import companies because, yes, as the honourable member knows, we’ve given them a period of time to create additional storage capacity and, from time to time, a number of their tanks are not full, but no one’s car, day by day, in New Zealand, when they drive it around, is full of fuel. The capacity of the tanks ebbs and flows. That’s my response in that regard.

In respect of what additional steps the Government might be making to build an additional sovereign buffer, all I would say is: until such time all Ministers have addressed that issue, as the Prime Minister has adverted to, then we’ll make an announcement as to what level of additional buffer should be created.

The other point that was made is: what confidence do we have as to what’s happening on the other side of the refinery businesses, given the disruptiveness and the massive changes that have happened in terms of where the feedstock is coming into the refineries? It gets converted into fuel, gets put on to ships, and eventually makes its way through to New Zealand predominantly, if not exclusively, through three companies.

We’ve been advised that the refineries have been reorientated to cope with feedstock from Latin America, the United States of America, Africa, and alternative sources. Now, it is true that 20 million barrels per day were going through the Strait. However, there was always an additional amount of feedstock coming out of that part of the world, the Middle East; that is still flowing, but the disruptiveness has caused the refineries to reorient. No single fuel company has said that they are close or perilously heading towards violating their legal obligations, because punitive damages up to $700 million could be visited upon them.

16:55

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m going to ask one question, but I also wanted to remind the Minister who’s just spoken about the question that my colleague the Hon Mark Patterson asked about the lignite urea plant in Southland, which has been proposed because that seems to be a massive opportunity.

The question I wanted to ask about is that when talking to one of the energy companies recently, they said, “Well, look, we’ve got a range of different generation proposals.” They had a solar proposal, they had a battery proposal, they had a wind proposal, they had a geothermal proposal. What was interesting is that the, if you like, base plate number for the solar was very much the cheapest; the geothermal was the most expensive of them. Given that the solar plant would only operate less than 20 percent of the time, in effect because it’s not sunny all the time, it certainly doesn’t operate at night, by the time you set what level of energy it generated, the geothermal plant was actually the cheapest by the amount of energy that it generated, and, of course, it’s operating close to 100 percent of the time.

My question that I wanted to ask—in addition to the question that the Hon Mark Patterson asked in terms of the lignite urea conversion—is to ask about the progress that’s being made on super-critical geothermal exploration, how that’s going, and what difference that would make if we managed to get that to work to the New Zealand electricity system, in terms of delivering reliable and more cost-effective energy and what that does, of course, for industry.

The Hon Megan Woods. Just a reminder that the Minister will be leaving the chair at 5 but will be back here at 9 tonight.

16:57

OK. I have several questions; one is for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simeon Brown. What is the current balance, as of today, of the Petroleum or Engine Fuels Monitoring Levy memorandum account?

The other question I have is for the Associate Minister for Energy. What advice did he receive when he cancelled the plan for a 70 million - litre storage facility for diesel that would have been at Marsden Point and would have been under construction right now? Did he get advice that, in fact, the previous Government had changed the law so that memorandum levy account was available to be used to fund it? When the Minister says that there was no plan, was he advised that, indeed, there had been a legislative change to provide the funding to allow for a 70 million - litre diesel storage facility at Marsden Point, but that Minister cancelled that in 2024? He told his Cabinet colleagues that he was doing it as part of the cost-saving measures of their Government.

Does the Minister regret the fact that he’s put New Zealand’s energy security at risk? He’s now claiming that he’s fixed it in eight weeks. Does the Minister, now, accept that all he is doing is putting back in place the plan that he scrapped in 2024, which was to have a strategic reserve of diesel at Marsden Point? While that is around a week’s worth of diesel, he would have received advice that showed that, actually, if you were going to use that for essential services, that could be up to four months’ worth of diesel for New Zealand to keep things running. But he took a paper to Cabinet in 2024 and cancelled that project.

16:59

I can only but answer the first part of her question, which was: what is it, as at today? I don’t have the number as at today. I’m very happy, if you put that in writing, to answer that.

Secondly, I’m sick and tired of the scaremongering by the Opposition—the absolute scaremongering from the Opposition—when it comes to how much fuel is in our country at the moment. They’re scaremongering, rather than actually putting out the facts about the fact that we have supply in the country and supply on the way; instead, they’re reverting to scaremongering, which I think is appalling.

That’s time, sorry. The time with the Minister for Energy has been suspended now until 9 p.m. this evening.

17:01

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to just make some opening remarks ahead of the Social Service and Community Committee comments, and then I’m more than happy to answer questions. This is obviously the debate on the 2024/25 annual review for Vote Social Development. As I said at the annual review hearing, which was back in December last year, my highest priority as the Minister is to support New Zealanders into work, while ensuring those who genuinely can’t work are able to draw on support when they need it. We have a Government target to reduce the number of people receiving the jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by the year 2030. Of course, the faster we can help those on benefit find sustainable employment, the better the outcomes are for them, their families, our communities, and, of course, our country. I’m conscious that we’ve only got a short time, so I just want to provide some brief statements and then answer questions.

I’d like to acknowledge some of the work that’s been done by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) during the year in review, 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025. As expected in the current economic climate, in the uncertain global environment, the overall number of people in the year in review receiving a benefit increased. However, our Government’s welfare reset is getting results and helping job seekers to be work-ready and proactive about stepping into the opportunities that exist to either, you know, be ready for work as the opportunities are there.

In the year in review, MSD supported 80,700 people off benefits and into work. Given the economic circumstances in the year in review, I think that’s a really great result. MSD answered around 4.4 million phone calls, funded community support services accessed by over 94,639 people, and processed 271,500 student loan and student allowance applications. The focus on employment and proactive staff engagement is really helping more people to move into work. In the 2024-25 year, this included expanding case management from a capacity of 60,000 to 70,000, and that included the implementation of phone-based case management. We’ve also increased our Kōrero Mahi seminars, which saw a total attendance of approximately 70,000 people throughout the year.

We implemented community coaching, which funded a further 2,100 places for youth job seekers to address barriers and support them into employment. This was achieved despite a tight fiscal environment. MSD saved a total of $352 million during the year in review, with more savings forecast in out-years. This included $15.7 million in savings from contractors and consultants, with more savings from this category also being reprioritised within the ministry; and also 17,000 saved with changes to make the workforce more efficient.

There is, of course, much more work ahead of us; we’re very clear about that. I do want to acknowledge the incredible work of every one of the team at the Ministry of Social Development, who do an amazing job to help New Zealanders overcome the barriers they face to employment. I want to thank them on the record for their hard work, for their dedication, and the incredible public service they provide. I’m happy to take questions, Madam Chair.

Yeah, I’ll call Willow-Jean Prime, but I just wanted to make a comment. Last night, we had a bit of an issue, so if there are any Associate Ministers in the House—I’d like to ask the indulgence of the ACT Party for any Associate Ministers to sit over here, because we can’t have officials coming out on to the floor of the House.

I indulge thee.

Thank you, Simon Court.

17:05

Tēnā koe e te Māngai. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call. This annual review debate is for the 2024-25 financial year, and it’s an opportunity to reflect on what the Government has done for our most vulnerable people. People who are seeking extra support and assistance, and also assistance to get a job—often the most vulnerable of our people. Unfortunately, when we do this, we can all see that this Government is making things worse. They are taking away opportunity and then kicking people when they are down.

Let’s start with the most obvious: this Government took office promising to reduce jobseeker numbers by 50,000. What we can see is that they are closer to increasing it by 50,000 than they are to decreasing it. Over 25,000 people have ended up needing to turn to State assistance under great duress due to this Government’s failures. The record is stark: unemployment is up, food insecurity is up, child poverty is up, and more and more jobs are being lost. And what has this Government done? They have sanctioned vulnerable people when they simply need support. They’ve slashed funding for community services and made it harder for people to get the help that they need. I want to start by asking questions around those jobseeker numbers, the targets, and the sanctions.

Quite obviously, this target has not been met, and I see from the Government’s own tracking that the chance of meeting this is becoming less and less likely every day that they are in power. But I want to ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment about something that she said in the 2024 Estimates hearings. During that hearing, my colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni noted that she had received an Official Information Act (OIA) response about the measure for the target. In that OIA response, the Ministry for Social Development and Employment recommended that work exits be the measure of success for the target, not the number of people on jobseeker support. The Minister has referred to that in her opening comments. The Minister’s reply was “You’ve also got to look at what’s happening for the numbers coming in and staying in.” My question for the Minister is: what is she doing to understand the people coming on to jobseekers and staying on, and the people leaving and staying off?

17:08

Thank you, Madam Chair. The member has referred to the jobseeker target, which was, of course, as I mentioned in my opening comments, to reduce the number of people on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000. That’s by the year 2030. I accept that the target is at risk, but every day I get up and go to work, that is what I’m focused on, because what we do know is that the best way to reduce hardship is for families to be in work. While I accept—and I said in my opening remarks—that the economic conditions in the 2024-25 period were incredibly challenging, but, actually, we saw 80,700 people leave benefit and go into work.

The member asked the question and referred to the difference between work exits and jobseeker numbers. If I’m blunt about it, actually, work exits is an easier target. But I’m more interested in people actually being in employment, leaving jobseeker benefit, and being on a better pathway towards independence—which is why I accepted a far more challenging target, which was around the number of people on the jobseeker benefit. We want to see real results and real outcomes, and we’re not afraid of having an ambitious target that will be challenging for us to meet, but we know the difference that people coming off the jobseeker benefit and being in work makes.

17:10

Thank you, Madam Chair. I did ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment to explain more to help me understand what she is doing to understand the people coming on to the jobseeker benefit and staying on, and the people who are leaving and coming off. I don’t believe the Minister addressed that.

While the Minister is getting some guidance there, the next issue I would like to ask about is the sanctions and the traffic light system. I understand that the Minister has an early assessment of the traffic light system that she uses to talk about its success, but, as far as I can see, success relates to people simply understanding their obligations, and not actually success in getting people into work. Can the Minister tell us how she is assessing the impact of her sanctions in terms of actually getting people into jobs? This is important because so much resource is going into the sanctions and obligations, and we need to know that this is a good use of those resources.

17:11

I thank the member for their question. One of the changes that we’ve made is the Kōrero Mahi seminars. Before someone comes on to the jobseeker benefit, they have that initial participation in this seminar, which is all about understanding what support and services the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) can provide to them and, on the other side of it, what responsibilities they have if they sign on to the jobseeker benefit. It’s about having really clear expectations, a greater understanding of what people’s responsibilities are, and—really importantly—what support is available through MSD, and then the traffic light system is all about having a really simple way of being able to demonstrate that somebody is fulfilling their obligations or not.

In the year in review, we’ve seen high degrees of great people participating at green, which means they’re on track, they understand their obligations, and they’re fulfilling them. I do want to be very clear in this committee of the whole House—because it has been misrepresented on many occasions—that nobody is sanctioned if they can’t find a job. The sanction regime, which is the same graduated sanction regime that was in place under the previous Government, is only used if they don’t fulfil their obligations.

We have seen great success with the traffic lights. We do know that it’s about being clear about what the expectations are and an easy way to see if people are on-track or off-track, and less than 1 percent are at red, which really indicates that people are clear about their expectations and it’s working.

Joseph Mooney, as chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee.

17:13

Regs review? Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rise to speak as the chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee to the annual reviews of the Ministry of Social Development for 2024 and 2025. It is the organisation that sits at the centre of our social support and employment system.

The Ministry of Social Development has enormous reach. In 2024-25, it administered over $44 billion in non-departmental expenditure, with superannuation and core benefits accounting for the majority of that spend. While total departmental revenue fell by just over 8 percent, the ministry recorded a surplus and received a clean audit, with all major control environments rated as good, a positive improvement on the year prior.

In employment, the committee spent significant time examining the Welfare that Works programme. Case management continues to be one of the ministry’s most effective tools, with around 70,000 clients now receiving this support, up from 60,000 the year prior. We heard clear evidence that targeted, intensive support works, particularly for younger New Zealanders, with nearly half of those completing community job coaching entering employment by the end of June 2025.

The context is telling. At the same time, as of June 2025, more than 216,000 people remain in jobseeker support, with forecasters suggesting numbers will peak in 2026 before declining. The ministry was candid with us that the Government’s longer-term reduction targets are under pressure from current economic conditions, but we were encouraged by the fact that over 70,000 people moved from being on an employment benefit into work last year, which is more than 10,000 than the year before. We were also reassured by improvements in benefit entitlement accuracy, with performance lifting steadily over the year, although of course there’s always more work to do, particularly for supplementary payments and disability-related payments.

This is an incredibly important agency to support vulnerable people, to support New Zealanders achieve their goals in life and, where possible, get into employment, and to assist those who fall off the tracks that our society has within a whole raft of different ways. I acknowledge that it has been a very challenging couple of years, and the ministry is performing a very important role, but we were encouraged by the reports that we received and heard as a committee. With that, I commend our report to the House.

17:15

Thank you, Madam Chair, after the chairperson of our select committee showed up to work—

No, I don’t—

—because he doesn’t want to get sanctioned—

Sorry, but I’m going to stop it right there. It’s not a fair comment. There was a change in time as I came in to take my role in the Chair and we moved the agenda slightly, and so it was not the chairperson’s fault that—

Oh, OK—it was 5 o’clock on mine, so—

No, it’s not your fault either, but I just think that that was an unfair comment.

Sure—OK, Madam Chair. As I was just exploring with the Minister around the sanctions and the traffic light system, one of the things that I’m concerned about is that the evaluation only looks at exits, and not exits into work. How does she know that it’s not the case management system or job coaching that is actually achieving work exits and that it is nothing to do with the sanctions? Why did the review not include that?

17:16

Let me talk about a couple of things. I think, going back to the question that the member asked prior to this, one of the other significant increases is in the investment in case management. There were 60,000 people in case management, and there are now 70,000. Case management is the most effective programme that the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) funds and delivers, and it is the significant increase in the number of people in case management that is a strong correlation to what we are seeing in terms of work exits.

The evaluation of the traffic light system that the member referred to isn’t within this annual review period. What I would instead draw her attention to is the evidence around sanctions, which shows it can result in more exits from benefit. That is 84.7 percent of people, and this is where the impact is. Where there is someone who moves from green into orange, 84.7 percent are resolved after they contact MSD. Part of that is then what support is available, are they accessing it, are they participating in their obligations, which might be contacting their case manager, it might be participating in training—those sorts of things. All of those together are the things that have a greater impact and that lead to greater work exits, and so, as the member would well know, it’s not one thing; it is a multitude of many services and supports that MSD provide that is contributing to those high work exit numbers. In terms of the evaluation of the traffic lights system, that’s not in this year of review.

