QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Economic Growth

1. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for Economic Growth: What are her priorities for the economic growth portfolio?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for Economic Growth): The economic growth portfolio is a significant shift from the previous economic development portfolio. It will have a much greater emphasis on driving and strengthening efforts under way across Government to deliver increased economic growth in the years ahead. It will also take responsibility for new initiatives designed to promote growth and productivity in the New Zealand economy. Greater prioritisation and speed of activities across multiple portfolios will help deliver longer-term improvements in productivity and, therefore, economic growth. We can't just spend our way to growth; we have to renew our focus on how to earn it.

Cameron Brewer: Why is economic growth important?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: While I would hope it would be self-evident—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: That's enough.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —it has become clear from—

SPEAKER: Sorry, did you not hear me?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It has become clear from the naysaying and noes of many members of this House that they do not understand the importance of economic growth, which is the only way New Zealand can sustainably raise its standard of living—the only way. Economic growth means more opportunities and choices, better-paying jobs—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I don't think a Minister can begin their answer by attacking the questioner like that, by saying that they don't understand something that's self-evident.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I didn't attack; I said: "some members of this House"—you.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Yeah, well the one asking it—the one asking the question.

SPEAKER: Excuse me, we're not going to—this is not going to be a great way to start the year, because a couple of people could be on their way shortly. We'll resume the question, but we'll keep it concise.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Better-paying jobs and the ability to pay for things New Zealanders want and deserve: healthcare, law and order, education, amongst many others. Economic growth means our children will want to stay here because they see opportunities right here in New Zealand. It doesn't mean working harder or working more hours, most New Zealanders already do that; it means making our economy more productive.

Cameron Brewer: What recent announcements has she made regarding economic growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On Monday, I joined immigration Minister Erica Stanford and tourism Minister Louise Upston to announce the relaxation of visitor visa requirements to allow tourists to work remotely while visiting New Zealand. This means that digital nomads will be able to work remotely for up to nine months for a foreign employer while they are holidaying here. Tourism is New Zealand's second-largest export earner, generating revenue of almost $11 billion and creating nearly 200,000 jobs. This change will enable visitors to extend their stays and lead to more money being spent in New Zealand. That's good for our businesses and for incomes, and it's good for growth.

Cameron Brewer: What reaction has she seen to the recent economic growth announcement?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I'm pleased to report that the message is getting out on the world stage that New Zealand is open for business. The BBC and The New York Times carried the digital nomads story, and I'm informed that the BBC's Instagram post has had over 100,000 likes within just a few hours. Brett O'Reilly, an APEC Business Advisory Council member, says he has been contacted by people interested in taking up the opportunity, including Americans affected by fires around LA. I've also seen a report from a commentator stating—

Hon Damien O'Connor: What about the ferries? What about the ferries?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: —that "in 2024 the New Zealand economy will be strong and resilient"—

SPEAKER: Sorry, someone calling out over there. We'll have the whole answer repeated, if you're just going to keep barracking like that.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The quote continues, "[and that part of that will come from] Digital nomads calling New Zealand home while using the international time difference to work productively and remotely." That insightful view is from none other than the leader of the Labour Party, Chris Hipkins, in a speech to a Labour Party regional conference. His support is welcome too.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

SPEAKER: Question No. 2—the Rt Hon Winston—the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Goodness gracious, Mr Speaker! I think you should withdraw and apologise immediately!

SPEAKER: I withdraw and apologise—the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins.

2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Absolutely, because this year we are saying yes to economic growth. We have said yes to a trade deal with the UAE to boost exports and lift incomes. We've said yes to Invest New Zealand so we can attract more foreign direct investment in New Zealand into infrastructure and energy and manufacturing. We said yes to digital nomads—we actually did something about it—and said yes to more tourism and more hospitality. And most importantly, today we said yes to speed limits going up and getting Kiwis moving faster and freight moving faster. Isn't great that a backbench MP like Mike Butterick can get it done when a Minister—with an absolute majority—of Transport and the local MP couldn't do so.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When did Nicola Willis ask the Treasury—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Wait on. You're entitled to silence. I just want to say to the Government, if you want the Opposition to be quiet all through answers to questions, then I think outbursts like that aren't terribly helpful.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: When did Nicola Willis ask the Treasury to produce a list of public assets that could be privatised, and did the Cabinet agree to that course of action?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, again, as I've said very clearly, asset sales are off the table for this term. What we're focused on is economic growth. Of course, we will look at the performance of our State-owned enterprises because many of them are underperforming and they need a good curry up and they need to deliver.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister when Nicola Willis asked the Treasury to produce the list. The Prime Minister and Nicola Willis both said to the media yesterday that they had done that. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask him to answer the question that I actually asked.

Hon Nicola Willis: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My statements are being misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition. What I have said is that I have asked for request on the purpose of the State-owned enterprises that we earn and for advice on their performance and ways of improving that performance. For the Leader of the Opposition to characterise it otherwise is false and untrue.

SPEAKER: But the underlying point is that in an exchange like this, addressing a question is the way to go. But, as the Member well knows, questions in the nature of yes and no would be required.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: When did Nicola Willis ask for the list that she just referred to, and did the Cabinet agree to that course of action?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What we're focused on is making sure we get better performance out of those State-owned enterprises. It's quite normal as we want to make sure we've got excellence, that that capital's being well deployed, and that the performance of those organisations is improving. There'll be a range of asks about their performance. That's all that's happened here.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that's pretty straightforward. You can't argue with any assertions in the question, given I'm using Nicola Willis's own words. I simply asked him when it was asked for.

SPEAKER: And the Prime Minister might like to expand on that.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I'm not aware of when it was asked for. You could ask that question to the Minister for Economic Growth if you wish.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should the public have confidence that he knows what's going on in his Government, that when he tells them that asset sales aren't something that are being actively considered—if they believe him—when he doesn't actually know?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Asset sales are not being discussed, debated, or delivered in this parliamentary term. I don't know how to be any clearer with the member of the Opposition. I've said very, very clearly, there will be no asset sales this term—period.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister mean that there's been something learnt from the privatisation of a Labour regime that sold BNZ, a part-sale, and went bankrupt; the Quality Inns deal—totally corrupt—the KiwiRail deal that went bankrupt, as well; and Electricorp, which was sold—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That was the National Government—he was part of a National Government that sold that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no, no sunshine. Electricorp—[Interruption] Electricorp—[Interruption] Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. I'll explain that.

