Parliamentary debates: Wednesday, 2 September 2026

14:00

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

[Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

to the Minister of Housing

Is the Government considering removing interest deductibility on residential property?

The Hon Chris Bishop.

Sit down, “Bish”.

Don’t you want to hear the answer? [Interruption] Don’t you want to hear the answer?

No, woah, woah—we’re not going to—

He told to me to sit down, and I hadn’t even answered.

Wait, wait—just a minute. I’ll—sit down; I’ll deal with that sort of thing. We’re not going to have this across-the-House exchange outside of the question being asked and the question being answered.

Unlike others, no.

What reports has he seen on interest deductibility for residential property?

I’m still making my way through Inland Revenue’s (IRD’s) regulatory impact statement in 2023. I’m either a slow reader or it’s very riveting material—possibly both. I found page 29 of the 2021 regulatory impact statement particularly interesting. It has a table scoring all four options to deny interest deductibility for residential property against the status quo, using nine criteria. Every single option scored negative on the criteria: new housing supply, rental affordability, efficiency, fairness, revenue, integrity, compliance, cost, and coherence. The highest-scoring criteria was fiscal take. The one shining beacon was more money for the Government, but all four options to ban interest deductibility scored negatively and rated worse than doing nothing. IRD advised against all options and preferred the status quo.

What else did Inland Revenue’s regulatory impact statement say?

Oh well, it could be a long answer.

In the 2021 regulatory impact statement, it also noted the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development’s views, which warned about three key things: increased rents and more rental churn as landlords pass on costs or sell, displacing tenants, who bear the cost of finding and moving somewhere new; reduced feasibility and supply of new build-to-rent housing; and reduced supply of emergency, transitional, and public housing. Emergency, transitional, and public housing was eventually carved out, and so was build-to-rent housing. They joined a list that had already grown to include farmland, hospices, retirement villages, boarding houses, student accommodation, and papakāinga. It’s not good for any of those groups and, therefore, they justify an exemption. It’s not good for all renters.

Why did Government decide to reintroduce interest deductibility for residential property?

We had two key objectives: firstly, we wanted to reduce upward pressure on rents. Rent prices went up by $80 a week between when the ban was phased in and when this Government announced its reintroduction. Since then, rents have been flat. Secondly, we wanted to restore the coherence of New Zealand’s tax system. We believe in the principle that tax should be paid on profit.

Did the increase in rent that resulted from this policy undermine the then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s stated intention—

No.

—of tilting the market—

No, no—no. Sorry, that’s enough. Turn him off. That’s enough.

Point of order, Mr Speaker.

He cannot answer about another Government’s policies; he can answer about Government policy only.

Mr Speaker, the entire—

So we’ll rephrase the question.

OK. Would the increases in rent that resulted from removing mortgage interest deductibility undermine first-home buyers by making their rent higher, making it harder for them to save for a deposit?

Yes, to the extent that interest deductibility costs are passed on to renters, thus increasing the cost of living for renters and making it harder for renters saving for a first-home deposit—absolutely, that is the case. It’s net bad news for everybody.

Would the Minister then feel comfortable describing such a policy as “tilting the market towards first-home buyers”?

Some have claimed that interest deductibility is a policy to help first-home buyers. The evidence suggests that, in fact, it is the opposite.

Would a move to remove interest deductibility from residential property amount to a renters tax?

Some would definitely call it that. Having argued vociferously that bringing back interest deductibility for rental properties is, in fact, a tax break for landlords, it therefore follows that removing it is therefore a tax increase.

14:07 · to the Minister for Auckland

Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Yes, and in particular, I stand by the actions of this Government to put a cap on council rates, which will protect Aucklanders from unexpected and unsustained rates increases.

No one else talking while the Hon Carmel Sepuloni asks the question.

Does he stand by his statement “Aucklanders want to see a clear plan and this Government has a clear plan to deliver for Aucklanders”; if so, what is his plan to get the more than 30,000 Aucklanders who have lost their jobs in the last three years back into work?

In regards to the first part of the question, yes. The Government has signed a deal with Auckland. This is a 10-year deal that will bring significant benefits for Aucklanders, and it ensures that there is a relationship that is productive between central government and local government. When Auckland does well, New Zealand does well.

Is Auckland going backwards when there has a been a 39 percent increase in the number of Jobseeker Support Work Ready recipients in Auckland in just the last three years?

It is fair to note that Auckland’s unemployment levels aren’t where we want them to be. However, it is fair to also indicate that when we came in, there was an economy in recession. We had high inflation, high interest rates, and that all puts pressure on Kiwi households and, particularly, Kiwi businesses. So the answer to that—as you’ve noted—on our side of the House, is not about more taxes and more spending, but it’s getting the fundamentals right, and that’s what we’re doing.

Do Aucklanders deserve better than the second-highest unemployment rate in the country, with more than 30,000 Aucklanders out of work in the last three years?

Aucklanders always deserve better, and that’s why, on this side of the House, we are committed to having no new taxes. We are fiscally focused and disciplined on our spending. We have a long-term plan in place with Auckland to be able to deliver the infrastructure that will turn the dial, to increase jobs, to increase productivity, and to increase economic growth. When all those factors come into play, that will benefit Auckland, and importantly, that will benefit New Zealand.

Can the Minister confirm that residential building consents in Auckland have increased by 20 percent in the last year, that City Rail Link opens in around 10 days’ time, and that there is massive transport investment happening in Auckland right at this very moment?

Yes, I can—a 21 percent increase in consents, year on year, up to 40,000. That is, if anything, a clear demonstration of this Government’s focus on doing the basics right, fixing those basics, and building a better future for Aucklanders.

Do Aucklanders deserve better than his Government’s cuts, which have led to Auckland City Hospital having 74 fewer nurse positions, and Middlemore Hospital having 78 fewer nurse positions, than two years ago?

Again, one has to recognise the situation which was the case when we came into Government. We have taken significant steps since that point, but when you try and restructure a health system during a pandemic, you’re going to get consequences, and that is the mess that we are tidying up.

Has his Government got Auckland back on track, when Starship Hospital had a shortage of nurses for 59 percent of all its shifts in 2025?

Yes, we do have Auckland back on track, and I’ve got to acknowledge all of those healthcare workers who are working very hard during the midst of winter, which is always a challenging time for our health system. What I can be very clear about is that the Auckland City deal that this Government has put in place involves a wide range of portfolios, from education, to health, to economic growth and development, to infrastructure. We are a Government of delivery, and we’re going to continue to do that for the future.

Is the Government’s failure to fix the cost of living, failure to get people back into work, and failure to give Auckland the health services it deserves, just more evidence that New Zealand cannot afford three more years of a National Government?

What I know is that what New Zealanders cannot afford is nine new taxes, removing Investment Boost, increasing debt, increasing spending, putting a wrecking ball through our economy. On this side of the House, we’re about no new taxes, fixing the basics and building the future, and we will continue to deliver.

14:12 · to the Minister of Finance

What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

14:13

The Reserve Bank has just released its Monetary Policy Statement. This includes the decision by the monetary policy committee to increase the official cash rate (OCR) by 25 basis points. As members will know, the OCR rises and falls in cycles. Recently, for more than seven months, it was down at 2.25 percent, which was the bottom of the most recent cycle. In July, the committee raised the rate to 2.5 percent, and it has now been raised to 2.75 percent.

Was this a surprise?

No. Market pricing in the past few weeks indicated an almost 100 percent expectation of this increase. When the OCR was at 2.25 percent, the Reserve Bank’s accelerator was flat to the floor, providing stimulus to the economy when it most needed it. That could not continue forever, and no one expected it to. The Reserve Bank is now easing off the accelerator and removing some of that monetary stimulus, but interest rates remain well below the levels they reached in 2023. Since this move was fully priced in, there should be little or no change to fixed-term mortgage rates.

Take responsibility. You took responsibility when it was going down.

The commentary might be useful to the person making it but to no one else.

No, no. Other people enjoy it.

Take a supplementary then.

What is the reason for this decision?

I note that in New Zealand there has been a longstanding consensus about the independence of the Reserve Bank to pursue its inflation mandate. While the member opposite may continually interject, saying that the Government should take responsibility for individual cash-rate decisions, that kind of voodoo economics has been condemned by others. The Reserve Bank’s job is to keep on top of inflation—specifically to keep future inflation between 1 and 3 percent over the medium term and, in doing this, seek to avoid unnecessary instability in output, employment, interest rates, and the exchange rate. Price stability is monetary policy’s key contribution to longer-term economic growth and living standards, and we’ve seen recently, between 2021 and 2023, that high inflation can be incredibly destructive. Rising fuel prices from the Middle East conflict have pushed inflation to 4.1 percent, and there are concerns this could spread to other goods and services. At the same time, the economy is strengthening. The Reserve Bank has therefore judged that it can reduce monetary stimulus and move a bit more towards a neutral stance.

What has the Government been doing to help limit inflationary pressures?

The Government has been focused on not adding to inflationary pressure with large increases in discretionary spending—as happened, for example, in 2022 and 2023. Net new spending in each of our three Budgets has been very restrained. This continued restraint means the Government is reducing its Budget deficits over time, and on that basis, the Reserve Bank can set interest rates lower than would otherwise be the case. Let me quote, for example, from Treasury’s 2025 Budget Economic and Fiscal Update, which refers to the savings made in that year’s Budget: “Lower aggregate demand that results from the smaller overall Budget creates room for lower interest rates that are around 30 basis points lower than they would otherwise have been by the end of the forecast period.”

14:16 · to the Minister for Social Development and Employment

Does she stand by all her statements regarding main benefits and supplementary payments being wrongly suspended since the Social Security (Mandatory Reviews) Amendment Act 2025 came into force?

14:17

Yes—in the context in which they were given. As I made clear in the House yesterday, a number of payments have been affected since the mandatory reviews Act came into force, and that is not acceptable. The Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) focus has been on ensuring payments are resumed. I have directed MSD to conduct a full review into this issue, including how many people were affected and what further steps are needed to prevent it happening again. I expect to receive the outcome of that review on 10 September.

How many beneficiaries have had their benefit payments wrongly suspended since the law change?

As I said in the House yesterday, I don’t have that number; that is what I’m expecting to get from the review on 10 September.

Why, after I asked her the same question yesterday, can’t she tell New Zealanders how many beneficiaries had their benefit payments wrongly suspended, and is she just hiding behind waiting for a review?

No. It is unacceptable that people have had payments suspended when they should not have. I asked the MSD, with urgency, to focus on fixing the problem, which was to ensure that people who had payments suspended had them reinstated and that they were not without funding for long. That’s what the urgency was on, and, separate to that, I have asked for a review where I am expecting all the details, including how many people have been affected by the two issues that I outlined in the House yesterday.

Why did she take 19 days after being notified to apologise to those receiving payments, such as a disability allowance or supported living payment, for the fact that their benefits were wrongly cut?

As I said, I was first made aware of the issue on 13 August, and there were two issues identified at that point. On the Monday, MSD provided an apology and a statement associated with those two issues. I apologised the following day; I have apologised subsequently. It is not good enough that MSD have suspended payments that should not have been suspended, and the focus was on ensuring that those people who had payments suspended had the money returned to them.

How many people couldn’t afford to put fuel in their car to take their children to school, couldn’t buy groceries, or couldn’t pay rent on time as a result of having their benefit wrongly cut?

As I’ve said, it should not have happened, and I appreciate that for some people, the suspension of a payment would have caused hardship. That is why I asked the Ministry of Social Development to act with urgency as soon as I became aware of this issue—to focus on reinstating payments so that people did not go without.

Does she acknowledge that for beneficiaries living below the poverty line, even missing one week’s worth of payments could have resulted in people going hungry or being made homeless, and if so, will her review, due to be released on 10 September, include the possibility of compensation?

I appreciate this shouldn’t have happened and has had an impact on those people who shouldn’t have had payments suspended.

Point of order. My question was specifically about compensation, and the Minister did not address the issue of compensation and that being within the terms of reference of that review.

Well, there were two legs to your question, with all due respect, and she answered the first.

14:21 · to the Minister of Finance

Does she stand by her statement, “In the absence of the international oil shock, inflation would have been back in the target band”; if so, what actions, if any, has the Government taken to reduce our economy’s dependence on fossil fuels?

Yes. Without changes in petrol and diesel prices, annual Consumers Price Index inflation would have been 2.9 percent in the June quarter, according to Statistics New Zealand, which would have been within the Reserve Bank’s target range for inflation. To the second part of the question, if the member wants to go into specifics, she should put a question to the Minister for Energy, but I am happy to note that the Government has, for example, put energy projects into fast-track consenting and removed red tape holding back solar installations. I am advised that on our watch, solar connections are up 47 percent, that solar generation for March 2026 was up 50 percent from a year earlier, and that renewable electricity generation hit a record 96.5 percent in the final quarter of 2025.

Can the Minister confirm that her Government came to office and cut active investment in decarbonising industry while also committing hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds to subsidise fossil fuels, resulting in our economy having greater exposure to imported fossil fuel inflation?

Well, in terms of things that have exposed us to imported fossil fuel inflation, the fateful decision to ban oil and gas exploration has exposed us to Indonesian coal prices more than any other decision. In terms of this Government’s decision to close the corporate welfare fund otherwise known as the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry fund, absolutely, I stand by that decision.

If the Government’s fiscal policy in the last three years had reduced instead of increased our dependence on fossil fuels, does the Minister understand that we would now be less exposed to imported fossil fuel inflation?

I reject the assertion in that member’s question, and I once again remind her that the stupid decision to ban oil and gas exploration has left New Zealand fundamentally exposed not only to having to import fossil fuels that we would otherwise be able to produce at lower emissions here, but it has also exposed our entire electricity system to the risk of the lights being turned off in a year where the hydro lakes aren’t full. So for the member to be asserting that somehow our Government’s decisions have led to this predicament I think shows ignorance and recklessness.

Why is her Government actively spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds on subsidising fossil fuel production instead of investing that money in renewable energy generation, knowing full well that those decisions increase our exposure to fossil fuel inflation?

Well, again, I reject those assertions, and I also point out to the member that reducing dependence on fossil fuels requires more than simply banning fossil fuels, because in order to build renewable generation, we require a reliable electricity system that can perform during dry years and periods of low renewable output. Therefore, the Government has progressed multiple measures to strengthen energy security, reliability, competition, including advancing a winter energy reliability obligation to ensure the sector appropriately manages dry year risk, more reliable—[Interruption]

Excuse me, sorry—if that carries on, you’ll be carrying it on outside the House. Is that clear?

Finally, more reliable and affordable electricity enables greater electrification of transport and industry while maintaining affordable electricity for New Zealanders. If we want more investment in renewable generation, which this Government certainly does, and if that member wants that too, she should support fast track and she should support steps to ensure firming electricity is available so that people want to invest in the solar farms.

Can the Minister confirm that in 2026 alone, to date, 519 megawatts of new solar capacity has been added, 229 megawatts of new wind capacity has been added, and a 200 megawatt battery has been added, representing nearly 1,000 megawatts of new generation capacity to the New Zealand electricity system?

Well, I can confirm that this Government’s efforts to cut red and green tape are working. Renewable electricity generation built in the past three years was more than double that built in the previous eight.

Is the finance Minister comfortable moving ahead with the Government’s plans to underwrite a billion-dollar liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility with taxpayer money, when the economics have fundamentally changed today, even more radically with the announcement of Methanex’s closure, or will she support a new, sensible cost-benefit analysis?

Well, when the original policy advice on the need for backup LNG in a dry year was developed, that advice was predicated on an assumption that Methanex would be closing in 2027, so we had already factored in the release of that additional gas into the market in our decision making. The member would do well to note, because she appeared not to know in her press release earlier today, that even with that additional gas, we still have a problem in a dry year. It is not enough to fill the gaping hole the last Government left us by banning oil and gas exploration.

Is there someone taking photos from the gallery with a flash camera? If you’re using flash bulbs, stop.

14:28 · to the Minister for Economic Growth

Does she stand by her statement, “Our Government is determined that New Zealanders who are seeking work can find it”?

Yes, and one of the ways that we are supporting job creation is by ensuring that the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) is topped up. Contrary to the wrongful assertions of some members of the House, the National Land Transport Fund is used to fund the road maintenance programme. If the NLTF budget, which provides for thousands of jobs and supports businesses in our construction industry, was to be gutted, those jobs would be put at risk. It would be economic vandalism to slash billions from that fund with no way to pay for it or no plan on how to support those who would be left without work. It would also be reckless for members opposite to propose that they would get rid of the Land Transport Fund because it’s not even used to maintain the roads. Know what you’re talking about before you make up policy on the fly.

Supplementary. [Interruption]

The Hon Ginny Andersen, and nobody else.

How can she stand by her statement when the Student Pulse job survey shows that student confidence in New Zealand to find a job here has fallen to its lowest level in its 11-year history?

Well, first of all, I have confidence because I haven’t had to correct statements made on Newstalk ZB this morning after misleading people. Second of all, I have always acknowledged the labour market has been slower to recover than we would like, but we know it is a lagging indicator. Employment increased by around 13,000 people in the June quarter, and more recent indicators are very encouraging. ANZ says that employment intentions are now at their highest since February, while Westpac says that employment is rising again, job advertisements are trending higher, and it expects unemployment to have reached its cyclical peak. But there can be no guarantee of roles for members in this House who don’t even know the facts about the issues they get into yelling matches about on the radio.

Is she really that out of touch that she thinks—[Interruption] Start again? Does she really think—

Just, sorry—people may wish to react, but they need to control themselves. A question can be asked without anybody else making any comment on the question. Start again.

Is she really that out of touch that she thinks New Zealanders are leaving our country by choice?

Well, just to add salt to the wound of that member’s ignorance on the radio this morning, no, there is no Government law requiring people to leave the country against their will. But if it is the member’s proposition that that be the proposal, then that is right up there with her telling Mark Mitchell that he had no economic credibility because she was right about the land transport fund. That member needs to ask herself whether she should really keep asking supplementaries today.

Does she still stand by—[Interruption]

No, hang on a minute. Wait—wait.

Does she still stand by her statement “The most important thing we can do to take families out of poverty is to ensure that they have better jobs to go to.”, and if so, why do jobs keep disappearing under her National Government?

Yes, I stand by my statements. No, I would not stand by a statement that says that the road maintenance fund is a separate fund. You need to go check that. It’s a separate fund. You want to be credible on financial things and you’re really kidding yourself—

That’s enough.

Would it be a gross violation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to force New Zealanders, against their choice, out of the country?

Well, just be careful how you answer that.

Well, I’ve heard a lot of novel policy proposals in this House, but I’ve never before heard someone claim that when New Zealanders leave the country, they do so at the mandate of the Government. But if there was one person I could have relied on to come up with that one, it would have been Ginny Andersen.

No, that’s enough, thank you. Just a moment. I should probably have just cut that question off and so we’ll sort it out somewhere else.

Who are you sending home this week?

I beg your pardon?

Sorry—it was over there.

Yeah, I would think so. The Hon—

I was asking who they are sending home this week.

The Hon Ginny Andersen, and no one else.

Are New Zealanders really choosing to leave or is it that disappearing jobs and rising food costs mean that so many New Zealanders just can’t afford three more years of National?

She’s a sucker for punishment. It is the case that—

No, remember that all questions and answers are actually directed through the Speaker. I’m not going to get upset by that, but please don’t start by suggesting that I’m a sucker for punishment—although anybody watching this!

Mr Speaker, you have at any point the option to cut it off; you’d be doing us all out of some pain. It is the case that New Zealanders will choose to leave the country for a variety of reasons relating to their personal circumstances, and it is ultimately their choice to do so. Our Government is working very hard to strengthen this economy so there are more job opportunities and better opportunities to get ahead, and a key part of that is being able to commit to New Zealanders that we will not be imposing new taxes on them. I think it’s time that that member backtracked after yet another incorrect claim.

Just in relation to New Zealanders who are seeking work, and making sure they can find it: has the Minister seen the comments of two teachers, who are undoubtedly looking for work, long-time Labour supporters quoted in Newsroom this morning saying that the curriculum reforms of this Government have given her the most confidence about what she was teaching in the 18 years she’d spent in the classroom?

Yes. I can say that one of the most important ways to strengthen this economy for the future is to better educate our kids and ensure they have the literacy, numeracy skills and knowledge needed to contribute to a growing economy. It is heartening to me that despite the long-term affiliation between the teacher unions and the Labour Party, they are rejecting the proposals from that member to get rid of our successful education reforms.

Point of order. I seek leave for the Hon Ginny Andersen to have an additional supplementary question in light of how well this one’s going.

Well, as you know, you can’t seek leave on behalf of another person, however, the Hon Ginny Andersen, point of order.

Just give her one.

Has he done any recent polling in Hutt South lately?

No, no, no. [Interruption] For those people who are either watching or listening to the broadcast, please understand that we are literally—I think it’s now about six days away from the Parliament lifting for the Election, but the campaign has clearly started in here. Can we now move to question No. 7—Andy Foster.

14:36 · to the Associate Minister of Health

What updates can she provide about upgrading our emergency helicopter fleet?

14:37

Last month I was privileged to attend an event to welcome the addition of a new Airbus H145 D3 helicopter to serve the Hawke’s Bay region. This new helicopter is a significant upgrade to the existing aircraft it has replaced, with enhanced automation, improved performance in challenging conditions, and superior patient care capabilities. This is great news for the people of the Hawke’s Bay, and I want to acknowledge the Hawke’s Bay Rescue Helicopter Trust for their unwavering commitment to supporting air ambulance and search and rescue services to the region since 1992.

Have other regions also benefited from upgraded emergency helicopters?

Yes. Given the vital role the emergency helicopters play in saving lives around New Zealand, particularly for those living in remote, rural, or regional areas, this Government invested $27.3 million across 2024 and 2025 to replace ageing helicopters with 16 newer aircraft. The new Hawke’s Bay helicopter was the eighth near-new, or new, aircraft to come into operation since early 2024. Other regions that are already benefiting from upgrades include Auckland, Waikato, Bay of Plenty, Greater Wellington, Nelson-Tasman, Canterbury, and the West Coast.

Why are upgrades to the emergency helicopter fleet important?

In 2024, New Zealand’s emergency helicopter fleet was the oldest in the developed world. This created sustainability and reliability risks, and meant the excellent paramedics, doctors, and nurses providing treatment to patients have had to do their work within the constraints of the existing fleet. On top of that, emergency air ambulance helicopter services have come under increasing demand, which has grown more than 21 percent over the last five years. In the last calendar year alone, the emergency air ambulance fleet flew 13,274 hours—an average of more than 36 flight-hours each day. Meeting this growing demand and ensuring patients can receive the best care in their time of need is essential and requires a fleet that can spend more time in the air and less time under maintenance.

What updates can she provide about the next steps in this upgrade programme?

By June next year, the final eight replacement helicopters will be in service. The next region to benefit from an upgraded aircraft will be Gisborne, with its replacement helicopter due to enter service at the end of this month. Following that, the final seven replacement helicopters will begin operating in remaining parts of the North Island, including New Plymouth and Palmerston North, and also in Christchurch. Air ambulance staff do incredible work, and these upgrades will ensure they have the tools to deliver the best outcomes for patients.

14:39 · to the Minister of Revenue

Is the Government considering implementing a capital gains tax on small businesses?

14:40

No, this Government will not introduce a capital gains tax on small businesses. Small business owners work hard; they take risks, they employ Kiwis, and invest their own money to build something for themselves and their families. Taxing capital means less investment, less growth, and less jobs, and that’s why a capital gains tax will never be progressed by this Government.

What types of small businesses could be affected by a capital gains tax on commercial properties?

Many small businesses that own property that they operate from—think of a mechanic who has a workshop, or a hairdresser with a salon, or the owner of a local dairy. A capital gains tax on commercial property would mean the owners of those properties would face a tax bill when they sell their premises. These are ordinary Kiwi business owners who have worked very hard and invested over many years to build up an asset. On this side of the House, this Government will not punish them for that.

What would a capital gains tax mean for a small business owner who owns the property they operate from and sells it when they retire?

For many small business owners, the property they operate from is also part of their retirement nest egg. If that property that they own increased in value by, say, $100,000, a 28 percent capital gains tax would mean a $28,000 tax bill when they sell up. We don’t think Kiwis who have spent decades building a business should be penalised when the time comes to retire.

Why does the Government believe small business owners should be able to keep the rewards of the businesses they have spent years building?

Well, because we want New Zealand to be a country that rewards hard work, savings, and aspiration. Small business owners put their own money on the line, they create jobs, and often spend decades building up their businesses and the property it operates from. Our message to them is simple: we back you to get ahead and we will not punish you for succeeding. No new taxes.

Would a capital gains tax on the increase in nominal value of an asset mean that a small business owner in the position he describes would actually be paying tax on inflation even though they were no better off?

Yes, the reality is that the cumulative effect of a capital gains tax as asset values appreciate means that the tax burden that falls upon those business owners in that scenario would be significant. Again, that is a tax burden that is borne by business owners who have done a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into their businesses, that back the Kiwi economy and back New Zealand. We back those individuals.

What would the Minister believe about the financial acumen of someone who designed a capital gains tax like that?

Well, we can see examples around the world of tax policy that is neither efficient nor effective at collecting tax revenue. If you want to identify one of the worst ways in which to collect tax revenue, then you would look at a capital gains tax, which is why, on this side of the House, we will not be implementing a capital gains tax. It is an inefficient mechanism; it attacks capital, and, by the way, capital is used to grow the economy, and on this side of the House we want to grow the economy.

14:44 · to the Minister for Building and Construction

Are builders who operate as sole traders and small businesses better off today than they were three years ago?

Yes, in particular because of Investment Boost, which allows sole traders to immediately deduct 20 percent of the cost of new business assets, including new tools, machinery, or a work ute. That means better cashflow for sole traders, a lower tax bill, and more money in the back pocket of builders.

Were the 764 construction businesses liquidated over the past year crippled by rising prices?

Well, it isn’t without doubt that the construction sector has been through a difficult downturn, but we are now better placed than we were three years ago. Three years ago, inflation and interest rates were high, construction costs had surged, and consents were falling. Today, interest rates and inflation are lower. We have seen 40,581 homes consented in the latest year, up 21 percent year on year. I’m very proud of this Government’s contribution.

Will he defend price rises of up to 70 percent this quarter across aluminium, timber, glass, insulation, plastics, and wall panels as part of his Government’s plan for sustainable price rises?

As I noted in my prior answer, the impact and consequences of high inflation levels and high interest rates mean those costs flow through to builders and the construction sector. While I am regretful of the reality of the policy that we inherited, we are focused on fixing that and we are doing that. We’re implementing a number of policies in order to improve the situation, including a wide range of changes to the building consent legislation, which will make it easier, cheaper, and faster to build in this country.

Does he stand by the previous Minister’s prediction about building price rises that “the changes we have made will dampen inflation”, when the evidence today shows that prices are still rapidly rising—so fast that projects can’t get off the ground?

Yes, I do stand by those statements. I would encourage the member to look forward rather than in terms of the downturn which occurred three years ago. The sector today is better positioned, it has greater confidence, and the forward look around activity is improving. We acknowledge that not every builder has yet felt that recovery, but this Government is focusing on policies such as fast-track reform, such as reform to the building consent system, such as replacement of the Resource Management Act. All of this will result in more building activity.

Why did the Government cut Apprenticeship Boost from January 2025, causing new apprentices to fall 34 percent in just that year?

Well, I don’t agree with the premise of the question raised by that member. This Government has significantly invested in the area of workforce, and it is very clear that we know that what we inherited three years ago was an unsustainable boom-and-bust cycle—announcements of projects with funding and delivery that was not there to complete them, which left Kiwi builders exposed when that pipeline inevitably fell away. Our job on this side of the House is to replace that pipeline with a credible funded pipeline, and we are getting on and executing that agenda.

14:48 · to the Minister for Women

What recent announcement has she made regarding cervical screening? [Interruption]

Hang on a minute. The Hon Nicola Grigg.

Thank you. Yesterday, the health Minister, Simeon Brown, and I announced that cervical screening will be free for all eligible women aged 25 to 69 from 1 March 2027. Currently, over half of women eligible for cervical screening have to pay for the appointment, and from next year almost 800,000 more women will be eligible for the free screen. We also launched New Zealand’s cervical cancer elimination plan, which sets out a pathway to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040. Successive parliamentary reviews—including one in 2018—and, also, women’s health advocates have called for this change for years. This Government has listened, this Government has funded it, and this Government is delivering it.

Why is making cervical screening free so important?

Well, cervical cancer is one of the most preventable cancers, and when it’s found early, the five-year survival rates are at around 90 percent, but once it spreads, that survival rate falls to about 19 percent. But screening only works if women can access it, and we know that cost can be a barrier for some women. By making it free for all eligible women, we are making it easier for them to access this potentially life-saving service.