17:18

I appreciate the Minister for Social Development and Employment saying that the review isn’t in this period that we’re covering, but it is to review something that is in the period that we are covering, so I believe that the Minister can actually talk to what is from that review. The reason that I’m asking this question is because significant resources are being put into the sanctions and obligations, and I want to know why the review is looking only at exits and not exits into work, and how do we know that the sanctions and the traffic light system are worth the amount of money that the Minister is spending on that? There is also the significant impact that it has on some of our most vulnerable people.

17:19

Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to raise an issue that relates to people having their benefits cut or being prevented from accessing a benefit because they’re deemed to be in a relationship in the nature of marriage. We know that disabled people are particularly hard hit by this policy. In previous annual review debates, the Minister for Social Development and Employment noted that this is just the longstanding policy, but I’m interested in knowing whether the Minister supports the policy altogether that has been used in the period we’re reviewing. That’s my first question.

My second question relates to the number of people with a client integrity service case completed from 1 July to 30 June in the year that we are reviewing. We have seen the breakdown by ethnicity, and I am particularly concerned that as the Ministry of Social Development moves from early intervention to investigation, once you move to investigation, the ethnic disparity over who’s more likely to be investigated turns to a really concerning figure, which is that Māori are more likely to be investigated once they move towards those more kind of heavy-handed interventions that could result in prosecutions, could result in prison time, and could result in tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of debt.

My second question is: why are Māori more likely to be investigated for things like welfare fraud than their counterparts when that is not the case for early intervention and facilitation processes which do not show that Māori are disproportionately targeted by these less burdensome and consequential interventions, like I said?

17:21

I want to clarify the question the member Ricardo Menéndez March’s asking. Are you asking specifically in question two in relationship to the relationship rules, or is it a much broader question? If you could just clarify, please. Thank you.

The reason why I raised the relationship rules is because historically we know that most investigations, or the largest reason for investigations, is to do with someone’s relationship status. I accept that there may be other reasons, but that has been the largest reason historically.

I thank the member Ricardo Menéndez March for his question. In terms of the relationship rules, they are longstanding rules, and they are in place because an underpinning principle of the welfare system is that it’s based on a household rather than an individual. I know that there are some people who disagree with it and believe that support should be based on each individual. There is no view to changing a longstanding principle of the Social Security Act.

Moving on to the member’s second part of the question, I don’t have that detail in front of me in terms of the disproportionate number that he is suggesting are being investigated. What we do know is, unfortunately, Māori have a disproportionate number of people receiving benefit and then, further down the track, in interventions or, in this case, in investigations. It does then lead to that there’s a higher proportion that are also being investigated.

17:22

I’ve got the figures in front of me. For example—I’ll just compare Māori with European, for example, in this case—for early intervention, it’s 636—

Just wondering, could the member come a little bit closer to the microphone, and if I could just ask the people on my right just to—we’re getting a few conversations going on, and I think the Minister and I are probably struggling to hear some of what you’re asking. Thank you.

No worries. Thank you. For early intervention, it is 636 Māori versus 996 European; for facilitation, it’s 1,150 Māori versus 2,487 European; but for investigation, there are more Māori: 861 versus 828. What this tells us is that the more heavy-handed approaches tend to be used against Māori in a more frequent way than for European counterparts, compared to the early intervention facilitation which do not risk, for example, someone being prosecuted. With those figures in front of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, does she have any concerns that there are disparities along ethnic lines for the more heavy-handed approaches that the Ministry of Social Development can take?

Moving on to another topic—so I’d really be keen to just, now that I’ve provided the figures, get the Minister’s view on this—does the Minister have concerns that the rate of declines for hardship assistance for food has increased at a time where the cost of living crisis has been skyrocketing? What does she think that the increase in the decline rates shows, and what are the impacts down the line for families that are missing out on basic essentials such as food?

17:24

Thank you for bringing to the attention of the committee those statistics around early intervention and investigations. I’ll go away and have a look at that in more detail.

In terms of the hardship declines, there obviously have been changes around emergency housing, and my colleagues spoke to those last night, so I won’t cover that in my comments today. There have been no policy changes around the hardship grants. That’s the first thing I want to say. In terms of the numbers that are granted, they are very in line with previous years, which is what you’d anticipate. In terms of the number of declines, there is greater clarity around what the policy is. Some of the rules were relaxed during the COVID years, and they were just put back in place now that we’re well out of the COVID years, but there has been no policy change.

17:25

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. The rules around the use of discretion have not changed, even within the previous Government. It was just the amount that people could access before they had to show exceptional circumstances, which takes me back to the question of: what does she attribute to the increase in the rate of decline for hardship assistance for food over the period that we have seen? Is that a matter of having a culture problem in the front-line Work and Income offices? Is it just that people do not need assistance for food, which doesn’t seem to be the case, because every bit of feedback from stakeholder tells us that people out there are needing assistance for food more and more due to the cost of living crisis that we’re experiencing.

I’m interested in knowing what, if anything, the Minister for Social Development and Employment can attribute this increase in the rate of decline for assistance for basic stuff like food to? I’m not talking about emergency housing; I’m very narrowly talking about assistance for things like food and toiletries and other essentials that can be provided through those hardship grants.

17:26

Madam Chair, thank you. I do believe I answered that in terms of there’s been no policy change. But some other settings—for example, approval by a manager—were taken out during the COVID years and put back in when the COVID period ended, which is the period in which our Government has been in place.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in terms of that, though, can the Minister for Social Development and Employment outline to us—because we’ve seen the declines in food grants, for example; the emergency food grant applications rose by 60 percent between 2023 and 2025, and demand is increasing— why is the rate of declines rising?

17:27

I’ll say it one more time: there has been no policy change. There are operational guidelines that the Ministry of Social Development follow, and I’ve explained the difference between the COVID settings and what we have now. We have granted a similar level of food grants—1,288,773—which is very in line with the year prior.

OK—Willow-Jean Prime. I will say that I have heard the Minister answer that question on three occasions.

17:28

Ah, yes, she said the number is similar, except for the demand has gone up and the number of declines has gone up by 60 percent. How does she explain that?

I believe she has—Ricardo Menéndez March.

Thank you. I wanted to go back to the relationship roles and particularly the cancellation of benefits due to them. Has the Minister for Social Development and Employment seen reports or accounts from people on the benefit that people who may have flatmates who they may have just been cohabitating with have been deemed to be in a relationship in the nature of marriage—particularly with disabled people who may just be cohabitating with really close friends; if so, if she has heard those accounts, including from organisations who have long called these policies “outdated” and not reflecting our modern-day life, does she not have any concerns whatsoever around how this policy is applied, particularly for disabled people?

There are some examples where disabled people on the Supported Living Payment completely lose access to their benefit and are made to be fully financially dependent on whoever the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) seems to be their partner, even if they are not. When we talk about “partner”, MSD defines it as “a relationship in the nature of marriage”, but that seems like quite a very, very specific thing to be trying to define when we know, in practice, people get their benefit cut just because they may have gone on a few dates.

If she has not seen any accounts, how does she know that the policy is fit for purpose; or has she seen accounts from beneficiaries and organisations such as Child Poverty Action Group, who have long called for these rules to be overhauled? That is destroying people’s lives—particularly disabled people who are made to be financially dependent—through no fault of their own or decision of their own but on whoever MSD decides that their partner is.

17:29

I’ve been warned by the whips that I need to keep my comments short. I have already answered the question in terms of the policy. I accept that not everybody agrees with it, but it is a longstanding principle of the Social Security Act.

17:30

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Over the 2024-25 financial year, homelessness has spiked. The Salvation Army State of the Nation Report showed more than half of the 112,000 or so homeless people in Aotearoa are aged under 25. Homelessness in my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau has more than doubled in the time, to almost 1,000. My question—

I’ve just been advised by the Minister for Social Development and Employment that homelessness is actually not part of her portfolio, so perhaps—

Let me state this: my question centres on rangatahi or youth homelessness, which does fall under the social development and employment portfolio. During the period in review, 54,612 benefit sanctions were made. What impact has that had on rangatahi homelessness and homelessness in general in Tāmaki Makaurau and across Aotearoa?

The second question is: how has the Minister’s decision to impose financial sanctions instead of non-financial sanctions improved rangatahi homelessness or homelessness in general?

Thirdly, what specific measures has the Minister championed to ensure rangatahi who are either at risk of or experiencing homelessness receive rangatahi-specific housing support and wraparound care? How many care-experienced rangatahi have become homeless or transient within 12 months of leaving care in the past five years? There are five questions specifically under that portfolio that I put to the Minister.

17:31

The issues related to housing, social housing, homelessness were covered in the annual review debate last night with Minister Potaka, so I won’t be covering that.

In terms of the question around the use of financial sanctions versus non-financial sanctions: in the year in review, the non-financial sanctions hadn’t been implemented.

17:32

Thank you, Madam Chair. Going to non-financial sanctions, what does she make of the fact that out of the total sanctions that have been applied, non-financial sanctions, to my understanding, make less than 0.5 percent of total sanctions? A significant amount of money has been spent in updating the Ministry of Social Development’s system so that these sanctions could actually be used, but it seems like they’re not being used altogether, basically. Does she accept that this could lead to, or be seen as, a failure or a policy failure; or, if not, how does she explain the fact that basically no one is able to be placed in community work experience or money management?

On the money management side of things, is it because, basically, the way that the policy’s designed means that almost everyone, or at least the average beneficiary, would be left without being able to afford their home if they’re put on money management?

On community work experience, would it be the case that front-line organisations just simply do not want to take people in, because the benefit sanction’s unworkable?

17:33

The policy for non-financial sanctions had only just commenced with two of the sections, and there are conditions around when they can be applied, for clients who are either in case management or who have dependent children and it’s their first obligation failure. What I do want to just put on the record of the House is that financial sanctions were very much a direct response to concerns raised when there were children in benefit-dependent households where a financial sanction was imposed. What we wanted to do was come up with a range of non-financial sanctions for that set of criteria. For the period which we are reviewing, the non-financial sanctions were very early, and it’s too early to be able to assess their use.

17:34

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have a series of questions in and around job losses. We know that there are 32,000 fewer jobs under this Government, and so I had a couple of questions for the Minister for Social Development and Employment. You’ll be familiar in your own area, in Taupō, that around the areas of Tokoroa, there have been significant job losses over the past year to 18 months. Kinleith Mill lost 150 jobs; Kinleith plywood 119; and Winstone Pulp’s Ruapehu mills, 230 there. At the very same time, we’ve seen these job losses and closures. You would think that for a Government that says they want to create the conditions for jobs and they’re going for growth and things like “the economy is stronger when more people are working”, if these closures are happening, it would’ve been the right time to increase ability for people to take up training, take up opportunities, and retrain in areas where they might need to. She’ll be aware that Toi Ohomai in Tokoroa had 60 job losses in and around the same time that we’ve seen three closures of wood manufacturing.

I’d like to ask the Minister, first of all: how is she creating the conditions for jobs and going for growth when there is a simultaneous kick in the guts for working people who are losing their jobs and losing access to retraining?

17:35

I will keep my comments in terms of the scope of the portfolio, which is around the redeployment support service, and give two examples. One was the Smithfield Alliance in Timaru, with about 700 affected workers, and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) worked very closely on the ground with those workers. The example that the member gave in Tokoroa, Project Phoenix was stood up as a combination of work across Government agencies, council, and Toi Ohomai to work really closely with affected workers, and I’m really proud of what MSD have done on the ground. I know it’s a really challenging situation when a business makes the decision to close, but MSD have been on the ground early, supporting those workers.

17:36

Thank you very much. Does she think it was the right use of Government money to be giving a significant amount, undisclosed, for, for example, Robbie Williams to come to Auckland, when people in her own electorate aren’t being given adequate support by the Ministry of Social Development to be able to retrain and to get the support, and those on the ground unemployed are not receiving adequate support? Is that the right choice for this Government?

In as much as it relates to this portfolio.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. There are other areas that have been impacted by job losses. We’ve got Northland, Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, and also Nelson-Tasman, which have all sustained significant job losses. There seems to be no plan in place, apart from a target for the Ministry of Social Development to have people off the jobseeker benefit. What is the plan for regional New Zealand to be creating the conditions for jobs and going for growth when we have seen record levels of people laid off? And, I’m sorry, but if the Minister for Social Development and Employment is going to tell the committee today that fast track is the solution for Northland, Hawke’s Bay, Taranaki, Tasman, and Southland people who are now unemployed, the people out there find that answer to be unsatisfactory.

17:37

As I said in my answer to the previous question, it is incredibly challenging when a business makes the decision to close. I’ve given two examples of the support that the Ministry of Social Development has provided in the year in review, and I’m not going to speak outside that time frame.

17:38

Did the ministry receive any direction in 2024-25 to shift away from equity-focused or Tiriti-based approaches; if so, who made that decision, and how was it justified?

No.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just going back to the questions around food insecurity, and the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s answers, what I want to know is: what is she doing to make sure that people actually have enough food? No?

I also understand that an evaluation was undertaken of the Food Secure Communities programme, which was conducted last year. Can the Minister tell us when this report will be released publicly?

The Minister says it’s outside the year in review.

It was undertaken last year.

17:39

I’m not going to comment on things that are outside the year in review, and, as the whips have warned me, I’ve got to keep my comments short.

The review was undertaken last year, which is the year in review. When will it be publicly released?

I think the Minister’s answered that question, so I suggest, given the Minister’s short of time—and it is a House constraint, not the Minister’s choice—I would say just ask as many questions as you have, and we’ll try and get the answers as collective as possible.

Yeah, just trying to get answers, but clearly not getting any in terms of that.

No, the Minister gave you an answer. She said that last question was out of her scope.

But it was undertaken last year, which is—

I’m not arguing with you; I’m just saying you’ve received an answer. You don’t have to like the answer.

Sure. Going back to the non-financial sanctions, and, again, the Minister for Social Development and Employment made the point that they were not in use, I think, in the review period. Again, this is a review of things that have been undertaken within the annual review period—sorry, we’re talking about our review and the annual review period. In terms of the non-financial sanctions, what I’m concerned about is if they had not come into effect and the policy wasn’t being implemented, does that mean that there have been people who should have been eligible for the non-financial sanctions who have actually received a financial penalty instead?

17:40

During the year in review, there were 69 non-financial sanctions that were applied, and it was not throughout the entire year of the financial review.

The annual report confirms persistent disparities for Māori clients. What steps are the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) taking to strengthen their Māori initiatives to close this gap? What steps—I’ll continue on and ask all the questions, as you duly noted.

Yes, that’s fine.