SPEAKER: Sorry, just stop for a minute.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: This is not student politics; this is real, out to here.

SPEAKER: Hang on, Mr Peters. Questions are asked in silence. It doesn't matter who is interrupting; if they do it again, they'll be gone.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, he's going to get to ask his question with silence.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, point of order, Mr Speaker. A question cannot contain an assertion that is factually incorrect. The sale of railways which Mr Peters just referred to happened under a Government that he was a Minister in.

SPEAKER: I think you should let him finish his question entirely before we take any points of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he's rather more patient—

SPEAKER: Hang on a minute. Just start the whole thing again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —he will remember that the Labour Party's position was on KiwiRail—

SPEAKER: Yeah, start the whole thing—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —circa 1992—

SPEAKER: Good. Start the whole thing—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no—I've got it. They said—

SPEAKER: Oh! Start the whole thing again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —they agreed with—OK, here we go. Learning from the past sale that never went to tender in 1987 of the BNZ, which went bankrupt by 1990; the Quality Inns deal, which was totally corrupt; the KiwiRail deal, which was in 1992, but the Labour Party said they agreed with the sale but not it's timing; or Electricorp, which sold for eight months' earnings—have we learnt nothing from that?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: All I can assure that member is that asset sales are off the table.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I've got to find a new job—this one's getting too easy! [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry. One of the things that might fascinate people a little bit—or it possibly won't fascinate them, but it will, I think, be useful information—is that while I've got pretty good hearing, I've been worried about missing stuff in the House. So I've now got these hearing aids in, and I'm hearing far too much. But a consequence of that is I'm going to hear some things from both sides that will probably cause a reaction from me that would be somewhat untypical. So let's just calm everything down.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just bring your attention to Speaker's ruling 197/5—

SPEAKER: Can you start again? I was still talking when you started speaking.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Can I bring your attention to Speaker's ruling 197/5—particularly since the member who stood up earlier cares a lot about parliamentary standards—which says that "The whole idea of supplementary questions is not to make a range of political statements but to dig into an issue, to test a Minister's answer.", and I seek guidance on how you would move forward with that specific Speaker's ruling.

SPEAKER: Good as gold—I'll come back to you.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should New Zealanders believe him when he says that asset sales aren't something the Government is considering, when Nicola Willis is currently preparing the catalogue for the fire sale?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the characterisation of that question. As I have said consistently before the election, asset sales are off the table over this Government. But it is quite appropriate and entirely appropriate that we have State-owned enterprise Ministers and a Minister of Finance that want to make sure that we have high-performing State-owned enterprises. When they haven't been delivering properly, we want to make sure there's excellence and we want to make sure that the New Zealand taxpayer, who has capital tied up in those assets—that they are delivering well for those taxpayers.

SPEAKER: I would just point out to the member asking the question that assertions in questions are just as inappropriate as they are in answers.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, well, if you're going to set that as the standard, Mr Speaker, I'm sure it will be evenly applied across the House. Why should Kiwis believe privatisation and asset sales will leave them better off, given that the last National Government's privatisation of energy companies led to higher power prices, bigger profits, and less investment in electricity generation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Look, I think the Leader of the Opposition has gone down the rabbit hole, and, actually, I don't know how to be any clearer: asset sales are off the table for this Government.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why should New Zealanders believe the answer he's just given when having been asked the question sales in the House last year, he accused the person asking it of being a conspiracy theorist, only to admit that the Government has actually been considering it?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Government has been looking at the performance and the excellence and the management of our State-owned enterprises to make sure that the public is getting a good return on the capital being employed. The comment I made to the Green member was the idea that you would actually run an organisation down before you sell it—that makes no sense.

Question No. 3—Transport

3. MIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made regarding speed limits?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Transport): I'm pleased to say that this morning, the Prime Minister and I announced another commitment of this Government has been met, with reversals to the last Government's blanket speed limit reductions beginning tonight. They will be in place by the middle of this year. We're focused on speeding up New Zealand's economic growth, and in this case, we mean it literally. The last Government was obsessed with imposing illogical and untargeted speed limit reductions on State highways and local roads. We are reversing that.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. How can it possibly be in order for a Government Minister to use a patsy question from one of their backbenchers to talk about the previous Government being obsessed with something? It's nothing to do with the situation that the Minister inherited or any factual or objective reasoning as to the challenges they may have had in their portfolio. Previous Speakers have been very clear that patsy questions can't be used to attack the other side.

Hon Chris Bishop: I'll reword it, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, no—I just want to make a comment. You're quite right. I was busy trying to work out what the response should be to the point of order that was previously occurring. We're only two questions—three questions now—into things, and not even one supplementary on the third question and there are multiple points of order that have to be considered. I'm in the process of considering it. I missed that. If the member could stick to the bounds of Standing Orders.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'll re-word it. The previous Government was very interested in imposing untargeted speed limits—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I agree; not—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: That's a statement of fact! The member cannot assert what the previous Government was interested in at all. He wasn't a member of that Government. He cannot speak for that Government.

Hon David Seymour: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: No, no—I'm not going to have any more on this. Just do what has been asked, which is stick to the bounds of Standing Orders when you're answering a question.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We are focused on making it easier for people to get from A to B as quickly and as efficiently as possible, to help drive economic growth and productivity.

Mike Butterick: How will this benefit the people of Wairarapa?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: He's worried about his seat already.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, no, no—not after this morning's announcement, he isn't. We have announced this morning that the speed limit on State Highway 2 between Featherston and Masterton will return to 100 kilometres per hour overnight. Previous members of this House, including Associate Ministers of Transport have claimed that this is not able to be done. We changed the rule in relation to the setting of speeds, and it will now happen.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is once again taking a swipe at members of the House in his answer. What former Associate Ministers may or may not have done is entirely irrelevant to the question of speed limits in the Wairarapa.

SPEAKER: No, I don't think so, because the continuity of any ministry goes beyond the individuals who are in it, and for a Government not to be able to refer to past decisions or one Parliament not to be able to refer to past decisions, as was referred, would be unacceptable. So I think you're being a little bit too concerned and perhaps even going to a point of identification that was not in the answer being given.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Well, no, because he actually made statements about what the former Minister had said and whether things could be done or not, which had nothing to do with the answer whatsoever.