What does the Cervical Cancer Elimination Plan seek to achieve?

The plan sets an ambitious goal of eliminating cervical cancer in New Zealand by 2040. It focuses on increasing HPV vaccination rates, lifting screening participation, improving follow-up care, and ensuring timely treatment. New Zealand has the tools to make cervical cancer a disease of the past, and this Government is taking the steps necessary to get there, rather than just talking about it.

What does the announcement say about the Government’s priorities?

It shows this Government is focused on practical action that actually improves health outcomes for women. We’re investing in prevention and early detection because that saves lives—[Interruption]

No, just—sorry. Look, just a minute. This is a reasonably serious sort of topic, and I can’t understand why you’re chipping at it so hard. Just let the answer come.

May I start again, Mr Speaker?

Yes, but shorten it up.

Wonderful, because it actually shows that this Government is focused on practical action that actually improves health outcomes for women. We’re investing in prevention and early detection because that saves lives and reduces pressure on the health system. Importantly, we are able to deliver free cervical screening for all eligible women without introducing a new tax to pay for it. That is what good Government looks like: improving public services while managing taxpayers’ money responsibly.

14:51 · to the Minister for Economic Growth

Does she stand by her statement that “grocery prices are high by international standards and Kiwi shoppers are being poorly served by a market effectively dominated by just two major players—Foodstuffs and Woolworths”, and, if so, what will she do to address this poor service for Kiwi shoppers?

Yes, the Commerce Commission’s August Annual Grocery Report says that New Zealand grocery prices remain higher than the OECD average and that major supermarkets still hold 82 percent of the market. The fundamental problem is too little competition. That is why this Government is removing barriers that have kept competitors out of the supermarket sector, strengthening protections for suppliers and competition law, and making it easier to build and replicate new supermarkets.

Does she accept the Commerce Commission’s findings that the supermarket duopoly has been making over $1 million a day in excess profits, and is that fair on regular people struggling to put food on the table?

Well, I support the Commerce Commission’s findings but not necessarily the way that they are paraphrased by Green Party members.

When, if ever, will people see any results at the checkout from her long-awaited supermarket reforms?

It is the case that food price inflation has reduced dramatically, with the latest data showing that food price pressure has been easing, with food prices increasing just 0.1 percent in July, with annual food inflation at 1.9 percent. This compares with peaks for food price inflation under the last Government, which reached over 12 percent.

Will she join the 86 percent of the country who want the Government to ban price gouging by supermarkets like Australia has done?

Well, no, I do not think that there is a workable proposal on the table for doing that. There are really big questions that need to be asked to determine a maximum price so that costs aren’t shifted elsewhere in the supply chain or on to other products, to define what is an excess profit margin, and to consider the wider effects that that would have. Determining an excessive price, members, is also inherently complex. It requires judgments about the cost of supplying individual products and what constitutes a reasonable profit margin. Of course, I know that there are some members in this House who would love a Soviet-style regime where the Government sets the price for everything.

Will she intervene on behalf of Kiwi shoppers to break up the supermarket duopoly and create a third competitor to lower grocery bills, and, if not, is it because David Seymour won’t let her?

No, you can ask the question again, but you can leave the last bit off it.

I’ll ask a different supplementary, Mr Speaker. What are the Commerce Commission’s findings in relationship to the duopoly’s profit, and does she agree they are excessive?

As I recall, the Commerce Commission’s various annual grocery reports indicate that the margin on groceries in New Zealand appears larger than that in other markets, and this has been directly linked to the lack of competition in our market, with an effective duopoly. That is why this Government has progressed a range of changes to lessen the barriers to competition and ensure there is more of the competition you would expect in a workable market.

14:55 · to the Associate Minister of Housing

What advice, if any, has he received about changes to the Government’s retirement village repayment policy following the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon’s statement that there would be a “surprise” retirement village announcement?

14:56

I receive a wide range of advice, particularly in places like Linda Jones Ryman retirement village and Foxbridge Bupa in the mighty electorate of Hamilton West, and, importantly, I listen to and interact with and talk with our treasured seniors and their whānau on a regular basis on what the policy reforms mean for them. I also continue to engage with operators, the Retirement Commissioner, and other stakeholders. That advice has covered things like repayment time frames, affordability, sector liquidity, and other changes that could apply to current and future residents. It confirms that we and our dignified kaumātua in retirement villages need a fair and balanced reform package.

Will he reduce the maximum repayment period from 12 months; if not, why not?

As we know, when we commenced the mahi on the reform package, there was a range of different issues that were confronting the sector, including dispute resolution, the ownership and maintenance of chattels, and disclosure and transparency requirements, as well as exit repayment time frames. What we have done is land on a fair reform package that includes a six-month interest arrangement and a 12-month mandatory repayment time frame, and we think that is a fair and balanced package, alongside the other changes we have proposed.

Why did he choose a 12-month mandate when officials advised that only 5 to 10 percent of residents would benefit?

There is a range of different expert analysts in this House and beyond, some of whom have actually suggested maybe a three-month mandatory repayment time frame is suitable, but the ministry itself and the retirement village operators have said that that is not feasible. It could create a $3 billion to $4 billion liquidity requirement. It could result in new residents paying $60,000 to $120,000 extra to buy—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific regarding advice that he had received from his own officials regarding a time frame that he and his Government are proposing. He has spent this entire time talking about why he doesn’t agree with a three-month time frame, as opposed to actually answering the question about the advice that relates to his proposal of a 12-month time frame.

But the question itself asked about a five-month time frame.

No, it didn’t, sir.

Well, sorry, I thought it did.

Speaking to the point of order—

Well, I’ll ask the member. Did you mention a five-month time frame?

No, I mentioned his 12-month time frame.

As opposed to what? I definitely heard “five”.

I asked him whether he would reduce it.

To?

I asked him if he was prepared to reduce his time frame.

OK, fair enough.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The “five” that you heard was in reference to the advice that the ministry gave the Minister that only 5 to 10 percent of residents would benefit from this Government’s 12-month proposal, and so far—

I did pick that up. I had—

Yeah, that’s the only reference.

—thought that it was five months.

Yes, well, there are a number of different views across the House and, actually, out in the sector around what an appropriate time frame could be, but the ministry itself and retirement operators have said that a three- and a six-month time frame would not be feasible. It could potentially break the sector because of the liquidity requirements, the increase in costs and incoming residents, and the increase on a per-week, per-unit basis of between $130 and $260—and we’re talking about a cost of living crisis. The other thing is that once you reduce the repayment time frame too much, all of a sudden the retirement villages put the handbrake on amenities like bowling greens and swimming pools, and, actually, the most important thing, which is the aged healthcare provision in these places. That is not a situation that anyone in this House would countenance for our treasured, beloved, and cherished seniors.

Supplementary. [Interruption]

No one else.

Will he apply his mandate to all 56,000 current residents so that their licences don’t become less marketable than new licences; if not, why not?

It is important for the public to have confidence in contractual certainty and the integrity of contract law. We don’t just throw contract law to the wind, unlike others that we know. It is important to ensure a fair and balanced reform package that acknowledges the needs of current and future residents. We will continue to get feedback, but what we won’t do is change the material provisions of 45,000 contracts just to hand out free stuff.

Can the Minister confirm that an earlier repayment period is theoretically feasible, but it comes with very large and expensive trade-offs that will actually be felt by existing and future retirement village residents?

I can confirm that, and it is important that we land a fair and balanced reform package that acknowledges a range of issues, including the need for us to continue to have contractual certainty, to have uplifted consumer protections, and to continue the provision of aged healthcare, which would be severely compromised in the event that we bring the repayment time frames back too far.

Will his reform include an automatic initial repayment of 10 percent of residents’ own money, as recommended by officials from multiple Government agencies; if not, why not?

Cabinet has made decisions in November 2025, and we will continue to receive feedback. If there are any new Cabinet decisions to be made, we’ll let Parliament, the member, and the public know.

Why is he listening only to operators, rather than to retirement village residents, who have waited far too long when it comes to getting their own money back?

I visit residents in retirement villages throughout the country. I’ve been to places like Russley in Christchurch, to places like Hilda Ross—a great National Party member from many years ago—over there in Hamilton East. Also, there is the Metlifecare, out at Forest Lake in Hamilton West—I’m always going to mention Hamilton. It’s important that we ensure that we uphold contractual certainty, that we uphold contractual law, and that we land a fair and balanced reform package that sustains the test of time but also ensures that the retirement village sector, the aged-care sector, and the property sector actually continue and they don’t break. On our side of the House, we don’t just get out and throw contracts to the wind. We are very, very mindful of the need for consumer protections but also of the need to ensure that we not only have a sustainable retirement village sector but also a sustainable provision of healthcare across a variety of forms.

That concludes oral questions. We’ll take a short break while those who need to leave the House for other business do so quickly and quietly.

15:04

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

Recent research by the Human Rights Commission was clear that most people want to see Te Tiriti honoured and don’t support the divisive politics against it. That research also highlighted the importance of respectful discussion about Te Tiriti, legal and constitutional protection of Te Tiriti, and an improved partnership between Crown and Māori.

The beloved Dr Moana Jackson, back in 2017, said Te Tiriti has “always been about the rightness that comes from people accepting their obligations to each other.” What a profoundly beautiful vision for our country. What a profoundly incredible way to build a country. Te Tiriti has always been a way to unify us under the agreement of prioritising the wellbeing of people, the wellbeing of our connections to each other and our connections to the living systems for many, many generations of mokopuna to come.

Instead, we’ve seen egregious behaviour by this Government to constantly undermine Te Tiriti. These attempts also undermine the decades and generations of relationship building, hard work between Māori, tangata Tiriti, tauiwi—non-Māori—of building trust and respectful relationships, coming together for good, which is what Te Tiriti is about. But instead, this Government shamefully leans into the worst of people’s fears—instead of what Te Tiriti represents, which calls on the best of our humanity.

I’m proud; there is a way forward instead. The Greens have consistently sought to role model honourable kāwanatanga in this place of Parliament. I am proud of our longstanding, consistent commitments to legislative change, to policy change, to entrenching the vision and the guidelines of Te Tiriti in Parliament, in everything that we do.

Just this week, we’ve been staunchly upholding, for example, the manaaki responsibilities of Waikato River iwi to ensure the health and protection of their awa, not just for their mokopuna but for all of our mokopuna.

Our Green solutions on Kāwanatanga responsibility are what I am proudly putting in here in the House today. A Green Government would revoke any changes made to Treaty clauses or references in legislation by the Luxon Government and replace those clauses and references with the strongest possible wording, such as “give effect to”. We would resource national conversations for constitutional transformation informed by Matike Mai proposals. We would entrench Māori seats. We would devolve power and decision making in resource allocation to where it always would’ve been, should’ve been: under article 2 of Te Tiriti, which is the mana motuhake and sovereignty of hapū.

We have an entire chapter of Te Tiriti in our manifesto, which outlines legislative change to recognise and centre Te Tiriti across all of the work that we do, across all of the decision-making models across Government, and resourcing iwi and hapū to properly participate as partners rather than advisers.

Te Waonui a Tāne is a vision that we announced a few weeks ago which would properly recognise marae as the central essential infrastructure that they always have been, that doesn’t just involve investment out to marae and hapū but also devolves the authority, the mana, the power properly out to marae and hapū, because they know best and are more accountable than most to the decisions that need to be made at the local level.

This is what constitutional entrenchment of Te Tiriti looks like. The Greens are proud of the long work that we have done to show a way for a Kāwanatanga to be honourable authentic partners in the relationship that all of our ancestors signed up to, which is a way to centre Te Tiriti, a way to uphold the self-determination of iwi and hapū over our communities and our resources while the Government maintains its kāwanatanga responsibility to ensure that services, that communities are served in the way that all communities should be served.

I came to this debate today, Mr Speaker, thanking you for allowing me this chance and opportunity to put on record a beautiful vision and a pathway to ensure that Te Tiriti is properly constituted in the way that we do things in Parliament. Kia ora.

15:09

In some ways, elections are about trust. Well, you cannot trust Labour on tax. Today, I want to bring to the attention of this House a series of grossly misleading statements that Labour members have been making about their capital gains tax proposals. Repeatedly, Chris Hipkins has claimed that the capital gains tax he has designed will not impact businesses. He has made it absolutely crystal clear, saying, “Here’s what is exempt from our simple, targeted capital gains tax: the family home, farms, inheritances, KiwiSavers, shares, businesses.” Well, there is just one problem with that claim, and the problem is it is categorically untrue. Labour’s own policy says it will impose a 28 percent capital gains tax on commercial property. Just last week, Barbara Edmonds said that Labour would impose a capital gains tax on residential and commercial investment property, while insisting businesses would be excluded. Now, newsflash, who owns commercial property, members? Well, answer: businesses—Kiwi businesses, including small businesses.

Who are we talking about? Who are these businesses that Labour wants to hit with a capital gains tax? The mechanic who saved for years to buy the workshop they operate from. If that mechanic sells, they want to hit him with a capital gains tax. Who else are we talking about? We’re talking about the dairy owner who owns their shop, who has worked endless hours investing in that business, and when he sells up, they want to tax him. Who are we talking about? We’re talking about the baker who owns the building their bakery operates from. When that baker sells up, maybe due to a marriage breakup, maybe due to a diagnosis of a terminal disease, maybe because they want to retire, what will Labour do? Hit them with a capital gains tax. We’re talking about the couple who spent 20 years running a small motel—loads of laundry, cleaning up after people, and investing in the property to support their retirement. What does Labour want to do to acknowledge their aspiration and effort? Hit them with a capital gains tax.

These people I have described are not evil property speculators, as Chris Hipkins and Barbara Edmonds would have you believe; they are hard-working Kiwis who have spent their lives building businesses, taking risks, employing people, and saving for their futures. Labour wants a piece of what they built. Labour wants to swipe their hard-earned achievement. For small business owners, let’s be clear: the property that they operate from is often their retirement savings plan. They may have spent decades putting everything back into the business, paying down the mortgage, employing workers, working weekends, and taking the risks. Then, after 20 or 30 years, when they finally sell up and expect that asset to give them some financial security, who’s standing there with his hand out? Who’s standing there with his hand out? Chris Hipkins.

Labour won’t even adjust the capital gains tax for inflation. No, they want to tax the inflation too. Take a fish and chip shop owner in Morrinsville; their property increases in value by $100,000 over 10 years, even if that increase is just driven by inflation. Labour will hit them with a $28,000 tax bill when they sell. Life happens. Some business owners sell because their relationship’s broken down, they’re sick, or they need support. In that circumstance, what will Labour do? Hit them with a capital gains tax.

This is an issue where the contrast couldn’t be clearer. National truly wants to reward aspiration and effort to back businesses to invest, grow, and get ahead. Labour wants to tax the asset that they have spent years building. That’s the choice: no new taxes or a multitude of new taxes. National backs aspiration; Labour wants to punish it. No more taxes with us. You can’t trust Labour on tax.

15:15

I want to speak directly to the people who sent me here, and that is to Tāmaki Makaurau. To the whānau struggling with the cost of living; to the rangatahi wondering whether there’s still a future for them in their city; and to every person who’s been made to feel they matter less because of who they are, where they come from, or the language that they speak, I see you, I hear you, and I am not giving up on you.

Tāmaki Makaurau is unlike any other electorate in this country. It’s the home of mana whenua, the home of Māori from every waka, and one of the most diverse places in the world. Our diversity isn’t a problem to be managed; it’s a strength to be represented. But too many of our people help build the wealth of our city while being locked out of it. They build the houses, but they can’t afford to live in them. They care for our sick but struggle to see a doctor themselves. They keep our schools, transport systems, and communities running, yet their wages disappear into rent, power, petrol, and kai before the week has even begun. Meanwhile, more people are living in cars, emergency accommodation, and on the streets in the wealthiest city in Aotearoa. That’s not failure by our whānau; that’s failure by the Government.

For three years, this coalition has asked ordinary people to do more with absolutely less. It’s cut support while living costs remain high. It’s treated Te Tiriti o Waitangi as an inconvenience, te reo Māori as a target, Māori representation as something to be feared rather than respected, and Māori need as something to be punished. It’s spent more time attacking Māori than addressing housing, healthcare, and hardship. We will not accept that, and we mustn’t allow racism to turn communities against one another. Because when Māori rights are weakened, nobody becomes more secure. When migrant communities are blamed, nobody’s rent comes down. When beneficiaries are attacked, nobody gets a better-paying job. Division doesn’t fill a pantry, build a house, train a nurse, or educate a child; it only protects those who are already holding power.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi—Te Tiriti o Waitangi—offers this country another way. It provides a foundation for shared authority, for mutual responsibility, and a Government accountable to people. The next three years can be better. With Te Pāti Māori helping to form a new Government, we can bring down the cost of essentials and build homes people can afford. We can create secure, well-paid jobs and restore workers’ power. We can strengthen kaupapa Māori healthcare and make seeing a doctor affordable. We can back kohanga reo, kura kaupapa Māori, and every learner to succeed as their beautiful selves. We can invest in prevention, rehabilitation, and whānau instead of prisons, punishment, and poverty. We can restore honour to the relationship between Māori and the Crown and between tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti.

Why not start with Tāmaki-makau-rau? The city exists because mana whenua opened that door. On 18 September 1840, Ngāti Whātua rangatira Apihai Te Kawau, Te Tinana, and Te Reweti opened the way for Auckland, for Tāmaki-makau-rau, to be established. Yet Auckland Anniversary Day marks Hobson’s arrival into Te Pēwhairangi, the Bay of Islands, not the day it was founded nor the generosity that made it possible. Let’s change that. Auckland Anniversary should be 18 September. It should tell truth about how our great city came to be and honour the mana whenua who made it possible—not as a token gesture but as recognition that Tāmaki-makau-rau exists because mana whenua made space for a relationship with the Crown. That relationship was betrayed. Our generation has a responsibility to rebuild it.

Tāmaki-makau-rau does not need another Government that manages decline and manufactures division. It needs and wants courageous, stable, and fair leadership—leadership that sees every culture in our city and says, “You belong here.” But never forget whose whenua holds us all. A new Government is possible, e te motu Tāmaki-makau-rau. A better Tāmaki-makau-rau is possible, and what is good for Tāmaki-makau-rau is great for Aotearoa. Iti rearea, teitei kahikatea ka taea.

[The small bellbird can conquer the tall white pine.]

15:20

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I want to start this contribution by talking about a struggling father caught in National’s bungled benefit payments. and I want to quote him. He said, “Last week, Monday, I was at breaking point and decided to log a complaint to WINZ. By Tuesday morning, I could see this was really stressing my daughter too, so I decided to go to another district office, where I got help that they could only offer, which was putting $100 for food.”—for food. That is the human cost when Kiwis, through no fault of their own, can’t even afford the bare necessities.

The least they deserve from this Government’s bungled benefits is a “Sorry”—a “Sorry” from a National Government who promised to make things better, but, instead, they are making it worse. Kiwis cannot afford another three years of this National Government, and what was Louise Upston’s response to all of this? Taking 19 days—and almost three months since Labour raised this issue with her—to apologise, and when she finally said sorry, she couldn’t do so without throwing her officials under the bus.

An apology is not the same as accountability. If she was truly sorry, she would own up to her shoddy lawmaking processes and her job cuts that have caused distress to so many.

Things aren’t stacking up. Last week, when I asked the Minister for Social Development and Employment if the processing delays had resulted in benefits being cut, she said “Possibly.”, and yet yesterday, in the House, she said that she was advised by her officials on two issues to do with this law change on 13 August. So did she know if any benefits had been cut or not?

While Louise Upston plays politics to avoid accountability, struggling Kiwis are worried about not being able to pay for their bills, for their rent, for their food, or for their doctors visits. In fact, I asked the Minster today how many people couldn’t put fuel in their car to take their kids to school, couldn’t buy groceries, or couldn’t pay rent on time as a result of having their benefit cut, and the Minister wouldn’t answer.

I worry for those affected, that they may have incurred debt because of National’s botch-up. Louise Upston has since said that she can’t say how many have had their benefits wrongly suspended but that they have all been back-paid. How is it they can all have been back-paid, but she doesn’t know how many? They gave us the figures for the winter energy payment, and so why not now? Is she hiding behind a review? Did she mislead the House in saying “Possibly.” when she had been briefed and had ordered that they be back-paid, and then asked for a review?

The human cost: with the Minister unable to give the figures, I’m happy to provide her with some. On National’s watch, one in three households are struggling to access food, one in seven children experience material hardship, tens of thousands of seniors over the age of 65 are unable to afford basic necessities, tens of thousands of Kiwis are now on the jobseeker benefit, and, of course, 15,000 pensioners and veterans had their winter energy payment cut as a result of the bungled benefits.

To quote another man who emailed Louise Upston directly in July about the issue, he described himself as 84 and frail in health. He said in his email to the Minster that he already completed his review, but was still told his payments were stopping. He found the Ministry of Social Development’s letter distressing. Again, this was back in July, and so when will the Minister take accountability? New Zealanders are waiting, and we cannot afford three more years of National.

15:25

Elections are always about many things, but I can tell the House what this election is definitely going to be about. It’s going to be about tax because, for the first time, actually—arguably, in a generation—this election is going to be about a massive new agenda of new and increased taxes across vast swaths of the economy and all aspects of New Zealand life, and a Government and a National Party that is running on a clear mandate: no new taxes.

The Labour Party says, “Just one new tax—just one.” I’ll come back to that idea about just one, but let’s have a look at the one that they’re talking about, which is the capital gains tax. It is unadjusted for inflation, as Nicola Willis has pointed out. Barbara Edmonds said a few days ago—in fact, 10 days ago—that businesses are excluded. Well, that sounds good, except it isn’t accurate. In their own words on their own policy document, the capital gains tax includes second residential properties and beyond, and commercial property. So businesses, dairies, manufacturing plants—the basis of many businesses and, arguably, most businesses up and down the country and commercial property will now be subject to a capital gains tax, and you can’t tell me that that will not have a diminishing effect on growth, on investment, and on precisely the things that New Zealand needs.

We are going to talk a lot more about Labour’s alleged one new tax at this election, and let me tell you that for free, but it’s not just one. I want to read out for the House just the sort of taxes that we are talking about. Across Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, and, now, the Opportunity Party, we’ve got the capital gains tax, the 45 percent top income tax rate—I think that idea comes from the Greens—a punitive new tax on aspiration—

Envy.

It’s an envy tax—that’s right, Tom Rutherford. It is a punitive tax, and the Labour Party often talks about people leaving New Zealand. Well, good luck keeping people here when people who are doing well in life are slugged with a 45 percent top tax rate.

We’ve got the asset tax, which is also proposed by the Green Party. Well, it would be interesting to see how an asset tax works. I think that’s just a tax on owning an asset, and so it’s much broader than commercial property. Just owning something is, therefore, subject to a tax, and now, of course, we’ve got the Greens proposing an inheritance tax, as well. Other people who are perhaps not so polite as me would call that a death tax. Now, we haven’t had inheritance taxes—

What about GST? Come on!

—in New Zealand for quite some time, but a death tax would mean for example—

GST—John Key said that. Are you going to lie, as well?

Hey, no, hang on—that’s enough, right.

They really don’t like it, do they? They don’t like it—they don’t like hearing about all these taxes. A death tax would mean that family members who pass away would not be able to leave money to their kids—well, they could leave some money, but the taxman would come along and take a great big whacking slodge of it.

Then we’ve got the gift tax from the Greens as well. We’re got an increased business tax rate and, of course, we’ve got what I call the rentals tax or the tenant tax, and we are yet to hear what the Labour Party is doing about interest deductibility changes. Well, I’ll tell you for free that they will definitely in the next few weeks announce a policy of unwinding interest deductibility on rental properties, and who will pay for that? Tenants and renters, which is why it’s a renters’ tax.

Then, of course, we get to the big mother of it all, which is the land tax. Now, there is a view out there among some people who are a bit attracted to the vibe of TOP, that “Oh, no, no, no, no, no—the land tax is not a real thing.” It is TOP policy.

They are campaigning on a land value tax, and my message to Kiwis is that if you vote for that, you are voting for that policy. You will choose to regret that vote because when it all comes into the mix in here, and the kind of election kind pot spits out something at the end of it, do not wake up on 8 November with a four-headed, hydra-party Government implementing a capital gains tax, a 45 percent top income tax rate, an asset tax, a death tax, a Netflix tax, a gift tax, a business tax, a rental tax, and a land tax. That would be a recipe for disaster. Reject it. No new taxes.

The Hon Damien O’Connor!

Thank you Mr Speaker—

I just called Damien O’Connor. I assumed that he was going to take the call, since he used up most of the last one. Reuben Davidson.

15:30

That was a taxing contribution from the other side of the House. I want to actually talk about something real and serious, which is the urgent need for online safety for young New Zealanders. I want to start by just going back 15 months ago, when the Prime Minister stood on the tiles in this building and said that online safety for young New Zealanders was a priority—so much of a priority that he was going to support a member’s bill. Not a Government bill, but a member’s bill. I am pleased, and I would like to thank the Minister of Education for initiating a select committee inquiry into online harm for young people in New Zealand. I would like to say to the Minister, thank you for initiating that inquiry. I would like to say to everyone who made contributions, thank you for taking the time, for sharing very, very personal stories about your real and lived experiences of online harm in New Zealand.

I would also like to say that I’m sorry. I’m very sorry that this Government has refused to take the very straightforward, simple step of putting aside one hour—one hour of Government time—to introduce that bill and allow the select committee process to begin. Because those voices have been silenced by this Government, I would like to take this opportunity to revisit just some of their submissions. They carry with them a very important message about the real harms that were happening and why we need to act.

I’m going to start with Mana Mokopuna, the Children and Young People’s Commission, who said that giving effect to children’s rights in the digital world and preventing online harm for our youngest generations is a shared responsibility. That’s a pretty simple and clear message. A pretty disturbing one, from Makes Sense, is that one in three young people have reported having an online sexual interaction, and one in four 9- to 12-year-olds, and one in five of those are believed to have been with an adult.

The Digital Equity Coalition Aotearoa puts it really clearly in their submission. “A safer digital environment is not achieved by locking young people out, it’s built by ensuring everyone has the tools, protections and opportunities to engage meaningfully and safely.” A select committee process to shape a future law to protect young New Zealanders online would start that process and could have started by now, but this Government has blocked it. Eating Disorders Carer Support NZ urges the Government to regulate the online environments in which the many harms they highlight occur, and Frances Valintine of AcademyEX puts it very clearly when she says, “New Zealand has an opportunity to lead internationally in protecting children from digital harm. The evidence supports immediate action, and delay will only result in continued harm to our most vulnerable population. The future of our children’s education, mental health, and social development depends on our willingness to act on the clear scientific evidence.”

We have a moral obligation to protect children from harm—everyone in this House—and the evidence demonstrates that social media platforms in their current form pose a significant threat. A significant threat that this Government is refusing to act on. One hour. One hour of House time to introduce that bill would allow the select committee process to begin.

This is not just an issue in New Zealand. We only have to look to what’s happened in the last week in the United States, where a record settlement has been reached—a settlement of NZ$28 billion against Facebook and Instagram, for the damage that they have done to young people in the US. There’s a professor at the University of Massachusetts, Carolina Rossini, who says: “The settlement amount is a beginning, not a resolution. Money compensates for past harm; it does nothing about the product that keeps causing it. Unless the settlement compels genuine redesign … the harm continues the day the check clears. And redesign without accountability is a press release”—which is all this Government’s commitment to online harm has been.

15:35

New Zealanders are working hard. They’re getting up early, running businesses, raising families, paying mortgages, paying rent, and doing their best to get ahead. They expect that when they work hard, they should be able to keep more of what they earn. This is exactly why National has made a really clear commitment: no new taxes, because at a time when families are still feeling the cost of living pressure, the last thing New Zealand needs is more taxes. This Government understands something really simple: you don’t build a strong country by making life harder for the people who create jobs, take risks, and work hard every single day of the week. You build a strong country by growing an economy, creating opportunities, lifting wages, and keeping taxes low, so people can keep more of what they earn.

When we came into Government, inflation was high, interest rates had surged, and household budgets were under enormous pressure. Our focus was simply on fixing the basics. We’ve worked to bring inflation down, ease pressure on interest rates, rein in wasteful spending, and deliver tax relief for the first time in 14 years to hard-working New Zealanders. The results are beginning to show. The economy is growing again. Treasury forecasts the economy will grow by an average of 2.7 percent over the next four years. Around 220,000 more jobs are expected to be created and, importantly wages are forecast to grow faster than inflation. That matters, because the best long-term answer to the cost of living is not bigger Government; it’s higher incomes; it’s more jobs; it’s stronger growth; and it’s making sure people keep more of the money they earn—their money.