What steps are Oranga Tamariki taking to reduce the overrepresentation of tamariki Māori in State care and in youth justice facilities, following Dame Karen Poutasi’s review of the children’s system—are you going to stop me? No. What concrete changes were implemented during 2024 and 2025, and what is the funded implementation timeline going forward? Does the Minister accept that rising hardship demands signal a failure of policy settings, and not just service delivery? Lastly, why should whānau who are struggling right now have confidence that MSD is meeting its purpose, when hardship indicators continue to worsen?

17:41

I’m interested to know from the Minister for Social Development and Employment what her plan is for creating the conditions for jobs in the Hawke’s Bay. I recently attended a public meeting there where employees, growers, and also local representatives were there, discussing the closure of Wattie’s—

That is outside the scope of the financial year that we are discussing.

What, the job closures—the closures or the impacts on the community?

We’re discussing the annual review for a specific time, and the questions that you’re asking—

—and current as well, I believe. It’s current and—

No, only if they extrapolate out from what has been discussed in the report.

OK, I’ll remove those questions about the closures. If the Government doesn’t want to talk about recent closures, that’s fine. What is the Minister’s plan for the Hawke’s Bay for creating the conditions for jobs in that area, which has had increasing unemployment over the past year? One of the issues that I’m aware of is that there is a lack of job opportunities there now, and there’s also been a lack of a Government response in that space.

17:43

I will say again that this is the annual review for the financial review from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, and so that is the year which we are considering. I’ve given specific examples of how the Ministry of Social Development redeployment team works, and if the member wanted to ask questions of the Minister for Economic Growth around our growth plan and “Going for Growth”, then that would be the appropriate place to ask those questions.

But I would just say, again, that every single person that our Government supports to exit the benefit into work is a victory. It’s a win for that individual, their whānau, and the community, and that’s what I’ll continue to focus on.

I’m interested to pick up on an issue that we covered over the last year—and at the last select committee, as well—in the Hutt Valley in terms of youth employment. There has been a recent termination of a contract. Yes, they still get He Poutama Rangatahi funding, but we’ve got a local youth provider, which the Minister for Social Development and Employment is aware of, that has not received funding and that is now unable to help young people in the Hutt Valley to retrain. What steps is she taking to make sure that there are opportunities available for young people who need to get the additional support?

I understand there has been another contract awarded. I don’t know if that’s public or not yet. I was told last time I asked that it wasn’t public and it wasn’t able to be told, but I’m aware that the new contract has gone to a provider that works with people that are far quicker to place. They don’t need the extra assistance, time, or the extra effort in place to help them, whereas the original contract actually helped harder-to-reach individuals. I’m interested to know what the Minister has been advised. Was she aware of it simply going for low-hanging fruit for job placements, instead of helping harder-to-reach rangatahi who need extra assistance?

17:45

Thank you, Madam Chair. In addition to those questions, I’m quite interested in how many young people who received job coaching have found employment—what percentage—and how long they have stayed in employment. What programmes has the Minister for Social Development and Employment engaged with to achieve the 1,600 places that regional providers have had for people aged between 18 to 24 who are on jobseeker support?

Some questions around the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs: I want to know if there has been any change to the funding and criteria.

In terms of the question around job coaching, 45 percent of those participating in phase 1 have so far achieved employment outcomes.

In terms of the questions around Youth Inspire, a fair and partial procurement process was undertaken by the ministry.

To the member Oriini Kaipara’s questions: the questions you asked around Dame Karen Poutasi and Oranga Tamariki are outside the scope of the Ministry of Social Development.

17:46

How is the ministry continuing to measure the effectiveness of Te Pae Tata, a Māori strategy and action plan, in improving employment for Māori?

One final question from me: how would the ministry address the concerns from the whaikaha community, or the disabled community, about potential service delivery issues, particularly for whaikaha who are Māori—for the Māori disabled community?

Thank you, Madam Chair. There is another appropriation that I’d like to ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment questions about—and it’s a different line of questioning to the ones we’ve covered—particularly around the historical claims appropriation. The Ministry of Social Development received an appropriation of $81.87 million in Budget 2024, which the Minister told us was to speed up the process for claimants with a lodged claim. I’d like to ask the Minister what this funding was actually spent on and if it is having an impact. Were more staff employed or were processes improved, and, if so, how? Are times to closure starting to reduce? Finally, is there a target or a maximum time cap in which these claims processes that she would like to see are to be received?

I can see the Minister is just processing those questions, and so I’d like to give her the opportunity to do that. Again, we have asked some written questions around this and we know that the average time is about four to five years, and so with that appropriation, I’m interested to understand what the Minister is seeing from that: whether they’ve employed more staff, whether the times are reducing, and what the target is in terms of that and what the maximum time cap is.

17:48

The appropriation was to increase the speed and also look at improvements to the process. One of the challenges is at the same time we were doing that work, of course there’s been a lot more awareness about the claims process, and so we’ve also seen a significant increase in the number of claims coming in. I’m happy to provide more data to the member on that because I know it is a topic of interest, but I don’t have those figures with me right now.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate that the Minister for Social Development and Employment can’t comment on specific operational issues such as tenders for the Youth Inspire, and so I thank you for the information. But I’m interested to know, generally speaking, whether the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) collects information on provider rejection rates of clients from MSD that they have declined to work with—for example, if there’s a provider who’s got a contract and someone has being referred to them, and then that contractor is declining to work with that individual for whatever reason, does MSD collect that data, and, if not, why not? Is she aware that contracts have been awarded to providers that regularly reject referrals from MSD, and what is the point of the contract if they’re rejecting people who need that service?

17:50

Thank you, Madam Chair. Different topic to that of which my colleague is asking about—in particular, it’s the housing supports including boarders’ contributions. Now, I understand that this is just coming into effect now in 2026, but my questions are around the advice that the Minister for Social Development and Employment received, which will fall within the review period. What advice did the Minister receive regarding how this change might contribute to homelessness?

I’ve had correspondence from some people who this change affects and they say that they will have to evict their boarders, who themselves are struggling to get by and may end up in worse situations because of the interactions that it will have for them. What advice did the Minister receive regarding how the reductions in the accommodation support that people hosting boarders will experience may lead to increase in demand and other forms of income support? Given the cost of living crisis that we have—and worsening under this Government with the fuel price rises—has she considered delaying the implementation of this change?

17:51

The policy has come into effect in March of this year, and the policy was set in the year in review. It was based on the principle of fairness, where every contribution from a boarder should be taken into consideration in terms of the support that somebody receives, and the first two shouldn’t be excluded.

My last question was: given the cost of living crisis that we know we have at this point in time—and is being worsened by the fuel crisis—has the Minister for Social Development and Employment considered any changes to this policy?

I just want to ask one more on that boarders contribution. The question is around: what advice did the Minister receive about it impacting on accommodation support and demands for other income support, therefore, potentially cancelling any savings that is being planned by this budget initiative? The Minister didn’t speak to that. Could she please answer that question? No?

Sorry, the Minister’s got no more time available to answer questions, other than yes or no. If you can maybe hone it in a little bit for the last—just before the dinner break. We have two minutes left.

Two minutes left. Do I have two minutes left on my side?

If you can come up with some very quick questions that get a nod or a—

Oh, I don’t have two minutes left either. So are we just going to sit here and—

You don’t have two minutes left either. Well, then, if nobody’s got any minutes left, I think it’s probably—I’ll just check with the Clerk. Yeah, if I seek leave of the committee to suspend for the dinner break and—I seek leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. In which case, it’s time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. Thank you.

19:30

I rise to introduce the annual review of the Ministry for the Environment and would like to thank our Environment Committee members for their time and effort in this annual review report. The ministry’s total revenue for 2024-25 was $190.38 million. Its total expenditure was $180.21 million, resulting in a surplus of $10.17 million.

Throughout the annual review, we looked at climate change; we were advised about a range of tools that could be used to support the uptake of methane-reducing technologies and discussed several emissions reduction initiatives being developed or trialled in the agriculture sector, which was very positive to reducing emissions. We also looked at adaptation and emergency preparedness. The ministry said that the overarching purpose of its work on climate adaptation is to ensure that New Zealanders are as informed as possible about climate risk and the potential implications for them to enable them to take action.

We spoke about catchment groups, which was a very positive discussion. In July 2025, the ministry announced funding of $6.4 million for catchment groups. The ministry said catchment groups are incredible partners who offer key skills and capabilities to help achieve environmental outcomes, and the work that catchment groups do across New Zealand is very, very positive.

We spent quite a bit of time discussing resource management reform, because this, of course, is the bulk of the ministry’s work at the moment. The Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, of course, is the largest reform in a generation. It’s predicted to cut consents by about 46 percent and is estimated to save over $13 billion in administrative and compliance costs. This took up a large amount of our discussions, because the RMA reform is intended to speed up infrastructure development, housing projects, and renewable energy, and cut red tape on the farm for our farmers. The ministry also said that the fast-track process had been very effective and that applications had increased, which was very positive news that we discussed.

We also spoke about waste minimisation. The ministry is working to modernise the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. We also spoke about many product stewardship programmes that are going on, Tyrewise being one of them. I know our Minister has recently visited and found out all about Tyrewise and the amazing product stewardship programme that this is, where the tyres are repurposed and kept out of landfill and recycled into roading products, which, of course, is very, very positive.

There are many, many things that we discussed during this annual review. It was a positive annual review and report, where we all showed our passion for the environment. Thank you.

19:33

Thank you, Mr Chair. It is indeed a privilege to rise and present tonight for my first time as the newly minted Minister for the Environment, and can I acknowledge the chair of the Environment Committee and, indeed, all of her colleagues across the Chamber for the work that they do. I’d also like to acknowledge the former Minister for the Environment, Penny Simmonds. I really do hope, genuinely, to continue the very excellent work that she’s done and, indeed, to explore some new opportunities for improvement, because I think everybody in this Chamber would agree that New Zealand’s natural environment is a great source of pride to us all. Not just that; it is, of course, fundamental to our economy and the health and wellbeing of our people. The Government is taking the approach that we want to grow our economy by cutting that red tape and making it easier and more affordable to do things—but, I have to reiterate, that is absolutely within the bounds of environmental protections.

As the chair of the select committee has alluded to—and I’m sure we will hear from the Minister himself—the Government has been working at pace and great volume to progress two new bills, our new Resource Management Act (RMA) rework. We’ve got the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill—which, again, is very much focused on that protection and enhancement of our natural environment. For the pieces of work that very much fall within my wheelhouse, work is progressing on amending that Waste Minimisation Act and the Litter Act to modernise and consolidate, because a lot of these Acts are becoming aged and are no longer fit for purpose. I do intend to introduce amendments to the House this year and, hopefully, if time allows, we can enact them before the general election.

I do want to talk to some of the noteworthy wins, to use the colloquial term. Minister Simmonds, across most of last year, launched a range of initiatives and strategies: (1) to reduce waste disposal per person, data has shown we’re making great strides in that; (2) to increase reuse and recycling of materials and products; to minimise emissions—again, I think across the Chamber we all agree with that, but I think, as always, it’s the “how” that we can vary on. We do also want to reduce that environmental harm from waste and litter and then, of course, to ensure that resource recovery and disposal facilities are managed to minimise their own environmental impacts.

I’m fairly certain that conversations will turn to the waste disposal levy this evening, so I want to acknowledge that in the 2024 Budget, the Government’s changed the Waste Minimisation Act to allow that waste disposal levy to be spent on a wider range of environmental activities and, while doing so, to increase that levy incrementally over the three years from July 2025. That is so that we can actually help to fund a more comprehensive set of waste and environmental priorities. That levy can now also—or will also—support projects to improve freshwater quality, to remediate contaminated sites, and to restore the health of those very vital ecosystems. We’ve got about 50 active projects across New Zealand funded by the Waste Minimisation Fund and other waste-related funding.

I’m sure, again, we will turn to the topic of contaminated sites and vulnerable landfills. We have a fund up and running. We’ve allocated, since October 2024, about $21 million across seven projects, ranging from really vulnerable landfills to old mine sites, and so on and so forth.

I know the topic of product stewardship has already been touched on, but I do want to single out Tyrewise, which the Hon Rachel Brooking is very, very proud of her involvement with—justifiably so. It is indeed our country’s first priority product stewardship scheme for end-of-life tyres. I was blown away with the briefing that I had on the project. Already, 6.5 million end-of-life tyres have been collected out of the system and repurposed for fuel.

Then, indeed, as is so topical, climate change and ongoing weather-related events—emergency waste funding. The Government is here to support councils with the cost of managing waste following emergencies, and we can talk to a series of those that have occurred over the past year. But, look, all in all, we very much are looking to take a pragmatic and balanced approach to the reforms that we’re progressing through this Parliament and, indeed, to our wider approach to protecting, enhancing, and preserving our environment and our ecosystems. With that, I take my leave and look forward to the questions.

19:38

Now, here we are, at the annual review that’s focused on the environment and, in fact, the Ministry for the Environment—but what does the Environment Committee have in front of us? Oh, a bill to disestablish that very ministry.

Over the last year, this ministry has faced 278 redundancies. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has noted a $1 billion drop towards environmental spending in the coming year. Meanwhile, this Government has been making it easier to pollute, passing laws under all-stages urgency, or dropping in a huge amendment at the committee of the whole House stage so that there is no select committee process. The public have not been able to have their say. We have missed regulatory impact statements.

That’s not true.

Well, for a lot of these laws, this is very much true. Now, this Government does not seem to be one that cares about the environment at all, and New Zealand deserves better.

I’m hearing a lot from the other side, but I want to know from this new Minister today, on Earth Day: is there any inclination to do better for the environment, to improve the environment and embrace being the Minister for the Environment?

19:40

I’m very pleased to be able to respond to that question and, indeed, statement, because I think it’s a really important opportunity to set the record straight. There are certainly some mistruths around the way that the disestablishment of the ministry has been characterised.

Yes, we are disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment, but for very good reason. We’re establishing what is commonly referred to as MCERT—the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport. We are, of course, merging all of those ministries together. It’s an integrated approach, because, as I’m sure everyone will agree, the environment is, indeed, integrated and everything is inter-operational. MCERT will, at its heart, be tackling some of this country’s greatest economic and environmental challenges: housing affordability, infrastructure deficits, climate adaptation. There are very strong synergies between these four agencies. There’s very good intellectual heft between these four agencies. This merger is simply about reducing bloated bureaucracy. We saw, under the previous Government, something like 16,000 extra bureaucrats were appointed.

The spokesperson—I was going to refer to her as the Minister—talked about—

Ha, go on!

—redundancies—another day! That’s been made very clear in the Environment Committee’s own report, the annual review of the ministry. Yes, despite that reduction in workforce, the ministry has actually produced a record amount of output—a full 4,822 items, which included 896 briefings, probably most to Chris Bishop; 62 Cabinet papers, probably most to Chris Bishop; 452 Official Information Act requests—that’s probably a lot for you, Andrew Hoggard!—and many, many more parliamentary questions and pieces of ministerial correspondence.