SPEAKER: Well, but it does have a lot to do with the reason for the action, which is the basis of the question.

Mike Butterick: What other areas will benefit from quicker and more efficient travel?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: We've announced 38 roads for which the speed limits will revert back to what they were pre-2020. That will take effect, in relation to Wairarapa, from tonight, and, in relation to the other 37, between now and 1 July. There are also 49 further sections of State highways that will go out for public consultation. These will run for six weeks. In relation to local roads, councils have until 1 May 2025 to advise NZTA of the roads subject to reversal under the new rules. And I should note, in passing, I want to thank the Hon Simeon Brown, the former Minister, for his hard work in this area.

Mike Butterick: How has the Minister taken into account safety?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Safety is important, and the new rule requires variable speed limits outside schools during pick-up and drop-off times. That is important. But we're also focused on the leading factors in road deaths, which is drugs and alcohol. So the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill passed its second reading last night, which brings New Zealand into line with other jurisdictions, in which we will be able to test people by the roadside for whether or not they have recently used drugs. And I believe we will look back in a few years' time and regard this move in a similar way to the way in which we regard blood alcohol testing, which is a perfectly normal part of life: controversial when first introduced, amongst some, but actually par for the course. And the idea that you can drive on our roads and not be tested regularly, or at least have the chance of being tested regularly, whilst being high is nuts and we are changing that. And, at the same time, we are increasing the amount of breath tests done by the police, and that is an extremely important move.

SPEAKER: Just in response to the point of order from Ricardo Menéndez March

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister saying that these speed limit increases are strategically and carefully designed for so many roads and not haphazardly and blanketly applied, when a former administration increased the speed limits and 151 or more people died that year, under a former Labour administration?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It's fair to say, sir, that the blanket approach has been changed and NZTA is now far more targeted about the particular sections of State highway that are dangerous, and consultation on some of those roads begins right away. There will be some sections that stay where they're at, but there will be big chunks of State highways that revert back to what they were.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

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

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes, and especially our action to increase speed limits so that Kiwis can get to where they need to go to faster. If we want to go for growth, we need to get serious about powering up our regions. That's why we're so pleased with the changes that the Minister has just outlined in the Wairarapa this morning. That's all part of our plan to end a culture of no, a culture of slow, and my message on the other side is: if you're serious about growth and getting Kiwis moving faster, back our changes and back the communities who are sick of being slowed down.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is it still our country's negotiating position on the international stage to phase out fossil fuels and to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We have not had a discussion about subsidies for fossil fuels—no debate, discussion, or decision made in Cabinet at all.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability, which his trade Minister announced we'd signed last year, requires that we do not subsidise, de-risk, or provide any backstop support whatsoever for fossil fuel exploration or import?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, we honour our trade obligations, and, as I said, there hasn't been any decisions, discussion, or debate happening in Cabinet on that topic.

Chlöe Swarbrick: So, then, can the Prime Minister rule out that his Government will be underwriting or providing any form of subsidy for fossil fuel exploration or import?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can rule in is that we're going to be Government that actually doubles the amount of renewable energy in this country and we'll make sure that we can also keep the lights on and keep electricity abundant and affordable for New Zealanders. And we are going to use gas, whether it's domestic or imported.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister be straight up with the country and tell us whether he will rule out subsidising fossil fuels?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I've said, we haven't had any debate, discussion, or decisions made in Cabinet on that subject.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Can the Prime Minister be straight up with he country and tell us whether he is open to subsidising fossil fuel exploration or import in this country?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We work as a Government. We have Cabinet conversations and decisions, and we take them as a Cabinet, and as a result, what I'd say to you is we haven't had any conversation on that subject.

SPEAKER: I'll just make the point that in asking those questions, there was clearly an inference at the start of those questions that the member needs to think about in terms of the Standing Orders and Speakers' rulings.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What responsibility, if any, does she have for economic growth, and does the current recession reflect on her execution of that responsibility?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Like all Ministers in this pro-growth Government, I have a responsibility to look across my portfolio for opportunities to support and promote economic growth. In the case of finance, that means, in particular—among other things—ensuring macroeconomic and fiscal settings are supportive of growth. For example, having low and stable inflation, which in recent years has definitely not been the case, but which has now been brought back in target, and working to bring discipline in our fiscal policies to support interest rate reductions, which have come down 125 basis points since this Government was elected. To the second part of the question, no, but it perhaps reflects on some people's execution of their responsibilities—people whose big spending pushed inflation to 7.3 percent and required 525 basis points of interest rate hikes to bring it down. Those would be Ministers in the previous Government. I don't take responsibility for the damage they did to the New Zealand economy; I do take responsibility for fixing it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did it take a recession, record net migration levels, higher unemployment for her to realise that she needed a plan for economic growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It didn't.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why did the Treasury revise down its growth forecast for 2025 from 2.7 in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update last year to 1.6 percent only six months after her Budget?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I've explained to that member previously, the Treasury is perpetually revising its forecasts. What it has acknowledged is that its estimates of future productivity rates and how quickly the New Zealand economy would bounce back from a period of corrosively high inflation and extraordinary interest rate hikes was overly optimistic. And, in fact, the case is they now had to get real about the damage that the last Government's policies have done to our economy, and the mountain we have to climb to get New Zealand out of it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: So who was right: the Prime Minister, who said in the House yesterday that "We don't have the luxury to turn off growth after three years of recession …" or the Treasury's chief economist, who said today that "Over the last three years we have had growth, with the exception of a recession, based on the last two quarters."?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In my experience, the Prime Minister's always right.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she have confidence in the Minister for Economic Growth when that same person delivered the sharpest recession, excluding COVID, since the early 1990s?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I have utmost confidence in her but I also completely and utterly reject the economically ignorant accusation in that supplementary, and I ask of that member: if the job she wants to do as Opposition finance spokesperson is to try and fool New Zealanders into thinking that Labour had nothing to do with the damage done to our economy, then she is taking New Zealanders for fools. They know you mismanaged the economy, and they elected us to clean up the mess, and that's exactly what we are doing.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he guarantee that his Invest New Zealand initiative will not lead to the foreign ownership of public assets if he is re-elected next term?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I can guarantee is it's going to get infrastructure built quicker, it's going to get renewable energy projects built faster, and anything else that means that we can actually deliver for New Zealanders—Māori or non-Māori—who actually want higher incomes. They want better housing, they want better health outcomes, better education outcomes, so we're going to do whatever it takes to power up growth in New Zealand, period.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order. I don't even think he came close to remotely answering that question around whether he can guarantee New Zealanders that foreign ownership of public assets will not happen in the next term—not once.