That’s why National’s approach is different. We believe Government should live within its means. We believe in disciplined spending; we believe in getting value for taxpayers; and we believe that every dollar collected in tax is a dollar that somebody has worked hard to earn. The alternative is a return to higher spending, higher borrowing, and, ultimately, higher taxes. New Zealanders deserve to know what’s on the table. The Opposition has lined up billions of dollars in additional spending commitments and, as always, someone has to pay for them.

National’s position is pretty straightforward. We are not asking Kiwi families to dig deeper into their pockets to fund more Government spending. Instead, we’re focused on growing the economy. We’re making it easier to invest, easier to build, easier to do business, and easier for New Zealanders to compete in the world. When businesses succeed, they create jobs. When jobs are created, wages rise. When wages rise, families have more choices and greater financial security.

That is the positive cycle that we are building, but this debate is about more than just economics; it’s about fairness. It’s about whether someone who works hard should see the reward for their effort. It’s about whether young families trying to buy a home can get ahead. It’s about whether a small-business owner can invest with confidence. It’s about whether future generations inherit a country that rewards aspiration and achievement. National says yes. We want New Zealand to be a country where hard work is rewarded, where success is encouraged, and where Government takes only what it genuinely needs to provide quality public services. That’s why we can continue investing in schools, hospitals, roads, and police, while maintaining our commitment to keep taxes low.

The choice is becoming increasingly clear: a Government focused on growth, jobs, higher wages, and no new taxes; or parties that believe the answer to every challenge is another tax and more spending. National knows the path to higher living standards is not by taxing New Zealanders more; it’s backing them to succeed. We’re fixing the basics and we’re building the future. And we’re ensuring that New Zealanders work hard. When New Zealanders work hard, they get to keep more of what they earn with, simply, no new taxes.

15:40

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, there’s already been a lot of talk about tax this afternoon, and you can say a lot of things about ACT New Zealand, but being inconsistent on tax isn’t one of them. ACT is the OG “no new tax party”. The hint is actually in our history. It’s in our name, the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers. It’s part of ACT’s DNA. No new taxes.

While others may have joined us now, and I want to acknowledge Minister Willis, Minister Bishop, and Tom Rutherford, we have been clear and consistent over time: ACT won’t support any new taxes. Introducing new taxes will not unlock New Zealand’s potential; it will do exactly the opposite.

In fact, in this term of Government alone, ACT has killed three new taxes, because the first law of no new taxes is simple: don’t introduce any. And when a politician says they’re going to tax someone else, remember that affects everyone, buyers and sellers and people across the economy. Taxing the banks might sound like your popular idea, but no one believes that the customer won’t end up paying.

Taxing tourists for a bed tax might sound like a popular idea, again, but the costs will fall on those running motels, hotels, accommodation businesses, and New Zealanders travelling around the country to stay in those places. Putting a stamp duty on foreign buyers, it’s going to be paid not just by those foreign buyers but also by the sellers, so they’ll get less money when they sell their house. If you think this isn’t true, just think about GST and how it’s expanded over time. It captures more and more people.

This is why Labour and its potential coalition partners are so dangerous. Labour, as we’ve already heard this afternoon, has committed to a capital gains tax whilst also, I would note, removing Investment Boost, and, as has already been discussed, commercial property will be included in this capital gains tax. That’s punishing motel owners, small manufacturing businesses, engineers, etc. But then it gets worse, because when you look at the Greens, there’s at least six new taxes they’d prefer. I had to write them down, there were so many. You’ve got a gift and inheritance tax; you’ve got an increase in the top personal rate tax; a wealth tax; a special tax on technologies and banks; again, removing interest deductibility, which we already have heard this afternoon and the evidence shows we’ll just see rents increase; we’ve got a higher company tax rate. We’ve already got one of the world’s highest company tax rates already. Then you pop in Te Pāti Māori, they’ve got all of those things and then some other things like a land banking tax, a vacant home tax, stamp duty, some kind of international transfer tax, and then a complicated GST credit system, and, as has already been heard this afternoon, the possibility of a land tax.

These are really mounting up and there’s so many problems with new taxes. I mean, there’s the administration and compliance alone that’s going to mean more public servants here in Wellington. But the more concerning thing is it punishes those who want to invest, work hard, and get ahead; people who actually want to invest in businesses and grow this economy. It punishes people who want to employ their fellow Kiwis and invest in new innovations and equipment. It will discourage those who want to take the next risk and build the next Rocket Lab or Halter. And that’s why Governments should never introduce a new tax. We need to manage the Government’s finances within the budget we’ve been given, just like others must do.

Any Government without ACT is going to be a higher-spending Government. If voters want a balanced budget with no taxes, they need to think about the parties they’re going to support. ACT is here to ensure we unlock New Zealand’s potential and lock Labour out. Supporting anyone else is a vote for bigger Government one way or another. We are the OG “no new tax party”.

15:45

I want to say to the people that have just arrived, New Zealand is the lucky country and we don’t actually need the Paris Agreement or net zero. Let me explain that.

We can do what needs to be done ourselves. Copenhagen Consensus Center said that the cost of net zero in New Zealand by 2050 will be 16 percent of GDP. Don’t worry about health, education, housing, anything else that we need to spend that money on. We’re going to spend it on silly climate policy, which is very, very expensive. Look, it’s only $72 billion, I think you’re used to those kinds of numbers, aren’t you?—spending that sort of money. Just look at what we did during COVID. But, by the end of the century, we will have spent US$5 trillion for the poultry effect on the climate of what has been estimated as four one-hundredths of a degree. That’s it. You’re going to spend $5 trillion to get four one-hundredths of a degree. It’s not going to do anything.

Energy is good. We basically used wood for our energy 200 years ago but, at the same time, there was 80 percent poverty in the world. Since then, we moved to coal, which gave us the Industrial Revolution and intense heat and so on and so forth, so we were able to reduce poverty. To oil and gas, even fur, even more. Now, if you’re a high-energy country, we’re less than 8 percent poverty worldwide. Energy is good. Let me just say this, there are no—I’ll repeat that: no—low-energy, high-income countries in the world. No low-energy, high-income countries in the world.

What the Paris Agreement told us is wind and solar—wind and solar, that’s what we need to do. We need to actually focus on wind and solar. Well, isn’t that interesting? Here’s a graph for you all to look at that’s just come out from the independent energy association looking at the cost of electricity in 70 nations and the relative percentage of their usage, and it looks like that. So the more usage of solar and energy, the higher the price. You may also notice there’s a little gap down here where there are no countries where we have low cost and a high percentage of solar and wind.

Let me explain why that is. It’s really quite simple. When you have solar and wind, it’s intermittent; comes on, goes off. You might have about 150 percent more in the morning and during the day than you get at night, where it goes to zero. What do we need to firm that up? Actually, we need other sources, and that is why New Zealand is the lucky country. We heard earlier today that just recently New Zealand reached 97 percent renewable energy for our electricity. The quarter before that was 60 percent hydro and 36 percent geothermal. Well, isn’t that interesting? That hasn’t changed and it won’t change.

If we do believe that this is an existential crisis—and I think sometimes the existential crisis lies with the person that’s saying it, but anyway—cheap renewable energy will drive our growth. New Zealand really is one of the luckiest countries in the world because we already have hydro and geothermal. We can expand in our hydroelectricity production. We can expand our geothermal energy production. New Zealand First has invested $60 million looking at super critical geothermal energy, and we’re now looking at naturally occurring hydrogen here in New Zealand. We don’t need the Paris Agreement. We don’t need net zero. We’re doing better than practically every other country in the world right now.

Why do we need this extra cost? I’ll tell you why. The whole thing is completely ideologically driven. We’ve got climate catastrophists, and over on this side, we’ve got climate realists. We know what to do here. We know that we need to invest in adaptation, innovation, and new energy sources. Economic growth produces resilience. You can’t have economic growth without prosperity and cheap renewable energy. New Zealand First is right on the money here. We will deliver for New Zealand, and, no, young people up there, climate change will not kill us all.

15:50

Hard-working New Zealanders should be able to keep more of what they earn and be rewarded for their hard work. That is why there will be no new taxes under National, but on that side of the House, it is tax, tax, and more tax.

Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori, and The Opportunities Party have come out with a list of taxes. Let’s name a few of them: capital gains tax, a 45 percent top income tax rate, wealth tax, inheritance tax, digital tax, gift tax, business tax, rental tax, land tax, bed tax, stamp duty—oh, my God! It is hard keep up with all the tax announcements coming from the other side which will send a wrecking ball through our economy.

National is focused on growing the economy, creating jobs and opportunities, and no new taxes, and letting Kiwis keep more of what they earn, while Labour is over there concocting the next plan for a new tax. “What can we tax today?”, Labour asks. Oh, they’ll tax your income, they’ll tax your house, they’ll tax your business, and they’ll tax your ute, too, and they’ll tax your inheritance. If that is not enough, they’ll tax you when you die, with a death tax too. Labour and the Opposition keep treating hard-working New Zealanders like a bottomless ATM. We saw it three years ago and, yes, they’re back again to do it. Labour promising the free stuff, racking up $18 billion worth of unfunded, so-called free promises—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. A member can’t just stand up in the House and assert things about another political party that are not true.

I’ll just take some advice on that. The advice I have got, and I agree with it, is that it’s a debating point. There are opportunities for rebuttal. I mean, this is a debate. It is a general debate, so your next person could refute them and I would invite them to be able to do that. We’ll just move on from there.

Thank you. Look, Labour is promising the free stuff, racking up $18 billion of so-called free promises. But let me tell you, nothing comes for free. It comes in the way of taxes—taxes. First it was nine new taxes, then before the ink could even dry, it racks up to 11 new taxes: Labour’s capital gains tax and the bed tax, the Greens’ income tax and wealth tax, the Māori Party’s stamp duty on every household, a bach tax, an international companies tax, and The Opportunities Party’s land tax. Look, we’ve already got a land tax. It’s in the form of rates. We pay our rates already. Just when you thought the list couldn’t get any longer, Te Pāti Māori comes out with a bottom line and has five new taxes. That’s a bottom line for forming a Government with Labour.

For the Opposition, it just looks like tax has become an obsession. On this side of the House, we respect your hard-earned money and we will let Kiwis keep more of what they earn. For the people who have poured their sweat and their tears, their time, their late nights into building their future, National will respect that hard work and achievement and we will not tax it.

Many homeowners in Hawke’s Bay that I’m talking to are worried about the taxes coming out from the Opposition and the biggest tax grab that this country has ever seen—So they should be, because Labour and the Opposition are coming for your home through a capital gains tax, a land tax, an inheritance tax, a wealth tax, and a stamp duty. They aren’t stopping there; they’re coming for your business through higher corporate tax rates and capital gains taxes, and they’re coming for your hard-earned income. Every time Labour promises a free policy, they ask, “Which pocket can we reach into to pay for it?” This is not the way to get New Zealand ahead. The way to get New Zealand ahead is through tax relief initiatives like Investment Boost. Investment Boost—a great initiative from this Government where we can grow jobs, we can grow opportunities, we can grow businesses, and we can lift wages, because that is about fixing the basics and building the future.

15:56

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to start with something that is true. New Zealanders cannot afford three more years of National. New Zealanders are working hard and they’re going backwards, and all the National Party can do is stand up in this House and go through a long list of things with absolutely no basis in truth. It would be the same as us saying that the National Party is going to sell Air New Zealand. It would be the same thing as us saying that the National Party is going to buy the BNZ, or do any number of things that these possible coalition partners of the National Party have. There is no truth in the long list of lines that the National Party has just gone through.

But I’ll tell you something that is true. News just in since I’ve been in the House: “Reserve Bank hikes the official cash rate and warns that inflation will stay elevated for the rest of this year.” This is what this Government is delivering for New Zealanders: higher inflation, higher prices, and New Zealanders can’t afford it—New Zealand cannot afford three more years of National.

Do you know another thing that New Zealanders can’t afford? They cannot afford the cuts that National have secretly planned for the country. National cuts; Labour invests. National has already announced cuts of 9,000 Public Service jobs, but they’re not happy with that. They’re not happy with 9,000 unplanned, unscoped, unevaluated cuts. They’ve gone to their chief executives and they’ve said, “We want you to cut some more. Come back to us at the beginning of September”—which is now—“and tell us how much more you can cut.”

They’re not stopping there. They are also going into the election with a clear plan. Minister Goldsmith, the Minister for the Public Service and Digitising Government, stood up in this House and said, “We are going to, after the next election, totally restructure the entire Public Service.” They said, “We are going to take the number of Government departments down from 42 to 20.”, totally changing the scope and the way public services are delivered.

What will remain for New Zealanders as a result of these plans? The Government is focusing on restructures rather than focusing on you. It is focusing on changes that may have implications for the services that New Zealanders rely on—border security officers, schools, hospitals, GP practices, those who are responsible for keeping our children safe online, our firefighters. Where do these cuts start and where will they end? The Government will not tell New Zealand. They won’t be clear about it. They want New Zealanders to vote them into office and to give them a knife to slash away the services that New Zealanders depend on, without telling them where these cuts will fall, without telling them the impact of Public Service cuts. On this side of the House, we say that is not good enough.

Of course we want the best spend for our public dollar, but we will not make these cuts that the National Party is making. To add to that, I was very proud to hear our leader, Chris Hipkins, announce today that a Labour Government would introduce a public good test to assess whether the restructures that are going to go ahead, or are proposed, would actually impact New Zealanders in a positive way. That is the commitment of a Labour Government. We will not arbitrarily cut public services, and if there is a cut, we will make sure that, before it occurs, it is only in cases where it’s in the best interest of New Zealanders. That is a commitment that this Government will not make to you, because they don’t care about public services. Their plan is to cut public services and, if it was up to the ACT Party, privatise because they say that they’re not working. That is their secret plan, and the next election is a choice; it’s a choice between cutting things back or starting to build them back up again. It’s a choice between three more years of National and more cuts and higher prices and higher inflation. We cannot afford another three years of National to find out how much further they will go.

16:01

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure—a rare privilege, actually—to be able to stand up and give the last general debate speech of the 54th Parliament. It’s been, also, a blessing to serve as the local member of Parliament for Takanini, and in this short space of time, I’ve seen and I’ve experienced immense joy in seeing how much good Government policy can help the good people of Takanini and the good Kiwis around New Zealand—practical solutions well-thought-out, not solutions based on a sick addiction to spending.

I’ve also seen what horrendous Government policy can do, and six years of thoughtless, reckless, Labour-led policy left New Zealand in a shambles: inflation over 7 percent, interest rates crippling family budgets, businesses under enormous pressure, and crime out of control. Labour sits there across the bench, cackling away, expecting us to fix up their six years of mess in less than three years—Madam Speaker, welcome to the chair. Their answer? A capital gains tax—that’s going to fix all the problems they left us with!—a capital gains tax that won’t tax your family home and that won’t tax other things, but, “Listen to us; just trust us—trust us.”, they said.

It won’t tax businesses, apparently—it won’t tax businesses. Well, that’s a misleading statement dressed in the bells and the whistles of a promise, and we know the track record of their promise because of what has come to pass. Where there’s a business that’s built on the sweat and the tears of hard-working New Zealanders that have worked their hearts and their souls out to buy the land where their business is located, that business will be subject to a 28 percent capital gains tax if that lot across the House—God forbid!—come into Government come 7 November.

What about the local dairy in Conifer Grove? A beautiful young Sikh, Indian couple that came to New Zealand with big hopes and big dreams. They’ve purchased that land over there where the business is, and they are looking forward to building a beautiful life for their upcoming family. There’s another gentleman in Takanini that was so proud, as he told me, that he had finally saved the money to buy land and start up a car sales business in Takanini. What will happen with them when they decide that “You know what? It’s time to hang up the boots, and we have a right to retire and enjoy the rest of our days.”? They’ll be taxed for their hard work, even though they’ve been told that they won’t be by Labour.

Where will it stop? They say that it will only be on capital that doesn’t include family homes, but do you recall—please, send your mind back to 12 July 2023—when Chris Hipkins stood up and said that no Government under him will implement a capital gains tax? Well, that didn’t take long for him to change his mind, and I wish he was changing his mind about a flavour of tea or the colour of shoelaces. No, this is something quite massive—capital gains tax. He promised the New Zealand public that he wouldn’t bring it in under any Government under him, and yet he’s flip-flopped like Labour always flip-flop. Instead of helping build, helping grow, the tree of the economy of New Zealand, they hack away at it like there is no tomorrow.

What about their friends? Nine new taxes combined. Capital gains tax under Labour, wealth tax under the Green Party—that are jealous of anyone that actually works hard and gets somewhere—inheritance and gift tax, bank tax, big tech tax, wealth tax, property stamp duty—I know how that feels for my cousins in Australia—land banking tax—which, basically, means you’ve got to rent your investment property; otherwise we’ll punish you—international profit transfer tax, and land value tax. It won’t stop. Would Kiwis like to give their money to a party that is addicted to spending in the most sick way or to the National Party that will treat their taxpayer money with respect? Halloween is one week before 7 November. We don’t want to wake up to a horror of ten new taxes. Vote National.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill.

16:07

Mr Chairman, I do just want to take this opportunity to thank all members of this committee that have taken the opportunity to look at this bill to suggest some improvements at select committee, for us to be able to bring this bill back to the House for this important committee stage as we go there. I also do want to take the opportunity to thank the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (ŌCHT) board, with its chair, Darren Evans, and also with Cate Kearney, the chief executive of ŌCHT, for the remarkable work they do in providing affordable social housing in Christchurch City—and, of course, with the passage of this bill, they will be able to extend wider.

We all, in this Chamber, know how important community and social housing is. We, to varying degrees, support it, but I think everybody can agree that it is an important aspect for us. It is with pride as a Cantabrian that I stand here with this bill that means we can expand what has been happening in Christchurch further beyond our city limits and that we can see Greater Christchurch and the Waimakariri and Selwyn and beyond benefit from some of the innovative approaches that ŌCHT has taken over time.

16:09

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to be able to ask the member in charge of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill some questions at third reading, and I want to commend the member for shepherding this bill through the House. Often, private bills are a key part of what it means to be a local MP, and I know the member herself has taken her role as a local MP in this Parliament and Parliaments before very seriously and has delivered for the people of Wigram and Christchurch. This bill is another example of the hard work she’s done in this area.

I note the preamble includes an extensive history on the nature of the variation and the background to how this bill came before the House, but I just wanted to ask the member—as we are in the preamble, which does set out somewhat of a wider context for the debate—if she would mind expanding on some of the work that has already been done in relation to community housing and on how this particular housing trust fits with the other work that has been undertaken in Christchurch to address these important needs.

I additionally note, due to the extensive notes reported in the preamble, that there is some reference to legal advice, and I wanted to know if she wanted to expand at all on the type of legal advice that had been received that has led her to bring this bill to the House.

16:10

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Well, it’s fair to say that the local councils and the trust itself desperately didn’t want me to be sitting here in this chair having to do this by virtue of a local bill. They did receive advice to see if there were alternative ways in which they could update their trust deed that would allow them to go beyond the city limits of Christchurch. The trust, when it was established in 2016 to take over some of the public housing assets of the Christchurch City Council, was established by an Act of Parliament, and the advice they received was that, like many of these trusts, they needed to come back to this Parliament to amend such a fundamental provision, such as where they operate, what their rohe is. So they did receive advice on that; they were looking for alternative methods. When the Mayor of Christchurch first raised it with me back in 2022, I think it was, he was like, “Why won’t you let us build beyond Christchurch City?”, and it’s like, “Because you need to apply and have a local bill, Mr Mayor, and change the law in order to do this.”

One of the other questions that the member Camilla Belich asked was around how the preamble sets out a history of how the trust came to be. As I said, in 2016, it was established to take over part of the Christchurch City Council’s public housing units. This is at a time when the then National Government was moving all social housing to compete for the income-related rent subsidy, and around the country we saw a number of entities like this established. So the trust started life as a receiver of the city’s affordable rental housing, but over time it has evolved. One of the reasons I’m so excited about why Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) will be able to do stuff beyond the limits of Christchurch City is not only is it a provider of rental housing but when we brought in funding, for example, for there to be affordable rentals that were not subject to income-related rent subsidy, OCHT were one of the first community housing providers to jump at this opportunity to fill this gap that really had been left by all our councils having to go down the route, in 2016, of having to start to compete for the income-related rent subsidy.

Something that OCHT has also been a bit of a pioneer in, taking advantage of funds that the Labour Government set up, was around shared equity and how they could get involved in shared equity schemes and offer people pathways into homeownership who wouldn’t otherwise have achieved this. So, from their beginnings in 2016, they’ve been set up because of a change of policy in this place to make sure that they could survive. In terms of Christchurch’s proud history, I think they’re the first council in the country to offer rental accommodation in the 1930s, so they wanted to continue that very proud history of providing affordable rentals for Christchurch’s citizens.

16:14

Thank you, Mr Chair, and can I just start by acknowledging the member Megan Woods for bringing this bill before the House, the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill. I have had a cold over the last few days, so forgive me if I have moments where I have to cough sideways as we work through some of my questioning for the member. Not infectious, of course; just a little bit of a hangover of a flu that many people in New Zealand have.

However, it’s great to see the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill before the House this afternoon. I think anything that enables housing across the motu, across Aotearoa New Zealand, really is desperately needed, as we find many families and people in such dire situations. I just wanted to go back to the preamble part, and apologies for being the Aucklander in the room, but I wanted to ask if the member could elaborate that point (4) there for the context; “The trust deed was amended in 2017 to include a reference to Banks Peninsula in the description of the charitable purpose of the trust. This was to make it clear … that Banks Peninsula is part of Christchurch.” I wondered if the member could just backtrack a little bit for me to just help me understand why that’s needed to be included in this.

The second point there is around point (5), that “The trust agreed with the Greater Christchurch Partnership, which includes local authorities, mana whenua, and government agencies”. How does the member see the relationship with mana whenua here? Are there currently good practices in place—from an enabling perspective, is there actually work that could be done more in this area in partnership with mana whenua? I’m very keen to understand what the opportunity is there. Thank you.

16:16

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m happy—always—to educate an Aucklander about the mainland. It is always a great pleasure to do so. The reference to the 2017 inclusion of Banks Peninsula was, of course, the year that there was an amalgamation of the Banks Peninsula District Council with that of Christchurch City Council and they became one, so the trust deed needed to be amended to take into account that there had been that council reorganisation and amalgamation, because, up until then, it had been quite separate.

In terms of the Greater Christchurch Partnership that the member Shanan Halbert asks about, that is a relationship between Ngāi Tahu but particularly between the particular rūnanga that sit within the area of Greater Christchurch. That is a really important relationship, as well as Crown entities such as the New Zealand Transport Agency, such as KiwiRail—all of the things that kind of bring us together outside of the limits of Christchurch City, which includes parts of Waimakariri and also parts of Selwyn, as well, and Rolleston and Lincoln. But the relationship with mana whenua and with rūnanga is vitally important. Indeed, some of the examples that I talked about in terms of the shared equity schemes that the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) is doing are actually in partnership and looking to do more in partnership with local rūnanga. I think there is more scope, and I know that’s something that OCHT is very keen to do more on in this area. I think the role of Ngāi Tahu’s Canterbury rūnanga in housing is something that they are very keen to expand on.

16:18

I move, That debate on this question now close.

There’s still questions.

I just had a few more questions on the preamble for the member the Hon Dr Megan Woods. I just wanted to know—

These Aucklanders.

Aucklanders are interested.

Obviously, we’ve got the background set out here, and I thank the member for going through some of the history. Also, I think most people who bring local bills or private bills to the House will be in a similar position, where they’re unable to achieve their objective without bringing legislation to the House. I think, when we look at legislation moving forward, that’s often something we consider—that is, trying to avoid situations where this is the only way that things can be changed. But the objective, obviously, to move the scope of where the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust can work appears to be an admirable aim and worthy of this House’s time. I wanted to ask: has the member received or seen any plans relating to the future work of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust once this preamble is achieved through the enactment of this Act? Does she know the type of work that they endeavour to undertake, and what difference that will make for Christchurch?

Thank you to the member for answering my question around the legal advice and the issues that were looked into in relation to the High Court potentially ruling on this, and that being no longer sought as a result of this Act. I just wanted to confirm: is it correct that, through passing this legislation, there will no longer be a need for the trust to enter into any other kind of legal challenges or involve the High Court in looking at any of its activities from now on?

I just wanted to confirm: is it correct that, through passing this legislation, there will no longer be a need for the trust to enter into any other kind of legal challenges or involve the High Court in looking at any of its activities from now on? Will this, therefore, be an alternative pathway, if you like, that they could go through? Two questions, really: just a clarification on the reference to the High Court advice, and an expansion on what the Ōtautahi Community Trust intends to do with its, hopefully, newfound jurisdiction at the end of today.

16:20

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The impetus for this change came from the Canterbury mayors—that being down from Timaru right up to Kaikōura—wanting to look at what the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust could do within their areas. I guess it’s scale, really. These are smaller councils, and putting together a community housing provider and having them operate in their area was really beyond what they could do. It makes a great deal of sense that you could have that scale that could spread beyond the boundaries of Canterbury.

There was some discussion at the Social Services and Community Committee around whether there needed to be some geographic parameters put around this, and the discussion was not to. The last thing we wanted to see was the trust having to come back and look at doing another amendment through this mechanism because it needed to expand one more town over or needed to do something like that. To not put those geographic guardrails on it was a decision that was made, but I think the member, in her questions, raises a very important point. A lot of the House’s time is spent on these local and private bills which are around amending trust deeds and what we need to do to allow changes, which, like this bill, has support right across the House. It is a sensible change. It’s one that makes good sense for the local area, and it’s one that local members, no matter their political party, can get behind and bring their caucuses along with them.

It does raise a question about whether we need to look at whether there are other mechanisms, I think, for making these changes in a more efficient way that doesn’t use as much of the House’s time, but also doesn’t put such a strain on the organisations that are having to bring these bills and get the legal advice to get private bills drafted, and to use this mechanism for changing the way they operate. I think that is something I’m sure the member would be keen to turn her legal mind to, and that this Parliament could consider for future parliaments whether there are other ways in which it can be done.

This bill does not do away with the trust deed, however. It makes specific amendments to where it can operate in terms of what it does. It makes specific amendments that flow on from that around winding up, for example, if the worst happened, how it is that you would allocate the resources, given that it’s now beyond the simple structure of just Christchurch City Council of how you would do that. There’s some flow-on amendments from that very simple change around the geographic boundaries, but it does not do away with the trust deed. If the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, for example, wanted to do something entirely different than housing, it would have to come back, and the trust deed would need to be changed in this way again, so it isn’t a carte blanche change that allows it to do anything.

16:24

Thank you, Mr Chair. Just going back to the Preamble, and I just want to acknowledge the member in the chair, the Hon Dr Megan Woods. She looks great in the chair, can I just say. It’s also wonderful to have so many good Labour MPs in Christchurch advocating for outcomes for Ōtautahi, particularly in the Chamber today, but I’m just interested on the numbers side of things. If I remember correctly, at times when I’ve visited Christchurch, I understand the number of houses that might have been built in some of the partnership work in the past, and I wondered if the member could talk me through the outcomes that have been achieved over that period. I guess the modelling of what this enablement might achieve, whether that be through numbers or regional reach, what are the expectations as a result of this particular bill coming and passing through the House?

16:25

Thank you, Mr Chairman. It is fair to say that, over the last few years, Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT) has had a mammoth job to do, because, in 2016, when it was set up, of course, it inherited a lot of the post-earthquake rebuild work of much of our social housing, so that has been the organisation that has been able to bring that work together and to fruition. Some of it has been simple replacement, but, of course, as we all know, in order for any community housing provider to add to its stock and the number of houses that it holds, there needs to be continued extra funding given to the income-related rent subsidy from central government, because the thing that turns a simple dwelling into a social house is the availability of income-related rent subsidy, if that is the way that it’s going to go.

It’s fair to say, in the last couple of years, that growth has slowed down because there hasn’t been the growth that we had seen over the previous six years in the income-related rent subsidy. In terms of what the modelling looks like outside of the city of Christchurch, a lot of it will come down to what funding is available. When we were in Government, for example, we brought in things such as doing much longer-term contracts with OCHT, so central government are doing a 20- and 25-year contract, which would mean that they could then go and raise capital in order to build, so there was that surety over the life of the asset of what that would look like. But in terms of the ability in places like Kaiapoi, in places like Rolleston and Ashburton, these places where we will need more and more social housing, that growth will come down to what availability there is in terms of income-related rent subsidy funding from central government.

16:27

Thank you, Mr Chair. I might add, from what Shanan Halbert mentioned as well, you look very good in that chair.

Keep the compliments rolling.