In fact, I’ve only known my colleagues—the officials in the Ministry for the Environment—for a little over a week, but I think it does them a disservice to say that the protection and preservation of the environment is going to somehow go astray or go asunder because of the merger of these ministries.

Again, I want to be clear for the record: we are not getting rid of the Ministry for the Environment’s functions. Its role has always been advisory. We’re simply moving these functions to the newly appointed Secretary for the Environment, who I understand—not yet met—is an exceptional operator. I encourage that side of the committee to have some faith in the officials and their expertise, because I, for one, will expect the functions will continue at the same world-leading standards that they always have. It is simply that the statutory functions will continue as they always have; they are simply being shifted.

Mr Chair?

19:43

Thank you, Mr Chair. There are a couple of points I’m interested in there, and I’m sure the Minister for resource management reform will be able to have a say on this in a minute.

One issue is that the Minister for the Environment just said that she agrees and that she thinks everyone will agree that everything in the environment is integrated. Yet we have an under-secretary for the resource management reform say that this Government’s Resource Management Act reforms are about ending this integrated management of the Resource Management Act, and we see that in the form of two different bills, being the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. I’m interested in whether the Minister for resource management reform might want to comment on how that is enabling an integrated approach—having those two different functions.

Also, how is it consistent to merge the Ministry for the Environment in with these other ministries that are very much focused on that cities and planning area and—I mean, you can’t separate it, because it’s all integrated—not, say, more rural and less urban environments? How do those two work streams come together? That’s one question.

A second question is: the Minister’s talked about how there will still be environmental functions, how is she going to ensure that those environmental functions take precedence and that, in any conflicts arising between different Ministers, the environment will have the highest regard as the Minister for the Environment? Is she concerned—like the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is—that we risk losing an independent voice for the environment?

19:44

Thank you very much. Can I echo the remarks of my friend and colleague the Hon Nicola Grigg around the Ministry for the Environment (MFE). One of the things that happened when the Government changed on 27 November 2023 is that I became the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, and walked in and said, “Your first job is to repeal two pieces of legislation that the previous Government had passed, that a considerable number of officials at the agency had spent a considerable number of hours working on.”—which obviously is tough for any public servant; they’re human, like the rest of us, and we sometimes need to think about that more, in my view—and the very professional way that was done. Then, I said, “We need a fast-track regime done by the end of 2024.” That was done and it is now rolling out. Just on Monday, yesterday, the 19th project was approved under fast track. In the meantime, we’ve had, I think, three the Resource Management Act (RMA) amendment bills—maybe even more than that—most notably of which is RMA bill (No 2), which made a series of really good, substantial changes, actually, to the RMA, in preparation for the new legislation coming.

You will not find harder-working public servants than the Ministry for the Environment. They have done that, as the spokesperson says, with declining baselines and reducing staff numbers. It is really a testament to the leadership of the outgoing Secretary for the Environment, James Palmer, and the leadership team at the Ministry for the Environment, that in the greatest New Zealand Public Service way, they have got on with the job of responding to a new Government’s priorities and provided free and frank and fearless advice, but they have also taken the Government’s direction. That tension is something that will always exist, but I’m very, very proud of the officials. I take this opportunity to say thank you to them for their exceptional work in difficult circumstances.

The disestablishment of the Ministry for the Environment is not about reducing the importance of the environment to New Zealand; in fact, it is the opposite. It is about amplifying the environment. What has happened with the silo-isation, as I’ve put it—I think that’s a word—but the isolation of the environment into a separate ministry is that there is a tendency to ignore the advice from the Ministry for the Environment, because it can just be written off as “Oh, that’s just the MFE and they’re just doing all their environmental thing.” Actually, the reality is: how do you do proper transport planning in a spatial sense in a region and how do you do land-use planning in a city or a district, without thinking about the environment? Increasingly, as severe weather events happen and there’s greater awareness of natural hazards, and greater awareness of exogenous shocks coming to particular regions, thinking, in the long term, about proper spatial planning and the environment that that is part of is critical to how we do transport and housing. It is obviously true that things like flood mitigation and things like natural hazard mitigation are all intimately connected to transport and housing.

The other thing I would say is that if you think about housing, which is my great passion, we have a Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, but the actual levers, the real levers, for housing affordability currently sit within the Ministry for the Environment because they are, essentially, the regulator of district plans when it comes to housing capacity and all of the rules and district plans, but the funding and financing of the infrastructure required to give effect to those district plans is the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport or the New Zealand Transport Agency—or local government, which is regulated or overseen by the Department of Internal Affairs.

We have made, I think, the pragmatic and sensible decision to bring these functions together. I don’t think it’s going to change the world. No Government restructuring is a panacea or nirvana. It’s not going to change the world, but I do think it will make a difference. I plead with the Opposition to stop this sort of incessant nonsense about how disestablishing the Ministry for the Environment means that the environment doesn’t matter anymore. Like, to be honest, it is the height of facile debate to just kind of—

It’s your record.

I know it’s the name of the bill—I know it’s the name. If I could change the name of the bill, I would. I don’t decide what they’re called. It would be really good if it said “Environment (Establishment of the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport) Bill”. That would be good. If you want to focus on the name of the bill, can I plead with you to get into the substance, because the substance is actually good. Stop with the nonsense.

19:49

I just have a few comments in response to Minister responsible for RMA Reform’s speech, and one is: if, as he is so adamant, this Government is going to suddenly change course and do better for the environment, will he agree here, today, that every single part of that new ministry will do better for the environment?

19:50

Yes. In the round, the new ministry, I believe, will lead to improvements of our natural environment over time. That’s the reason we’re setting it up. Take the development of the national flood map, for example. That is going to be the responsibility of the new ministry. Well, why are we building a national flood map? Why are we doing that? It’s because we need to get better granular data led by science around where and what we can build to flow into spatial plans, for example. I mean, the Minister for the Environment talks about waste. Waste is actually—again, this is another example as to why the merger is a good idea—for example, delivered largely by the private sector and in conjunction with local government, and the Waste Minimisation Act gives various different powers and funding streams to local government.

Another classic is stormwater and waste water. OK, so we’ve been having this ongoing debate for the last eight years about the three waters and how we deal with the ridiculous situation we’ve got ourselves into where local councils have been the ones responsible for the funding and delivery of, essentially, what’s a network utility infrastructure service, which is drinking water and waste water. Unsurprisingly, they have done a poor job of that, so we have essentially—

Oh, if only we had three waters.

Well, they have done a poor job of it. Look, we’re in Wellington right now. Try living in this city—try living in this city. I mean, the member who’s doing the questioning lives in Dunedin. I’m unfamiliar with the state of the Dunedin stormwater and waste-water network, but I’m willing to lay a bet that it is better than Wellington’s, which would be about the worst in the country. You can’t walk down Lambton Quay without either (a) slipping on those ridiculous bricks that litter Lambton Quay; or (b) walking past tobies that have fallen apart.

Do you know, I am told that Wellington Water discovered that they installed a pipe from the top of Aro Valley down to Wellington Harbour in the early 2000s that has never been connected to any network and, until they started actually going through their records as part of local water restructuring, they didn’t even know existed. It had been put in at vast expense in the early 2000s and had just sat there unconnected. All the records are based on paper. They use different sump specifications in Upper Hutt and Lower Hutt and Wellington, and there’s been decades of under-investment largely because local body politicians have prioritised building convention centres and half-billion-dollar town hall upgrades on the ground of heritage and not focused on the basics.

But here’s the point. The delivery of waste-water and stormwater treatment plants—

You should have listened to Nanaia Mahuta. That’s the point.

—is a function of, obviously, local government at some level, but the standards by which they are set and the impact they have on the environment and the flows has an environmental impact. Standards that are set there are set, essentially, through environmental standards, which is—well, actually, it’s a bit unclear who’s responsible for that at the moment. But in the new agency, it will be the responsibility of the Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) because those functions are connected.

I genuinely plead with the Opposition, who think they are going to be in Government after the next election—and we know that is not the case, but let’s just enter an alternative universe in which the Labour Party actually has some policies. I realise that’s a big ask, but let’s enter a fantasy world in which Labour gets it together and actually gets some policies; let’s enter the twilight zone and pretend. In a world in which Labour win the election, I plead with them to think about the system they will be inheriting because what the Government is building is not a system for this Government—

Which is why we had a Spatial Planning Act. It was dealing with three waters.

—well, it partly is for this Government, but it’s mainly, actually, about better public policy for a better New Zealand. Why are we here in this place? We are trying to build better public policy and that’s what we’re doing with MCERT. Jump on board the journey. It’s even electric powered.

Ms Brooking, this is why it’s good to have interactions: so we can actually stand and say these things without having to yell across the floor so I can’t hear what’s going on.

19:55

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do want to welcome the new Minister, the Hon Nicola Grigg. It’s somewhat a hospital pass when it comes to having to pick up the work not only, as we’ve heard, of disestablishing your own ministry—and I’m hearing the pleas around “please, please, please don’t write this off as something that is actually going to be worse for the environment”. Minister, I hope you are well informed about the submissions that we did hear on the disestablishment for the Ministry for the Environment because they were hugely concerning.

I’m picking up the Resource Management Act reform Minister’s comments about getting into the substance, and I actually would like to get into the substance. Firstly, I would really like to hear some commentary from the Minister for the Environment, because a lot of the justification that went into a lot of the Budget decisions when it came to the Vote Environment appropriations were around this idea that the balance had swung too far in favour of the environment at the cost of getting things done. Minister, we actually had your colleague, the previous environment Minister, actually be called out for those comments by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. That actually led to your colleague admitting in an official information response that she was “not provided with advice or evidence from any agency to support [her] statement” and that “the information requested does not exist”.

Minister, I’m really keen to hear from you in this new role. Do you, as the new Minister for the Environment, share the view that the balance has swung too far towards environmental protection at the cost of getting things done? Where do you expect to see the impacts and the substantial results of, for example, this $1 billion reduction in expenditure—which, again, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has pointed out—where do you expect to see that? Because we’ve seen cuts across freshwater programmes, across climate adaptation, waste minimisation funding. Where do you think that might hurt the most in terms of environmental outcomes?

19:58

Thank you, Mr Chair. Still on this first general topic that seems to encompass the new ministry, integrated environmental management, and whether or not we want to improve the environment. In response to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform, he said something about wanting proper spatial planning and I questioned, then: why did this Government repeal the Spatial Planning Act that the previous Government introduced? When he gives a plea to Labour to please look at good policy development, why is it that his Government also campaigned—or his party campaigned—to get rid of the work that Nanaia Mahuta had been doing on what was called the three waters and having entities that would actually work? Because of the issues that the Minister has just discussed with issues when you go council by council. I asked the Minister to answer those questions.

I’m also interested in what some Ministers have been discussing, and there’s a document—and I know it’s not this Minister; it’s not the Minister of Local Government —but there’s some discussion about breaking up regional councils and making them into unitary councils. I’m interested in all Ministers in the room—what their view is on the importance of a catchment-based approach to environmental management.

That’s one question as well, and then I’ll just end with one other question that is related to some of what the Minister was saying in terms of flood management and climate adaptation. That is: where in the ministry—and maybe where in this new ministry—does green infrastructure fit?

We, as a select committee, have asked ministry officials to provide us some expertise on green infrastructure, and we were told that there was nobody in the ministry who had that skill set or was working on that issue—

What is green infrastructure?

Green infrastructure: nature-based solutions, rather than grey infrastructure, looking at different things. Some in your Government might call it nice-to-haves, but the Aotearoa Circle just did a big presentation at Parliament that Tama Potaka spoke at. I think Minister Simon Watts was there, as well, talking about how you can—we’ve heard about sponge cities as well. There was that big Helen Clark report on sponge cities. That is what I’m talking about in green infrastructure. In the Natural and Built Environment Act, there was a reference to it that you would have national direction on the use of this green infrastructure as well. The idea is that it can save everybody a lot of money, and often there will be a dual purpose if you have a sports field that also serves a stormwater purpose in storms.

That is a number of questions. I’m asking about regional councils and the idea of catchment-based planning. Why did the Minister refer to proper spatial planning when there was a Spatial Planning Act that he repealed? Also, if he’s talking about long-term infrastructure planning, why is it that the work that was done for the three waters and those bigger entities was got rid of, plus this green infrastructure—where is it going to fit with the new ministry?

20:01

Sorry, a bit of confusion there—I just want to rise just to respond to the member Lan Pham’s questions, and I do acknowledge her expertise in this area. Look, the comment about where cuts will hurt the most in terms of environmental outcomes—I really want to push back on that because, as we’ve already explained, the reduction in expenditure for this new Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport (MCERT) is entirely around creating efficiencies, reducing bloat, reducing double-ups. I just want to point out to the committee that there’s still an “E” in MCERT, for “Environment”. Environmental capability is very much going to remain a core capability of this new agency.

As the Hon Chris Bishop so eloquently pointed out, everything is interconnected, and I really do believe there is opportunity. This is why we are taking bold, brave steps as a Government to do things differently. I do believe there is an opportunity to grow our economy and protect, preserve, and enhance our environment at the same time.

I think what that side of the Chamber is tending to forget or deliberately ignore is the scientific advances that are occurring every single day within this country and indeed around the world. There is an opportunity to grow farming, as an example, to increase our dairy herd, our dairy production, and protect, preserve, and enhance our environment. You see the extraordinary work that farmers across New Zealand are doing of their own volition. You see the extraordinary work that our catchment groups are doing. They are recharging aquifers and groundwater systems. They are rebuilding wetlands.

Yes, everybody acknowledges that mistakes were made in the past. Quite extraordinary that the Canterbury Plains—alluvial flood plains, very leaky soils, piling on nitrogen over decades, starting about 30 years ago. Nobody knew the consequences. We do know those consequences now, and hence this side of the Chamber is going to back development, is going to back economic progression within the bounds of environmental imperatives; hence we do have freshwater restrictions, we do have nitrate restrictions, we do have targets for emissions outputs, but, again, they are backed and founded in science, because we believe science will find the solutions to our environmental problems.

20:04

Thank you. I’ll try and follow the Minister’s lead there and go into water quality. I’m just looking at my friend in the Greens. We’re trying to be helpful, despite all my yelling and heckling.

I’ve never known you to be otherwise.

Thank you. We’re moving on to fresh water, and I want to ask the Minister for the Environment a follow-up question from her statement then, and then some questions about section 107 and fresh water generally. She just referred to “We now know that Canterbury has leaky soils and there have been problems with nitrate.”—I’m sorry; I’m paraphrasing there. Why is she now going to make sure that the regulations that have lapsed that relate to that, which stopped intensification there—will she reinvigorate those to stop further conversions of dairy farms on those soils? That’s one question.