SPEAKER: The problem is it's a very political question, if you think about it, because it would simply mean that the Opposition can require a Minister to guarantee something that was their policy, not the Minister's, and that would put the whole point of question time somewhat into question. So I think the answer was acceptable.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What role will Te Tiriti o Waitangi play in his plan to open up Aotearoa to foreign corporate exploitation through Invest New Zealand?

SPEAKER: No, you can't—start again.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Ka pai. What role will Te Tiriti o Waitangi play in his plan to open up Aotearoa through Invest New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, this is a Government that will honour the Treaty. But what I'd say is that the iwi partners that we have talked to are very open to partnering and working with pools of international capital and domestic capital to build infrastructure and to do things that advance the wellbeing of their hapū and whānau.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does it make a difference that he is voting against the Treaty principles bill when he has already guaranteed his support for the Regulatory Standards Bill, which will limit Treaty clauses in future legislation?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, our position is very well understood on the Treaty principles bill, and I refute the assertion that that's what the Regulatory Standards Bill's doing.

Rawiri Waititi: Does he agree with the Police Commissioner that scrapping the top iwi police role does not diminish the importance of that role?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Sorry, can you repeat the question?

Rawiri Waititi: Doe he agree with his Police Commissioner that scrapping the top iwi police role does not diminish the importance of that role?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: All I'd say is I fully support our excellent Police Commissioner and I back the police in what they're doing. I think he's doing an exceptionally good job to make sure that he's cracking down on crime, and I back all of our police, including the Police Commissioner.

Rawiri Waititi: Given that answer, given that iwi-police partnerships are the only successful police initiative at reducing family violence in Māori communities such as in Te Hiku and Te Tairāwhiti, which have seen a 15 to 19 percent decrease against all trends, how can he justify his Government scrapping such a vital role?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I reject the characterisation of that question and the accusation in it. What I'd say to you is what I said before: I back the Police Commissioner. He's an outstanding individual. He's leading incredibly strongly and he's backing the front-line officers who are doing a very difficult job.

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you clarify what accusation I have made, when the facts and the data are clear in that particular question?

SPEAKER: Well, I think the accusation was that it was a Government decision, but clearly, on police matters, it's not.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does that mean the Prime Minister, and his Ministers and his Government, support the police's Operation Trolley in Rotorua against thieves and against the views of Mr Rawiri, who supports them?

SPEAKER: No, that's not—no, no, hang on.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Absolutely. We back the police on that issue as well.

SPEAKER: Wait on, that's not a reasonable question.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaker's Ruling 197/5—I remind and seek your guidance—"The whole idea of supplementary questions is not to make a range of political statements about an issue but to dig into an issue, to test a Minister's answer."

SPEAKER: Yes, I've reiterated that today.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Sorry, if I could speak again—again seeking your guidance—I'm the second—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. Just to make it clear: Mr Waititi's question asked about a decision that had been made, and suggested the decision had been made by the Government. It clearly hasn't been made by the Government.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Just through the Speaker: my question was actually in regards to the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, specifically directed at Rawiri Waititi. Now, there is not—and I just want to remind; and I know that my colleague beside me has also sought your guidance. The whole idea of a supplementary question is not to make a range of political statements. He made a statement about Rawiri Waititi and Rotorua which is factually incorrect, not to say, but also wasn't used to dig to the issue of the question we laid. So I'm seeking your guidance.

SPEAKER: And I rejected the question at the time. And I think you've now made very clear why it was rejected.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you very much. You did indeed attempt to indicate that that question was inappropriate. But by the time you'd tried that, the question had been asked and answered. And so, in effect, there was nothing done about it. And so—

SPEAKER: No that's not true. It won't appear in the Hansard record—it's ruled out.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: The issue I have is that unless the point is made clearly—because I would have heard it and seen it because I'm right here, but many of the members in the House were unaware, hence the point of order. If members in this House are unaware of your attempt to, in your words, shut the question down, given that the Prime Minister actually answered it in full, members of the public watching would be unaware. Now, whilst technically it might be stripped from the Hansard, no one else knows that you took action against that question. And our concern is that even if it had been completed, if the point is not made, then it's just going to be repeated, as we saw pretty much through the entirety of last year.

SPEAKER: Right, well, thank you for that accusation. I'll take it on board.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is he committed to equitable healthcare for all New Zealanders; if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health): My priority as the Minister of Health is ensuring that all New Zealanders have access to timely, quality healthcare. This Government has invested more in health services than ever before, an additional $16.88 billion, and my expectation is that those services are delivered based on need. Kiwis rightfully expect to see their doctor or attend emergency departments without long waits and get the surgeries they need as quickly as possible. My focus, and the focus of this Government, is on ensuring that those expectations are met and delivered upon for all New Zealanders.

Hon Peeni Henare: Are top health researchers correct in saying, "Health systems that rely on funding via private insurance are … less accessible, less efficient, less equitable, and [generally] have worse health outcomes.", and, if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, many, many New Zealanders rely on our public health system, and many, many New Zealanders have private health insurance. The private health companies do an amazing job, as does our public health system, to ensure that New Zealanders can access the timely, quality care that they need so they can live healthy lives. That's my focus as Minister of Health.

Hon Peeni Henare: Is health advocate Malcolm Mulholland correct that "opening the health system up to more private sector involvement would only benefit the well-off", and, if not, why not?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I think the Labour Party is in a very dark and conspiratorial place. I mean, we are focused on delivering the quality and timely healthcare that New Zealanders need and focusing the system on results. This Government has invested a record $16.88 billion into our public health system. But I also say there are many, many parts of our healthcare system in New Zealand which are operated by the private sector—our entire GP system, our doctors, our doctor clinics—and I thank them for the work that they do delivering healthcare for New Zealanders.

Hon Peeni Henare: Then, can he explain to New Zealanders why they are waiting longer for health appointments and paying more for doctors appointments?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, because we've inherited a system which the last Government decided to restructure during a pandemic. Instead of focusing on outcomes, they were focused on bureaucracy, and my focus is on getting the outcomes that New Zealanders need.