Yes, absolutely. I just wanted to touch on, over the years, you’ve provided some fantastic support to the people of Waimakariri in the housing space. There have been a number of occasions where we’ve actually visited community groups out there—in particular, Karanga Mai Young Parents out at Kaiapoi High, and also Social Services Waimakariri, and we recently visited Satisfy Food Rescue. One of the things that keeps coming up when we talk to these community groups is housing and whether housing is appropriate, whether it’s in the right place, and whether it’s meeting the needs of the community members in Waimakariri. My question there, I was just wondering: how do you see the potential for this bill, once it becomes an Act, in benefiting the people of Waimakariri?

16:28

Thank you, and an excellent question. I think one of the impetuses behind this was the absurdity that, while we could have organisations like Kāinga Ora for the first time in decades building new social housing in Kaiapoi, for example, we couldn’t have Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust going beyond the boundaries of Christchurch City, so the Waimakariri is a district kind of split in two in terms of what could happen in terms of different areas of it. I think, in terms of the ability for “Waimak” to really put together its own kind of destiny plan around what it sees as the needs of its community, and to have an organisation that it can call on in terms of building that housing and developing that housing that best suits the needs of that community, this is the piece of legislation that will allow that. I would like to acknowledge that Dan Gordon was one of the mayors that did ask for this in this group of Canterbury mayors that came and asked for that, because I think all of the Canterbury mayors could really see how this could work beyond their particular boundaries and could benefit their regions but not have to reinvent wheels.

Preamble agreed to.

16:30

I am just wondering if the member in the chair, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, can explain to us, when she looks at the trust’s charitable purpose, as set out in clause 4.1 of the trust deed, why that particular area is important for the benefit of this. I notice that it talks about Christchurch, Banks Peninsula, and so on—and just the particular needs of social housing tenants in those areas as compared to perhaps the rest of the Greater Christchurch area, and what difference this bill will make in that respect.

I thank the member Ingrid Leary for the questions. The critical piece, as you say, in Part 1, in terms of clause 4.1 of the trust deed, is that the difference it will make is that it will have the ability of a very experienced community housing provider being able to apply that experience in places beyond the bounds of Christchurch City, as it’s defined as a particular area.

I think that will be one of the most critical things, to build social housing that is fit for purpose for particular communities. As we all know from our own areas, in some areas there is more need for one-bedroom social housing units; in other areas, it’s all around four- and five-bedroom homes for extended families. What it will do is allow those local communities to be able to work with an experienced and established community housing provider to get the best fit for their community.

16:31

I also note that the trustee was amended in 2017 to refer to Banks Peninsula, and I believe the member, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, has answered that, but I am curious to know how she sees mana whenua’s involvement—whether that will be enhanced or diminished or remain relatively the same, in relation to the changes that will be brought about by this bill.

16:32

Thank you. I see that absolutely as an opportunity for strengthening the involvement of mana whenua, in particular the papatipu rūnanga and the way that they can be involved. There are many rūnanga that fall within the rohe of Christchurch and that can work, and do have very good relationships working, alongside them. Also, there are many rūnanga that sit further outside of Christchurch City, across Canterbury, that have a huge desire and ambition around what they can do for housing and how they can work in partnership, and what they can do to make sure there is that kind of quality housing available in their areas.

16:33

I note that the trust has sought legal advice to save itself from having to go through this protracted kind of use of House time but that the advice said it probably would not be able to extend its charitable purpose. I wonder if the member in the chair, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, could just expand on what the legal impediment is there, and also, why it is imperative that the charitable purpose is expanded in this way. We are, obviously, using time in the House to do this. Has she considered other ways, or had the trust considered other ways, that they could achieve the ends that are being met by this particular bill?

I’ll just very briefly touch on that, because we have had some discussion on that. The trust actually sought very hard not to have to do this to, and I have some other colleagues in the House that might want to turn their minds to this for future parliaments. There are some trust deeds that actually have to be amended, if you’re going to make substantial changes to them, by Act of Parliament, despite the desire to be able to do it in other ways—so thinking about what we might be able to do to make more efficient use of the House’s time in order to do that.

16:34

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess, flowing on from that answer, in an earlier question about the links to both Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, obviously, there has been some reorganisation in Christchurch City with Banks Peninsula some time ago. The member in the chair, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, knows much more about that than I do. We have on our books at the moment—well, not really our books yet, but it’s certainly Government policy—that this Government wants more local government change to happen.

I guess my question is: does this bill that we have in front of us protect the trust sufficiently now from any future changes in local government boundaries? And does the member have any views, going to the point that she just made, about how many other trusts and organisations—I know we have a museum in Otago that has its own specific legislation that relates to local government boundaries. How much House time might be required to make all these changes?

16:35

Thank you. I think the member the Hon Rachel Brooking raises an incredibly important point, because what this bill does is open up and allow the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust to work right across the South Island; not that I’m suggesting there should be any super-city, ruled from Christchurch, that controls the entire South Island!

Are you sure you’re not?

I would never suggest that to that member. But I think the member does raise an interesting point. Obviously, there had to be a change after the Banks Peninsula council amalgamation that needed to be brought in here. I guess, in some ways, the changes that we’re making here would actually mitigate the need to come back if there are any forced amalgamations of councils that would occur—I can’t imagine there would be any councils that would extend across from the South Island into the North Island, although I may be mistaken. It would mitigate against that.

That is not to say—and the point the member raises is a very good one—that they’re could well be other trusts that are defined by territorial and local government boundaries, in where they can operate, that would find themselves in the position of having to make amendments to their purpose and that would, potentially, need to come back and have amendments to their legislation in order to do that. I think it is a very important point that needs to be considered.

16:37

Point of order. I’m sorry to disturb this debate, but I do think I just saw a flash from the Chamber, and the Chair might want to comment on that.

From the Chamber or the gallery?

Sorry, not the Chamber—into the Chamber from above.

OK. If anyone up there is using flash photography, would you please refrain. It’s not allowed in the House or the gallery. Thank you.

The member in the chair, the Hon Dr Megan Woods, has herself talked about the relationship with Christchurch City Council and alluded to the support from the council. I wonder if we could have just a little bit more detail about how that endorsement of this came about and what the relationship is like with the Christchurch City Council. Clearly, that would have a lot of sway with members of the public wanting to understand that this is a good move, and having a really well-recognised territorial authority with all that weight behind it is significant. I’d just like to understand the depth of that relationship and the depth of their endorsement.

16:38

Thank you, and it is an excellent question. Thank you very much. While this bill does allow Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust to operate outside of the confines of Christchurch City, which includes Banks Peninsula, it does retain Christchurch and Banks Peninsula as the primary focus of the trust. It was a trust that was obviously set up to manage what is a legacy taonga for Christchurch, and that is many generations of ratepayers of Christchurch that have built up a substantial portfolio of social and public housing. It’s something we are proud of and that we hold dear.

In terms of where the impetus came from, which the member Ingrid Leary asked about, it was actually instigated by the mayors; not only the Mayor of Christchurch City, Phil Mauger, but also the mayors from other councils in Canterbury—Selwyn and Waimakariri. Kaikōura was also involved. There was a number of mayors that said, “Look, we just need to be able to have this expertise operating in our area too, and that’s something we would want to see.” This is something that has very much been driven by the councils themselves, not something that is being imposed upon them.

I think it shows that, when we allow councils to work out where they can work well together—this came out of the Greater Christchurch Partnership. It started the conversations there, which is where we bring together Christchurch City along with Waimakariri and with Selwyn, and central government agencies and iwi, to talk about the region. That is devoid of thinking about lines on a map drawn for the purposes of local government but what modern-day Christchurch operates as and how that operates.

I’m going to take a call from Ingrid Leary, but I will say that it’s a very small part with two clauses, so it would be nice if we could really get some finalisation around the questions in this call, if that would be helpful. Thank you.

16:40

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s really just coming to matters that the member herself is bringing into the debate. She talked about the rates element from the territorial authorities, and I can imagine that for a trust that is doing excellent work like this, there would be an appetite from some philanthropists in the area to want to contribute. We’ve also talked about the relationship with mana whenua.

I’m interested to know if the financial basis of the trust is simply the rates. If it is, is that because it’s a requirement in the trust deed, and does that move over into the statutory requirement, or is there flexibility and leeway, both in the trust deed itself and in what she envisages for the application of the new bill, to be able to accommodate other forms of income that could make the trust more vibrant and sustainable in the long term? What’s the thinking around that?

16:41

Thank you, Madam Chair. By and large, the ratepayers of Christchurch do not contribute to the funds through rates. This is funded, and it is a ring-fenced asset in housing. The income that is received for rent—both from tenants, but, importantly, the income that is received by way of the income-related rent subsidy—and the operating subsidy that goes with operating public housing in New Zealand goes back into the trust. That is what allows them to continue their reinvestment.

Even before the advent of the trust in Christchurch, Christchurch City tried to operate its public housing in way that was ring-fenced away from general rates income and that could be self-sufficient. I guess the legacy of such a large portfolio—from memory, I think Christchurch City was and is, if you put Christchurch City and the trust together, the largest landowner after Kāinga Ora in the country. It has a substantial portfolio of social housing.

16:43

Thank you, Madam Chair. What this does is it varies the terms of the trust. In Part 1, the “trust deed” and the “trust” are defined terms—and, of course, I won’t go over those—and we see, in the preamble to the bill, some discussion of what is in that trust deed. The definition of the trust deed “includes all amendments to the trust deed since that date”—that date being 19 February 2016.

Then we turn to clause 5, which is Part 2, and it varies that trust deed. I guess it would just be useful for the member to talk us through why it is that the deed needed to be amended in these specific ways—because, on the face of it, it doesn’t all look like it relates to the boundaries of Christchurch. It would be useful when we get to the Schedule—oh, no, sorry, the Schedule is in this part, so I’ll speak to the Schedule as well.

What happens is clause 5 says there’s going to be some variation to the trust deed, and then you find what those variations are in the Schedule. They do refer to the Christchurch and Banks Peninsula areas. The question is, if the member can explain, how these changes to the trust deed—if, effectively, the importance of these changes is just because when the deed is referring to “the benefit of the communities in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula”, there is an addition after that that says “and other areas as determined from time to time by the trustees”. Is that the most significant change that we’re looking at here? It’s this addition of “and other areas as determined”. Thank you.

16:45

Thank you. The member Rachel Brooking is right that clause 5(1)(b), in particular, replaces clause 4.1 of the trust deed with Part 2 of the Schedule. It is around that geographical boundary that sits there. As I said at the Social Services and Community Committee, there was debate about whether or not we needed to put in geographic guardrails. It could be that some people don’t trust people from Christchurch not to look to expand their kingdom too far across the island!

The decision was made that “and other areas” allowed more flexibility, it would achieve what was needed and wanted by the mayors, but would mitigate against the need to come back if there were further geographic expansions. In an earlier contribution, I talked about not needing to come back if, say, someone one town over wanted the trust to operate, but the geographic guard rails had been established in such a way that would require us to do this all over again.

16:46

I’m interested in the member’s answer to that, and I’m glad she has faith and confidence that the trustees will keep it relatively close to home, because they are quite broad words.

I want to look at some other broad words in Part 1, which talks about the social housing tenants. It talks about how, from time to time, the trustees can consider people “who are suffering genuine hardship or need, including without limitation”—and then there is a series—“elderly, the young, the disabled, the unemployed, and other low-income people.” Obviously, that’s got a really worthy purpose, but the “without limitation” wording is very strong. I can see that there might be a purpose to make sure that the trustees have the flexibility to be able to expand their charitable purpose or the groups of people that that supports, such as, say, single parents or whatever. I’m wondering why the words “without limitation” were specifically used and if that was something that came up in the Social Services and Community Committee.

I also just want to look at the legal structure from Part 2 and the way Part 2 operates in terms of lifting and shifting everything as if the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 applies. If the member could explain, perhaps from a lawmaking perspective, why this particular provision is so important for her bill to be able to work properly. What would happen if we didn’t do that? Would that be an impediment to the types of things the trust would be able to achieve?

16:48

Thank you. To my knowledge, there wasn’t discussion at the Social Services and Community Committee around the terminology that the member is referring to. What I assume is that what it is giving is enough scope. As I talked about in earlier contributions, the trust is actually innovating; it is no longer just renting out to people who qualify for the income-related rent subsidy. They are also doing another category of kind of affordable rentals. They are also looking at shared equity type schemes. These don’t have the criteria that are applied by income-related rent subsidy rules that go with that. It allows it and gives it a kind of direction of the groups that they would see and that the trust would want to be assisting.

If I understood the member’s question correctly, around what the limitations would be if we didn’t change the law, it’s just that they simply can’t operate outside of their specific area. It would confine them, and they would not be able to work across that greater partnership.

16:49

Just further to the point that Ingrid Leary was making, it was about—the member in the chair, I think, is trying to convince her further-southern colleagues that this is not going to be a Christchurch takeover.

I had not realised until this afternoon that Dunedin was so threatened by Christchurch.

They’re our big brother, Madam Chair.

It’s all about that stadium!

Yes, your taxpayer-funded stadium, unlike our ratepayer one. Anyway, this might digress into something that’s not seemly for Parliament, and so we won’t go there, except to say that Christchurch now has a wonderful stadium that looks magnificent.

Going to that point, is there anything, apart from “and other areas as determined from time to time by the trustees” that limits the geographical area, or is it simply the name of the trust, that it has historically operated in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, and that the people who have been involved in it thus far have been the mayors of those other councils that are in Canterbury and in close proximity to Christchurch? Is it sort of the contextual nature of it, or is there anything anywhere else that places any caveats on the geographical area? I mean, there are lots of good things to have come out of Christchurch, and so it’s certainly not the end of the world if there’s not.

16:51

Thank you, Madam Chair. In terms of the question as to whether there are those geographic guardrails, the answer is no. I guess that the limiting factor is the patience of the people of Christchurch. The primary purpose of the trust is still primarily to be community and social housing in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula, and so I think there would be some grumpiness if there wasn’t continued activity within that area.

But if we have a look at a number of our community housing providers, the way they get scale is by actually operating across greater areas or, indeed, by operating at a national level. One need only look at the Salvation Army, for example, as a great example of a community housing provider who operates at a national level. It’s the way that we can get the scale and get the expertise that is there. The member has nothing to fear.

16:52

I also want to look at the—I think Part 2 of the Schedule is included, if I’m correct, Madam Chair?

It is. All of the schedule is included.

Thank you. It’s talking about the benefits not being for “the private pecuniary profit of any individual”, and then also has another one around the purpose of that, and it’s really trying to, obviously, serve the charitable purpose. I’m wondering whether the member considered whether other types of profits that are not necessarily pecuniary and direct but that could be a form of benefit to that individual that don’t involve a financial transaction, but might be, say, that their family members could live there, or there is some other kind of benefit. Is there a way that that is limited through this, or is she concerned that this is only about kind of financial transactions, rather than other social transactions that could accrue a conflicted benefit that might then not serve the charitable purpose of the bill?

16:53

The provision of the bill is primarily around the pecuniary benefit that could flow. In terms of the social benefit, I guess it’s our systems for allocation of housing that would stop that. If someone is to go into an Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (ŌCHT) home, in the majority of their homes, they have to qualify for an income-related rent subsidy. There is a test that goes through there that is applied through the Ministry of Social Development. It is then the placements team at ŌCHT that would look to house people who already qualified for that, and so the purpose of the bill is focused on the pecuniary interests that could flow.

I’ll take a call from Ingrid Leary, but I’d really like to wind up this part.

16:54

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on Part 3 of the Schedule, which talks about replacing clause 9.5(b), which is to do with the board appointments panel, there’s some really interesting wording about a requirement for that person, I believe, to have “an empathy with the people for whom the Trust would provide social or affordable housing”. I wonder if the Minister could describe for us what she thinks would be included in that, and also what might be excluded that would make somebody not able to qualify if they lacked that empathy for those particular beneficiaries.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think most trusts, when they are looking for people to come on their board, are looking for people that share values, believe in a particular cause, and have expertise in achieving what needs to be achieved in terms of the provision of housing. I think we all know what “empathy” means. It’s someone who believes in and sees the value of having social housing and the transformative nature that it can play in a person’s life, whether that be from a health or a social benefit, and from a community perspective, as well.

16:55

This is a small question—

What have you got?

—and this is on the title.

It’s actually not funny.

Well, we don’t know if it’s funny yet, because it hasn’t come out.

No. Well, what is funny, I say to the members opposite, is that often I stand here and do calls on the titles of different bills. I suggest terrible titles to represent the terrible things that this Government is doing to legislation, and they are right: it is not funny—I totally agree with them.

Now, in this case, I’m just worried—I’m not really worried, but with regard to our conversation about the geography of the area, instead of it being Christchurch-specific, I think it should be Canterbury-specific. It should be the Waitaha community housing trust because that gives more of a suggestion or an inkling to those who are looking at indications of the geographic proximity that is considered when the different councils are interested in this bill.

That’s my only suggestion for what is a very good bill, and the members opposite are, of course, quite right. It’s not funny, and it’s important that we let this trust operate to the best of its ability to house, with empathy, those people who are in need and who are forgotten by this Government.

16:57

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two questions for the member in the chair, the Hon Dr Megan Woods. The first one is that I note that the date in the title clause says “2025”, and I wonder if the member has considered whether it would be worth updating that to “2026”, just to give it some currency. There are probably conventions around when the bill was first introduced that might preclude that kind of change, but it’s not too late, and I apologise that I don’t have an amendment on the Table. But it is something that would just make it a little more current, and it certainly would provide a signal to those who are looking at the written words in the trust’s documents, and then also at this legislation, in wanting to know when there was a transition, which is captured in Part 2 because Part 2 captures the transition under the relevant Act. But making that really clear in the title might just help people who are having to do the sort of legal donkey work and legwork to be able to find the right documents and know where that kind of brightline was when things changed.

So that’s my first question. It would be a very simple amendment because it would be simply—you wouldn’t even have to change the “2025”; it would just be replacing the “5” with a “6” at the end.

The second question is regarding the Act coming into force on the day after Royal assent. That tells me that this is a really simple matter and that, probably, things can just get straight into gear, but I wondered if the member can think of any problems that might arise if it was to occur so quickly. Has she gone through all the different scenarios so that we can be sure that there won’t be a problem for the trustees in having it come into effect so quickly after we have gone through this process in the House?

16:59

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don’t intend to take long in answering these questions. First of all, the bill will be updated in its date as it goes through its legislative process.

In terms of the trustees and whether this will be too fast for them and whether they will see that as a problem, I can categorically say no.

This is an idea that was first put to me, I think, in 2022, so it’s been a long time in the making. They would have loved to have seen it happen quicker and not have to go through this legislative process, so I think it is fair to say they are awaiting the day when this comes into effect. In response to my question from the Hon Rachel Brooking, there is nothing that member can say that will persuade me to take the word “Ōtautahi” out of the title, no matter how eloquently she tries.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

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

17:01

I move, That the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill be now read a third time.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

It gives me great pride to rise for the third reading of this bill. It is a small but important change for our region in Canterbury, indeed the wider South Island, and means that we have more people that are bringing their hands to the very important mahi of addressing the housing crisis that we have in New Zealand.

I do want to thank the members of the Social Services and Community Committee, who gave this bill a very good consideration when it went to committee and came back with some suggested changes, particularly around the winding up clause, that made the bill stronger. I also want to acknowledge my Cantabrian colleagues from across the House who have supported, and got their caucuses on board with supporting, what is a very sensible change, which has been driven by an organisation which I think we all know does some fantastic work in our city. I want to acknowledge the board and I want to acknowledge the staff at Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (OCHT), who do fantastic work housing some of the most vulnerable in our city with great empathy, and doing it in a way that does meaningfully change lives and makes lives better.

When we look through the explanatory note of this bill and we see the history of this, the deed was settled by its original trustees and we read through the names that are there: Vicki Buck, Andrew Turner, Paul Lonsdale, Alexander Michael George Skinner, Lloyd Matthew Mander, Pamela Joy Sharpe, and Stephen Leslie Phillips. These are some of the names of people in Christchurch who, for decades, have worked on the provision of public housing in our city.

To that, I want to use the opportunity of this speech to pay particular acknowledgment to three Christchurch city councillors who, over time, absolutely championed the cause of public housing in our city. David Close is a city councillor in Christchurch who fought every day of his life to make sure that Christchurch could continue to provide affordable rental housing to its citizens. I also want to acknowledge the work of Carole Anderton as a Christchurch city councillor and the work that she did around the provision of affordable rental properties. And the work of Phil Clearwater, who even in retirement continues to work in the field of community and social housing and ensuring that our citizens in Christchurch do have access to something that can be so transformative in their life. In fact, he sometimes misses our campaign meetings in Wigram to go off to board meetings on social housing providers, but Phil’s work continues.

I also would like to acknowledge the work that can be done now because of the passage of this bill. The impetus was simple. There were a group of mayors who were frustrated because while Canterbury was starting to operate a bit differently, particularly post-earthquake, in terms of seeing itself in Greater Christchurch, an area that transcended the local government boundaries and saw itself in Greater Christchurch that included bits of Selwyn and bits of Waimakariri. It was not within the ability of this trust to go and build housing outside of the city limits of Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. So they came to me as the Minister of Housing frustrated and asked me why we were stopping the trust building in their areas, to which I did tell them it was completely within their purview to change it, and the change needed to come from them.

I congratulate the mayors, Phil Mauger the Mayor of Christchurch, Sam Broughton the then Mayor of Selwyn, and Dan Gordon, the Mayor of Waimakariri, who came together to put together this proposal, and the trust that worked so closely with them. Because it is that provision of social housing that is so critical. It is the work that the trust has established itself as a property developer, its ability to build at scale, its ability to cut down costs while building incredibly attractive and warm, dry, and secure homes for its tenants because of the scale its building at, but also its innovation, that it is looking to operate outside of the limits of the income-related rent subsidy. What could it do to be a provider; could it provide affordable housing that wasn’t only for people who qualified for the income-related rent subsidy, but people more broadly who might be struggling with the cost of housing?

Also the OCHT was one of the first community housing providers to jump on board when our Government brought in shared equity funding for community housing providers in order to start thinking about ways in which we could bring people who otherwise would be excluded from homeownership into homeownership. These are all the kinds of innovative ways that the trust is looking at in terms of housing and what it can do.

It has been my absolute pleasure to bring this bill to the House. It has been my absolute pleasure to work with colleagues and I thank the House for the work it has done on it. I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

17:08

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I rise on behalf of the National Party. We’re very, very pleased to support the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill at the third reading. And my congratulations again to the member responsible, Megan Woods, for shepherding it through Parliament. It’s absolutely fantastic to see it pass its final stages this afternoon. I want to acknowledge the significant contribution that the trust has made to Canterbury over the years, and indeed look forward to the further significant contribution it’s going to make to wider districts across the region, but most importantly, the difference it will make to those people who will avail of its properties. With that, I commend this bill to the House.

Just before I take another call, just for the purposes of the people in the gallery, there have been a few questions this afternoon around cameras. The advice that I’ve been given is that there is permission for people to take photos during the valedictory only, but without a flash. So for those of you that want to take photos, that’s fine without a flash, but only when we get to the valedictory.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise at the third reading on behalf of the Green Party to support fully the member’s bill of the Hon Megan Woods, the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill.

I want to begin by acknowledging the people struggling out there, those who are living rough. The single mums with kids seeking safety and sleeping on their friend’s couch or in garages or in their cars. To the working families struggling to pay the rent or mortgage and to put food on the table.

To all the people who are overrepresented in homelessness: our disabled whānau; tangata whaikaha Māori; survivors of abuse in care; our rainbow community; trans people; people coming out of the justice system; kids who have been through State care, and, the fastest-growing cohort of homeless people in New Zealand, our seniors—those over 65 years old; incredibly worrying—women over 65, I promise the Green Party will keep fighting until you have a safe and stable home where you are warm and healthy and can wake up knowing where you are going to rest your head. To all the people out there who are holding on to hope and know that we have enough in our country for everyone to have the things they need, like housing: thank you. Thank you to the community advocates and housing organisations who are out there tirelessly with our communities, people who ask: what kind of country are we, where our elderly people are the fastest-growing cohort of homeless people?

It does not have to be this way. It is a political choice. We all need somewhere to call home, a place to rest, to share with our loved ones, to make a life, and to watch our kids grow up. In my hometown of Christchurch, we have incredible organisations and people caring for families and people in need of stable, long-term, healthy homes. It’s a basic human right.

The Green Party promises to fix renting to make healthy homes affordable for all of us and put the interests of people over profits. We will build tens of thousands more warm, sustainable, accessible, and affordable homes in places people want to live.

It’s organisations like the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, Christchurch Collective for the Homeless—who I met with earlier this week at the Christchurch Community House; and kia ora, Whaea Brenda—the Christchurch City Mission, the Methodist Mission, Housing First, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahi, and campaigns like Doors to Dignity, that was launched in Christchurch to ensure all seniors are housed. These organisations and the people working at them are holding on to hope in times of political uncertainty. It’s people like local Christchurch nurse Pam Sharpe, the former deputy chair of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, who are out there in the rain and the cold, checking in on our homeless communities day in, day out, building trust with people and giving people hope.

Stable, safe, and healthy homes are harder and harder for people to access. Far too many families are forced to pay through the roof to rent homes that make them sick, and a generation have been locked out of owning their own home. To quote the wonderful Pam Sharpe from the recent Frank Film called Housing the Homeless, on homelessness in Christchurch, “As a decent society, we need to let [people] know … we care”. “Homelessness”, she says, “is insidious. We’re a population of 5 million and we can’t get … housing right. There’s something very wrong.”

In Christchurch, the real issue is there are not enough homes, and we have a huge issue with Airbnbs being bought up even before the houses are complete and sitting empty, all while homelessness and housing insecurity increases. We have a massive issue of the proliferation of Airbnbs, and we need to change the rules and change the laws so we aren’t unintentionally putting profits over people having access to housing. We need to build more houses so we don’t have suburbs that are ghost towns.

I commend the the Hon Megan Woods for bringing this really important issue to the halls of power. Supporting community housing organisations like the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust is one of the ways we can meet gaps that leave people living in cars, tents, under bridges in Christchurch and around Aotearoa. Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust provide good quality houses at good value under budget, time and time again. They are warm and dry. They are so good at building houses—the Crown could learn a thing or two. This bill, to expand the regions that they can work in in Canterbury, just makes sense.

Often, we politicians, we stand here pontificating about what we think, so I want to read into the Hansard the real lived experience of someone who experienced homelessness in Christchurch and now, with the support of community housing organisations and wraparound support, is now a social worker who advocates and educates to make our communities safer for everyone. Her name is Rach Taane, aka DJ Axis, and these are her words. “Ōtautahi, and Aotearoa as a whole, urgently needs more housing. I think most of us can agree that. Safe, stable, affordable housing has to be the starting point, because people cannot heal, rebuild, parent, study, work, or feel safe when they have nowhere to live, because housing cannot stop at handing someone a key and hoping for the best. If someone has spent years surviving on the street, in unsafe homes, in State care, or moving through the systems that have harmed them, they need wraparound support, connection, life skills, trauma support, advocacy, community, and time to learn how to feel safe in a home again. Homelessness is intersectional. It is deeply connected to sexual violence, family violence, poverty, racism, State care, uplifts, addiction, disability, mental health, and intergenerational trauma. So many rangatahi on the street are not choosing homelessness. They have been taken from their whānau, placed in unsafe or abusive care settings, and have run because the streets feel safer than the system meant to protect them. That should all stop us in our tracks. These are human beings, not problems to move along—out of sight, not out of mind. Well, not for those with a heart and basic empathy for others, like those at Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust.”

In Rach Taane’s words: “I speak from lived experience. I ran from my pain after being raped at 14, and I was further harmed by authorities and my peers after I was blamed for it. I searched for comfort and escape through meth and codependent relationships. I couch surfed, lived in sheds, gang pads or anywhere I would end up. At 19, I was lucky to get a bed at St Marks rehab in Blenheim before I ended up dead on the street. Supported living taught me how to live again: how to cook, how to manage basic life skills, how to feel safe, and how to build a future. The therapists are who inspired me to give back and become the professional that I am today.” Thank you, Rach. Today, Rach is a social worker who has worked front line for 15 years alongside people of all ethnicities, socio-economic backgrounds, genders, and sexualities. She knows homelessness does not discriminate, that many of us are only one major health issue, accident, job loss, family breakdown, or crisis away from housing insecurity ourselves. The increasing rate of women over 60 finding themselves homeless is a brutal indicator of where we are heading. That is why we need more homes and we need the right support wrapped around people once they are in them. That is how housing becomes safety, not just shelter.