The second one is: if that is her particular interest, will she also allow the regional councils who had their plans stopped from being notified—will she let them be reignited?

Then, on to section 107, when I was opening, I referred to big changes that were made without a select committee process. One of those was the change to section 107. Some people were allowed to submit on it, and other people weren’t, and that was in the Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Act. A regional council can now grant a discharge permit that the council itself is satisfied will cause significant adverse effects on aquatic life. My question around this is: how is that change to section 107 consistent with improving freshwater quality? What steps will she take as the new Minister to improve freshwater quality? And does she think that New Zealand should have swimmable rivers?

20:06

I’ll just touch on a couple of those points. In regard to reinstituting land-use change restrictions, no, we have no intention of doing that. The reality is that farmers have got new science, new knowledge, new systems to enable them to do things better now than they ever have before. The attitude has changed with farmers around the focus on sustainability. If we look at particularly Canterbury, yes, there were leaky soils, but interestingly enough, if you talk to farmers there, they’ve actually grown their soil carbon through irrigation, through rotational grazing. They’ve actually increased the soil carbon and the topsoil on those paddocks. They’re not as leaky any more.

The other thing is that, with precision irrigation, you’ve got soil monitoring where you can see how much moisture is in the soil. You can manage your irrigation. You can even turn off individual sprinklers on that centre pivot irrigation so that you never get the soils beyond soil saturation points, unless there’s a massive rainfall, which means that you’re able to keep nutrients in the root zone, so it’s growing; it’s not leaching through the soil. These are some of the cool things that are happening on our farms up and down the country.

The key thing is that right now we’re seeing in the arable sector that times are tough. They’ve got a really challenging future in front of them, and some of them are electing—you know, there’s a lot of scaremongering around, “Oh, Fonterra’s forcing all these farmers to change, and the dairy industry is doing it.” These are individual families who are making choices for their farms, for their family, on how they can have a better life, to be able to provide for their children and move forward. This is not some big industry scheme or some conspiracy like that. These are individual people making choices on their own farm, and we’re going to enable them to do that, but, at the same time, we’re going to be asking for better management than there has been in the past, and we expect to see that.

20:09

Thank you, Mr Chair. Still on this topic, as I know my friend Lan Pham will have many questions on this as well, as a former Canterbury regional councillor. I want to pick it up again. I did ask the Minister—any Minister is welcome to answer this—whether we should have swimmable rivers and what steps are being taken to improve freshwater quality. That answer Minister Hoggard just gave there was that “Everything’s fine, don’t worry about it.”, but then at the end there, he decided to say that something was happening, so I’m interested in what that something is that might be happening.

I want to know if it is going to change the maps that I have on my wall that were provided by Ngāi Tahu, which show the nitrate concentrations—little red dots all around the best island, the South Island, that show how much nitrate pollution there is in Southland and Canterbury. What is he going to do about that, and does he think that there should be swimmable rivers? I’ll leave it there.

20:10

Of course I believe there should be swimmable rivers. My daughters love swimming in the river beside our farm every summer. They’re obviously not swimming in it today, because it’s in flood and it’d be rather stupid to do that. Sometimes, our measurements don’t tell the real story. Often, you look at the E.coli graphs—and I look at it for our river, and, yes, it shows the averages can be high, but that’s in spikes; that’s usually when it’s in flood. That’s not when we go swimming So, yep, it’s important to have swimmable rivers.

What’s happening? You’ve got farmers up and down the country, catchment care groups, who are doing a lot of work. In my own catchment—you asked the question before about nature-based solutions, so a couple of things that are happening in my catchment: we’ve got these detainment bunds that have been trialled in some of the hill country area. What that does is it slows the water flow down when you get downpours in the gullies, slows it down—helps with flooding but also stops sediment, stops phosphorus going through. That’s one solution.

Another one: bioreactor. A neighbour of mine’s put a bioreactor in. What’s a bioreactor? Basically, dig a big hole where water flows, fill it full of shavings. The water flows through those shavings, catches all the nitrogen, reduces it. And, as mentioned before, engineered wetlands—brilliant solution. I’ve seen a number of those around the country. What are we doing to support those? Well, through the work that Minister Bishop’s doing in the resource management reform, we’re going to actually make it a permitted activity to build an engineered wetland. At the moment, I’ve talked to a number of people who almost gave up doing it because of the resource consents they had to go through and all the drama they had to go through to actually build something that was good for the environment.

These are some of the things we’re doing, working with the catchment care groups. The attitude I see amongst farmers around trying to do the right thing, understanding where the problems are coming from and then thinking about what some of the solutions to those problems are, is impressive. It’s an attitude we should all be getting behind and encouraging. Rather than having this debate of “Oh, bloody farmers.” this and that, actually get in behind it, let it move forward, and then we’ll see changes.

20:12

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I do want to commend the attitude change. I think humans changing behaviours and mind-sets is an absolutely crucial part of the way that we’re actually going to turn this table, particularly when it comes to fresh water. Unfortunately, we’ve been doing a lot of talking and a lot of attitude work for years, and, unfortunately, when we look at the actual statistics, the actual environmental statistics that our Minister for the Environment has within her own ministry, they’re going backwards, and very concerningly so.

I wanted to pick up particularly on fresh water when it comes to rural communities and their drinking water, because the Ministers have likely seen the research that came out of Auckland Uni recently which says that two-thirds of rural communities are struggling with contaminated water supplies. We know that this is an issue not only in private supplies but in things like schools across the country. What we’ve heard really loud and clear throughout the resource management submission process is particularly from public health experts, policy experts that have said that without the hierarchy of Te Mana o te Wai, that sits so clearly in that national direction, communities’ drinking-water sources risk worse pollution, and that’s because there isn’t enough weight in the law when it comes to something that’s outside of that really clear direction that Te Mana o te Wai provides.

Given this, what is the Minister’s contemplation when it comes to changing this national direction? Does it mean that they are satisfied with, you know, polluted rivers getting worse, with drinking water getting more contaminated, and, particularly when it comes to our groundwater sources, that they’re more and more at risk, and who do they anticipate will pay the cost of this? We know that a lot of councils around the country are actually having to face this massive challenge, and we know that their bills when it comes to, say, treating nitrates that are contaminating their drinking water are in the hundreds of millions—if not billions, when it comes to Christchurch City Council. I’m really keen to hear what specific measures are proposed to actually address this for rural communities.

20:15

Let’s just get a few things straight: number one, farmers are not the enemy in this country. Number two: you can improve the environment and grow the primary sector at the same time. Number three: our farmers are world leading and world class, and they deserve this committee’s support, not condemnation. Number four: some of the biggest barriers to improving the environment in rural New Zealand are the Resource Management Act itself, which is why we are replacing it. And, number five, we should take a science-based approach and focus on innovation, which is precisely what this Government is doing.

Let me deal with a few of the questions raised. Number one, from Rachel Brooking: will the new local government system, which we haven’t landed yet—should it be based on a catchment-based approach? Yes, is the short answer, and we’re doing quite a bit of thinking about that. Simon Upton, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, in his inimitable, eloquent way, has been quite an advocate for that. We haven’t landed any decisions around unitary authorities or regional councils. We obviously released the Simplifying Local Government reform document at the back end of last year; all the submissions have come in on that, and we’re giving some consideration to that. It’d be fair to say the feedback was—

Mixed.

Well, yeah, it was mixed, to be fair. I mean, if you don’t like regional councils, you were in favour, and if you were a regional councillor, you were, unsurprisingly, opposed to it. But they were sort of at either end of the spectrum; there’s quite a bit of stuff in the middle. What’s been quite interesting, just to dwell on that for 20 seconds, is it sort of ripped the scab off this awful, festering sore that is kind of local government, right? Everyone’s gone, “Well, actually, 78 TLAs; you know, X, Y, Z number of regional councils; duplication. Are the regional plans superior to district plans? Which one has the most power?”—all of the sort of difficulties we see in the current system—and it’s actually prompted quite a lot of regions to go, “You know what, there’s actually a better way here.”, and that’s been really interesting. To be honest, they want central government to act, so we’re sort of giving some thinking about that.

Look, the previous Government recognised the problems here. Their approach was to do what Labour Governments often do, which is, you know, set up a three-year-long working group at vast public expense and issue a report which becomes the doorstop that I put on my office door to hold it open when everyone comes in for meetings. It’s a bit like the old Royal Commission on Social Policy back in 1986: it was, like, 5 metres high, and it kept David Lange’s door open—and he’s the one who issued it. But, anyway.

Second question: flood management and green infrastructure. The reason I asked about green infrastructure is people mean different things by it, right, because, you know, building a stopbank, like we’re doing in the Hutt Valley at the moment, or lifting up the stopbank along the Hutt River to protect against a one-in-440-year flood, because the Hutt Valley’s the most densely populated area of New Zealand on a flood plain—well, that’s green infrastructure, but that’s just infrastructure. I mean, it’s green in the sense that it’s, you know, focused on resilience, but I would call that green infrastructure—

I think that’s just good infrastructure.

Oh, it’s just good infrastructure. Well, that’s sort of my point, right? I mean, like, everything’s green at a level.

There will be people in the ministry who are far more expert in this than me, and they will exist in the new system. Yes, we can issue national direction pursuant to the goals of the new Natural Environment Bill, assuming it becomes an Act.

On the three waters: well, we sort of played all this out in the 2023 election. It’s not that the Opposition at the time—now Government—disagreed with the idea of water reform. It’s obviously a good thing to do, because, as I said earlier, local government’s been a disaster when it comes to managing three-waters infrastructure. We just disagreed with the approach of the Government of the day, which was to, basically—I mean, it started with four mega-entities without any kind of choice of the local authorities.

Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m really interested in hearing from the Minister for the Environment on a number of questions about the Ministry for the Environment report. The Minister is on a sort of explanation about the three-waters reform system. I just wonder if we could, please, address what’s in front of us.

Look, it’s been a wide-ranging discussion. Every speaker has gone well away from the period. I think that the Minister will be aware that he’s using up a lot of his time—

Yeah, well, I was just responding to the question. I apologise to the committee for my loquaciousness. The Minister of Local Government has just entered the Chamber, and he might like to explain the rest of the story to the Government’s three-waters reforms, which put democracy back at the heart of local government. Anyway, everyone seems to want me to move on.

In response to the fourth question, on national direction on fresh water, the member knows, I think, that that is a priority for the Government, and we are working away on that, but we want to land the bills first. National direction, we’ve consulted on it but that will flow—flow—in due course.

I just note that there’s 10 minutes left to go. I’ll take a question from Rachel Brooking. [Interruption] It’s just we’ve got three Ministers now who are covering a lot of the same ground, I might say, from different angles.

20:21

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll be quick. I have a number of questions. One is for Mr Bishop, who said something about science—“We’re going to be science based.”—and that something relates to innovation. This was in the context of the previous discussion with Minister Hoggard about protecting our waterways and having swimmable rivers. Can the Government provide any comfort that saying we’re waiting for innovation does not mean that we are not having limits that must be followed? When I hear that, that is my concern. That’s one question.

The second one is a comment. We’re not hating on farmers; it sounds like the Government is hating on councils, though. We haven’t said anything along those lines. On farm plans, I am interested, on page 8 of the review, we asked what the role of the farm plan is; if it’s to replace resource consents or not, how the ministry sees this. They said that it is to be an enabling tool in comparison to having a resource consent, which it described as a more rigid, hard tool. Do you have both a farm plan and a resource consent? What is the Minister’s view on that?

The Minister has also traversed—looking at Minister Hoggard here—catchment groups and some of the good work that we know about from catchment groups. Does he see them as having a regulatory function at all?

20:22

I just want to respond to Lan Pham’s request for me to actually take a call. I’ve been trying, but I have some very verbose colleagues. Look, I do want to talk to—

Ha, ha!

They’re very eloquent and articulate.

No one took a point of order on that!

The member refers, of course, to our freshwater report that was released just a matter of weeks ago, I think, on the day that I got told that I had this ministerial warrant, so I’ve had to think fast. Look, I think it’s really important to acknowledge that this report is neither a win nor a loss; it’s quite a balanced report. We do need to note that of the 998 groundwater monitoring sites, 45 percent had E. coli concentrations above the maximum acceptable levels of drinking water at least once across a five-year period. It is acknowledged in the report that, together, these indicators show that, while some aspects of freshwater quality and ecosystem health are good and improving, others are deteriorating, which corroborates my earlier point. That, of course, reinforces the need to view fresh water as an interconnected system where multiple pressures accumulate and interact over time. Again, I think we all acknowledge that.

Look, again, some key statistics that have, I think, been lost in the commentary are that the long-term trends, the 20-year nitrogen trends—that’s all forms of nitrogen—do show improvement when you compare this 2026 report to 2023. Yes, worsening sites are reduced from 41 percent to 32 percent. Again, these aren’t amazing results, nor are they bad. They are indicating improvement. We do know that improvements to groundwater, particularly deep-seated aquifers, do take time to present themselves.

Then, again, to respond to the questions about what we are doing to improve fresh water: of course, no one in this Chamber would disagree that protecting drinking-water sources is an imperative public health issue. Again, we know that rising nitrate concentrations in some areas do give rise to growing public concern, and quite rightly so, but of course we have to consult, we have to get this thing right. We did consult on requiring that source water mapping, so councils and landowners would be clear about where activities can be, particularly putting drinking-water supplies at risk, and therefore the appropriate management can then take place. Decisions on that freshwater direction, as the Hon Chris Bishop has alluded to, will be made in the near future. The new legislation will require limits for human health and fresh water.

Again, I do want to push back on this rhetoric that we’re going to create this wild west and everyone can be pouring effluent into our water streams. That is simply not the case. As the member will know perfectly well, as a former regional councillor in Canterbury, the Avon River and the Heathcote River, two urban waterways, are amongst the most polluted in the district. Of course, limits will need to be set, and they will be informed by relevant health guidelines to prevent that significant and irreversible harm to people in the communities, which we’ve seen in the likes of the Hawke’s Bay when that Havelock North outbreak occurred.

I do want to reaffirm to the committee that we are progressing these improvements. We look forward to presenting them.

20:26

Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s so much to respond to in that, but I really want to move on to climate adaptation because that is such a key part of the work. From what we’ve seen in recent days, particularly here around the Greater Wellington and Wairarapa regions—and also up in the Manawatū, I must add—it’s very real, the challenges that communities are facing. What I was really concerned to see with the annual review is that there’s this strategic priority that says it will strengthen the resilience of communities, businesses, and places to climate change and natural hazards. What is really clear is that there isn’t actually much progress in this area, as far as I can see at all.