Hon David Seymour: Is the—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on, just wait for a bit of quiet.

Hon David Seymour: Is the Minister aware of the highly celebrated and very innovative partnership between the hapū Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei and NIB, a private insurer, to provide insurance to the hapū's members, and could understanding such real-world examples be helpful in such tasks as retaining the seat of Tāmaki Makaurau?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, I appreciate that question, and yes, there are many, many examples across our healthcare system of partnerships which the private sector is part of delivering. But what I can say is my job as Minister of Health is making sure that all New Zealanders have the access to the timely and quality care that they deserve. This Government has invested record amounts, and we will focus the system on delivering that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. Thank you very much. I thought I'd give you the opportunity, but—

SPEAKER: That's very generous of you.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you.

SPEAKER: Extraordinarily generous.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That question at the end—

SPEAKER: Very appreciative—carry on.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: —clearly had a swipe at the member of the Opposition asking the question. How on earth is it appropriate that a Government Minister can ask a question of another Minister that includes an inference of an electoral result relating to the member asking the question? How is that appropriate?

SPEAKER: I'll have a look at it offline and come back to you.

Hon Peeni Henare: Does he agree with David Seymour's state of the nation speech, which asked if we should, "allow people to opt out of the public healthcare system, and take their portion of funding with them so they can go private?", and, if not, what's the Minister going to do to prevent the health system from being defunded and privatised?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that is not the Government's position, but what we are focused on doing is about focusing on delivering the outcomes that New Zealanders need: faster specialist appointments, doctor visits quicker, making sure there are more elective surgeries being completed. We have invested a record amount of funding in our public health system, and now we need to focus on making sure it is delivering the results that Kiwis deserve and expect.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether he'll deal with the real issue here, though, in particular: will he help restore Mr Henare's health by getting his electoral seat back—

SPEAKER: No, that question's out of order.

Question No. 8—Education

8. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Education: What actions has the Government taken to lift achievement in literacy and numeracy as part of its plan to teach the basics brilliantly?

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): With the 2025 school year kicking off, this Government is relentlessly focused on lifting student achievement and closing the equity gap in classrooms by teaching the basics brilliantly. From this term, parents can expect their children to benefit from a new year-by-year knowledge-rich curriculum grounded in the science of learning, structured approach to literacy and numeracy, new classroom resources, targeted interventions for kids who need extra help, teachers' professional learning and development, and the roll-out of a phonics check.

Carl Bates: What changes have been made to the curriculum?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: This year, 65,000 young New Zealanders starting school will benefit from an internationally comparable, knowledge-rich, and structured curriculum in English and maths, that has been very well received by the sector. Parents will know exactly what their children are learning each year in school in English and maths. And no matter which school or classroom in the country they are a part of, they will receive exactly the same teaching and learning from the same high quality curriculum.

Carl Bates: What changes can parents expect for how their kids are learning to read and write?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Every single child in years zero to 3 learning to read will start school this year being taught to read using structured literacy, including the young 6-year-old Angus Bates, who's in the gallery today. Eighteen thousand teachers have already been trained or are in training. Phonics checks are available after 20 and 40 weeks at school to catch our young learners who are falling behind. Schools across the country are getting up to $5,000 for additional structured literacy resources each year for four years. And, finally, 970 schools applied for and received staffing allocations for reading intervention teachers for young learners who are falling behind in their reading.

Carl Bates: What changes can parents expect for how their kids are learning mathematics this year?

Hon ERICA STANFORD: Nearly half a million maths workbooks, textbooks, and teacher guides are being shipped to primary and intermediate schools around New Zealand where they will benefit over 430,000 students as they engage with their new maths curriculum this year. High quality curriculum-aligned resources will not only support teachers to implement the new curriculum but increase the consistency of teaching and learning. They are supplemented by teacher professional learning and development in maths and our maths acceleration trial for years 7 and 8 students, set to benefit 3,000 of them. A world-leading education system is a key driver for our economic growth and we need all children to be proficient in reading, writing, and maths, which is why we are so unashamedly focused on teaching the basics brilliantly.

Question No. 9—Housing

9. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does he agree with Andrew Crisp, Chief Executive of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, who said that "both the register and people that apply does not represent effectively ... severe housing deprivation"; if so, is he confident that the need for emergency housing has reduced?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): I acknowledge that tens of thousands of New Zealanders, disproportionately Māori, are doing it tough with the cost of living crisis and severe housing challenges. Limb one of the question is unnecessarily ambiguous because it conflates the social housing wait-list with emergency housing and severe housing deprivation, all of which have different characteristics. In relation to limb two, blue shoots. The country has reached the Government target, reducing by 81 percent the number of households living in emergency housing. Emergency housing, I remain confident, remains an option for New Zealanders with genuine need for short-term stay, temporary accommodation in most towns and cities.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. The Minister made reference to the first leg of that question. This is a question on notice, and has been verified by the Clerk's Office. If the quote used was ambiguous or disingenuous, as the Minister alluded to, the Clerk's Office wouldn't have allowed it. It is a direct quote from the annual review of housing in the social services report. It was a direct response to questions about social housing and emergency housing, and that was provided in the verification.

SPEAKER: There's no need, I think, at this stage—you can decide in a minute—but the point here is that the question certainly was verified as being correct. The answer from the Minister suggested that there was a conflation in the assertions in the question and that he attempted to answer—well, he did answer it; answering to two parts of it in explanation. I don't think there was a problem with that.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: He dismissed the quote; that's the point.

SPEAKER: I don't think he dismissed the quote. What he said is that it could be taken in different ways, which is not an unreasonable answer. Do you have another supplementary?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Does he seriously think that the need for emergency housing in this country has been reduced to only 591 households?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I'm very proud that this Government has taken serious action to ensure that the number of households in emergency housing has reduced by over 80 percent, and I'm particularly comfortable and enthusiastic that over 2,500 children have left emergency housing since we became the administration. And I'm very serious about that.

SPEAKER: There are members over there asking questions. They can stand and take a supplementary if they want, but not by barracking across the House. The Minister will start his answer again.