At a time when so many are needing community-focused housing, this bill is a welcome move. It means more housing across Canterbury being built with the wants and needs of our community in mind. Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust is a not-for-profit and Christchurch’s largest community and affordable housing provider. Thank you to the crew past and present at the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust for your care, for your manaaki and practical solutions that meet the needs of our communities.

The Green Party supports this bill, and we say thank you again to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust. We look forward to hearing the success stories about our community members in warm, safe, dry homes.

17:19

Thank you. I rise on behalf of ACT to take a short call on the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon Dr Megan Woods for bringing this private bill through the House. She’s obviously a Christchurch-based MP, and I think she’d be very pleased to have this done.

I just want to also acknowledge, actually, this has had the support of all the parties across the House—including today, which is quite unusual—special permission for the committee of the whole House, and then a third reading immediately to be done so we can get this done in this term of Parliament. ACT does support community housing trusts like this one. What we’re doing here today, which I’m sure has already been well canvassed, is altering the trust deed so that it actually can provide its important housing services to a larger geographic area in the Canterbury region. Actually, using community housing trusts such as this to deliver really important housing projects and community housing for New Zealanders is something that this Government has invested in, and it’s actually a really great way of doing it.

Again, I just want to acknowledge that this has had the support of all of the parties across the House. My colleague Laura McClure was on the select committee. I want to, again, say that we are supporting this, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

17:21

Madam Speaker, thank you. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this bill—it’s common sense. I was going to make quite a long speech here, but I’m advised that we want to get through to speeches later on to get some other bills through, so I’m going to cut it a long way short. I just want to say congratulations to the Hon Dr Megan Woods for the work that’s been done there. Congratulations to Christchurch City Council for overseeing and establishing Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust in the first place and also for overseeing it and still having three trustees on the board. Congratulations to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust for the work that they do. It’s not just about providing houses—they’ve build 401 to date as of June, I think it was—but also for the work that they do in looking after all of the tenants that they have there.

Look, I was going to make a lot of comments there, but I just wanted to say I know that there is a demand for their services outside of the Christchurch area. I’ve seen that demand. I had the pleasure of supporting the community of Upper Selwyn Huts when they were threatened with eviction by their own council. That council knew that many of those people in that community were on low incomes and would likely end up needing social housing. They also knew that they didn’t have any social housing. So they said, “Look, Government, you should be providing social housing in the Selwyn district area because it’s an area of high growth.” I did say to them, “Well, you’re not looking very clever if you’re wanting social housing provided in your area and you’re actually going to contribute more to the demand of it by removing these people.” Anyway, we saved that community, and that’s a fantastic thing.

Look, I think this bill is common sense, and in the interests of time, I am going to cut my speech a long, long way short and keep my National colleagues happy for once. I commend this bill to the House.

The next call is a split call—Mike Davidson.

17:22

Kia ora e te Pīka. I rise on behalf of the Green Party also in support of this bill. I’ll take just a quick short call. Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Dr Megan Woods for her work on this bill and, of course, the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust, who have done an absolutely fantastic job over the years. It’s great to see that they’re going to expand beyond the boundaries of Christchurch City and Banks Peninsula.

I think we all know that Christchurch City Council has a proud tradition of being a provider of public housing. I think we just need to remember it was a then National-led Government that actually excluded councils’ ability to receive income-related rent subsidy that created this. I think, back in the day, that was an example of a National Government that did not value local government and councils—pretty much exactly what we’re seeing from this term of a National Government, where local government is once again treated poorly, which is such a shame from all the great things that local government can do and provide for their communities. In this instance, it was social housing. But, look, I think what Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust has done has been absolutely fantastic, and I commend this bill to the House.

Joseph?

Madam Speaker.

The only reason I let this continue is because it’s a private bill; otherwise, I would have actually taken a vote just then.

17:24

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to make a very short call as the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, which heard submissions on this bill. We made some recommendations on it, which have been accepted. I congratulate the Hon Dr Megan Woods for being the member who sponsored this private bill. I particularly want to give a shout-out to the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust for all of the very hard work they do and success that they’re doing. We worked very hard as a committee to get this through as quickly as possible and get it into the House. Obviously, this evening, we wanted to get through it as quickly as possible so this can be changed so that the community housing trust can get on with it. I was a little bit surprised by the length of time it took for the Labour Party to get through the committee of the whole House stage, but we’re here now. I commend the bill to the House.

17:25

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s a real privilege to be able to stand and take a call on this third and final stage of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill. As a Christchurch MP with the privilege of being the member of Parliament in Christchurch East, which is home to a large number of Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust homes and communities, it’s really great to be able to speak in support of this bill and be able to help to shepherd the bill through the House in this final stage to ensure that the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust can continue to do the amazing work that they do for our communities in Christchurch and in Ōtautahi, but be able to do that beyond Christchurch and Ōtautahi, which is ultimately the purpose of the bill.

I did want to start by commending my colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods, who has done an extraordinary amount of work to bring this bill to the House and then to move it through and to ensure that, alongside our colleagues this afternoon, we could actually give it the proper stress testing that bills like this need in the House at the committee of the whole House stage. Whilst we could just rush this through, we have just in the last few weeks seen, potentially, the unintended consequences of what happens when we rush the lawmaking process in this House. In fact, some of our most vulnerable New Zealanders are left high and dry, often literally, at critical cold points of winter when their benefits are not received adequately and they are left without the funds that they need and without the means they need to be able to lead good lives, which is ultimately what we should be passing laws in this House to be able to achieve.

It is important that we give this bill, at every stage through the House this afternoon, the proper and adequate examination and scrutiny that it needs so that we know that, when we put it into place, what we have done is empower the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust to be able to continue to do their good work, not just in Canterbury but beyond Canterbury as well.

Ultimately, what this will do is allow them to build on their success to make even more communities stronger. That’s ultimately, since 2016, what the community housing trust has done once it was established. It was established by the city council to manage the community housing portfolio of the Christchurch City Council and to address the housing supply and affordability issues in Christchurch and in Banks Peninsula as well, which was to also include the remit of being through the development of new social housing. Recently, I was able to attend the opening of two new housing projects that the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust have completed in Christchurch, one being in Bromley, beside the Tane Norton Park, and the other being very close to the central city, just off Fitzgerald Avenue there in Linwood. These are fantastic new community housing facilities that will provide warm, dry homes for so many members of Christchurch. It will be very great to be able to see their work continue outside of Christchurch as well.

Now, we are faced with some very real challenges in the housing space in New Zealand at the moment. That’s no more real than in Christchurch East in the Bexley Wetlands, if you head up Wetlands Grove and meet Fire and her community, who are living in temporary housing structures—some living in cars, some in buses, some living under tarpaulins and under pallets. These are people who, despite what some people claim, are not camping in the red zone. These are people who are trying to survive because they cannot find, and there is not available, a warm, dry home for those people.

Now, this is crisis level in our communities now. We must all be seeing it, wherever we go. We see it in the Bexley Wetlands, with Fire and the community there, where there are estimated to be up to 80 people some nights calling that abandoned subdivision, with not a single house left, but just some sealed roads and some streetlights—they are now calling that space home. It makes it even more relevant why we need to be, in this House, empowering the likes of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust to build the communities and the homes that they have beyond the boundary of Ōtautahi Christchurch, because it is an issue and a problem that we are now seeing right across New Zealand. We need to do and should be doing everything we possibly can in this House to empower organisations like the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust to be able to build new homes for the people who so desperately need them.

Now, we’re supporting this bill; I don’t think we’ve made any secret of that, considering the fact that we brought it to the House—just in case you were under any illusions, I say to the Hon Dr Megan Woods, as to whether we would supporting the bill or not. I’m very pleased to confirm that we are supporting the bill.

I also wanted to acknowledge a community who have recently moved out of an Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust development in Christchurch East, and that’s the community that have called Mabel Howard Place home for close to 50 years now. That’s a development of single studio units, 40 of them, which were built a long time ago. They are no longer fantastic places to live, but nevertheless they have been really good homes for the people who have lived there, and in recent years, the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust has been managing a number of those residents to move out as those dwellings have no longer really been suitable for habitation. Any week now, that housing complex will be completely empty, and that will be the end of a really significant chapter for the community that have called it home over the last decades.

The really good news is that the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust will now see the redevelopment of that space, and that space has changed in the decades that it’s been there. That space is now adjacent to our City to Sea Pathway in Christchurch East. It’s adjacent to the Avon Park, and Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust have really exciting plans to build a mix of one-, two-, three-, and four-bedroom homes that actually face out on to the new spaces and on to the park, and to create a really vibrant, diverse base for communities in that part of our electorate. It’s great to see that that is another example of the excellent work that the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust do. It’s another reason that we will be empowering this trust to operate beyond the geographic confines of just Christchurch.

Now, I did want to make special mention here—and, Madam Speaker, please bear with me. You will be aware that despite the amazing bill that we are passing, people are not necessarily crowding into the galleries for this bill this afternoon; they are, in fact, crowding into the gallery for a valedictory statement by one of our colleagues. This colleague often gives me a really hard time about how much funding goes to Christchurch and Canterbury, and so I think that it’s only appropriate not only that I stop talking but also that I acknowledge that I’ve been talking about a fantastic initiative outside of Canterbury that will actually take what they do out to the rest of New Zealand. I think Greg O’Connor would very much approve of that. Thank you.

17:33

This is a very common-sense bill which extends the geographic boundaries for Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

Madam Speaker.

Oh, there you are. I was looking for Dan Rosewarne, and you’re over there. I call Dan Rosewarne, but I’ll also just make the member aware that we’ve probably got about five minutes before the valedictory speech is due, and so you might not get a full 10-minute call.

17:34

No worries, Madam Speaker. As mentioned before, Labour is pleased to support our own bill in the third reading of the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill. Now, this is a sensible bill that removes a legal restriction and allows a trusted housing provider to respond to housing need in more communities across the South Island.

The Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust was established 10 years ago by the Christchurch City Council and it has built a strong reputation for delivering community and affordable housing. It has grown to become the largest provider of community housing in the South Island. The track record is there, the capability is there, and the demand is there. The bill simply allows the trust to put that experience to work in places beyond Christchurch and Banks Peninsula.

We often talk about housing in terms of numbers—how many houses have been built, how many families are waiting, and how many homes are needed—but behind every number is a person. It might be an older New Zealander wanting to stay in the community that they’ve lived in for decades, it might be a young family trying to get ahead while juggling rent, groceries, and childcare, or it might be somebody who has had a rough run of things and just needs a stable place to rebuild their life. Having somewhere secure to live makes a huge difference, and when people know that they’ve got a roof over their head, they can focus on the things that matter. They can stay connected to work, keep their kids in the same school, and participate in their community, and that’s why organisations like Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust are so important.

I also want to acknowledge the wider community housing sector across Canterbury. There are a lot of good people doing some great work in this space: housing providers, support workers, volunteers, trustees, councils, churches, charities, and community organisations. Most of them don’t seek recognition and they certainly don’t want to make any headlines, but every day they make a real difference in people’s lives. Whether it’s in Christchurch, Kaiapoi, Rangiora, Ashburton, Timaru, or elsewhere across the region, community housing providers are helping people who might otherwise struggle to find a place that they can afford, and they deserve our thanks. I acknowledge Christchurch City Council for having the foresight to establish the trust in the first place and for recognising that housing challenges are best tackled through partnership and long-term thinking.

The Social Services and Community Committee has also done some good work on the bill. The amendments recommended by the committee strengthen the provisions around the treatment of assets if the trust were ever to be wound up.

On that note, I just want to acknowledge my good mate Greg O’Connor and the people who are assembled in the gallery today. You’re a good mate, and I look forward to hearing your valedictory statement. Thank you.

I call on the always-succinct Carl Bates.

17:37

Thank you, Mr Speaker. National loves Christchurch. I commend the bill to the House.

17:38

A valedictory’s a oncer,

A privilege experienced by few,

So I thought consigning it to verse

Would afford the moment its due.

 

There were other options,

Plenty of genres I could tap,

I thought it might test the Speaker’s patience,

If I’d presented today in rap.

 

So, bow out I do before you,

A humbling number have returned the RSVP.

Not all MPs are afforded this privilege,

Many a parliamentary exit is involuntary.

 

I arrived nine years past.

With Ōhāriu’s blessing,

Though with a small-enough margin,

That kept us till final count guessing.

 

To the good folk of my electorate,

I’ll always remain beholden,

Great local support,

Does the MP on their behalf embolden.

 

An electorate dominated by Mount Kaukau,

The tower atop piercing the sky,

Which thanks to pest-free volunteers

Now has an increasingly native bird cry.

 

Being elected into this House,

And sitting up in the big Chair,

Has allowed use of the living and learning,

That’s gone into the making of this grey hair.

 

However, lessons and skills learnt before here,

Only get us in the door.

The real honing of one’s political craft,

Starts on this Chamber’s floor.

 

Most arrive as high achievers,

And a desire to improve our world.

With a determination to stand apart,

When insults and vitriols hurled.

 

Such ideology seldom lasts,

Beyond the first derisory interjection.

The aroha quickly melts away,

With utu planned back in that direction.

 

But as I learnt as a young cop,

No lesson comes without pain.

Learning to hold one’s own

Is how we best for our constituents gain.

 

There’s those who abhor the division,

Believing it should all be done by consensus.

Of course, removing robust debate

Would leave half the electorate defenceless.

 

In fact, there’s plenty of times we largely agree;

It’s around philosophical differences we clash.

Without an outlet for such digression of belief,

Democracy will have done its dash.

 

I’ve had a privileged position in this place,

Arbitrating from the Speaker’s Chair,

In a world that’s partisan and siloed,

An ideal place to each argument hear.

 

You see much more while presiding;

There’s no place for members to hide.

There are workhorses who carry a big load,

The odd one happy to be along for the ride.

 

The MP demographic is pretty reflective,

With personalities from quiet to loud.

We look pretty much like the new New Zealand,

Though ’round one end of Myers-Briggs we crowd.

 

But for all that diversity, it’s still down to numbers,

However strongly the argument you mount,

Because to successfully prosecute your cause here,

You need to learn how to count.

 

And as MMP matures

And Kiwis become attuned to its power,

Mixes and matches of political persuasions

Are the reality of our politics now.

 

And while the theatre of question time

Is the public window to Parliament’s soul,

Cross-party relationships are built outside here,

Even ignoring results of the latest poll.

 

Select committees and parliamentary trips,

Combined with sporting and cultural occasions,

Provide cross-party opportunities for dialogue,

And in my case numerous abrasions.

 

I dragged this broken old body

Off to parliamentary rugby and cricket

For the opportunity of cross-party mixing,

Though I did claim an ex - Black Caps’ wicket.

—I should’ve invited Dion Nash here today.

 

So I reflect on my time in this place.

Nine years has gone incredibly fast,

Proudly part of a mighty continuum

Which us all will long outlast.

 

I did manage a member’s bill

That passed through the House with ease,

A law to curtail paedophiles’ opportunities

To offend against kids overseas.

 

Ultimately, Parliament’s job is to pass laws,

So I suppose in that regard I had some success,

But it’s the work we do for our constituents

That rarely gets into the press.

 

Without a doubt, it’s our staff members

Who are the heroes of answering the constituent’s call.

Leanne’s been with me from the start.

Actually, I found and recruited her in Johnsonville mall.

 

She’d run a pub in Johnsonville,

So knew the local rogues, some here today.

—That’s you, Kerry, Alan, Barry, Jono.

She had kids at the local schools,

So around the electorate knew her way.

 

She stayed with me all nine years,

While Sophia taught her political nous.

Knowing she always had my electorate back

Allowed me to concentrate on my work in this House.

 

We got her husband, John, voting for the first time ever.

Honestly, I said, “Vote for whoever you like.”

But her real above and beyond

Was babysitting my disabled son, Mike.

 

Back to the topic of that mall,

I met my office landlady in exactly the same spot.

Within a month of being elected,

I had secured staff and a location hot.

 

But while that mall proved a fertile recruiting ground,

Sadly, attempts to secure a rebuild have been frustrated.

In any survey of what annoys my locals,

“That bloody mall” is always top rated.

 

The powers of a local MP

Can’t override land-banking calls.

As Ronald Reagan would say to the Aussie owners,

“Stride, bulldoze down those walls.”

 

Now, sadly, I relinquish my Ōhāriu role,

The electorate cruelly dissolved with the stroke of a pen.

Normally when an MP says they lost their seat,

Some beggar has nicked it off of them.

 

In my case it’s disappeared,

Gone to the graveyard of electorates past.

I wonder, if it was held by a senior Minister,

Whether the axe would’ve come down as fast!

 

Ōhāriu’s now divided in three,

Leaving locals to work out their new voting zone.

Of course, it’ll now take three MPs

To do the job I used to do on my own.

 

I started my Police career up in Ōhāriu

Trying to keep northern streets free of crime,

A slightly broader mandate as an MP,

But people’s needs don’t seem to change with time.

 

The ethnic make-up is now way more diverse,

And the housing’s chomped up the farms,

But if there’s one place that’s defied change,

It’s my mates in the Newlands Arms.

 

A true battlers’ pub in a family suburb called Newlands,

Which looks very much like our new human fauna,

There’s an oasis of our past in its midst

Affectionately known as “Cobweb Corner”.

 

Being comfortable in cafes and churches,

With my wee red car announcing I’m around,

Meant I didn’t need to hang around the office

For citizens to know where I was to be found.

 

But most humbling of all,

When I have my son Michael in tow,

Is that his sometimes intrusive and inquisitive nature

Could be challenging for those who didn’t know.

 

But he was welcomed wherever we went,

On sports fields and public meetings by all folk.

I even once had the Chinese ambassador

Keeping him preoccupied while I spoke.

 

He proves people are inherently good,

Understanding there are those who will never survive on their own,

From the generous Sir Mark and Dorothy, here today,

To those putting up with him stealing their phone.

 

My vision was to build a role

Where Mike could participate too.

It happened without ever being planned.

He’s now often expected to turn up too.

 

I spent 40 years in policing

Before plunging into this role.

A new audience for all my war stories

And police Minister was my ultimate goal.

 

I’d policed pretty much everywhere possible,

Experienced Wairarapa’s bombing and fires.

I spent a year working undercover,

Where we got new names and survived as liars.

 

They were pretty formative years,

Where I met people smarter and cleverer than me,

Who, if they’d had the opportunities I’ve been afforded,

Would have had lives likely crime free.

 

That’s why I get frustrated

When politicians with no idea yell, “More time!”

Cleverer use of more shorter sentences

Can disrupt instead of displacing crime.

 

However, tough sentencing talk wins elections,

So sheltered middle-class politicians talk tough.

Making the crime and the punishment more proximate

Would mean our current cells are enough.

 

I do like the idea of the patch ban.

Now they are hurriedly hidden when cops are around.

That’s a great message to impressionable youth,

Stopping gangsters from strutting around.

 

My undercover days taught me about gangs:

That misogyny and stand-over rule.

Forcing young ones to do their jail time

Is their most effective tool.

 

So that and detective work

Increased my understanding of policing’s soul.

This consolidation of my policing experiences

Set me up for my Police Association role.

 

It was from 20 years there as president,

Running a multimillion-dollar show,

That I was exposed to the commercial world

And understood the perils of poor cash-flow.

 

So when I came to Parliament on the Jacinda wave,

Courtesy of Winston’s then wise hand,

I’d hoped a ministerial post might come my way eventually,

Once I’d learned the lie of the land.

 

However, a harsh lesson in politics was to follow:

Media love you when you’re providing a nice sound bite.

But, as a politician, it’s all about “Gotcha!”

Any concessions become the highlight.

 

It resulted in a telling off from Jacinda herself,

By phone, as it was done in a hurry.

And while I was standing in an Indian takeaway

Deciding the spice level of my curry.

—and Sophia, here today, is my witness.

 

So it was backbench all the way,

With a bird’s eye view of the events that defined our time,

During Christchurch terrorism and White Island,

Which dominated the party line.

 

And as a complete aside on the Christchurch shootings,

The two cops who caught the offender once worked for me.

They’re types who lived close to the edge,

But they’re what we want tough cops to be.

 

Back now to the political career:

By COVID, I was on the finance committee.

The Reserve Bank Governor was a regular attendee,

Explaining his financial strategy.

 

As usual there’s now a revision;

Everyone’s an expert in hindsight.

It’s so damned easy to forget those pictures

Of Italian doctors and nurses dying day and night.

 

Who can forget that first lockdown?

We Wellington MPs got to play a special part.

As the death toll around the world skyrocketed,

Here it never got off to that start.

 

We knew it was special times,

That needed a response that was brave.

A helluva lot of our elderly and sick

Would’ve been carted off to their grave.

 

Then came the aftermath.

The term “anti-vaxxer” was born.

A palpable anger and societal split

Came to a head out on Parliament’s front lawn.

 

I personally came in every day,

bringing my toothbrush when it looked like they’d Parliament surround.

For those who condone or leverage mob rule,

Know civilisation quickly collapses when unbound.

 

If police had lost the battle that day,

It would’ve been the country’s eternal regret.

I saw heroism in defence of New Zealand out there.

I fear rewriting has minimised that threat.

 

And the House continued sitting,

Smelling of smoke permeating out on the green.

I’ve witnessed plenty of violent behaviour,

And this was as perilous as I’ve seen.

 

I’m often asked if I miss policing.

That’s one day I’d have gone back in the door.

Those men and woman who battled out front

Dug deep to uphold the law.

 

Not long after that I was made Deputy Speaker,

Not a role I’d sought or understood.

The bipartisan nature is certainly appealing,

And you work out who at their job is any good.

 

I discouraged the reading of speeches

And members for their oratory skills to try.

It might be unfair to a few,

Screening that written out by that damned AI.

—this is not written by AI, but can you accuse—

No, that’s pretty clear.

I was wondering if you can actually accuse yourself of hypocrisy, as far as reading speeches goes!

Ah, for the days of “King Dick” Seddon,

Who could speak on his feet for many an hour.

Times have moved on somewhat,

But a good orator can still hold some power.

 

Trouble is that the quality of the argument

Can be at odds with the manner in which it’s put.

Some of Parliament’s best thinkers

Find it hard to with crap merchants’ foot.

 

Being a backbencher in Government’s frustrating,

Often restricted to 30-second spiels.

That’s why Opposition’s the development opportunity,

Where you can pretty much say what you feel

—if the Speaker’s in a good mood!

 

So a parliamentary career should involve both.

It takes time to develop the craft.

You could do worse than study Winston

For things you’ll find in no Standing Orders draft

 

Living on the edge of what’s permitted,

He keeps potential interjectors wary.

Some wonder how he remains in the House;

Others reckon he’s got some photos of Gerry!

 

Traditions are important,

To provide a context as we move with the times.

Westminster provides the basis,

But not immovable bottom lines.

 

Dress standards and language

Are at the front line of that debate.

Jeans and four-letter words are current ramparts.

The no-go should always be language of hate.

 

Personal nastiness is incredibly unprofessional.

It just lowers respect for the place.

Those for whom it’s their go-to should remember

Life’s not a sprint but a stayer’s race.

 

I leave here with faith in the institution

That to an outsider can seem quaint and confusing.

But it does the job it’s meant to do,

Though the how can leave many musing.

 

We could do with slowing legislation’s pace.

Many bills are pushed through way too fast.

Another layer of genuine debate

Might give more laws the chance to last.

 

We Speakers enforce the status quo,

New rulings move things along,

But removing big chunks of the process willy-nilly

Could create many an unintended wrong.

 

And I say to those of my age demographic,

Who are quick to decry politics and all who take part,

That when our young folk hear nothing but criticism,

In our democracy they’ll inevitably lose heart.

 

Hell, I’m all West Coast Irish,

Where, whoever was Government, we were born agin ’em.

However, several generations in,

We learnt being inside best enables our opinion.

 

Another feature of being here

Is that MPs’ ethnicities come to the fore.

Though I’m fourth-generation New Zealand,

I rode my Irish ancestors’ shoulders to this floor.

 

And speaking of West Coast Irish,

Four of my siblings are here today.

Growing up on a Buller dairy farm

Shaped the people we are today.

 

Privilege has little to do with money;

It’s books and stability and safety,

Being taught by those nuns at Granity Convent.

Believe me not one was under 80!

 

Our parents, Eamon and Kath, gave us a great start,

Living down in the mighty Buller.

Of course, these are the days I wish they were still here.

They couldn’t have made our lives much fuller.

 

Thanks for making the trip here, family,

Especially my kids: Eve, Issac, and Mike.

They’ve brought along grandson Freddy.

Grandad says you can do what you like!

 

It was looking a bit unsure earlier,

When Eve missed her flight from Sri Lanka.

She navigated Isaac and Mike all her life,

So no problem to get here without help from dad’s banker.

 

Burgo and Vince are ex international colleagues.

They’ve both worked many an Aussie police station.

The way their politics are heading over there,

I’m concerned they’re here recruiting for One Nation!

 

I’d like to shout out to all who’ve made it,

Both from the Parsons and two sheds.

There’s a shearing and a boat one,

From where there were a few hard-won votes for the reds.

 

It was from there and the KTC,

The sporting clubs, cafes, and churches,

I was privileged to receive votes,

Enabling me to resist right-wing lurches.

 

But, of course, it’s always down to the local team,

The ones who put up billboards and knock on doors,

Who deliver brochures by the thousands,

Who got me into this place of making laws.

 

I must thank Margaret, Glen, and Judy,

Keefe, Graham, Peter, and Lyra.

With Alex, Kate, and Lucy,

They formed the heart of the Ōhāriu fire.

 

To my campaign managers, Hamish and George,

Fortunately, both way smarter than me,

You allowed me to follow my instincts,

While your organisation skills were key.

 

They gave me the opportunity to be here,

A privilege afforded few,

A time dominated by the COVID pandemic,

Which threw all manifestos and strategies askew.

 

We tried to do a lot,

And history will show most ideas were right.

Our grandkids will study COVID’s impact

And know it was way more than a medical fight.

 

I think it’s thrown the world off its axis,

The way World War I last did,

And it’s a long way from a necessary correction,

Towards isolationism and despotism, we’ve slid.

 

The victims will always be the defenceless;

Their survival is in political leaders’ hands.

We only pass through this place once;

We have to prioritise all in our fair lands.

 

The four-year term’s a must.

Meaningful change must be brave,

Giving the benefits time to accrue,

Before to the Treasury benches we wave.

 

My preference would’ve been to stay;

I reckon I’ve got a few miles left on my clock.

I’m not ready for the pipe and slippers,

And there are more doors out there for me to knock.

 

But I leave one helluva lot wiser

About the politics of our land.

Best lessons are learnt by doing,

And I’ve got a new respect for all those who stand.

 

It’s the staff who keep this place ticking.

The public servants would be most missed.

It’s they who are democracy’s lube

And yet daily in this place are dissed.

 

Let’s not forget the real workers,

Like those who push the mail and cleaner’s cart.

Unlike we politicians,

Without the workers it would all fall apart.

 

I can’t finish without mentioning my EA, Susan.

She’s managed to render me useless on my own,

Organised, loyal, and competent,

Forever available on the phone.

 

Both her and Leanne have their families present,

And to thank them is only right.

Nothing was ever too much trouble for those two,

Including calls for help at night.

—“Little Red” running out of petrol in Ōhāriu Valley; there they were with the can of petrol—John and Leanne.

 

They both adopted dog Herbie,

Insisting he be in the gallery today.

He’s dreading my retirement.

He’ll miss the attention that in this place comes his way.

 

Having had EA support for 30 years,

I’ve now got to get my own appointments right.

The really scary day is coming

When I have to book my own airline flight!

 

As members, we’re well looked after,

From the moment we walk in the door.

Anyone who thinks it’s about them should observe what happens

When they’re not an MP any more.

 

We have to own our wee slice of history

Despite the world around us looking vexed.

We’ve won life’s lottery to be Kiwis,

So let’s make it better for those who come next.

 

So thanks to all who have given me this opportunity.

I’m ready for my next chapter ’cause

Next time I’m needing assistance, I’ll say,

“Don’t you know who I was?”

 

My future’s an unwritten chapter.

It’s great the family are all back in NZ.

I’ll make the most of every opportunity,

Because my next mention in this House will

Be when I’m dead.

 

Thank you, and we have a waiata.

[Applause]

Waiata—“Danny Boy”

The House is suspended for the dinner break and will resume at 7.30 p.m.

19:30

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to take a call on the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust (Trust Variation) Bill this evening, and can I begin by acknowledging my colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods, who has championed this bill through the House on behalf of the trust as a private bill. These bills are a bit unusual, although I think in the last couple of terms of Parliament, we’ve been having a few more of these bills.

I just wanted to acknowledge the excellent local member of Parliament who has driven this bill through the House, and it should receive its final reading tonight so that it can take effect. It was very nice to see the Hon Dr Megan Woods as the member in the chair tonight, and I’m looking forward to seeing her in the chair a little bit more, passing more legislation after the election.