There was a report that was commissioned by the previous Government, a report on the Expert Working Group On Managed Retreat. The recommendations in that have been, unfortunately, ignored, to be replaced by a short report that one member on the working group described as “one of the most philosophically misguided, morally questionable, administratively inept, and politically naïve documents” that he’d read in many years.

Does the Minister consider that meaningful progress is actually being made when it comes to not building in bad areas, in terms of having communities actually have discussions and face the realities around managed retreat, given that the Minister of Climate Change has said there are no plans to actually speed up the decisions around who will pay and who will protect or move these communities threatened by climate change hazards? We’re really seeing this around and across the country, increasingly so. We really would like some feedback from the Minister around how this objective will be achieved when protections for things like forests and wetlands, those natural infrastructure protections when it comes to climate mitigation adaptation, are actively being weakened by the Government.

20:29

Just quickly, in response to the Hon Rachel Brooking’s question, in terms of farm plans—“Will we still need consents?”—I would think there would still be a need for a consent when you are having a water take, so trying to manage those allocation-type regimes. Where it comes to things like, in some regions, there having to be a consent for winter grazing, I believe a farm plan would be a much more useful tool to replace those consents. At a farm I was on a couple of weeks ago, it cost them $40,000 to get that consent; an absolutely ridiculous waste of money for a very simple process where they can detail what actions they are going to take to mitigate the impact from that practice. They can do that through the farm plan.

To your second question: catchment groups, no, I don’t see a role for them as a regulator. They are better served as a sort of ground-up, community action. Getting them involved with regulatory powers would probably drive the farmers away from them.

Members, our time with the Minister for the Environment has ended.

20:30

Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to introduce the Climate Change Commission annual review. I’d just like to thank the Environment Committee members for the work on this report—a very hard-working committee. Overall, we were satisfied with the commission’s performance in 2024-25. The commission’s revenue was $14.83 million for 2024-25, and its total expenditure was $16.06 million, resulting in a deficit of $1.22 million.

We heard from the commission about its role in providing independent advice for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously, under the Climate Change Response Act, New Zealand is very committed to reaching net zero emissions of all greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This was well traversed through our session with the Climate Change Commission. We spoke about the work being done to reduce emissions, and it was positive to hear that emissions reduction technologies have become available and affordable at a faster rate than expected, offering more opportunities to mitigate these effects. The commission also noted that the methodology for measuring emissions in New Zealand has improved since 2019, which was positive to hear.

The commission drew our attention to new technologies, such as bolus being developed by Ruminant Biotech, which would inhibit methane production in farm animals. It was really interesting to hear about these new advancements in technology, which, of course, are going to reduce agricultural emissions. The commission said one challenge was ensuring that farmers are supported to deploy the new technologies on farm.

We also spoke about the stockpiles of coal in New Zealand and the work being done to transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy sources, which we spoke about, you know, being very sufficient, this transition. Also, we did touch on the monitoring progress to meet the emissions budget, which, of course, was a very topical conversation. The commission published its first emissions reduction monitoring report in July 2024. It also began work on its second emissions reduction monitoring report in 2024-25, which it published in July 2025. The commission’s latest report found that New Zealand is likely to meet its first emissions budget.

We also spoke about the consenting regime for renewable energy projects and the barriers that we’re seeing in getting renewable energy projects online faster—it taking too long for the consents. It was agreed that there are opportunities to remove consenting barriers for renewable energy, and of course, this would pose a very positive move to bring renewable energy on a lot faster in New Zealand, with a better consenting regime.

We also spoke about transport. The commission said there are opportunities to reduce emissions in the transport sector, especially given that electric vehicle batteries have become cheaper and we’re moving towards more electrification, which, of course, is positive for reducing our emissions. We heard about trade; we heard that the commission is planning more work to analyse the effects that climate change could have on trade.

It was very interesting, during the process, to look at all of the hard work that has been done to meet our climate emissions and reduce those emissions. We are certainly looking forward to the Minister of Climate Change’s responses tonight and to the questions that are presented. Thank you.

20:35

I came into Parliament with the Hon Simon Watts in 2020. When we entered Parliament, of course, the Labour-led Government had already passed the zero carbon Act and established the Climate Change Commission.

When Labour was in Government in that 2020 year, we had many, many programmes to decarbonise our economy—that is, to drive emissions down. We had a Climate Emergency Response Fund and the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund, and an emissions reduction plan with hundreds of different actions within it. In addition, we had in our 2020 manifesto that we would legislate for climate adaptation and do the hard work on working out where people need to move and how that happens. I reference that because it’s become very relevant recently.

My question is, though: given that his Government has either watered down those different actions or got rid of them entirely and has not progressed legislation on climate adaptation, does he regret not undertaking these actions that would have decreased New Zealanders’ reliance on foreign fossil fuels?

20:37

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just following on from the questioning line by my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking, I’m curious to see a definition of “success” from the Minister of Climate Change. What does success look like in terms of successful initiatives, in terms of adaptation and in terms of mitigation? What does success look like for himself, as climate Minister, and for this wider Government?

I have some specific question lines I want to ask around the nationally determined contribution, as well. Does this Government intend to meet all of New Zealand’s nationally determined contribution domestically, or is it intended that the contribution be met partly through international contributions? Is the Minister and the Government asserting that it’s going to be met purely through domestic negations?

I want to also turn to the Greenhouse Gas Inventory. I want to really applaud the work that the team at the Ministry for the Environment has done in putting that together. I was actually involved in the compilation of the 2023 Greenhouse Gas Inventory; I was listed as a technical contributor there, so I know how much work and how much effort it takes to assemble those things. My question around the Greenhouse Gas Inventory is that, obviously, it’s encouraging to see that the gross emissions of New Zealand have declined a little bit in this period, but I want the Minister to say who he attributes the decrease of that to. Does he attribute that to the success of the previous Government, or does he attribute that to initiatives that the Government set? The debate will take on quite a different tenor depending on who the Minister attributes blame and success to.

I want to turn, also, to the national adaptation plan and to the adaptation framework. Please, can the Minister clarify whether the Government still intends the national adaptation plan to still be operational or whether the Minister regards the national adaptation framework to supersede the national adaptation plan? I have some follow-up questions based on that, but those are my questions for now.

20:40

Thank you very much for those questions and for the introduction from the Environment Committee.

Working our way through the questions, “Does the Minister regret taking action in regards to that?” Well, what I don’t regret is the banning of oil and gas which has put us into this situation where we now need to look to import liquefied natural gas (LNG). The good thing about importing LNG is it’s actually less emissions than coal which is, ironically, what the last Government looked to do; they had a strategy of importation of Indonesian coal at the expense of domestic gas at a higher emissions profile.

Questions around “definition of success”—well, first and foremost, in regards to mitigation, 2024 had the lowest emissions on record since 1998. So how do you define success? Well, that’s probably a good place to start.

In regards to adaptation, we’ve introduced and will be introducing legislation in regards to the national adaptation framework before the election. That is a significant priority and that is important work across party lines, to be fair, in the context of an enduring framework, to deal with one of our most significant issues.

In regards to the targets, this Government is committed to all of the climate change targets, both domestic and international, and we do have a focus on domestic emissions reduction, first and foremost.

In regards to attribution of success—what Government? Well, surprisingly, on this side of the House, we actually attribute success and progress in this country to New Zealand households and businesses. They’re the ones who are doing the hard work, they’re the ones that are reducing emissions—not, with respect, the 120 or so of us sitting in this room—households and businesses; Kiwis. So that’s who I attribute success to around emissions reduction, and the adaptation plan is the major focus for us as we move forward.

20:41

Thank you, Mr Chair. My colleague Rachel Brooking in her introductory comments to the session, talked about some of what the previous Labour Government had done in this space in terms of addressing climate change. I’ve got a few questions for the Minister of Climate Change around one specific scheme, which is the Clean Car Discount. That was, of course, the scheme that was put in place to reduce transport emissions by subsidising low-emissions vehicles. We know that that’s led to a significant increase in the uptake of electric vehicles as well, and a 14.4 percent reduction in average carbon dioxide emissions from new and used imports before the scheme was scrapped by this Minister’s Government, back in 2023.

I want to know whether the Minister regrets scrapping the Clean Car Discount scheme, a decision that his own officials have said will add 1.1 to 2.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to New Zealand’s roads by 2050.

Makes plant grow.

That is from the Ministry of Transport’s data. So if members opposite want to say that’s not true, I’m not sure what mis- and disinformation they’re wanting to spread. In addition to that, the Ministry of Transport’s own advice has clearly pointed to the fact that the costs of scrapping this particular scheme are double the benefits of the scheme. I would like to know from the Minister why he made the decision to override his own officials’ advice on this and whether he has received any other advice to this point. Also, the Climate Change Commission has said that cheaper electric vehicle batteries mean that there are real opportunities to cut transport emissions, and I’d like to know from the Minister what he’s doing to capture them.

20:44

I’ve got two different lines of questioning that I’ll go down. The first is in response to the response of the Minister of Climate Change, and that is that, apparently, everything would be fine; we would have no reliance on foreign fossil fuels if there wasn’t a ban on exploration. I want to know if the Minister has any advice saying that, (1); and (2) if he understands that there is a difference between exploration and actually finding and then taking that fossil fuel.

Secondly, wouldn’t electrification, instead of exploring and then finding and then recovering a fossil fuel, be quicker? Then my last question on this line is: does he agree with Simon Court from the ACT Party, who appeared to be saying, in heckling just before, that an increase in carbon dioxide emissions is somehow positive because it makes plants grow? I think that is what he was saying. Does Minister Watts agree with that? Those are my mitigation, decarbonisation questions.

Shifting, now, to adaptation but, in fact, I’m not; these questions are about flood plains and building new buildings on flood plains. It’s not about the tricky issue that a managed retreat or anything like that would need to deal with, where there’s existing housing on flood plains but when, in fact, this Government is enabling more building on flood plains. So some questions there: one, where is the promised national flood map? Secondly, I want to know if he agrees with what the Prime Minister said in answer to John Campbell on Morning Report on Monday, 13 April. John Campbell said, “Around 675,000 people or 14 percent of the population live in areas prone to flooding. What have you got for them?” The Prime Minister responded, “Well, again, that’s why we’ve got to work on a national flood plan, national adaptation framework.” Then he said some other things and then he said, “Make sure we’re not doing dumb stuff—for example, building back into flood plains.”

It’s that statement that I’m interested in, Minister: not doing dumb stuff—for example, building back into flood plains—because we have just seen the fast-track approval of an enormous, enormous development of over 4,000 houses and a number of retirement homes and all sorts of other things at Sunfield, which everybody acknowledges is on a flood plain. So how does that statement of the Prime Minister—“We’re not doing dumb stuff, for example, building back into flood plains.”—make any sense when this Government’s fast track has just approved an enormous development of new houses in a flood plain?

20:47

Thanks for those questions. In regard to the points around the clean car or electric vehicle (EV) subsidy, this Government has focused and is focusing on a least-cost approach versus what was, in effect, a ute tax by the prior Government. The emissions trading scheme is the key tool which we use for emissions reduction and our focus as a Government is around enabling infrastructure. So you would have seen the announcements around the EV charging network, which is a key issue around people’s concerns around ability to charge those vehicles.

In regard to the flood map, the work is under way. We have commissioned a party to prepare those maps. It will be ready, in terms of the first part of that, by the end of this year, the beginning of next year. In regard to the preparation of adaptation plans, the legislation that we’ll be looking to pass will require local government to prepare adaptation plans in high-risk areas which will mitigate the key issues.

In regard to energy, well, the reality is, when you don’t look for something, you don’t find it and that’s the reality with what happened with the last Government around stopping oil and gas exploration. We now have less and not sufficient molecules to run industry and also make electricity in a dry year. Coal is not sufficient to cover us in a dry year. That’s why we need to import liquefied natural gas (LNG). We did consider 11 other options in regard to covering that dry-year risk. You cannot do anything via renewables in the size and scale of energy required to cover that dry-year risk, which is in winter, which surprisingly doesn’t have as much sun as summer. That’s the reality of why we’re focusing on LNG importation. We need that solution now. If we have a dry year next year, the ability to cover that because of the reduced amount of gas we have will mean that 2024 was an easy ride. That’s because of the legacy of the last Government.

20:49

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to follow on from the questioning by the Hon Rachel Brooking around the issue of whether the fossil fuel exploration makes the country more resilient and makes the price of energy cheaper in New Zealand, when we do drill. Is the Minister of Climate Change aware that in the United States of America—which is one of the biggest oil drillers and oil explorers in the world; they’re one of the people that produce the most fossil fuels—that the gas prices have increased by 35 percent since the beginning of the Iran war and, in New Zealand, which is not at all a big producer of fossil fuels, that gas prices have only increased by 20 percent? So it’s somewhat, I guess, incorrect to assert just because a country is creating its own fossil fuels, that they’re somehow not still dependent on an international market, but as the members opposite are perfectly aware, fossil fuels are actually an international good so the price of it is still set internationally. Just because we grow agricultural products here in New Zealand hasn’t stopped our food from being really expensive and the price of our groceries going far, far too high—higher than it should be.

My second point is on the issue of the national adaptation framework: is the Minister concerned that by moving to the national adaptation framework, they’ve, essentially, abandoned the initiatives that were supposed to be in the national adaptation plan? That is, is the Minister concerned that the national adaptation framework, laudable as it is in its work to produce flood mapping—rural initiatives that were highlighted in the national adaptation plan in the first place, so wouldn’t it have made more sense to just continue on with the existing national adaptation plan and not scrap a lot of the initiatives that were actually in that instead of starting from scratch and just going with the national adaptation framework? Again, we do support the flood mapping, but it is only one dimension of the work that was already in the national adaptation planning.

I believe I’m coming to the end of my five-minute allocation, but thank you for the consideration, Minister.

20:51

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I’m interested in your views on how we might ensure that New Zealand’s major industries that are emissions-intensive and trade-exposed are supported through this difficult time where energy prices have risen significantly, whether it’s natural gas, that many of them depend on, or electricity, which many of them depend on. Many of them have converted from gas or other petroleum hydrocarbon fuels, including coal, into more sustainable energy production but, of course, if you’re one of the half-dozen industries in New Zealand, like cement manufacturing, steel manufacturing, aluminium, or fertiliser manufacturing, making ammonia-urea fertiliser from natural gas in Taranaki—which supplies somewhere around 25 to 30 percent of all of the nitrogen fertiliser used on New Zealand’s farms—well, somebody else could bring that product in from overseas, and they don’t pay a carbon price if it’s made in Vietnam, if it’s made in China, or if it’s made in Malaysia or Indonesia.