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Mr Speaker, can I have the question again, please?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Will he admit that by stopping people from entering emergency housing, as front-line agencies have told him is happening, he is masking the true need for housing and overseeing a growing homelessness crisis in this country?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In most towns and cities in this country, those people who have a genuine need for a short-term stay in temporary accommodation known as emergency housing have a pathway to do that. Yes, there is a responsibility framework that goes with that, but there are also a number of other support products and brokering services that enable people stay out of emergency housing and be placed in social service transitional housing and social housing and other options.

Hon Chris Bishop: Can he explain to the House how the priority one policy, which says that if you are in emergency housing for a long period of time and have kids you should get first preference into a social house, works in practice?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: In April last year, we took the decision known as Priority One to fast track those people who have children and have been living in emergency housing for longer than 12 weeks into, essentially, a priority on the social housing wait-list. That has resulted in over 900 families and around 2,000 tamariki who have now been moved from that moral, fiscal, social, dank, dark catastrophe that was curated prior to us coming into administration.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Who should New Zealanders believe: agencies working on the front line that told the Minister to his face that his policy changes are stopping people getting the emergency housing they need and are leaving them on the street, or the Minister, who focuses on the savings of a million dollars a week?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I acknowledge there is genuine concern that is being expressed to me by a number of social service providers and others around the health and housing crisis that continues to confront many New Zealanders, disproportionately Māori. We have also committed to continuing a build programme with Kāinga Ora, with over 1,500 net homes to be built; support for community housing providers, with 1,500 additional funded places over the next couple of years; and others, like Tainui and many Māori housing providers, with another 300 affordable rentals to be built in the next couple of years. We acknowledge that there are genuine concerns and are also taking steps in order to ensure that going for housing growth, the housing renaissance led by the Manu Pūtea Nicola Willis and the Manu Pīhopa Chris Bishop is carried through.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Is it not actually the case that he is simply stopping people from entering emergency housing to reduce costs instead of actually reducing the need for emergency housing in the first place?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: It is actually the case that we have seen a reduction of nearly 2,500 tamariki living in emergency housing and we've also seen nearly 2,000 tamariki under Priority One go to dry, warm homes. That is actually the case.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister how many of those people would have been housed if the 100,000 homes promise had been kept?

SPEAKER: I think we'll leave that. Thank you. The point's made.

Question No. 10—Trade and Investment

10. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister for Trade and Investment: What recent announcements has the Government made about boosting economic growth?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for Trade and Investment): Last week, the Prime Minister announced the establishment of Invest New Zealand as the country's one-stop shop for attracting highly productive capital. By increasing foreign direct investment, we'll accelerate the growth of New Zealand businesses, create better and higher-paying jobs, and provide the infrastructure that New Zealanders need.

Nancy Lu: Why has the Government decided to set up Invest New Zealand?

Hon TODD McCLAY: We're not getting our fair share of international investment. Currently, the New Zealand stock of foreign direct investment sits at 38 percent of GDP, compared to an OECD average of 50 percent of GDP. Last year, by comparison, New Zealand's foreign direct investment grew by 5 percent, compared to Singapore at 31 percent. The Government's committed to increasing direct investment and growing the New Zealand economy so that Kiwis get their fair share and the services that come with that.

Nancy Lu: What will Invest New Zealand do?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Invest New Zealand will be a new agency modelled on the Irish and Singaporean best practice. It'll drive direct investment into high-potential sectors to boost New Zealand's innovation in productivity, increase R & D investment in New Zealand by overseas companies, making us attractive and increasing the value of our exports, and streamline processes to significantly increase funding for new and existing businesses and public and private sector projects.

Nancy Lu: Why is attracting foreign investment important for the economy?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Because the initiative will unlock tens of billions of dollars in global investment opportunities that support the delivery of key road and energy projects, creating better-paying jobs, support and create new businesses, and help the Government deliver core infrastructure the country needs. As the Prime Minister said, this year is about growing the economy, and Invest New Zealand is part of the Government's plan to make all New Zealanders better off.

Question No. 11—Tourism and Hospitality

11. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: How many additional tourists are projected to visit New Zealand as a result of the digital nomads policy, and what, if any, is the estimated amount of economic benefit from this policy?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality): Encouraging digital nomads to stay for up to nine months is part of this Government's plan to unlock economic growth by making New Zealand a more attractive place for people to work remotely while travelling. Tourism is New Zealand's second-largest export earner, generating almost $11 billion and creating nearly 200,000 jobs. Unfortunately, we are only at 86 percent of pre-COVID, 2019, numbers and this policy will help get New Zealand back on track. While it's hard to predict specific numbers, we do know from overseas examples that staycations are extraordinarily popular. Immigration New Zealand has already seen an incredible amount of interest—just since Monday—when there were over 4,000 hits on the first day we announced this policy. This has more than doubled, so over 8,000 yesterday. New Zealand is open for business. On this side of the House, we are pulling every lever to encourage more people to visit.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a question on notice; it had two parts. I think the Minister effectively argued that she couldn't answer the first part, she didn't know, but she didn't address the second part at all. It is a question on notice.

SPEAKER: Well, what would you say is the second part?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, I'm happy to read it out for you if you'd like.

SPEAKER: No, I know what's in it. I just need to know what you're concerned about.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: It asked her how many people were going to visit, she said she didn't know; and what the estimated amount of economic benefit from the policy was going to be; she didn't address that.

SPEAKER: Well, I think in talking about trying to bridge the gap between pre-COVID numbers and current numbers, that would be a reasonable attempt. Getting a dollar amount is pretty darn difficult if you've already said you're not sure how many might end up coming here. Do we have another question, Cushla?

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Given we're open for business, does she plan to address current infrastructure gaps in regions, like Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, which are already under strain, to ensure that the tourism sector in our regions can thrive while supporting any potential influx?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I would have thought that that member would be really excited about the possibility of more visitors coming into Hawke's Bay, into Wairarapa, into Gisborne, to see the very beautiful environment that we have. We're talking about digital nomads—they'll be travelling around the country. Every dollar they spend is a dollar in GST and good for New Zealand.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Did that Government increase the international visitor levy by 185 percent to prop up Government books?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We have increased the international visitor's levy. We are open for business. We are very keen to see more visitors come to New Zealand, including digital nomads. I for one hope they come to my electorate, and I would have thought that member hoped they come to hers as well.