Just on to the bill, we are supporting this bill, which I’m sure is no surprise to many. What this particular bill does is it allows the trust to operate outside its current areas of operation, which are in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. It looks at operating further so it can deliver more housing for more people.

I do just want to put a shout-out to community housing providers across New Zealand. They play an important role in providing social housing and community housing to people who are vulnerable. In my own area, we have a couple of locally owned community housing providers. One is the Nelson Tasman Housing Trust, and they do an excellent job. On top of the provision of social housing from the State agency Kāinga Ora, our community housing providers play an important role in ensuring that there’s extra housing that meets the needs of the local community.

What this bill will do is it will enable what is a high-performing community housing provider to respond to housing needs across the South Island while it still retains its primary role of supporting people in Christchurch and Banks Peninsula. The trust exists to bridge the affordability gap that is left by the private market, because, unfortunately, renters—particularly those with low incomes who are left to the private market—often end up paying quite an exorbitant amount of their low incomes towards rent, and so what housing providers like the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust do is ensure there is appropriate and affordable housing provision for some of the most vulnerable people in our community.

What this bill does is it delivers a housing system that stabilises people and strengthens communities, and it will be able to do that more broadly outside of its current areas. It will be able to operate in other parts of the South Island. Now, it could be good for other parts of the South Island, which would be excellent.

Just a little bit of background information on the trust: it was established in 2016 by Christchurch City Council to manage its community housing portfolio, and that included not just managing the existing portfolio but developing new social housing. It’s the largest provider of community and affordable housing in the South Island, and so what this bill does is it allows it to actually broaden its operation.

I’ll just make a couple of comments around the work that the Social Services and Community Committee did. The bill as it was introduced would have allowed the trustees a broad discretion over how assets are distributed in the event of a wind-up, without any express requirement to align distribution with where those assets were developed. The committee—and I think this is a fair consideration of the committee—wanted to see greater protection for proportional distribution and formalise the intent to prioritise local organisations.

It recommended inserting clause 25.3, which requires the board, when transferring the asset trusts, to “have regard to the principle that, [where] reasonably practicable, … Assets [are] transferred to … organisations who can apply [them] for the benefit of people living in the geographical area in which those assets were generated, acquired, developed, or (in the case of physical buildings) situated.” It also recommended inserting clause 25.4 to reflect the current wording in the deed that “If the Board … is unable to make decisions … in accordance with [clause 25], the Trust Assets must be disposed of in accordance with the directions of the High Court under section 27 of the Charitable Trusts Act”.

These clauses that are being inserted are really important. It’s important that the intent of the development of the trust is honoured if there were to be a wind-up in future and that there is some proportionality in terms of where those assets were actually developed in those geographical areas, so that it doesn’t become a situation where, if there was a wind-up, that asset distribution could go to places that hadn’t contributed in a strong way to the actual development of the trust and its assets.

We all know in this House how important it is that people are housed, that they’re housed well, that it’s affordable, that they get security of tenure, that they have homes that are warm and dry, and that they are able to improve their health and their overall wellbeing outcomes. That’s why we, in the Labour Party, are always so supportive of any mechanism that can help to ensure greater delivery of social and affordable housing. I congratulate the member again on taking this bill through the House, and I know that it will pass tonight, and this will enable this excellent community housing trust to continue its good work in the community. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

19:36

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill will enable the excellent model of Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust to expand beyond its current boundaries. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill.

19:38

Thank you, Madam Chair. As you’ve rightly pointed out, this is a bill of five clauses. That’s one part, and the preamble is a relatively substantial part of the bill.

In the preamble, it sets out that Trust Horizon is a registered charity in terms of what that charity can do under the Energy Companies Act 1992 and what it has done, and then it talks the energy-related purposes. Before we get into the questions about this, I just would like to congratulate the member Dana Kirkpatrick, who has brought this bill to the House on behalf of her local community and has worked across the House to ensure that people have access to information and support the bill. That doesn’t mean we don’t have some questions, though, as we go through in terms of this.

In terms of the preamble, one of the main things that this centres on, and we’ll come more to this also when we get to clause 3 of the bill, which is the purpose clause—that’s the other bit where we’ll get a chance to discuss this. But this is really cutting to the heart of it in the preamble, where it says, in recital (10), that “The trustees consider that it is desirable to amend the terms of trust to—(a) broaden the Trust’s objects”. That’s really what this bill is doing. It’s saying that this trust can do more than fund energy-related projects and it wants to broaden it out. There was a lot of talk around that.

Now, this is a relatively important point for us to consider, because this is coinciding with some work the Government is currently putting through in terms of looking at changes for electricity distribution businesses—or our EDBs—or our lines companies, as civilians are more likely to call them, and the way in which they operate and how this will intersect with some of the changes that are going through with that work. I do note that there is different legislation that covers different kinds of lines companies and I have been in discussion with the member Dana Kirkpatrick, whose bill this is in the name of, and she has provided me some of the advice that she’s received around the intersection with that broader work that the Government is currently going through around reforming our lines companies. I’d be interested to hear from the member in the chair any further elucidation that he could give us on behalf of the sponsoring member on that.

19:41

The bill’s preamble notes that the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 allows the High Court to approve a variation of a trust deed. Under the Act, the court has the power to vary the purpose of a trust in certain circumstances.

In relation to this and what the member Megan Woods is asking around energy-related purposes, the Ministry of Justice’s advice to the Social Services and Community Committee was that, to the best of its knowledge, 35 trusts were established following the Energy Companies Act 1992, including Trust Horizon. Of those trusts, there are only six other charitable trusts. Those six charitable trusts are the Otago Central Electric Power Board, now Central Lakes Trust; the EnergyDirect Community Trust, now Hutt Mana Charitable Trust; Powerco Wanganui Trust, now Four Regions Trust; Rotorua Energy Charitable Trust; Taranaki Electricity Trust; and the TECT Community Trust. None of those six charitable trusts are limited to energy-related purposes. The proposal to broaden the trust’s charitable purposes therefore brings it into line with other charitable trusts. It does not seek special treatment.

19:42

I appreciate the position that the member Tom Rutherford is filling in for a colleague here, but there are some very specific questions, and I know that there are some officials in the Chamber that may be able to assist with this.

It’s really about how this bill is going to sit alongside option 3B in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s current Discussion document for the electricity distribution businesses. This is a piece of work that is looking at how it is that our electricity distribution businesses are going to operate. Option 3B relates to restricting ancillary investments in activities; requiring electricity distribution revenues to be spent on electricity distribution services; prudent dividend policies and prioritising consumer rebates; and affordability outcomes ahead of distribution used for broader community purposes, such as community grants. That’s explicitly in a discussion document that the Government has under way. This is really how this private bill is going to sit alongside those changes if they were to be enacted. I’m sure that the officials can give some advice. It’s really around the nature of this being a charitable trust and the different structure a number of our lines companies have.

None the less, I think it is important that, as this bill goes into this committee stage—given that this discussion document that I’m talking about has come out since the select committee process concluded, so this wasn’t an issue that was able to be discussed at the Social Services and Community Committee, or for members to ask questions about it, because it is quite fundamental that we have one part of Government that’s got a discussion document out there restricting the ability of lines companies to make investments in ancillary services. I mean, we have seen examples of lines companies buying wineries, for example, and, as much as people might like to buy wineries, I think many of us can agree that it probably isn’t the core purpose of a lines company. So just how and what advice has been received, if any, and how does that sit alongside that piece of work?

19:44

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the member Megan Woods for the question. I do have advice on that. The question the member is asking about is about option 3B in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s Discussion document for the electricity distribution businesses, which was published in August 2026. Option 3B relates to restricting ancillary investments and activities, requiring electricity distribution revenues to be spent on electricity distribution services, prudent dividend policies, and prioritising consumer rebates and affordability outcomes ahead of distributions used for broader community purposes, such as community grants.

The answer to the member’s question is that the ability to progress and implement such reforms would not in any way be impeded by the passage of the current bill. The sort of reforms contemplated in option 3B, if they did become Government policy, could only be implemented by primary legislation, so any changes on the line company reform would require primary legislation. Nothing in this bill would prevent any reform by primary legislation that may come out in future reforms.

19:46

I appreciate the member Tom Rutherford getting that advice, and I also appreciate that this wouldn’t restrict the ability to change primary legislation. The question is more flipped the other way; that if those changes were to go through, such as outlined in option 3B in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment discussion document, whether they’d have to come back and make changes to this trust.

I’m no fortune-teller, so I can’t tell you what may or may not happen with future legislation, but my understanding is that you would not have to come back and change this legislation if that legislation was to progress in the future.

I am not quite sure about scope, either, because a discussion document is not law. This bill is going through the passage of legislation under the current laws, not future laws, if any. So I think we’ve probably exhausted that topic.

19:47

Thank you, Madam Chair. As I said, it is an important context for this bill that has changed since it went through the select committee stage, so it was important to have the opportunity to ask those questions.

My questions, now, are around the changes that will be a result of this piece of legislation, which is that we can have this energy trust, who are able to distribute money for things other than energy purposes. They have around $200 million worth of assets in the energy field, but this will open it up. There will be housing, community, sports, cultural, a whole range of organisations that potentially can get grants from this trust.

One of the things that hasn’t been dealt with in this legislation and the change around it is prioritisation. I’m just wanting to know whether this is something that the member Dana Kirkpatrick, who is sponsoring the bill—and I appreciate it’s a different member in the chair—has received any advice or had discussion with officials or, indeed, with the trust around prioritisation. The Act is silent on this; it merely changes the purpose of how the money can be distributed and expands it out—for example, was there any discussion around protected minimum allocations for energy initiatives? Was that something that was anticipated? While it’s broadening out, I think most people can see that there’s a whole lot more that needs to be done in energy. I think we can look at the SEANZ—the Sustainable Energy Association of New Zealand—we can look at the contribution they made in their submission to the Social Services and Community Committee on this, which argued that we are far from having our lines companies exhaust the opportunities of where they could be supporting communities in terms of electrification and what could be done then. Was there discussion of protected minimum allocations for energy initiatives within this area?

Likewise, funding for household energy hardship. Was this something that was discussed in terms of talking about whether there would be a protected minimum that would go to funding for household energy hardship? We know there are so many families across New Zealand—no doubt in this part of New Zealand, as well—who at the moment are really struggling to pay their power bills. Would this be seen as something that is a priority for the trust?

Likewise, was there a discussion about whether there would be protected ring-fences for energy efficiency? What could we do to make our homes and our businesses more efficient, both from a cost perspective but also from a health perspective?

I’m lucky enough to live in a region of New Zealand where, when you put together with EECA’s Warmer Kiwi Homes, some homeowners can be in the position of not having to pay anything for their insulation upgrades because there are other organisations that come in and pay the difference. And we see the real health benefits of that. So was there a discussion of a ringfence for that?

Likewise with local resilience, we know that, when it comes to our lines infrastructure, those poles and wires are having to put up with more and more extreme weather events; it seems like every couple of months. Was there any discussion or advice around how the trust could be investing more to ensure that this region is more energy resilient, that it was able to withstand those storms that we know are happening particularly in this part of the world? Would that be a priority for investment, or how would that be decided?

Likewise, was there discussion about whether or not the trust could invest in generation and renewable generation? It’s quite a different business from what they’re currently doing, in terms of investing in poles and wires and electricity distribution, and traditionally we don’t see those two things coming together. The broadening of the trust’s objective would theoretically allow for the investment also in electricity generation, so I’d be interested to know whether, in terms of prioritisation, that was something that was discussed.

And, likewise, community energy projects: we know that community energy, and particularly community batteries, offers some real opportunities to communities up and down the country—no doubt in this part of the world as well—in terms of households being able to afford their power bills and offering ways in which people that don’t own the roof that sits above them—[Time expired] Madam Chair?

Have you got more?

I’ll just finish this question. They don’t own the roof that sits above them. Has there been consideration of how there may be more that can be invested into that area—about how this will be prioritised—given that the bill is silent on it?

19:52

The bill broadens the trust’s purposes from narrowly defined energy-related activities to the wider concept of charitable purposes while preserving the trust’s focus on benefitting the people of the district. The Trust Horizon now holds assets worth more than $200 million; yet, under its current rules, it has found itself increasingly limited in the range of projects that it can support. Meanwhile, the communities of the eastern bay do face real challenges in areas such as housing, education, health, employment, environmental protection, and community wellbeing. This bill would allow the trust to respond to some of those needs. As I’ve said, it does have sizeable assets, over $200 million, but the trust is limited.

The member asked around the trustees and whether it was going to be defined in the legislation, around what may be in or what may be out for them to potentially want to invest some of the money in. I would say that the local trustees are elected to the board, and, on our side of the House, we are supportive of local members making local decisions in the best interests of local communities, and the local trustees are elected to that trust to make those decisions. If I think of one in my home patch of Tauranga, we have TECT, who do fantastic work. Again, they have local trustees elected to their board, who make informed decisions based on the proposals that are put to them, so I don’t think it would be appropriate for Wellington to set in legislation what is in and what is out. Ultimately, I trust the locally elected trustees to make the best decision possible.

19:54

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I think there’s a little bit to go.

Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I first just acknowledge the member who’s in the chair on behalf of Dana Kirkpatrick, who was the member who’s seeing this bill through the Parliament. I guess it’s appropriate that it’s Mr Rutherford. He’s tangentially near the area that we’re talking about here, as is my colleague the Hon Jan Tinetti.

I want to look at recital (7) of the preamble. This is in relation to “Energy Related Purposes”, and it’s to do with the definition, basically, that’s outlined there. Now, the former teacher in me identifies that there is a proper noun in the legislation here, which is in relation to “the District of New Zealand’s energy resources”. It’s a proper noun, because it’s capitalised, whereas the small “d” district is elsewhere in the relevant clause.

A teachable moment.

Thank you, Mr Mooney. Thank you—any time. My question there is: why is it not just related to “New Zealand”? It might be that there’s a particular reason in energy sorts of spheres or circles why districts are required, but if we were to just relate it to “New Zealand’s energy resources”, how might that differ from simply not having the proper noun there?

I just have two other questions, and I’m happy to do them now, Madam Chair?

Yes, please.

OK. The second one is in relation to recital (7)(f) of the preamble, and this is in relation to when the beneficial use criteria would kick in.

It talks about the “Acquiring equity in the Company up to the maximum of 25% of the Issued Capital of the Company:” Now, of course, this is its own piece of legislation and so effectively anything that’s stated there in isolation could trump any other existing legislation because it should stand on its own merits. My question is why the threshold is there, where it has come from, and whether it is—and it might just be that it is contained elsewhere, in perhaps the deed or other documentation around this. When we’re talking about a ceiling of 25 percent, is it related to some other existence somewhere else, as opposed to having a specified amount outlined in the legislation itself?

Then my final question, Madam Chair, and picking up on the comment that you yourself made: there is reference here around how this bill will effectively curtail the ability for it to have to come back to Parliament. I think it’s recital 10(b) of the preamble, actually. It says, “This power will also allow for any further variations that may be required in the future without having to seek a further private Act and without requiring Parliament to consider the details …”, which I think is actually probably wise. However, the way in which that provision effectively kicks in is where the approval of the High Court is given. It’s not just saying that, in terms of seeking to change aspects of this, we’re going to take up Parliament’s time, but it provides an avenue to effectively mitigate or prevent the use of Parliament’s time by going through the High Court.

My question to the member is: is that the appropriate mechanism? I think it’s appropriate that there is a mechanism, but why is it that, effectively, a decree or a decision of the High Court is the appropriate—and there are many courts in this country; why it is that the High Court is the appropriate one?

19:57

I have a question for the member in the chair, Tom Rutherford, around recital 7(b) of the preamble, “Energy Related Purposes”, which states, “Improvements to the supply of electricity to the general public in rural or remote areas in the District by replacing inadequate or unreliable supply systems.” Horizon’s network, according to the Commerce Commission’s disclosures, collected $38 million in line-charge revenue in 2025, while its three-year average capital expenditure (CAPEX) on asset replacement and renewal—I would expect some of it is in rural or remote areas, but their average annual expenditure on CAPEX was only $6.6 million a year despite collecting $38 million in line-charge revenue. I’m interested in the claim that energy-related opportunities have been exhausted with an electricity network that, Horizon themselves say, continues to require substantial renewal and replacement.

The second question—I see the member’s taking advice—is that Horizon’s network have stated in their current price path that they’re embarking on a $225 million, 10-year investment programme, and they’ve separately sought to reopen its regulated price path for the $14.2 million Ōpōtiki upgrade. The Commerce Commission’s draft decision would allow another $4.9 million to be recovered from consumers. Did the trust or the promoter of this bill get any advice on whether any part of that project, the Ōpōtiki one as an example, or complementary reliability and consumer support projects could fall within the trust’s existing energy-related objectives? Given that the trust has $200 million, it has claimed, sitting in its bank account, that begs a number of questions. Have they not adequately invested in asset renewals and upgrades, in line with the needs of their asset over the period that this large amount of money has been accrued and that they pay dividends to the trust? That’s a question that needs to be asked and answered.

The second one is: given that energy-related purposes in the current trust legislation provides for them to fund improvements by replacing inadequate or unreliable supply systems, wouldn’t that fall squarely in the remit of upgrading assets, whether they be transformers or poles and lines, in accordance with that clause, all around rural and remote areas? Thank you.

20:00

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just coming back to a couple of questions that Tangi Utikere asked, he asked around energy-related purposes, meaning purposes which relate to some aspects of the beneficial use, application, or enjoyment in the District of New Zealand’s energy resources, and he highlighted the word “District”. The history of local trusts has been always to have a focus on local assets to local needs.

He asked around recital (7)(f), acquiring equity in a company up to a maximum of 25 percent. There is no maximum. This was addressed by the courts in 2000 through the legislation there.

There was a question around the word “District”, Mr Utikere—if I was in your classroom, I would address you that way, sir—around whether it was a capital “D” or a little “d”. Well, it’s defined in the trust deed in clause 1.1 and clause 6 and means “territory over which the Bay of Plenty Electric Power Board was authorised to supply electricity”, hence why that has a capital “D” in this case.

There was a question around “Why the High Court?” It’s because the High Court exercises jurisdiction over trusts, particularly charitable trusts.

To Mr Court’s question around why in the last year, I can’t remember the figures exactly off the top of my head, but there were significant—hundreds of millions of dollars and then only a few million. My understanding is that they have a completely separate entity that undertakes that work in rural and remote communities across the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

20:02

Just to follow up the question, for the member’s benefit, Horizon Networks collected $38 million in line-charge revenue in 2025, while its three-year average capital expenditure on asset replacement renewal was only $6.6 million a year. That is a very large difference in the amount of money they are collecting from customers versus what they’re spending on asset replacement and renewal. If there’s one thing the Infrastructure Commission has made clear and that parties across the House agree on, it’s that infrastructure operators should be spending at least 60c of every dollar that they spend on asset renewal and maintenance. The question for the member in the chair, Tom Rutherford, is: how can the claim be reconciled that energy-related opportunities have been exhausted when Horizon Networks itself says the energy network continues to require substantial renewal and replacement?

The second question, which I don’t believe I got a clear answer to, was: given the trust’s energy-related purposes recital (7)(b) is very clear that the trust can distribute money to replace inadequate or unreliable supply, particularly in rural or remote areas, it seems like there is a good case for the trust to do a better job of identifying, separately from Horizon Networks, a regulated price pathway in terms of recovering costs from consumers and making investments. The trust itself has an opportunity to make additional investments in asset maintenance and renewal outside of what Horizon Networks are doing. That has not been adequately explained through the committee stage, and it hasn’t been adequately explained to the House yet this evening.

20:04

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to Simon Court for his questions. The lines company is a separate entity to the trust. The trust owns the shares in the lines company, but decisions about maintenance and upkeep of the assets are decisions for the company; they are not decisions for the trust. The trust can only spend their money for charitable energy-related purposes, upkeep of assets or the like, and not for the charity per se. For example, the $200 million that I talked about also is not funds that they hold in a bank account; it is largely the value of the electricity network.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I knew you would do that. No, I think there are some unanswered questions yet.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Carrying on from Simon Court’s excellent questions, which actually haven’t been addressed yet, the fact that this is a charitable trust that happens to also be a lines company is, I think, something that is well understood by everybody here. The whole point of contention at the select committee, and something that we want to probe a bit more in committee stage, is this question: have the energy-related expenditure opportunities been exhausted? It requires an answer of “yes” in order to say that therefore we should be funding different things. It is an absolutely pertinent question. I don’t think that has been adequately addressed. I can see the member Tom Rutherford is getting some more advice there.

It comes to where I started in terms of the contributions and questions I was making around the discussion document that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has out at the moment. This is a question that is being asked of all lines companies at the moment—exactly the question, Mr Court—in terms of the proportion of what has been collected from consumers, i.e., everyday New Zealanders who are struggling to pay their power bills, and what is being reinvested back into those networks to make sure they’re resilient.

The other further question I have for the member in the chair is: has the trust looked at non-network solutions? Often, we know that non-network solutions actually are going to provide more efficient, more affordable, and more resilient options for consumers. Non-network solutions—we get to a point where we don’t expect our lines companies to just build poles and wires, as they have for 100-odd years, but actually we start to see things like solar and batteries and more distributed energy systems as a far better alternative for some communities, particularly, many of the lines companies will tell me, when it comes to rural upgrades. This is particularly important when it comes to the area that this bill is discussing and whether or not that is something that has been considered.

If we can take the question back to its bare bones—and I would never purport to speak for Mr Court, but I think if we strip back the question that the committee is still wanting to know—it is: what evidence is there that the trust has exhausted all its energy-related opportunities for expenditure? We know that this is pretty much a limitless piece of string in terms of what needs to be invested across all of New Zealand, including the Bay of Plenty, that we’re discussing tonight. I think that’s what the committee is interested in hearing about.

20:07

I’m advised that there are not enough applications lodged, plus the trust goes out proactively to their community and they have expended all available income where they can, hence why they are seeking to broaden their remit. For example, 60 percent of the total houses in their district have been retrofitted for insulation already, and under the current parameters, as set out in the legislation that it is working in at the moment, they are confined to how they can spend the income that the trust has at present.

Madam Chair.

Is this new material?

No, it’s a follow-up question for the answer the member just gave.

The Hon Dr Megan Woods.

20:08

The member Tom Rutherford has just told us that they have gone out and they have proactively looked for opportunities for expenditure and that they’ve left no stone unturned. I appreciate the position the member is in, but it does go back to Mr Court’s question. This is an organisation that collected $36 million. I think $36 million was the number, Mr Court, that they collected from consumers in this area last year. Have they really exhausted all their opportunities if they’re still continuing to collect $36 million from consumers in that area? Why haven’t other alternatives been looked at?

20:09

The trust doesn’t collect any money from consumers.

Unless there’s new material, we are moving on.

I really do think that that is an unanswered question. I think we’re dancing on the head of a pin when we’re talking about the difference between the trust and the lines company. This was established under the energy Act, but nevertheless, we will move on because there are other questions. Those questions are around how different communities are going to be represented in terms of these decisions. These are quite different decisions that will be being made. They’re not all going to be energy-related.

So how will that community representation come in on a trust—that’s my first question. How will iwi and local residents be represented when it comes to this new bigger basket of funding opportunities that the trust can look at? Will local residents and iwi have a formal role in terms of making those decisions? Earlier, when I asked the member about how it was and whether there were going to be protected minimums, I think there was a little bit of misunderstanding. I wasn’t for a moment saying that it should be prescribed in the legislation. I can see it’s not in the legislation before us. My question was to whether there had been advice. This is in the same vein. I know it’s not in the legislation, but I would expect that the member who brought the bill would have asked some questions around the decision making and the governance of this and both how those grant decisions will be made and how they will be made transparent.

The other is—because this is covering a relatively broad geographic area in terms of the area it covers—what is going to be done to ensure that there’s geographic equity? We’re not just talking about energy-related decisions now. When we were talking about energy-related decisions, there were very prescribed pathways that needed to be decided. What was needed where was far more obvious in terms of the needs of a particular community in terms of its distribution business, but when it comes to now looking at distributing this money to community groups and sports clubs and other charitable purposes, how will the trust and the board that it is elected to make decisions about energy? What will be put in place to ensure that they are ensuring that all the communities who fall under the rohe of this trust deed—how will they be protected and looked after in here?

20:12

The member asked around how the communities in and amongst the district will make sure that, effectively, they get their fair share of the pie. There are six trustees on the trust. There are three wards—two from the Whakatāne ward, one from Ōpōtiki, and one from Kawerau. Those four elected trustees then subsequently appoint two other trustees to the board to make up the total six. They each have their geographical spread from across their communities, but they will ultimately consider all of the applications that are before them to make those decisions. None of the other trusts across the rest of the country are specified in legislation from Parliament that says, “You must divvy it up to this part here and that part there and this part here of the district.” Those decisions are best made by the locally elected trustees who know their communities better than anybody else.

20:13

I move, That debate on this question now close.

20:14

Thank you. Just a very quick question. The title itself talks about inserting “trust variation”. Now, I don’t know if this bill has been previously amended by the Parliament, and certainly the preamble that we’ve just agreed to provides the mechanism through the High Court for it to not necessarily come back. So why is it not just referred to as “variation” as opposed to “trust variation”?

Madam Chair.

Just getting some advice.

20:15

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the member Tangi Utikere for his patience while I got some advice. Because it’s varying the trust deed, and all other trusts that have gone through this process have the same thing in the title.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a very short question here. I just want to clear something up for the member in the chair. Nobody has been suggesting that we should put into legislation criteria for decision making or indeed prescribing amounts that need to be ring-fenced. It has more been asking the member in the chair whether the member who was sponsoring the bill discussed this and had advice on it. They are absolutely things that should be asked at this committee stage.

The question I have here in the purpose clause—which is obviously that the purpose of the Act is to amend the terms by broadening the trust’s objectives from energy-related purposes to charitable purposes. The member who’s sitting in the chair has told us at some length the way that this is an elected trust—it’s democratically elected for four-year terms. We could all learn from this trust, maybe, that it has elected. But these were members that were elected to run a board for energy-related purposes. I just wondered if there had been any advice or any discussion with officials about whether or not they needed to be seeking a new mandate from the local communities and population that this was a board now that was going to be fulfilling a very different function—it wasn’t just going to be making decisions on energy-related matters and purposes; it was now going to be broadened out to charitable purposes, which we’ve canvased when discussing the preamble—and whether the member who sponsored this bill sought advice about whether it was advisable that a new mandate and perhaps fresh elections may be required for the trust board.

20:17

There was an election held on Wednesday, 1 October 2025 for two vacancies on the trust. Alongside that, there was also a consumer poll that was held at the same time. The question that was put was: “Do you support Trust Horizon proceeding with a variant bill to Parliament for the purpose of varying the trust deed, dated 1 August 1994 trust deed, to widen and clarify the charitable purposes in the trust deed?” The result was 80.7 percent in favour of doing so and 19.3 percent opposed. That, to me, would seem there is extremely strong community support and mandate for the change that is happening tonight.

20:20

on behalf of Dana Kirkpatrick (National—East Coast): I move, That the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill be now read a third time.

Today marks the final stage of a bill that is simple in its drafting but potentially transformative in its impact on the communities of Whakatāne, Kawerau, Ōpōtiki, and Kaingaroa.

Before I dive into the detail around what this bill is actually doing, there is a person who is not here this evening who deserves a huge amount of credit for the work that she has put in to get the bill to where it is today, and that is the local member of Parliament Dana Kirkpatrick, the member for East Coast. I know you’re going to give me a telling off, Madam Speaker; I can see it in your eyes—I can see it in your eyes; say less, say less.

It was probably the shaking of the head.

But Dana Kirkpatrick has been the leader of this piece of legislation from day dot as the local member of Parliament. She’s done phenomenal work getting it to this stage, and to Dana we say thank you for your tireless advocacy on behalf of your local East Coast electorate and getting this bill here today to its third and final reading before the House rises.

Dana Kirkpatrick is proud to sponsor the bill on behalf of Trust Horizon and the people the trust was created to serve. Trust Horizon traces its origins to the electricity sector reforms of the 1990s. Established in 1994 as the Bay of Plenty Electricity Consumer Trust, it was created to ensure that the benefits of community ownership would continue to flow back to local people. Over time, it became the Eastern Bay Energy Trust and, more recently, Trust Horizon.

For more than three decades, the trust has been an outstanding steward of community assets. It’s distributed more than $50 million in grants and community investment, projects that have strengthened local communities, created opportunities, and improved quality of life across the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

Yet despite that success, the trust has been constrained by a trust deed that limits its funding to charitable projects that can be classified as energy-related purposes. Those restrictions may have made sense in 1994, but they no longer reflect the needs and aspirations of the communities the trust serves.