Minister, I’m interested in what your views are on how these industries might be supported both now and in the future, given that it’s highly unlikely that their competitors in those countries will ever face a carbon price. New Zealand has done its part by setting targets and working hard to meet them for emissions budgets, putting a price on carbon through the emissions trading scheme (ETS) but, in the end, it seems that some of these industries will be faced with costs, particularly when it comes to the cost of carbon or buying electricity that factors in a carbon price if it’s thermal electricity produced from gas and coal. These additional costs, not faced by competitors overseas, mean that it may become, in the future, uneconomic to manufacture these important industrial products in New Zealand—cement, steel, aluminium, and fertiliser. Of course, fertiliser has never been so vital when our international supply chain is interrupted, as it has been because of America’s important action in the Middle East to secure the sea lanes and deny the ability of the Iranian regime to obtain a nuclear weapon. Sometimes, New Zealand just has to roll with geopolitical events, whether we’re prepared for them or not.

I think it’s clear: it’s never been more important that New Zealand has its own manufacturing base to manufacture these important commodities, whether they be aluminium, steel, urea fertiliser made from natural gas and, of course, many other industries that depend on burning coal or gas or producing carbon dioxide as an emission. Minister, I’m interested: how do you think New Zealand, the Government, and the regulatory system should support these vital industrials now and into the future?

20:55

Thank you. I just want to come back to the questions in regard to the gas situation in New Zealand. I want to be really clear that this is not a price issue; this is a lack of molecules issue. We do not have the gas—sufficient gas—to run the industrials that Under-Secretary Court was referring to; that’s the problem, and because we don’t look and stopped looking for gas for six years, surprisingly we haven’t found any. That is the reality. We have 25 percent less gas today than what we had one year ago in this country. It is a fundamental and critical issue for this country and the only feasible option, in the short term, is the importation of liquefied natural gas.

Now, Under-Secretary Court raises the point: we want to protect those industrial businesses that are manufacturing in New Zealand because, the reality is, if they shut down and close and we import cement, for example—and the emissions profile of cement made overseas is significantly higher in terms of global emissions than what it is making it here at home, and so the mechanisms to support those industries, first and foremost, need security of supply of the fuel they need to make the product, which is gas, which we are moving our way through. We also need medium and long term solutions, as well, but the reality is if you do not have the fuel—which is our problem as a country—then you cannot make electricity, you cannot make glass, you cannot make steel, and you cannot deal with the reality of the geopolitical pressure that you are in. If the fuel and the supply chain shut and you haven’t got domestic production, you do not have options and, therefore, you do not have security, in terms of national security, and that’s why energy security is national security.

20:57

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wonder, Minister, if you can respond to the glib and trivialising comments of Simon Court, who thinks that the existential challenge of humanity is merely a good way to help make plants grow? And I wonder if you have reflected on the—

What?

That’s what he said: “Carbon dioxide makes plants grow.” I wonder if you have reflected on the fact that the biggest threat to the production of food over the coming century is climate change and the extreme effects of it.

A couple of specific questions, Minister: are you aware that there are still thousands of new households having gas put into them for their appliances and for their hot water? I wonder: what is the wisdom of allowing new-build houses and buildings to be reticulated with fossil gas given the supply issues and given there are things that are more urgent that we need to use the remaining gas we have with?

The other comment you made, Minister, was about “If we start looking for oil and gas, we’re not going to find any.” Well, is the Minister of Climate Change aware that, from 2007, there was a steady decline in our gas supply, and every major oil and gas company in the world came and had a look here and found nothing, before the ban came into place in 2018? Why would you be spending $200 million on subsidising gas exploration, when you could be spending that money on decarbonising? That’s a question: why are you spending $200 million—

We haven’t spent it and it is a co-investment. You’re welcome.

Why are you not co-investing on renewables—why are you not co-investing on renewables?

Final question, Minister: are you aware, on the question of cement, that our local cement manufacturers, who have to pay the emissions trading scheme (ETS), are currently being undercut by imported cement that doesn’t have to pay the ETS? What are your strategies for dealing with that?

Members, our time with the Minister of Climate Change has ended.

21:00

Thank you, Mr Chair. There’s a number of questions outstanding from where we left off last time, and I wonder if Ministers have had a chance. In particular, I’m very interested to know what the balance of the Petroleum or Engine Fuel Monitoring Levy memorandum account is as of today. That would be something that would be useful to find out.

One of the things we spent quite a bit of time on before we had a hiatus in this debate was talking about the liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility and asking the Minister for Energy questions about the proposed LNG facility. Now, in the last couple of weeks, the new Minister and, indeed, the Prime Minister, have made comments to the effect, in light of everything that’s happened in the world, that there will be strong scrutiny and the business case will need to stack up.

Now, one of the things that the previous Minister for Energy said, and is on record as saying, is, “There is no plan B. There is only LNG. We don’t have a plan B.” What I want to know from the Minister is what work he has put in place to ensure that there is a plan B, given that the previous Minister explicitly said there was no plan B, and given that that analysis wasn’t completed in the documentation that was released around the LNG facility material, in terms of the thorough consideration of that.

It would be useful to the committee of the whole House if the Minister were to elucidate on what the plan B was, because I think everyone can see the skyrocketing cost of LNG around the world. We and many other people at the time of the Government’s announcement of an LNG import facility said that this made New Zealand susceptible to any spikes in global pricing. Then, only a few weeks later, we have seen what is happening with LNG supply tightening around the globe.

I’d also be interested to know from the Minister whether it is still his intention that there be a signed contract by July 2026 in terms of this. One of the things that the Minister addressed, but certainly didn’t answer, is whether it is still his intention that the final decision on the commercial decision will lie with Ministers; that it won’t be officials who make that call but that there will be Ministers with powers to act who will make that final decision. That certainly was the process that was spelt out in the previous Minister’s Cabinet paper, so we’d be keen to know what that is.

I’d also be keen to know from the Minister whether any further work has been done since questions were asked of the previous Minister on what we could do to ensure that any cost savings would be passed through to consumers. The previous Minister claimed that that would be the work and the Electricity Authority had the powers in order to do that, but one of the things when we had the annual review of the Electricity Authority, when they came to select committee, was that they did say that, while they monitor prices closely and can influence outcomes through market design and competition, they cannot directly dictate retail electricity prices. Therefore, in terms of the mechanisms to ensure that any cost savings would be passed through to consumers, what the authority came to the select committee and said certainly didn’t stack up with the claims that the previous Minister had been making. I would like to know what work the current Minister has under way, that if this is to go ahead and, indeed, if there are savings to be had, how we will ensure that these get passed on to consumers, because this is by no means anything that would be guaranteed and that you would expect in terms of that.

One of the things I’d also be keen to know from the Minister is whether or not he is actively considering funding for solar—we know that the previous Minister had tried to get funding for various solar initiatives—and whether or not he has had advice around whether or not it is the cost of capital that is the biggest impediment. I know the Minister has pointed to other things they’ve done around consenting, and all these kinds of things, but addressing the capital constraint that people have in terms of solar roll-out and whether that is something the Government is actively considering there. I would also like to know if the Minister—[Time expired]

21:05

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate that the Minister for Energy may have some responses to my colleague Megan Woods, because I think they were very important questions.

I also understand that we have real issues with energy hardship at the moment, so I’m interested in the Minister explaining where the $178 million funding cut from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, which provided funding for hot water heating, low-cost energy efficiency measures, an LED lighting scheme, and community-focused outreach programmes to target hard-to-reach households—how has that affected those hard-to-reach households and those whānau in energy hardship, and what evaluation of impact is the Government doing? That’s one lot of questions I’d really like an answer to.

Following on from that, in the face of that significantly increasing energy hardship, I’ve got a graph here that was just presented at the energy hardship hui in Auckland today by Ian McChesney, who had to use his own funds to dig through the stats to dig it out. We can see that there are now 200,000 homes, households, and whānau who cannot afford to keep their dwelling adequately warm. My question here is: did the Minister consider funding the establishment of an energy wellbeing network, as proposed by those working on the front line, delivering energy services to households and communities across the country, and, if not, why not? Now that we know people are really suffering, and people are having to choose between heating and eating, will he reconsider it?

21:07

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka. My question is involving energy poverty. The Climate Change Commission says renewable energy is a cheaper form of electricity generation in the long term, so my question is: if renewable energy is cheaper, why are whānau still paying the price for delayed investment and continued dependence on fossil fuels?

Tētehi atu o āku pātai—another question that I have is: will this Government invest in solar farms such as the new solar farm in Ngāti Naho that has an ongoing relationship with Maurea Marae within Hauraki-Waikato?

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister for Energy, given the amount of attention that the Government’s announced investment in an LNG import terminal in Taranaki has got from business, from the electricity sector, and from major energy users, I’m wondering—given that the Hon Megan Woods, a former energy Minister, was one of the people who came up with the idea to ban oil and gas exploration—firstly, Minister, do you think it would have been helpful to have planned and budgeted for an LNG terminal at the time that banning New Zealand indigenous gas exploration was announced so that we had a back-up transition fuel? Do you think it might have been helpful to maybe, I don’t know, cover your bases?

Secondly, Minister, given the challenges that this Government faced, and you as Minister faced, around options for a dry year when you took on the role as energy Minister, what plan B was there? Isn’t it the case that the LNG import terminal is actually the worst of a very long list of poor options that are a gift from the previous Government to the people of New Zealand by banning oil and gas exploration, providing absolutely nothing but some taxpayer handouts to big business for energy transition, and leaving all of those hard-to-abate industries, like bread making—bread making in ovens the size of this Chamber—

Unlike the handouts to the oil and gas industry from this Government.

—exclusively dependent on natural gas with no transition plan. Here is the Hon Megan Woods chirping in from the sidelines as if she doesn’t have the black ash of the arsonist all over her hands. Minister, I’m interested: was there any alternative, or is this the only solution that can possibly solve the dry-year risk and help us secure New Zealand’s energy future right now?

21:10

I thank the members for their questions. I’ll take the member Simon Court’s and the Hon Megan Woods’ questions in relation to liquefied natural gas (LNG) together.

The reality is that the last Government made that decision simply to get a bumper sticker on a car and to get a headline in Paris so that they could look like they were doing something about climate change, but, ultimately, they’ve left New Zealand high and dry, and the way I’ve described their plan is, “Hope it will rain—hope it will rain.” The energy policy of the previous Minister was to hope it would rain. The reality is that the year we became Government, it didn’t rain, and we saw the consequences.

$800 a megawatt.

$800 a megawatt hour because the lakes were dry, the wind wasn’t blowing, and it was the middle of winter. That is the consequence of not having enough gas—the gas that they banned the exploration of. The consequences of their decisions are before our very eyes, yet they still refuse to change their approach and actually see gas as a transition fuel and see the opportunity that comes through it. Now, we’re working through a procurement process with LNG, and we will be making decisions once that procurement process has been through. Ultimately, the answers to the members’ questions will of course be dealt with as part of that process.

In relation to the member Scott Willis’ questions about energy hardship, we have a Community Renewable Energy Fund to support energy education in communities. There are funds there which do provide support, but, ultimately, what we need to see is a competitive market which provides affordable energy for all New Zealanders and which drives down prices through the abundance of energy in this country. Whether that is wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, gas, coal, we need all of those types of energy to make sure we have a market which provides lower wholesale energy prices for consumers and for businesses. I’m pleased to note that the Australian Securities Exchange calendar year future prices have shown that, for 2027, since February, there’s been a $27 reduction in megawatt hour cost; 2028, down by $24; and 2029, it’s down by $22. We are seeing, because of the policies of this Government, a reduction in those forward prices, which is positive. Of course, there’s more work to do.

In relation to the member from Te Pāti Māori, the question around a particular solar farm—I forget the particular location for that solar farm—we of course support solar. We support investment in solar via energy companies. As I said to her co-leader earlier today, we support indigenous solar. We want to see more solar being developed in New Zealand, and, in fact, the total forward pipeline from 2026 to 2029 has 1,867 megawatts of solar in the forward pipeline.

Fast track.

That is fantastic, and, of course, fast track is a great way, and another part, of how we’re making it speed up. There’s lots happening in solar, it’s great for our energy system, and we look forward to more projects being advanced.

21:14

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just remind the Minister for Energy that I’m still waiting for an answer on what the current balance of the petroleum or engine fuels monitoring levy memorandum account is at today. The Government seems to be avoiding this question; it’s many, many, many days overdue on answering written questions on it, and, certainly, this is the fourth time I’ve asked it in the Chamber. There’s been several hours hiatus where the Minister could have got their information.

I would also like to know whether the Minister is still saying that there will be a signed contract by July, whether that is the intention of the Government, and whether that is the timeline he is working to. I’m also interested in whether or not the Minister will guarantee that, if a liquefied natural gas terminal goes ahead, it will solely be for the purposes of dry-year risk, that it won’t be used more broadly than that, and that it won’t become a de facto way of supplying gas more fully in the New Zealand economy, because that is what the Cabinet paper, on the surface, purports to claim. Can the Minister confirm whether or not this is a project that is confined to dry-year risk?

21:15

Thank you, Mr Chair. I would make the point—and I think the Minister for Energy also has made this point—that hope is not a strategy, and yet we have heard from the Electricity Retailers’ and Generators’ Association this morning, we’ve heard from downstream, and we’ve heard from all the leaders in the energy sector, that we need a national energy strategy. There was one ready to go out the door at the end of the last Government. This Government’s been sitting on it for the whole term so far. My question to the Minister is: when are we going to see the Government’s release of a national energy strategy or, better yet, the Government opening the doors and bipartisanship? Let’s see what a national energy strategy would look like, to give some certainty to the sector about our decarbonisation efforts; to give some certainty to the sector about the direction of travel; to give some certainty about where we can go and make a difference.

I’ve also heard that the Minister is very keen to see that we need a competitive market, and on that we agree. To that point, there is a bill sitting in the biscuit tin that the Minister can adopt at any moment, and it is called the Electricity Industry (Separation of Generation and Retail Businesses) Amendment Bill. That will build a competitive market; that will make sure that we have a market that functions, that takes away the control and the cross-subsidisation. Now, that is an option that is open to the Minister right now, and we have heard members of the Government saying they want to do just this thing. Is the Government all talk, no action? That’s what I’m seeing from the Government: all talk, no action. There’s a lot you could do here and you just don’t seem to be wanting to do it. I’d like to hear from the Minister on those points. I’ve got a couple of other questions.

21:17

I love it when members on the Opposition talk about wanting bipartisanship. Well, what they have failed to do is back the reversal of the ban on oil and gas exploration, which they put in place. They didn’t consult on it, they didn’t come and talk to the National Party, they didn’t try and seek a bipartisan approach to that; they simply went and announced it on the steps of Parliament and for the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to be able to then go to Paris and get a headline and be on the front page of a magazine. Shame on the Labour Party and the Green Party for their decisions on that. Where was the bipartisanship then? That is the epicentre of the challenges we are facing now in our energy sector, and it is on their shoulders. They should take that responsibility.