Hon Erica Stanford: What other feedback has the Minister seen on the digital nomad announcement?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The general manager of FCM Travel in New Zealand, Kelly Thomas, said there was an increasing demand for digital nomad schemes from employees who want to blend business with pleasure. Meanwhile, Infometrics principal economist Brad Olsen has said, "I'm not sure if there's any real downsides to this policy in the short term" and that this might put New Zealand "on the map a bit more." It hasn't all been positive, though. So, strangely, despite the Labour leader recently calling digital nomads in New Zealand a vision worth fighting for, I heard that idea described as a stupid economic growth strategy this morning by one of Newstalk ZB's regular commentators, and that of course was Ginny Andersen. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: We've had a lot of discussions today about the way in which questions shouldn't be used to attack the Opposition. I think when it comes to answering a question about comments that were made, talking about a comment that has been made even on this day is not unreasonable.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: While obviously being a great supporter of tourism, I'm gravely aware of how fragile our infrastructure is, so has all the income from the levy since 1 October 2024 been invested back into infrastructure and conservation?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: That member will have to just wait and see where the investment goes, and I'm sure she'll be pleased when we say so.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Does she hope any potential tourists will fill the gap left by 128,000 Kiwis who left the country in the year ended November 2024, which was the highest on record?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'm very excited to be the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality and welcoming visitors to New Zealand with open arms. It's unfortunate that side doesn't seem to want them.

Question No. 12—Child Poverty Reduction

12. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction: Does she accept that children living in material hardship are more likely to do poorer in school due to a lack of food; if so, why did the Government remove food insecurity from the Child Poverty Related Indicators?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Child Poverty Reduction): To the first part of the question, yes, and that's why our Government has continued to invest in the things that reduce material hardship, lift educational achievement, and help families get ahead. Food insecurity continues to be measured and remains an indicator under our children's Child and Youth Strategy. I'm also proud that we have extended the Healthy School Lunches Programme to 10,000 children so more students will have access to food. Our efforts to help more parents into work will also lift household incomes and improve their ability to put food on the table. Reducing material hardship is a key priority in our Child and Youth Strategy, which is why we have a target to lift 17,000 more children out of material hardship by 2027.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will the number of children living in material hardship decrease at the same or higher rate than the Prime Minister's promised economic growth; if not, are children living in poverty not going to benefit from economic growth at the same rate as the rest of the population?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Economic growth is a fantastic opportunity because, of course, if we see jobs being created, then we will see more parents in work, which means fewer children in hardship.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is she saying, then, that we're expected to see a decline in the number of children living in material hardship equal or greater to the amount the economy grows?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, they go together, because the more the economy grows, the more jobs there are, the more opportunities there are for parents, the fewer parents that we will have on benefit. They'll have greater incomes and have better ability to provide for their children, which will mean fewer children in material hardship.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it true that material hardship for children will continue to increase under her watch until the rest of this Parliament's term?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I just said in my answer to the primary question that we have a target to reduce the number of children living in material hardship. I hope the member has noticed that we have had very challenging economic times, including recessionary conditions, and families have been doing it incredibly tough. And I do want to acknowledge that the start of the school year is incredibly tough for parents. That's why we are focused on economic growth, that's why we are focused on creating more jobs and enabling more families to look after their children so that there will be fewer children in material hardship.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Will the Government continue referring people to food banks while denying ongoing funding to food banks like the Auckland City Mission, or is kids going hungry just the necessary casualty of the Government outsourcing basic social services to underfunded charities in the private sector?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Government is continuing to fund organisations like the Auckland City Mission. As I said, I accept that it is incredibly challenging right now. I would like to stand here and say that we didn't inherit a period of prolific Government spending that has led to incredibly challenging economic times that mean more families are doing it tough, but our focus on this side of the House is fixing it.

DEBATE ON PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT

Debate resumed from 28 January.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): It's yes time. Because, after several years in which New Zealanders have watched what happens when a Government mismanages the economy and takes its eye off economic growth, they know things have to change. And we are a Government that is on the side of every New Zealander who says, "I want a better paying job. I want to earn more. I want my kids to have more opportunities in New Zealand." We are on the side of every New Zealander who says, "I want an economy in which inflation doesn't run out of control." We're on the side of every New Zealander who says, "I don't want interest rates on my mortgage to just go up, up, up; I'd like it to get cheaper." And we are the party that says yes to economic growth as the only solution to the economic challenges that we face.

And it's a different culture, because in recent years we had a Government that indulged in economic illiteracy. We had a Government that tried to hoodwink New Zealanders into believing that if only the Government taxed them more, took more of their hard-earned wages, and dreamt up more ways to waste that money, then things would miraculously get better. Well, it didn't work. Our Government is having to clean up the mess that it left. New Zealanders are alive to the culture that previous Government created and that this Government is stopping. A culture of hand-wringing, of naysaying, slowing down everything, from resource consents to how fast Kieran McAnulty can get home to those people in the Wairarapa.

Because we had a Government that was so obsessed with wiping every tear from every eye that they had a consultant gravy train running. They were funding projects to play whale music to trees. This was a Government that while doing all of these things, took its eye off the ball, which is how do we make New Zealand a wealthier country, how do we grow it faster, improve its productive capacity, make it easier for small businesses to hire people, make it easier for our farmers to sell more in the world, make it easier to attract investment into the jobs that New Zealanders want for their futures. Instead, we had a culture where they said no. No to investment, no to consents for new development, no to mining, no to tax reduction, and no even to petrol cars and utes.

Well, this is a Government that is changing the game. We are focused squarely on how New Zealand can earn the prosperity that New Zealanders deserve. Actually, that means doing things, not just announcing KiwiBuild homes that never appear. What it means is doing things that New Zealanders are sensible enough to know actually matter. So here's one that really matters for productivity: you've got to educate your kids. And you can talk all you want about wellbeing, but if children don't leave school able to read, write, and do maths, I'll guarantee you what they won't have, and that's wellbeing. So that's why we as a Government are turning around the education system. Putting structured literacy and numeracy into our schools and putting the focus back on that most important of capitals: human capital.