I refer to the example used at length in the second reading of the trust being able to pay for solar panels on the sports club roof but not being able to fund fixing the roof itself. One of the most important pieces to understand is why the trust could not just apply a rebate to all electricity users in its region, which many people asked about. I think it needs to be explained that the charitable status of the trust means this was not possible. Widespread rebates do not meet the charitable test, despite what many people think, and so this avenue was simply not possible.

This bill broadens the trust’s purposes from narrowly defined energy-related activities to the wider concept of charitable purposes, while preserving the trust’s focus on benefiting the people of its district. It also establishes a sensible mechanism for future amendments to the trust deed, subject to High Court approval, removing the need for a future Parliament to revisit every minor change.

The need for this change is clear. Trust Horizon now holds assets worth more than $200 million, yet under its current rules it’s found itself increasingly limited in the range of projects it can support. Meanwhile, the communities of the Eastern Bay of Plenty face very real challenges in areas such as housing, education, health, employment, environmental protection, and community wellbeing. This bill allows the trust to respond to those needs.

Importantly, the bill is not about abandoning the trust’s historical mission. Energy-related initiatives will continue to be supported. In fact, they remain an important part of the trust’s work and identity. What changes is that energy projects will no longer be the only projects that are eligible for support.

When we look at the trust’s record, we can see why this change is so exciting. Trust Horizon has invested in warmer, healthier homes and community initiatives. It has supported education and skills development programmes for rangatahi. It has backed community facilities, marae, arts and cultural projects, environmental restoration, and healthcare-related initiatives. Over the years, its funding has touched almost every corner of community life.

In the past year, the trust provided funding to support the construction of a new wharekai at Ōmaio marae—excuse my pronunciation, Madam Speaker—helping strengthen a vital community hub. It supported social and healthcare services to help power 15 new affordable homes. It funded lighting and sound upgrades for the historic De Luxe Theatre in Ōpōtiki and supported science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education initiatives in local schools.

Through its community grants programme, the trust helped purchase an electric van for Waka Eastern Bay, improving transport access for those who need it most. It funded predator control technology for conservation projects around Ōhiwa Harbour. It established a Community Energy Contribution Grant fund that has assisted dozens of marae and community organisations with energy costs and supported Galatea School to extend the use of its swimming pool through energy-efficient heating infrastructure.

Beyond grants, the trust has also taken a long-term approach to community investment. It has invested in local solar development, supported innovation in environmental projects, contributed to housing initiatives, and backed economic development opportunities that create jobs and prosperity within the region. It has demonstrated a commitment not only to providing grants but to building a strong future for the Eastern Bay.

When an organisation with that track record tells us it can do even more if unnecessary restrictions are removed, Parliament should listen. The overwhelmingly positive response from the community—the 80 percent of people that I just spoke about that voted in favour from the local community for this—confirms that view. The trust engaged extensively with stakeholders, iwi, community organisations, and the public. The support received demonstrated that local people understand the benefits this bill can unlock.

I want to acknowledge the work of the Social Services and Community Committee. The committee carefully considered the bill, heard submissions, and reported it back with unanimous support. The committee process reinforced the conclusion that this is a practical, sensible, and community-focused proposal. I thank the trustees of Trust Horizon: chair David Glover; chief executive Derek Caudwell, who was here this evening in support of me—and a big thankyou to you, Derek, and to Jono Orpin-Dowell KC for his advice as well—and their advisers, submitters, community members, and all those who have contributed to this process.

Most importantly, I acknowledge the generations of people across the Eastern Bay who have supported and benefited from Trust Horizons’ work over the past 30 years. Private bills are often highly local in their focus. They may not affect the entire country, but they can make an enormous difference to the communities that they serve. This bill, to the Eastern Bay, is one of those measures. It respects the original intent behind Trust Horizon, it preserves the community ownership legacy created through electricity sector reforms, and it allows a successful local trust to better meet the challenges and opportunities of the future.

I also wish to acknowledge the Parliamentary Counsel Office. While private bills may be local in their effect, they are no less important to the people who rely on them. The expertise, guidance, and professionalism of the Parliamentary Counsel Office throughout the drafting and legislative process has been invaluable, and I thank them for their contribution.

Most importantly, I want to acknowledge Trust Horizon itself. David Glover and Derek Caudwell, their advisers, trustees, leadership team, and staff have shown considerable vision, commitment, and perseverance in bringing this proposal forward. It would’ve been easier to continue operating within the existing framework, but instead they have looked beyond the status quo and asked how the trust can better serve future generations of its own community. For more than 30 years, Trust Horizon has been a careful steward of community assets, investing more than $50 million back into the people and communities of the Eastern Bay of Plenty. From supporting marae, schools, environmental projects, housing initiatives, community facilities, and local economic development, the trust has consistently demonstrated a commitment to improving lives across the region.

This bill is the result of that same forward-looking approach. It reflects a desire not simply to preserve a legacy but to build upon it. The trustees recognise that the needs of our communities have evolved, and the trust’s ability to respond should evolve as well. Their leadership and determination have brought us to this point, and they deserve recognition for that achievement.

At its heart, this legislation is about unlocking opportunity, empowering communities, and ensuring that the benefits of community-owned assets continue to flow to the people they were always intended to serve. On behalf of Dana Kirkpatrick, the hard-working local MP for the East Coast electorate, she is incredibly proud to have sponsored this bill on behalf of Trust Horizon and her communities of Whakatāne, Kawerau, Ōpōtiki, and Kaingaroa. So, on her behalf, I commend the bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

20:30

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to join that member, Tom Rutherford, who has just taken his seat, in congratulating Dana Kirkpatrick for the work that she has done on this bill. Private bills and local bills usually do spring from that very important work of being someone on the ground in a community and understanding what the needs are. I commend Dana Kirkpatrick for that work. I also commend Dana for her work to get cross-party agreement on this bill, as is often the case with local and private bills. It shows how a local MP can bring other people from across the House around a local issue. Well done; it is an achievement for Dana to do that.

This doesn’t mean we don’t have questions about this bill. We are supporting it. It has been really stressed how important this bill is to a local community, but this bill sits in the context of a huge amount of change in the New Zealand energy system and what needs to happen. I think this bill really highlights the tangled situation we have when it comes to our distribution businesses in New Zealand. We have three categories of lines companies, as normal people would call them, or, as those in the sector would call them, EDBs, or electricity distribution businesses. But there are three distinct types of EDBs.

There can be private trusts, which exist to make distributions to consumers; there can be charitable trusts; and then there can be mixed private and charitable trusts. To make this even more complicated, what we are talking about tonight and what led to some of the questions in the chair becoming more complicated than they needed to is that the dividends policies of trust-owned EDBs can differ, as well. What we have is Trust Horizon owning Horizon Energy Group, including Horizon Networks.

I don’t expect anyone to be following along from that. My point is that we have an incredibly complicated and messy situation with what is one of the most important elements of how it is that we electrify New Zealand and we reduce bills for New Zealand households and businesses. This bill sits squarely in the context of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment being out at the moment for consultation around what we need our lines companies to look like in the 21st century, what we need to do.

Now, I don’t think this Government’s work is going far enough in terms of imagining what a 21st century New Zealand lines company ecosystem would look like. For example, we need to be considering if there is a requirement for a lines company to demonstrate that building poles and wires is the least-cost measure they can take, and that they have considered alternatives like non-network solutions, like putting batteries and solar in place before they just keep doing what they’ve been doing for 100 years, which is building poles and wires. When it comes to many of our rural upgrades, for example, or a number of our commercial or industrial companies, actually, poles and wires are not the least-cost option that should be followed.

I do not for a moment think this would be a reason not to vote for this bill, because this bill actually just brings Horizon Trust into line with many of its counterparts around the country. It does not result in Trust Horizon having an unusual purpose compared to other EDB-related trusts with charitable purposes that exist around the country. The opposite is, in fact, the case. Of the six EDB-related trusts with charitable purposes, Trust Horizon is the only trust that is limited to energy-related purposes. The other five trusts are for charitable purposes, broadly defined in a way that is analogous to that proposed in this bill.

If anyone is confused, I’m not surprised, and this is a big part of the problem: we do have this incredibly tangled situation. I think we need to ask ourselves, as a country: what do we need to invest in our distribution infrastructure to deliver low-cost electricity to New Zealand homes and businesses over the coming 50 and 100 years? Then we need to say: have we exhausted all the possible ways that we could be investing in our communities for cheaper power, for more resilient power, for power that we can trust and that we know best serves our community? I would be gobsmacked if any region of New Zealand can say, hand on heart, “We’ve got that covered. We’ve got all the money we need to invest in the infrastructure we need for electrification.” Simon Court asked some very good questions in the committee stage demonstrating that—what the requirements are of what we actually need to be reinvesting into those.

For me, that is what it comes down to—not just for Horizon Trust. I fully appreciate why Horizon Trust wants to make itself the same as the five others in the category that it belongs to, but as a country, we need to be thinking about: how do we do this properly and where does this bill fit within this? Now, of course, if there needed to be legislation that reorganised the way in which we required EDBs to do things—after all, there is a live consultation document—it’s not going to preclude us doing any of that. But we do need to be thinking, and this bill is a reminder of the very messy situation that we’ve got around our energy system: the way it’s owned, the way it’s operated, the way it’s held.

I know that there are incredibly good people up and down the country that are doing the best for their communities, and they do it with the best of intentions, but whether that is the way in which we can ensure that we have all the investment we need for the next 100 years is something we do, as a country, need to give thought to. I do think that local communities need to be incredibly involved in any decisions about their own electricity systems. They know where the pinch points are when the storm comes through; they know the areas where the power goes out—they know these kinds of things, and that is incredibly important. I’m not for a moment saying we shouldn’t be doing that, but we do need to take stock and ask ourselves: have we really invested everything we need to in the energy system we need for the 21st century?

That said, Labour is happy to support this bill, and I congratulate Dana Kirkpatrick for the work she has done on it.

20:37

Thank you. I rise to support the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill. I want to say a few things about community energy trusts, talk a little bit about why there is an uneven distribution of them, and then make a few points about what could happen in that beautiful region of Whakatāne and the East Coast. I would like to say that I have not been at the Social Services and Community Committee, but I have looked at some of the submissions and I’ve talked to our energy spokesperson, Scott Willis, on this matter, as well.

Community energy trusts in New Zealand have a unique and exceptional role to play to end our national exposure to volatile international fossil fuel prices, to electrify our nation, and to deliver affordable and locally resilient power. Our vision is distributed, affordable, decarbonised power for all of us—think distributed, not Think Big.

I was very interested to hear Mr Rutherford speak, first of all, highly of Dana, which I would absolutely agree—Dana Fitzpatrick, who’s led this—

Kirkpatrick.

Kirkpatrick—thank you. I’d also like to endorse his particular example drawn from the select committee process of saying it doesn’t make sense to insulate the roof, to put solar panels on top of the roof, and then to not be able to fix the roof itself. That’s very sensible. But what I’d like to draw attention to was that very eloquent speech about how that side of the House really supported local trusts with elected members being able to do what they thought was right without direction from Wellington. Well, it would be lovely if you’d just spread that to include elected members and councils, as well—but it does show that I was listening to that third point. We do support this bill, but we’d like to make it clear that, instead of just broadening the trust’s rule, it was very important to make sure that the energy-related purposes remained, as well as being able to do other things, because there is a lot of work to be done.

I’d like to say two things about energy trusts, in general, that relate to this bill. Here we’ve got Whakatāne and that area—Kawerau and so forth—having a really good trust that has kept its assets and is able to do a lot of good work and wants to do more good work. There are gaps around this country where there are no energy trusts, and I’ll come to that in a moment, but I also want to think of the ongoing legacy of Jeanette Fitzsimons—not Fitzpatrick; Fitzsimons—because it was Jeanette’s idea to have the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority so that we could actually have warm, healthy homes across the motu, and that legacy has endured a number of different Governments. The money has gone up and the money has gone down, but it’s still there, thank goodness.

In a cost of living crisis and a global energy crisis—and it’s worse than it was in the 1970s; not that many of you remember the 1970s—it does make sense to use the resources of Trust Horizon to enable a transition to a more local energy system that is also more resilient. It was very interesting to hear Minister Mitchell talk about resilience in emergency management and to have a real endorsement from around the House, but we do have limited resources, and I think that examples like Trust Horizon can really contribute to that.

Let’s refer to why we’re not fortunate enough to have such an energy trust in Wellington. Back in June 1996, Sue Kedgley and I campaigned against the sale of Capital Power. If we hadn’t sold all of Capital Power—not retaining anything for a community energy trust—we might have been able to look at Trust Horizon and say, “Yes, Wellington too.” But the council of the time, including, originally, an opponent of the sale of Capital Power—my colleague Mr Foster changed his mind and enabled the sale of Capital Power.

No, it’s because they changed the deal, unfortunately, Celia.

Well, you’ll have your time to speak, but that’s, I think, what the record shows.

No, I’m not going to spend that time, but you need to know a little bit more than that, because you don’t. You don’t know what you’re talking about, unfortunately.

Oh, the mayors are fighting—the mayors are fighting. Take off the chains—you’ll work it. Which one is the ball; which one is the chain?

Carry on.

I think we’ve rattled the chains quite enough! While you start off by opposing the sale of the asset and then you change your mind—despite this, we had a fantastic citizens’ jury—some of us are going to Helmut Modlik’s really interesting Re:shape conference on Saturday, which is talking about how we can hand over some decision making to the public—but we ignored collectively, at our peril, that very sensible citizens’ jury.

Finally, I would like to give a shout-out to the Community Energy Network, of which Trust Horizon is a member. The aim is to put healthy homes and community energy in the public spotlight to get community organisations talking and to inspire citizens’ engagement in our renewable transition—electrify Aotearoa, indeed. Thank you.

20:44

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak in support of the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill. I want to again add our congratulations to Dana Kirkpatrick for getting this bill through the House. As we’ve already heard, it makes a change to the trust deed to allow these broader charitable purposes for the trust in the Eastern Bay of Plenty while retaining the existing energy-focused charitable purposes.

I want to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for their work on this. Any concerns that ACT had, we got on the record through Simon Court at the committee of the whole House, and I commend the bill to the House.

20:45

New Zealand First believes in community ownership, and I think that this debate demonstrates the value of assets remaining in community ownership. The bit that Celia Wade-Brown forgot is in the first part of selling Capital Power; council also sold the controlling management control, and that basically meant that what you had left was simply shares and not control of things. So I think she neglected that minor thing. But the Greens have never been able to adapt to any change. They just keep on doing the same thing that they always ideologically do. That’s the Greens for you.

This bill is common sense. All of those issues that have been filibustered about for ages here have been dealt with through the select committee. It brings Trust Horizon in line with the other energy trusts. It allows greater benefits across the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

Finally, I’m just conscious that the next bill is the one that we really need to get through tonight. If we’re going to save the lives of New Zealanders this summer, we need to get the next bill through, so can we please get this one through as quick as possible? I commend this bill to the House.

This is a split call.

20:46

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party, and, as I sit, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise to commend this bill to the House. I’m very pleased I’ve had it go through the Social Services and Community Committee, which I chair. I thank everyone for all their hard work. It’s a brilliant bill. I congratulate Dana Kirkpatrick and everyone in her community. I commend the bill to the House.

20:47

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too would like to rise to congratulate the member Dana Kirkpatrick in bringing this bill to the House and shepherding it through and getting it to a point that across the House there is agreement in this. But I will say that the actual committee of the whole House stage—and it’s not often that we have a member in the chair that doesn’t understand or hasn’t done the work on that bill, but answers so clearly in the answers in that committee stage. I’d have to say that that was very, very well done.

I found that stage actually very enlightening, because, as the member Megan Woods said in her contribution at the third reading, this is not easy to get your head around. This is a very complex system that we have within this country, and this bill has highlighted the complexities that are involved here. While Labour has supported this bill—and I think I’ve spoken on just about every reading of this bill—that does not mean that we accept that energy-related opportunities are exhausted in our regions. I think that that is really, really important. I think that, as the nature of energy supply is changing throughout the country and technology is changing, we see that there are more and more opportunities that come in this area.

What we do agree with is that this excellent, outstanding trust has had its scope limited by legislation up until this point, and the legislation that we are passing through the third reading here this evening is a signal that the trust can go further in their scope, and that has to be a good thing. It has been pointed out tonight a number of times in a number of the contributions around the other trust areas across the country. Trust Horizon is probably the most limited up until this point of what they can achieve, so it is good to see that what we are doing here in Parliament this evening is taking that a step further and putting some purchase back into the hands of those local trust members, meaning that this particular trust will be able to make a bigger difference for their local community.

I remember saying in the first reading, when you go on to the website of Trust Horizon, how impressive this trust is. I look forward to seeing what they can do now, once this piece of legislation has passed. They already—and we heard that from the member tonight in his third reading speech—have done some incredible work in their local communities. It is good to see the many variations of people in their district, and demographics, that they have been able to support. Well, now we’re giving them the opportunity to take this one step further, and to look at different ways they can help, but making certain that energy is still at the heart of many of their decisions.

As I said, I look forward to seeing where the trust takes this with their new direction that they’ve got from this piece of legislation tonight. Along with the majority of people in this House, I commend this bill to the House.

20:51

I want to commend this bill to the House, and say thank you to Dana Kirkpatrick—who can’t be with us in the House today—for shepherding this through. This is obviously very close to me in Tauranga, and I know this is going to have a very positive impact in the Eastern Bay of Plenty, an area of high deprivation. They have a trust there, Horizon, with significant resources and a narrow scope. That will open up, and it’s going to benefit sports clubs, marae, many other social and community programmes. This is a very good day for the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Well done, Dana Kirkpatrick. I commend the bill to the House.

Dan Rosewarne. I knew where to look this time!

20:52

Thank you. Yes, absolutely. Labour is pleased to support the third reading of the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill. This is a practical bill. It’s driven by the community it serves, and it’s been improved through the select committee process, as other contributors have mentioned tonight. The purpose of this bill is pretty straightforward. It gives the Trust Horizon more flexibility to support the people and the communities of Eastern Bay of Plenty, by widening its remit beyond purely energy-related purposes, while retaining its original focus on energy. That balance is important, and it’s one of the reasons that Labour supports the changes recommended by the Social Services and Community Committee.

The Trust Horizon has a unique history. It was established through the electricity sector reforms of the 1990s, and today owns the Horizon Energy Group, including the lines company that supplies electricity throughout the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Over many years, it has built up significant assets on behalf of the community. The challenge the trust faces is that its trust deed limits how those assets can be used, even when there are clear community needs sitting right in front of it. The district it serves includes communities facing real challenges. There are schools, community groups, marae, charities, and local organisations doing great work with limited resources. The trustees have looked at their roles and asked a simple question: if they have the ability to help more people, why shouldn’t they?

More than 80 percent of respondents in the community poll that they did supported widening and clarifying the charitable purposes of the trust. When you look at what the trust has already funded, you can understand why there is confidence in that organisation. We’re not talking about a trust that’s been sitting on the sidelines; we’re talking about a trust that has funded insulation and heat pumps, supported schools with energy projects—as has been mentioned—and provided assistance for community transport. There have been environmental initiatives, as well, and helping community organisations with power costs. That track record is very important. It tells us that the trustees understand their communities and understand how to invest back into them.

I also want to acknowledge the work that the select committee has done around this bill, and I commend it to the House.

20:54

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very pleased to take a call on this member’s bill. Congratulations to Dana Kirkpatrick, like everybody else has mentioned. I think it’s really important that the trust does ensure that it meets its core purpose of energy-related initiatives, but of course, this bill provides their ability to go out for wider community needs. In the communities of Kāingaroa, Kawerau, Ōpōtiki, and Whakatāne, 80 percent voted for this to be changed, and so I commend it to the House.

20:55

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to stand and take a call on the Trust Horizon (Trust Variation) Bill this evening. We’ve heard some great contributions, and, at committee stage, too, the exploration of some of the complexities around both the context of the energy market in New Zealand but also the process of changing trust deeds like this one. The Trust Horizon charitable trust was established through the energy sector reforms under the Energy Companies Act 1992.

The thing that I really wanted to acknowledge in my contribution this evening is some of the amazing work that Trust Horizon does for local communities—some of the amazing initiatives that it supports, and the importance and the impact that this can have on the local communities. As we’ve heard, a lot of these communities are like so many in our country: communities that really are struggling with the cost of living and the challenges to be able to afford the basics at the moment.

The first one I wanted to single out here was really looking at the economic development impacts happening around the support of the Kawerau Enterprise Agency (KEA) Centre in Kawerau, which was established over 40 years ago, with the goal of stimulating new business in Kawerau, and just ensuring that the KEA Centre could be funded to be warmer, drier, and a healthier space for people to work and to get on with doing the important work that happens when businesses start up, when businesses can work closely together, share experiences, challenges, and what’s getting in the way of them being able to succeed. It’s great to see that Trust Horizon are able to support the KEA Centre to be an environment that’s going to be good and healthy and safe for people to be in, to get those businesses up and started.

The other thing that I wanted to look at here was—well, two others really. One was on this page here, which was the support of the Kiwi Trust—the trapping that they use in the Kiwi Trust to make sure that they’ve got predators under control. That’s by supporting New Zealand AutoTraps, which is a great innovative New Zealand company that creates fantastic traps that reset themselves. It’s an absolute game-changer, and it’s fantastic to see just the broad spectrum—or the full horizon, if you will—of support that the trust can provide to that community. It’s great to see that that been able to be progressed.

One that I really wanted to single out, because I think it’s so important—and we often find that, particularly in communities that don’t have access either to the funds or to the resources by virtue of not being in the major centres, often our rangatahi, our young people, miss out on the opportunities for taking those first steps into careers in our science and technology sector. There’s the STEMM support that we’re seeing that’s going into the Eastern Bay STEMM Capability Project with a grant from the Horizon Trust. All of these fantastic initiatives are supported by the trust, and, really, as others have, I wanted to single out and acknowledge the work of the local member Dana Kirkpatrick in bringing this bill into the House this evening, and, ultimately, in getting cross-party support to be able to support it, not only at this third and final reading this evening, but also to ensure that it was supported, and really robustly examined by a number of parties at committee stage. So I’m very happy to support this bill to the House this evening.

20:59

I’m really excited to see what Trust Horizon can do when this bill gets passed, so with that, I commend the bill to the House.

I commend the bill to the House.

21:00

I move, That Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

I have abbreviated my commentary here, just now, to accommodate the outcome I believe we are all hopeful of, and so I will be brief. Media have reported that this bill represents the biggest drowning prevention opportunity in a generation. It is also reported that New Zealand is on track for the deadliest year in the water in almost 25 years; Water Safety New Zealand is predicting more than 100 deaths in 2026, with 57 down and already counting.

This, then, is the problem to solve and the opportunity we have tonight to solve a part of that problem. If we could, we would want to look back at the tenfold increase in the chances of survival for 10-year-old Ryder Ferregel and his mother Gemma who, in 2022, were not wearing life jackets when their boat capsized in the Manakau Harbour. We would wish that what we look to do tonight had been in place. Two years ago, the coroner to that inquiry called for a single, nationally-consistent rule for people to wear life jackets in small boats. However, over those two years, many without life jackets have continued to drown, such as the 42-year-old man on 14 March, just this year, who fell overboard without a life jacket and drowned in Lake Manapōuri.

The Transport and Infrastructure Committee heard that 15 percent of all drownings last year were on small recreational craft without life jackets. This bill is looking to save an average of 10 lives per year, with a 60 percent reduction in small recreational craft drownings through wearing life jackets—not just carrying them, not at skipper discretion, and not varied across regional councils.

Should this bill be agreed tonight, I want to start by thanking the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and all parties for progressing this bill. This bill benefited from the select committee having members who are kayakers and previous local government leaders. Tangi Utikere commented in the second reading on the collaboration as he and I studied images he had hand drawn around water length versus boat length, and I want to thank the member. His effort was not wasted; I understand the Tate gallery are interested in his drawings! I also want to acknowledge the history of this bill, which actually starts with Sam Lotu-Iiga on 26 September 2013. I connected with Sam today and thanked him, and he was ecstatic. From then to now is 4,724 days. If we progress well tonight, this will be the seventh member’s bill in this Parliament to complete a third reading.

We know what we do today aligns with international best practice. We want the same benefits that Tasmania had when they introduced exactly this policy 25 years ago, which had an immediate 50 percent reduction in small craft fatalities in just the first year. Progress tonight formally gives organisations the ability to align with educational opportunities at our upcoming summer events, including Water Safety Week in late October, and summer boat shows.

We all understand the somewhat self-evident international experience that education is the first and most important activity to get under way for life jacket wearing, and the progress of this bill finally enables that. At the same time, a formal infringement regime will need to be developed. Officials tell me that they will look to have this operationally in place during 2027.

In conclusion, I want to thank all the submitters, as well as Maritime New Zealand, Water Safety New Zealand, Ministry for Cities, Environment, Regions and Transport, harbourmasters, and water sport and safety organisations. There is a poignancy for me personally as I speak here tonight at the last members’ day of this 54th Parliament. At the very last members’ day of the 53rd Parliament—in the very last part of that members’ day—I was progressing the first reading of my member’s bill to increase the breast cancer screening age and save lives. Here we are today—the very last members’ day of this Parliament—also progressing a member’s bill in my name to save lives. There’s probably a theme there somewhere.

I thank, again, all parties for their contribution to this bill, and I wish New Zealanders a water safe future.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

21:04

Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure on behalf of the Labour Party to rise in support of this very important bill. Can I acknowledge, firstly, all of the members who have been involved in shepherding this bill through to this point in the Parliament. In particular, can I acknowledge the Hon Dr Shane Reti for being the person who has worked up this bill into the position that it is today. I know that he can take much satisfaction and credit for a bill that will absolutely save lives, as we head into the summer season. Can I also just acknowledge his apt appreciation for my artistic sketching skills, as well.

This is a bill that we have supported at first reading, at second reading, through the committee stage, and now at the third reading. This is a bill that has come back to the Parliament with a changed title, and that’s not something that often happens in this House. There are usually changes in other parts of the bill, but the fact that this is a bill that has a brand new title is an absolute reflection of the significance of change that this bill underwent through the select committee process. I want to acknowledge Dr Reti for his leadership in that space, but also fellow members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, who took time and did so on the basis of understanding the feedback from submitters.

I actually think, when we look back at the life of this particular Parliament, this is a particular bill that could be seen as an exemplar in terms of how the select committee process ideally could and should work. It was a bill that went out, it heard from submitters, and submitters overwhelmingly indicated that, actually, this is not an issue that should just be for children and young people. This is an issue that the stats themselves indicate is actually far different from children and young people who die as a result of incidents in water and not having a life jacket or a personal flotation device. The select committee worked extremely hard and collegially and had a unanimous report back, to the point where we have this bill that’s in front of us today.

I also want to acknowledge all of those submitters, all of those organisations, who worked alongside the committee to get this bill into a position where it is going to no doubt make a huge difference. It’s interesting that Dr Reti talked about those who are on the committee and some do have local government experience. I think that in some way also acknowledges the workability aspects of this particular bill, to ensure that, actually, when it goes back to councils, regional councils, and territorial authorities, you don’t have to go through a whole kind of suite of hoops in order to initiate the change or to reflect the position that this bill will effectively deliver on. I want to acknowledge colleagues on the committee that we’re able to help in that particular space.

This bill is one that is driven by evidence. The evidence basically indicates that there have been 161 fatalities of people who are aged over 15 and that the average age of someone who dies in a recreational boating accident is 50 years of age. This is a bill that, while it has taken some time to work through the Parliament, I think is a good move, because we’ve got it into a position where it is effectively going to save lives. Yes, we can talk about the changes around—the length has stayed the same, as 6 metres, but whether it’s the overall sort of length, which my sketch alluded to, or whether it’s the waterline length, when we stand back and have a look at what this bill will seek to achieve and what I believe it will achieve, it is going to be something that I think all members of this House, in supporting this, can be very, very proud of indeed.

Can I also acknowledge the officials who supported the select committee, who allowed for a little bit of—I wouldn’t call them props—hands-on experience as to what some of these devices look like and how they can effectively be operational on a recreational craft, and that has been extremely helpful. We have supported this bill; we will continue to support it. This law will change lives. It is going to be a small move but will make a huge, lasting impact and difference. I think, in particular, the committee and parliamentarians have been keen to ensure that this is a bill that is in place for summer, and the intention of our side is that that happens this evening.

Can I just say that this is the first bill I’ve presided over that’s had a name change, despite some of the rubbish titles that I’ve heard when I’ve sat in the committee chair in this term of Parliament.