Are you going to answer the question?

The question was: do we want a strategy? Well, we want to make sure we have lower prices and affordable energy and abundant energy for New Zealanders, and, simply, on that side of the House, they want paperwork but won’t actually back the solutions which actually deliver value to people, value to households, value to consumers, and value to businesses and jobs.

The decision they made to ban oil and gas exploration has been detrimental on our energy sector, and also on our industrial base, and is leading to the de-industrialisation of New Zealand, and they have the audacity to stand up in this Parliament and complain about businesses closing but fail to back the solutions so that they have the energy to stay open. Shame on them.

21:18

Thank you, Mr Chair. Certainly, it sounds as though the Government has no strategy, has no plan, and just hopes the market will deliver. Given that there is only one remaining offshore wind developer still floating around, when will the Government finally deliver the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill? And is the Government considering any risk-sharing structures with Taranaki Offshore Partnership?

21:19

Thank you, Mr Chair. That bill, as the member will know, is making its way through Parliament as we speak.

Members, our time with the Minister for Energy has ended.

21:20

Thank you, Mr Chair. As the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, I present the major findings of the Te Puni Kōkiri in-depth annual review, December last year. During the period, Te Puni Kōkiri published their strategic intentions for 2025-2029. Their strategic vision continues to be thriving whānau, and it says that when whānau are thriving, so too are their communities, hapū, iwi, and all of Aotearoa New Zealand. Te Puni Kōkiri’s policy approach is Te Tautuhi o Rongo, which is a framework for the Public Service to ensure that high-level decision making considers both the collective and individual rights of iwi and Māori. Their delivery approach is whānau-centred, locally led, and Government enabled.

Te Puni Kōkiri employs the equivalent of 423 full-time kaimahi, with two-thirds of them having Māori descent. Outside of Wellington, there are 15 regional offices. Auditors provided a modified audit opinion, with them being satisfied with the financials and that they were fairly presented, with one exception relating to the non-departmental estimated costs and related provision associated with the Wakatū court case. Further details of that are within the report.

In February of 2025, Te Puni Kōkiri took over some functions from Te Arawhiti, now known as Te Tari Whakatau. The transferred responsibilities include advising the Government and the Public Service on the distinct rights, interests, and responsibilities of hapū and Māori, and, secondly, leading post-settlement relationships with post-settlement governance entities and monitoring the Crown’s implementation of Treaty settlement commitments.

21:22

Mr Chair, tēnā koe. I’m going to get straight to an area that is of huge concern to me and to other members of this House, and that is Māori broadcasting—Whakaata Māori specifically—and reports of cuts to Māori Television in Budget 2024 as part of more than $300 million in Māori-specific reductions.

What advice did the Minister for Māori Development receive about the impact of the $5.5 million in expiring funding for Whakaata Māori during the period under review? Can the Minister confirm whether any of the $5.5 million in time-limited funding has been replaced with ongoing baseline funding? What assessment has the Minister made of how Whakaata Māori will maintain current levels of content production after losing 20 percent of its budget? Did the Minister receive any warnings from officials about job losses or service reductions resulting from this funding expiry? Finally, what criteria did the Minister use to decide not to renew the time-limited funding that Whakaata Māori relied on for digital transformation and for staffing?

21:23

Just further to those questions from Oriini Kaipara, I’m interested in whether the Minister for Māori Development has a strategy around Māori broadcasting. The previous Government had a full Māori broadcasting strategy, and we have yet to see any Māori broadcasting strategy from the Minister. In fact, we haven’t seen anything from the Minister, if I’m being honest, in terms of a future for Māori broadcasters, particularly Ngā Reo Irirangi Māori, who are feeling that they are under major attack at the moment, with Māori radio stations looking at funding cuts of up to 25 percent. Has the Minister got a strategy in place to address that?

I think the previous questions in terms of baseline funding are very relevant questions for whoever the Minister is, whether that Minister comes from National or Labour, or any Māori Minister. Baseline funding is always a challenge in the Māori area, because whatever the Government, they always seem to have problems in terms of driving through baseline funding for Māori. So I ask the Minister: what is the strategy, given that he has not put together one extra cent for Māori broadcasting over the time he has been the Minister for Māori Development—not one cent has come through Te Māngai Pāho or Te Puni Kōkiri.

Given that Māori broadcasting plays such an integral role in terms of the whole area of Māori development, it is also concerning given that we have 21 Māori radio stations who are facing massive cuts. Is there a strategy that the Minister is looking to roll out with the Budget coming up in May? What is his view? We have Whakaata Māori who have been cut back in terms of funding and don’t know where they’re going. There are redundancies. We have Ngā Reo Irirangi Māori now in a position where they may have to make major redundancies. Has the Minister got a strategy in place for the upcoming Budget? Will we see an increase in the Māori broadcasting area, or will he return a zero Budget as he has done in the previous two years?

21:26

Minister, how does it reflect that, under your watch, we have lost a national Māori news service?

Just direct your comments through the Chair.

Mr Chair, pardon me. I wonder if the Minister for Māori Development can answer how it reflects on his record that the nation has lost its national Māori news service—and what is he going to do about it? How is it consistent with our nation upholding our founding agreement, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, to see Māori broadcasting in such a challenged state because of the actions of this Government in terms of its failure to appropriately support Māori broadcasting and its funding?

21:27

What modelling has the Minister for Māori Development seen on the cumulative impact of $9.5 million in expiring funding on Māori broadcasting capability? Further to that, what planning has the Minister undertaken to address the further $4 million in funding that expires for Whakaata Māori in the following financial year?

Now, I want to move to Te Māngai Pāho. While Te Māngai Pāho’s baseline funding was maintained this year, what advice has the Minister received about the $16 million in time-limited funding that expires after 2026? Further to that, what steps is the Minister taking now to prevent Te Māngai Pāho from facing a fiscal cliff when that time-limited funding ends? Has the Minister sought Cabinet approval to convert any of Te Māngai Pāho’sexpiring funding into ongoing baseline funding, and what impact analysis has been completed on how the expiry of this funding will affect te reo Māori content production nationwide?

21:28

Further to the question from Steve Abel with regards to national Māori news: does the Minister for Māori Development think that te ao Māori should have national Māori news on radio? If you look at mainstream, New Zealanders have quite the selection and opportunity in terms of accessing news. We have TVNZ news, which was built on taxpayers’ money for 44 years before Māori Television started in 2004. So we had 44 years of taxpayers’ money as a headstart in terms of mainstream television. We had Newstalk ZB, Radio New Zealand—all built on taxpayers’ money.

Is the member making a case for selling?

Oh, you listen and you might get it through your thick head.

Oh, Willie!

That upset you, did it? I’m just saying the obvious. You have no idea in terms of what I’m talking about. Radio New Zealand was built on taxpayers’ money.

I want to know from the Minister—we now have no national Whakaata Māori news on the hour. Do Māori deserve to have that opportunity? It comes back to a strategy, in terms of a Minister being able to outline a strategy. The Minister will be aware that the previous Government allocated $100 million over two years in terms of Māori broadcasting, and this Minister has yet to produce one cent. I would like to know: when will he produce one cent for Māori broadcasting and play a part in the development and strategy going forward? When will he start giving some of our broadcasters some assurances and some tautoko that there’s a brighter future for them, and he’s not just going to sit back and keep delivering zero budgets at Budget time?

21:31

E te Tiamana o te komiti o te Whare nei, tēnā koe. Tātou e hui tahi nei i te pō nei, tēnā tātou katoa.

[To the Chair of the committee of the whole House, thank you. To all of us assembled here tonight, greetings to us all.]

Te reo Māori is part of the DNA of our country, Aotearoa New Zealand. We all recognise that we as whānau Māori who are committed to te reo, but also the Crown, have a very active duty to protect and tautoko te reo Māori. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars go to kaupapa Māori in te reo Māori, whether or not it’s through the education system or through the four Māori language entities, or a wide variety of other initiatives—for example, Te Matatini. Performances on Matatini stages are nearly entirely in te reo Māori.

Just to recalibrate some of the confusion that members opposite have laced our Parliament with this evening: there have not been cuts to the baseline budget for the four Māori language entities. Yes, there was time-limited funding, instigated by the former Minister for Māori Development. Questions or comments around cuts to the Budget, I think, ignore the fact that there was time-limited funding, and that time-limited funding has come to the end of its time. Any suggestion that I have been responsible or the coalition Government has been responsible for cutting budgets on te reo Māori, I think, is distant from the reality.

The second thing is it’s absolutely fantastic to see hundreds of thousands of reo Māori speakers, and we continue to encourage that in many, various ways. The funding that is allocated to the four Māori language entities is, for the most part, in the operational decision making, governance, and management of those entities. If Minister Potaka decides he’s going to jump down the governance and management throats of those entities and start dictating to them, like an adult to a child, how they should spend the money, I think that disrespects the role of those entities, which were established with much conviction and much fight over many, many decades of commitment to te reo Māori.

I think it’s very important to really clarify the role of the Minister and the role of the Government before some of the scarier suggestions are put on my shoulders, that I should be telling Te Māngai Pāho how much money they should give to each and every individual Māori radio station. That is not my role—it’s not. We do set up the framework, we do provide funding, and we do encourage all those entities to get on the same waka—to be very clear about a national direction for te reo Māori, rather than having their own individual directions.

There was mention of the Māori news service. Actually, the funder of that service, and the decision maker of that service—for the Opposition member who asked that question—is not the Minister for Māori Development. It is the funding authority, and they are set up to do that job.

Again, just to remind everyone, we shouldn’t be confused by some of the assumptions and the implications and connotations that are coming through some of the questions. I am very clear about my role. My role is to support the Minister of Finance in relevant allocations for funding in these four Māori language entities; to encourage those that are involved to get together and make sure they’re on a single waka in terms of the fundamental kaupapa across those organisations, kia mauri ora te reo [so that the language be healthy]—and, of course, to help get started a refresh of the Maihi Karauna, which is now under way.

One final observation I’d make, just in the short time I have available, is that communications and broadcasting today are not like they were in the days of Radio Wha Waho—they’re just not. They are very different, and broadcasting and comms has to be far more agile. A lot of our reo Māori feed is actually not through Whakaata Māori or radio stations; it’s through social media. Te Māngai Pāho, as the main broadcasting funding agency, recognises that. There may be different allocations of funding made at that authority level. That’s their operational responsibility. I see absolutely wonderful reo Māori feeds on social media—and, indeed, some of that reflects the personalities that sit in this Chamber this evening.

21:36

Clearly, the Minister for Māori Development is confused about his role after that terrible explanation about the state of Māori broadcasting. Somebody needs to inform the Minister that, as the Minister of Māori Broadcasting as well as the Minister for Māori Development, his brief is not just te reo Māori; his brief is Māori language and culture.

He’s got this thing about the reo, absolutely, as a priority, but the Minister’s brief is about Māori language and culture. Most of the most successful programmes through the last few years, in terms of Māori programming, have been Māori programmes in English. Native Affairs is a classic example of it; Marae has been a perfect example of it.

Eye to Eye.

Oh, yes, Eye to Eye—that’s a good one, too. That was a few years ago. Plenty of these shows, Moana’s show—80 percent of these are in English, funded by Te Māngai Pāho (TMP).

The Minister is confused—very confused, as he’s revealed himself tonight—in terms of what his brief is. His brief, I agree, is not about telling TMP what to do—of course he doesn’t tell TMP what to do. His brief is to advocate for TMP, which he is not doing.

That’s my question to this Minister: when are you going to advocate for your agency, advocate for Te Māngai Pāho, advocate for Te Puni Kōkiri? Where is your Māori strategy? No one expects you to go in and tell Larry Parr what to do, but we expect you to tell Nicola Willis what to do. We expect you to challenge Nicola Willis—or don’t you say a word? Are you just like James Meager, who runs around trying to do the numbers and fails every time he does it? Are you just like that Māori over there who can’t count?

Redirect your—

We want a Minister—well, I’m just saying, there’s another Māori over there who’s useless in terms of counting. He couldn’t put a coup together if he fell over one. I want to say to the Minister again: what is the Māori strategy around broadcasting? Is it about saying, “Oh, I support this, I support that. I’ll do this, I’ll do that”? When is he going to challenge his Cabinet and Nicola Willis to provide some real money, funding, and resourcing for Māori broadcasting?

I want to come to Whānau Ora—and my colleague over here Shanan Halbert will, as well—which is another kaupapa, because the Minister has failed miserably—

I know one number: 0800 723 465.

—in terms of his responses with regard to Māori broadcasting—you just learn how to count, James. In terms of Māori housing, I want to come to the area of Māori housing now for the Minister. We have lost $800 million, as the Minister knows, and as Chris Bishop has admitted to me—$800 million has gone from the pūtea Māori into mainstream providers. That is another black mark against this Minister, who is saying, “Yes, Māori can get to it” and “My mate Jamie, well, he’s doing all right, and Willie’s doing all right.”, and Willie Te Aho. But it’s not about Willie and Jamie doing all right—

How’s JT? How’s JT doing? Has he got a new job?

—it’s about all the Māori providers getting an opportunity. I want to ask the Minister: where are we going in terms of Māori housing? How many Māori providers are being tied back into that Māori strategy? How many Māori providers have shut up—

When’s the trial?

—because, again, you—like James Meager over there—are not doing your job in terms of advocating for our people.

21:40

Tēnā koe e te Heamana, me ngā mihi ki a koe e te Minita, me ngā mihi ki ngā kaimahi o Te Puni Kōkiri.

[Thank you, Mr Chair, and thanks also to you, Minister, and thanks also to the staff of Te Puni Kōkiri.]

I want to cover off some initial questions to set the scene for Whānau Ora this evening. I appreciate that I am new in picking up this particular portfolio, but I wanted to kick off understanding from the Minister for Māori Development: what was the difference in funding in this financial year, 2024-2025, to the prior year, and what was the Minister most concerned about in the implications of those Budget decisions in that annual review period?

21:41

Te Māngai Pāho: we did a review of it at the Primary Production Committee. One of the things we found, Minister, was that consistently there’d been a failure to have steady and consistent funding. The time-limited funding that you referred to is exactly part of the problem for the constancy of the ability of these institutions to provide a certainty of tenure. These are things—Minister, would you agree?—that we want as a permanent fixture in our society. Therefore, will you commit to baseline funding that, at least, is adjusted to inflation so that there is not this uncertainty every three years or every two years as to whether there will be a continuation of funding or a renewal of the commitment to fund something as important as Te Māngai Pāho?