21:09

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I also rise to support the Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill. First of all, I’d just like to acknowledge not just all of those who have drowned in our seas, rivers, and lakes, but also the very brave men and women who go out and rescue people—sometimes too late. We heard from people who had been quite traumatised by the number of drownings that they had had to attend. I really thank them for bringing their experience into the select committee room.

Some of those submitters had to come in twice, because, as previous speakers have mentioned, we changed the age range, but we also made some other modest changes as well. Those of us who are kayakers and have—and this is like one of those Venn diagrams: who’s in local government, and who’s also a kayaker? Well, I think there’s at least two of us in this Chamber tonight. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—and be more positive about this than in the last bill—who was actually very constructive and enabled us to really tease out all those definitions: is it a ship? Is it a vessel? Is it a boat? What’s the right way to describe it? Is it a personal flotation device? Is it a lifejacket? What are the different names that we ought to be using here? Most of all, what is going to be clear to the general public, because it’s the passage of this bill in a comprehensible form that will form the basis of safety and education going forward?

Thanks to Water Safety, the regional harbour masters, the water safety organisations, coastguards, and individuals who came and sometimes challenged a detail of it. We had a big discussion about what “underway” might mean, and I still have visions of certain members of that committee jumping overboard from yachts and whether they should wear lifejackets or not. I really think we probably needed a site visit to elucidate what that might look like, but we didn’t have one. But we did really consider what “underway” did or didn’t mean, whether having an electronic anchor would mean that you weren’t “underway”, but we decided that because it’s keeping you in the same spot but potentially against quite a strong current, that was potentially a risky situation.

I just wish there were more members’ bills that had got through. There are a lot of bills on different things that we actually agree on across the House, and sometimes you spend more time throwing shade than we do in actually serving the public with things that just ought to be updated. We’ve got some mechanisms by which we can do that that are just not being taken advantage of in this term. Thank you to my colleagues. I look forward to KayakSafe events around the country and also just to people taking the educational steps that this bill enables. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

21:13

ACT will be supporting this bill, because we’re a party that responds to evidence. The evidence that we heard is that a lot more adults die from drowning when not wearing lifejackets than children, so we support the name change to the Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Act 2025. I just want to point a few things out to the House and to those listening and watching and to those who might come after people who might be responsible for enforcement like harbour masters. Harbour masters and regional councils already had the power to do this, the select committee heard. Regulations could have been made and promulgated through an Order in Council to deliver exactly this.

However, here we are. One or two small concessions were obtained from the member in charge, such as occupants of a small boat using the bathroom, towelling themselves dry, or sunbathing—it could be anticipated they’re not wearing a life jacket at that time. In the preamble, it says, “In situations like this we would expect harbourmasters”—yes, I’m talking to you—“to maintain a degree of reasonableness in their enforcement.” The member sitting next to me, Cameron Luxton from Pāpāmoa, also pointed out that sometimes, when you go out on a boat, you might want to jump off and have a swim. At that point in time, you won’t be wearing a lifejacket.

ACT supports this bill—at times reluctantly—but we do appreciate that evidence was provided that people’s lives will be saved. We must trust that the hassle and all of the niggle of having to require people to wear lifejackets at all times on these small craft is worth the sauce.

21:15

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First and also as chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which considered this bill.

What a committee.

It’s a very good committee, a very collegial committee, and I was going to say thankyou to all the members of the committee for the work they did. This bill started as being life jackets for under-15s on those small vessels under 6 metres in length. We got really, really strong feedback from the water safety community, coastguards, harbour masters, and so on, saying, “Actually, the problem is, as you’ve already heard, not just the young people; the problem is everybody, all ages.” As you’ve already heard, the average age of people drowning unfortunately is 50 years of age.

What we did, which is quite unusual, is we said to the Business Committee, “Can we go out and get submissions again?” We didn’t think it was appropriate for us just to change the scope. We wanted it to be a good democratic process. We did that. We got those submissions in again, which said, “Go for it.” Just to pick up the thing that Simon Court mentioned, saying, “This could have been done by Order in Council.” Yes, it could have been done by Order in Council, but at the stage that we got that advice, we’d have had to then say, “Minister, you go out and do that if it’s a priority for you, and then you’ll have to get submissions again from the same people who have already submitted to us twice.” We didn’t think that was a very good idea. We wanted to proceed with the bill, and that’s where we’ve got to today.

What we’ve done is we extended the scope of the bill. We changed the title of the bill, as has been said. We think it’s a sensible title. We did this because we heard heart-rending stories of young people, of children, who were wearing lifejackets, the boat turns over, they survive, but their parents, who weren’t wearing lifejackets, drowned in front of their eyes. That is what we don’t want to do. This bill is about, as the Hon Shane Reti said in introducing it, saving lives. What needs to be done now is to get it through today so that we can then have the education and the enforcement prepared for the most risky time of year, which is summer. This bill, we expect, will save about 10 lives a year, and I think it’s really important we do. I just want to commend Shane Reti for the work he’s done, Cam Brewer before him for the work he had done, and all the other people who were party to this bill coming through the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for listening carefully and being collegial and collaborative in this process. I commend this bill to the House.

21:17

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. This is one of the best outcomes I’ve seen this entire term from this Parliament, and I just want to congratulate everyone who was involved. There has been a really big campaign for a more sensible evidence-based national approach to rules around lifejackets for quite a long time, but it rarely got political priority because it’s such a risk when it’s so easy to attack something that’s perceived to be an annoying rule, even if it is going to save lives. I don’t know that we would have got this awesome outcome if it weren’t for the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, Andy Foster, being really, really open minded and for the whole select committee and the Minister being quite open minded to change the scope of the bill and to get a really fantastic outcome. I would love to see Parliament do more of this. If only we could come together more and do something sensible and evidence based that would save lives, let’s do that. I commend the bill to the House.

21:18

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It gives me a lot of pleasure, actually, to stand as the Minister responsible for this area of law, maritime law, which looks after water safety, and to stand in full support of a bill which will save lives and reduce harm. This bill, when passed into law this summer, will save New Zealanders’ lives. It will reduce harm, and it will give many more New Zealanders the peace of mind to know that when their loved ones are out there on the boat, there is a much higher chance of them returning home safely and soundly. I know that anyone who sat through submissions or heard of stories of people who have lost loved ones in tragedies on the water will know how terrible—terrible—a situation it is. I really commend all members of the House for coming together and for passing a piece of legislation which will save lives.

I know some have said that this could be done through regulation and it could be done through an Order in Council, and that is correct, but I think subsequent Governments of all colours have seen that it’s quite difficult to make that change for a range of reasons. I’m so glad that this has been able to happen through a member’s bill, a process which provides individual members the opportunity to put forward an idea and have it come to fruition.

I want to commend Dr Reti for picking up this bill. What a fine way to sign off a career, first of all, built on saving lives, and finishing in Parliament with a bill which will save lives as well. I want commend Dr Reti for taking this on, for his diligent stewardship of it, for the numerous phone calls keeping me updated on its progress and the changes that were being recommended, and making sure that everyone was on board.

For those of you out there on the water this summer, the change that will be made is very, very simple. This summer in New Zealand, across the country, no matter where you are, if you are on a small boat, you must wear a life jacket at all times while under way—that’s it. While you’re under way on a small boat under six metres, you must wear a life jacket. It happens in some parts around the country. It doesn’t happen universally. This is a change to make sure that no matter where you are, that will happen. The agency responsible for carrying this out in terms of education will be Maritime New Zealand. They will embark on a countrywide campaign to make sure people know about the changes that are being made. They are going to take a positive, proactive education first approach so that everyone gets used to these changes. They are going to do their best to be light-handed in terms of those who don’t quite get it right. The main thing we want to know and that we want to see change is a cultural change in this country so that all New Zealanders growing up take the responsibility upon themselves to wear a life jacket and to keep themselves safe.

If you are out on the water this summer, wear a life jacket, carry two forms of reliable communication, and always, always check the weather forecast. That’s all we ask so that you can come home safely to your loved ones. This bill will save lives, it will reduce harm, I’m very proud to support it, and I’m very proud to commend it to the House.

21:21

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Labour also supports the Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill, and I would also like to echo many of the sentiments that the previous contributor has just made and the fact that he was able to somewhat, quite fittingly, turn this into a little bit of a public service announcement, because that is essentially where the work starts now. As has been said, the proof in the pudding will be in the education space. It’s not to be punitive, it is to actually save lives.

I want to also acknowledge the Hon Dr Shane Reti and echo the sentiments of the Hon James Meager when he said it’s possibly not by accident that someone whose whole career has been focused on saving lives and improving lives would be drawn to such a bill when he was able to take it over from, I should also acknowledge, the previous sponsor the Hon Cameron Brewer. It’s possibly no coincidence that he was drawn to this bill because it’s very much on brand and it will save lives.

This is ultimately a very simple piece of legislation, and I agree that it could have been done differently, but it wasn’t and here we are. It was a valuable process for us to go through to take a bill that, as introduced, was somewhat different, to listen to the evidence, and for us to be here tonight at third reading. If you are out on a small recreational craft, wearing a life jacket dramatically improves your chances of coming home, and that’s just a fact. All of the statistics bear that out. It’s a fact that we’ve been aware of for a very long period of time, and the impetus to make this change, for whatever reason, hasn’t got across the line, and tonight it will.

When we think about recreational boating and what that actually looks like in New Zealand, whether it’s families out on fishing trips, whether it’s being out in the dingy, small runabouts, people heading across the harbour, a beautiful harbour like Whakaraupō in Lyttleton, or any harbour, most people don’t leave shore expecting anything to go wrong. They’re out there having a good time, enjoying the coast, the river, the lake, and the expectation that something could go wrong isn’t necessarily at the forefront of people’s minds, particularly before it does.

I agree with the Hon Julie Anne Genter, this is a good example of Parliament actually doing a really good job by starting with a proposition, and the starting proposition was different—it was about children’s safety—listening to the evidence, and having to jump a couple of hurdles to do so, but being prepared in a bipartisan way to actually make the requisite change. As introduced, it required, as I said, people under 15 who are on a recreational craft, six metres or less, to wear life jackets. But the evidence before us during that select committee process, it just simply told a very different story. We know that, since 2015, eight recreational boating fatalities were children under 15, each one incredibly tragic, but there were also 161 people who were over 15, and the average age of people who die in recreational boating incidents in New Zealand is 50. The Transport and Infrastructure Committee, therefore, went through a process of seeking permission to go beyond the scope of the original bill and to, really importantly, we should note, go back to public consultation. It wasn’t like we stretched the bill quietly behind the scenes. We got that requisite permission at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and went back and opened that consultation process.

There was a very understandable instinct behind the original bill and that was to protect children, but once the statistics and all of the evidence from—and I should also acknowledge not only the officials but the excellent submitters that we had through this process, many of whom have dedicated their whole lives to water safety and to recreational boating. They are experts, and it is disconcerting when, summer after summer in particular, they are faced with that reality of knowing that something simple could actually make a huge difference and avert many of the tragedies that some of them had the unenviable position of bearing witness to.

The bill now requires a person in charge of a recreational craft, six metres or less, to ensure that everybody on board is wearing an appropriately sized life jacket while the craft is under way. That’s a critical distinction. It’s about wearing the life jacket, not simply having one on board somewhere. We know that, even as recently as 2024, 94 percent of craft-related drownings were people who weren’t wearing a life jacket. That’s pretty daunting. That’s pretty sobering. A life jacket sitting under a bench or in a locker somewhere is of absolutely no use if it’s tucked away and it’s not available to you when you unexpectedly need it. When we think about the nature of accidents that happen on the water, they are generally through capsize, through some sort of sudden change in the weather, being in particularly cold weather, a collision—the very moment that you discover that you might need a life jacket is probably not the moment at all that you have time to find it and put it on.

There were also several technical changes around making sure that there was some national sort of simplicity. People really shouldn’t have to worry about what the relevant bylaw is, or what the regional bylaw is that applies in different parts of the country. All of those things happened through this process, which was good. Passing this legislation, though, just to finish off, is probably the first part, and other people have mentioned that the objective has to be with an educational focus, particularly in that first summer. We want behavioural change here, and for things to be enduring and for things to work well, it has to be because of behavioural change. There’s not many of us that think twice about putting on a seat belt. It’s become human nature. It’s become part of what we do, an unquestioned thing that we do, so we really do want this to be unquestioned as well. Having said that, Maritime New Zealand, councils, harbour masters, those people need to have those resources available to them to make sure that they are able to explain the bill and to not have to resort to an overly punitive sort of situation.

This bill will not prevent every tragedy that occurs on the water, and it’s not the whole answer to our drowning problem, and we do have a drowning problem. We still need to ensure that we’ve got adequate swimming education and other sorts of water safety programmes, along with those strong organisations, like Coastguard and Surf Lifesaving, who are such an important part of not only our water safety but also our community.

They also need to be well resourced and well supported to do the job that they do.

I’d like to acknowledge everybody who did submit, particularly those who brought really quite harrowing personal experience of loss and water safety to the committee. It’s an example of the select committee process working well. It’s an example of us being able to utilise the tools that we do have at our disposal to make a good positive change, and Labour is very pleased to support this bill in its first reading.

21:30

There are not many bills in this House that you can say are consequential, but this is one of those bills. It really does save lives, and I just want to acknowledge the significance of this day. It’s been a pleasure to be a part of the process and to see this bill get to this stage today.

I certainly acknowledge the history, and the member in charge of the bill, Dr Shane Reti, and those who have come before us and have advocated for change: Sam Lotu-Iiga, Alfred Ngaro, Cameron Brewer, and now Dr Shane Reti. So I really appreciate their advocacy in bringing this to the House’s attention.

I’ve learnt a lot as part of this process, like the simple definition of “life jacket.” There are many different life jackets out there—

What is it?

Well, it’s quite a complex definition but it is in law. For those of you who are tuning in at home, we learnt that there are a lot of different types of life jackets out there—personal flotation devices. They are not the old big thick life jackets that you remember from back in the day. A lot of them are quite thin and stylish. Now they have little belts, so if you’re in a kayak and you’re worried about fashion you don’t actually need to have this big yellow jacket.

Exactly!

Yeah, you just need a little belt. For those who are in the Waitematā Harbour and worried about their style, there are a lot of different ranges of life jackets out there, so we have applied a pretty liberal definition to personal flotation devices. So to reassure those out there in the public, if you’re on a kayak or a stand-up paddle board, there is a range of options that exist for you in order to comply with the regulations and the laws.

I’ve also learnt a lot about the definition of size—six metres; what is six metres? [Interruption] Exactly; let’s not go there. Six metres is really a good length that covers a broad range, and we heard from Maritime New Zealand about the number of vessels out there that are going to be covered within this definition. So the committee was satisfied with the length of vessel that we determined.

We also had a discussion, and Celia Wade-Brown led that, of course, on the question: what is a vessel; what is a ship? We’ve simplified that in the law, so that no one is left wondering.

Don’t leave them without a life jacket.

Don’t leave them without a life jacket, says Arena Williams—that’s right. The select committee process has been well traversed. Thank you to my select committee colleagues. The committee was ably chaired by the New Zealand First member, Andy Foster. Thank you very much for your chairing. It has been a really good example of how the select committee process is supposed to work.

We all have our political colours, but we’re there to act in the best interests of New Zealand, and we did a really good job of recognising that there was a wider scope that is required. We took it to the Business Committee. The Business Committee gave us approval to widen the scope and put it out for submissions and hear those submissions. I do want to acknowledge those who made submissions on the bill as part of the process. Some made submissions twice as part of the new, revamped scope of the bill. So I appreciate their contribution.

The officials from Maritime New Zealand led us through this and gave us a lot of advice throughout the process, and I wish to thank them, as well as, of course, members from across this House who were on the select committee.

In terms of next steps, this summer is, of course, coming up. Today is the second day of spring. We all excited to be getting out there and feeling that warmer weather. It is going to be, I think, a slow ramp-up for Maritime New Zealand, so for those of you at home, just rest assured—this really is about culture change. The authorities are not going to be actively trying to just get revenue through fining people who aren’t complying. It really is about a culture change, and that starts with education, and we’ve been assured that Maritime New Zealand will have a big education drive to help ramp up and make people aware of the new laws in the bill we’re about to pass today.

Again, I wish to thank everybody who’s been a part of this process. It is a good piece of legislation. It’s one that we on this side are happy to support. I commend this bill to the House.

Well, every day in this House you learn something, and today’s lesson was about stylish life jackets.

21:36

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on the Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill. As one of a number of members in this House, I represent an electorate that is surrounded by quite a large chunk of water, and a significant number of people in my community spend a lot of time on the water for enjoyment purposes, for recreational purposes, and also for their work. Many people are out there fishing regularly and undertaking other activity on the water. So it’s a huge part of the world that we live in in Nelson.

I wanted to make a few comments around the changes that have gone through with this bill, because this bill is one of those examples where it’s gone into the tin and come back here to the House in a much better state. It makes a significant change for safety for people who operate on the water, and that is a good thing. The bill has gone through a very robust process to get to that point.

Earlier on in that process, when discussions were happening about the possibility of changing the scope of the bill, I had a conversation with one of our harbourmasters about his views and what he thought would be helpful. At that point the bill still had a focus on children, on those aged 15 and under. The comment he made to me that is quite pertinent to my region, and to other parts of the country, was that having inconsistent bylaws between regions where people would often be operating a vessel, a craft of some kind, and potentially at multiple times during the day, made life difficult in terms of education and enforcement. So it’s a good example. You’ll get people who may enter the water in their vessel in Motueka, which sits under the Tasman district bylaw, and then carry on through the harbour and then come through to Nelson port and Nelson marina. At that point they’ve entered the Nelson area and there were slightly different rules around life jacket use between the two regions.

What Stuart said to me was that the most useful thing that the Parliament could do was to have some consistency across the country, particularly when you have regions that are so close and connected but have different rules. It makes it incredibly difficult to teach people what the rules are if they enter the water under one rule and go through another part of the water with a different rule and then come out the other part with another rule.

In Nelson, for example, there are bylaws that require adults to wear life jackets. The bill won’t necessarily change the actual rules for Nelson. What it will mean is that we’ve got consistency of rules across all of Aotearoa in terms of life jacket use, and that is a good thing.

As colleagues have mentioned, this is actually about culture change, and we can see from the statistics that while the bill was very well intentioned around protecting young people—something that I think all members of this House believe is important, or should believe is important—what the evidence and statistics showed was that this issue affects older people. It’s people who probably have a bit of that Kiwi, “She’ll be right” attitude—“I’m a strong swimmer. I’ve been operating a vessel for a very long period of time. I know what I’m doing. I know how to use the weather reports.” Unfortunately, a lot of the people who pass away, we hear stories about how experienced they were on the water, about how much they understood it, how much they knew it, how much time they spent on the water. Yet, the decision to not wear a lifejacket has actually been a large contributing factor to the fact that they didn’t survive some type of incident. We have that Kiwi “she’ll be right” attitude; we talk about it, we kind of joke about it, but this is one of those instances where, actually, it’s not funny. You know, people lose their lives on the water; they don’t go home to their families.

I do just want to finish by acknowledging Nelson Coastguard, who do a remarkable job rescuing people—have won awards for rescuing people. In Nelson, we have an annual blessing of the fleet and a seafarers memorial. The reason we do that is, actually, to acknowledge those who have been lost on the water. We lay wreaths and we put flowers into the water every year. It’s one of the most significant events that occurs in Nelson every year. And we remember all those people who were lost. We often get to speak to their families and see the grief from people who have been lost at sea.

It’s a serious matter. It’s an excellent bill. I congratulate the member on getting it to this point tonight—well done. And on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

21:41

This is my third contribution to this legislation, and before I start my contribution, Cameron Brewer actually ensured that I acknowledge him about bringing this bill to the House—so he can take some credit for it. I think that’s really important. I also acknowledge the hard work of Dr Shane Reti on this bill as well. To pick up in the middle of the progress—he did a lot of the contribution. I wish him well on the next chapter of his life as well.

Back to this bill. I think this bill is about one thing: saving lives. Lifejackets seem like a simple piece of equipment, but in an emergency, it can be the difference between life and death. I think it’s been mentioned by a lot of different members of Parliament here. They’ve already mentioned how important is it, so I just want to twist it a little bit to the other direction. I just want to thank all the water safety advocates. I want to acknowledge their work—many organisations and individuals across New Zealand who have been advocating for better water safety. Those are the people who have been having this conversation for years. To all those organisations and advocates, I want to say thank you—your work has made a difference.

So let’s change the culture. Don’t wait for the emergency, put it on before you need it. The goal is very simple: enjoy the water, protect your loved ones, and make sure everyone gets home safely. One life saved is worth every effort.

I actually prepared a few pages of my speech, but I realised nothing is more important than passing this bill to save lives. So I commend this bill to the House.

21:43

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to start my contribution by also congratulating the member, the Hon Dr Shane Reti, and the work that you have done. I think it sort of hit me when members of your own side were talking about what an amazing way to sign off—it really is. It’s part of that long career that you’ve had of saving lives. So congratulations for taking this through this evening. It really will make a difference—it will make a huge difference. In fact, as I’ve been sitting here listening to the contributions, it amazes me, that it’s taken New Zealand this long to actually pass this bill tonight.

I was hearing people talking about members of the public who came into the select committee and told their stories—the heart breaking stories that we’ve heard. I sat there thinking, “How many lives did it have to take for us to get to this point, that we’re actually passing this tonight?” I also listened to the contributions from people saying, “Isn’t this when Parliament is at its best?” And I have to say, it is, completely, when Parliament is at its best—when there is an issue and we come together. I think the Transport and Infrastructure Committee has done something even more extraordinary here. They’ve seen just how big the issue is, that it was bigger than what their scope was, they’ve come up with a solution, and everybody has been on side with that.

I get quite emotional. I have a story, and it’s a story, unfortunately, that did not have a happy ending. I sit here tonight and I think of the person in my story and the difference that it could have made to a family that was torn apart by tragedy. My story goes back a number of years, where we had a young man at our school who had special learning needs, and he went out fishing one night with his dad in the Tauranga Harbour. Those of you who know the Tauranga Harbour know that it’s not an exceptionally deep harbour, but just like anywhere in this country, tragedy can hit in a heartbeat. He wore a lifejacket, just like we’ve heard here this evening—that many young people are often put in the lifejacket—but his father didn’t. The wind hit that boat, that little tinny, really quickly and upended it. The young man saw his dad die before his eyes. We never saw that young man back at school again because his whole family had been upended; tragedy had struck.

What we’re doing here this evening, taking all the joviality aside, that we’ve had a lot of fun as we’ve been talking about it, as we hear about saving lives, and that’s the difference that we are making as a Parliament this evening. I often wonder about that young man. Often wonder what happened to him, because his life might have been saved, but, hell, what a thing to go through; to see your father die before your eyes like that.

To the Transport and Infrastructure Committee: you have done an amazing job of changing this. To all of the people that have been in charge of this bill, of bringing it to this stage—what an exceptional difference you are making in so many lives. I feel really proud to stand here this evening and proud to be part of a Parliament that is making such a difference to people.

We have heard, here, this evening, about this will be a culture change. Yes, it will be a culture change, and we have to work, and the authorities will have to work, to make sure that people understand what that culture change means. But in time, it will be just like those seat belts that I can remember as a kid. You know, you didn’t “make them click” back then, but I can, now, think, “Well, look at the change that’s happened in a relatively short space of time; that, now, we don’t get in cars without making it click.”

Well, from tonight, the change is going to happen. We will see people getting in boats and going for the lifejackets and wearing them and putting them on. We will see families not torn apart. We will see young people not lose their parents because of a decision that was made because they didn’t have the lifejackets or it wasn’t part of the culture of wearing a lifejacket. This is Parliament at its best. This is why I’m proud to be a parliamentarian.

Thank you so much to everybody involved in getting it to this stage and thank you to all of those people that have submitted and told their stories. We are making a huge difference in this country, here, this evening. Kia ora.

21:48

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a great honour to take a call in this third reading of the Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill. I first want to congratulate all of the members who participated in this process and who have championed it over the years; the Hon Cameron Brewer and, in particular, of course, the the Hon Dr Shane Reti; and also all of the people who took the time to submit—in some cases more than once on this bill, as it’s changed its scope and even changed its title—to enable it to protect the people that need to be protected. Saving children’s lives sounds like the most commendable thing, however, they were not the ones who were drowning at the highest rates. And so it made much more sense to extend this bill to cover everybody.

As has been well-traversed, this bill was well-discussed throughout the select committee process—had a lot of submitters. I want to take the time to just thank some of the people who’ve contributed and advocated for this change over the years. In particular, I want to thank, on behalf of the the Hon James Meager, who omitted them earlier, the New Zealand Safer Boating Forum and Water Safety New Zealand in particular, for their contributions, and who were particularly well-traversed and well-prepared for the committee.

As has been discussed, this bill is only the beginning. Really, what this requires is a massive change in culture. This bill isn’t about any of us, really, in this House. It’s not about convincing us across the aisle that this is needed. This is about a man who’s about 60 years old, who’s been heading out off the heads all his life, ever since he was a child. He knows that stretch of water better than anybody else, and he has never once needed a life jacket; he doesn’t assume that anything is going to be going wrong. This is not about his experience. This is not about his personal competence, and we’re not asking someone like him to not believe in himself or to, you know, not have the confidence on the water. What we’re asking is that those people put it on for the other people on the vessel with them, put it on for the people who are waiting for them at home, who are waiting for them to get back at the end of the day.

When it comes down to it, there’s no way that this can be enforced on every vessel. There’s not going to be the life jacket police running around making sure that everybody’s got their life jackets on in a 6-metre vessel under way. This is about making sure that the signal is sent that this is the expectation of everybody. Knowing that this is the way it is everywhere in New Zealand makes it clear across the country so that travelling between different jurisdictions doesn’t matter. As has been pointed out, even in small areas there can be a bylaw difference, which just does not make sense, especially when there are no real boundaries on the sea.

We’ve heard about some of the terrible statistics of drowning. Over the last 25 years there have been over 400 drownings; most of those—over 300 of them—involved people who were not wearing a life jacket, and 80 percent of them were on small craft. So this is a very pertinent and important piece of legislation and will save lives. I’m not sure which pieces of legislation the Hon Dr Shane Reti assisted in, which different pieces of policy he’s guided through, will have the greatest impact on the number of lives, but this is definitely one of those where, although we know that it will have a huge difference, the success of this legislation will actually be measured in lives that are not lost, in funerals that are not attended, in chairs at tables that are not left empty. Although we may never know the names of those people who weren’t lost, there are going to be hundreds of people, potentially, in the future who will still be with their families because of the work that this House has done this evening.

It is wonderful to see bipartisan support and the process having worked so well. Parliament is a place where real change and deeply impactful things can happen. When I think again about those people that are not going to be lost, what will happen to them instead is that they’ll simply come in on the tide, tie up the boat, and argue about who is cleaning the fish. They’ll complain that the bite was better last year. That is the whole point. I commend the bill to the House.

21:54

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand to take a call on the Maritime Transport (Lifejackets on Recreational Craft) Amendment Bill, and I want to start by acknowledging the Hon Dr Shane Reti and your mahi in this space. It’s been really lovely to listen to your valedictory speech last week and then hear the debate on this bill this evening. Well done on your work over many years, and to finish on this bill—what an amazing achievement.

It’s also been really interesting to hear about the select committee process of this bill and the changes that were made and the cross-Parliament collaboration on this bill. It’s great to see this positive change that can be made for all New Zealanders because Parliament is working well together. A big mihi as well to the submitters and all the very, very experienced people who submitted on this bill that led to the changes that included adults as well.

Like many New Zealanders, I grew up boating as a child, and I remember being told that the law was that you didn’t have to have your life jacket on; you could just have it in the boat. It was insisted on that I wore a life jacket as a child, but I remember that law and I remember back then thinking about how that is absolutely bizarre, because how does a life jacket save me if it’s down the front of the boat and I’m at the back? You’d think after years of boating I’d know what the front and the back of the boat are called, but I can assure you I no longer boat as much as I used to. But it is those scenarios where the adults will put the life jackets on the kids but not put them on themselves, and I think this bill is going to make a huge difference to so many New Zealanders’ lives and so many adults’ lives if they are required to wear life jackets.

A lot of speakers tonight have talked about that culture shift, and I think that’s a very important aspect of creating legislation that can lead to a change of culture. It’s such an important aspect of what I believe we can do in this House that has long-lasting effects. Other speakers have spoken to examples in previous legislation that have had those effects, and I think that can happen in this case. It needs to of course come alongside education for everybody, and water safety doesn’t stop here. We need to make sure that we are teaching all our kids to swim so they can all enjoy our wonderful New Zealand summers at the beach and everybody can go home safely.

With that, Madam Speaker, thank you, and I commend this bill to the House.

In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee, the House is suspended, and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended setting to consider Government orders of the day. Congratulations, Dr Reti.