I'll tell you what else doesn't grow an economy: that's when every time someone wants to build something or do something or develop something or innovative something, you say, "Well, here's the red tape I'd like you to manoeuvre your way through before you do it." We are getting rid of that. We've started with a fast-track regime that says yes to dozens and dozens of major developments across this country: wind farms, solar farms, quarrying projects, housing development, transport projects. And you know what the irony is? Those people there sitting under the no lobby, what did they say to growth enhancing developments? They said, "Oh, no, no, no. No, no, no. We can dream up a lot of reasons to say no to that." They take such pride in saying no that, actually, that's what Chris Hipkins gets up each day to do: "How can I say no today?" Such that he actually confuses himself and his own spokespeople. So that even while he was saying that he really thought digital nomads were part of New Zealand's future, yesterday when the Government was promoting it and people were receiving it well, he had to think up a reason to say no. So even while Kieran McAnulty was welcoming faster travel times in the Wairarapa, his colleague Tangi Utikere was saying, "Oh, no, no, no."

Well, New Zealanders have had enough of it. Whether it's the small businesses that I speak to who say, "You know what? I want my workers safe, I want them healthy, and I want to take everything I can do to protect them. But I tell you what, that Health and Safety Act, it gets in my way every day." And what they say to that is, "Oh no, you can't listen to that because that red tape's really important." Well, if we let red tape win, the economy suffers. Our Government is on the side of saying, "Get rid of the red tape that's in the way. Cut through the bureaucracy. Say yes to development."

I'll tell you what else we need to do. Get over this idea that members of the Opposition seem to have that we'll get rich by selling to ourselves. Well, that won't ever work. We need to be exporting to the world. That means trading with the world. That means inviting in those who want to invest in New Zealand jobs and New Zealand incomes and New Zealand infrastructure. And it means not doing what Chlöe Swarbrick did this morning at the Finance and Expenditure Committee when she questioned whether growth really was what would help people who were suffering from inequality. Now, I'd say this: if you are a young New Zealander, if you're a baby born to a home where your parents don't have a job, I'll tell you what is sure to result, and that is that you will have a much lower income. So I'll tell you one of the best things we can do to get kids out of poverty, Green Party, that is actually have an economy that can sustain better paying jobs for the parents of all children born in this country so that they can earn their way and get ahead. Because, actually, they don't want your patronising idea that the way they get ahead is with a handout from you and your mates and a press release from the Labour Party.

What New Zealanders want is to earn a decent living through their own efforts. All they ask for is a Government that supports the activity that delivers that. And we are that Government. They ask for a Government that says, "Look, don't just invest in science and innovation and technology that makes academics feel good sitting around and having chats about kauri trees and whale music. Can you please make sure that when you invest our taxpayer dollars, it's going towards scientific and technological advancement that will support the growth of this country?" And I don't think that's too much to ask. That is why we are reforming New Zealand's State funded science system.

I'll tell you what else New Zealanders say. They say, "I am over waiting in traffic forever. I am over Ministers from the previous Government announcing light rail every six months and not even building a single kilometre of it. Build me some roads." And so that's what we're doing. Because it turns out, I'll tell you what roads are really convenient for: not only do they help you get to work faster, but also they carry freight, which is necessary to get exports to ports in order for New Zealand to make the income that we need.

This is a yes culture. But I'll tell you what else is important for growth in addition to the reforms we are making, and that is a very serious point. Because I fear that some members in this House are forgetting the lessons of economic history. Responsible fiscal management matters, colleagues. We actually had a grand experiment these past six years in which we had a Government that borrowed and hoped that this strategy of more tax, more borrowing, and more debt would result in some sort of economic nirvana. Well, New Zealanders are smarter than our opponents think. New Zealanders saw what that delivered: a cost of living crisis with sky high inflation, 525 basis points of interest rate hikes that harmed every mortgagee and every business in this country, and it delivered a mighty big structural deficit.

So New Zealanders want a Government that will be honest with them, that will fix this broken economy, and that will bring back a culture of sense, or yes, of doing the things that back people to back themselves. So next time that lot opposite tell you that they did a good job, I'll say to you, "Tell that to the New Zealanders who were left unable to pay their bills, having experienced years of inflation watching you fritter away their money and say no to the good things in their community." And I tell you what New Zealanders will say. They'll say, "You mucked it up. I trust this Government to fix it."

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): We're being told a lot, over the last two days, that we have a Government of yes. This is a Government of yes—I agree with them on that; it's about saying yes to their mates and to the big end of town. And that is what we have seen from this Government. Who we have seen this Government say no to is we've seen the Government say no to the people of Dunedin and Dunedin Hospital. We've seen this Government say no to our disabled communities and their funding. We've seen this Government say no to first-home buyers and cut assistance for those people to get into homes. We've seen cuts to front-line services up and down the country. We've seen cancelled free prescriptions for so many of our people. And, more importantly, we are seeing thousands of people vote with their feet and leave our country because this is not a Government that is saying yes to them. It is a Government that is clearly closing the door on hope and aspiration for them.

Over the last two days, we've also had the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance try and peddle the story that the country has been in recession for three years. One problem: it doesn't match up with the truth. In fact, the Government's own officials, the Treasury, came to a select committee this morning and said that was not the case and that the first time we saw New Zealand go into a recession was under their watch in 2024. What this Government has to own up to is that they are dragging this country down, that they are putting us into the steepest recession that we have seen since the early 1990s and Ruth Richardson, taking COVID out of it. It is no surprise that we are seeing similar austerity measures coming out of this Government and why ordinary New Zealanders are feeling like this is a Government that is letting them down. It is certainly not a Government of yes for them; it is certainly a Government of no.

The cost of living seems to have disappeared from the Government's agenda. I don't know if anyone else has noted that. That is not surprising, given that we're seeing insurance, rates, energy, transport—all those costs that hit at people's household budgets—keep on rising and rising far faster than inflation and wages. This is the reality for everyday New Zealanders.

And we have the Minister of Finance lecturing us about how it is that we will make people feel better, and that is getting kids out of poverty. Well, the single biggest way we lead children out of poverty is by well-paid, meaningful jobs. And what are we seeing out of this Government? We are seeing unemployment rise. Thousands of people are out of work, thanks to the policy agenda of the Government that we have in place. Mills and meatworks are closing up and down the country. There are now 12,745 fewer jobs in the construction sector alone since this crowd took office. We've seen the construction sector fall by 6 percent in their time.

This is a Government that New Zealanders simply cannot afford. Let's go through a list of the failures in only a year that we have seen from this Government: $2.9 billion worth of tax cuts for landlords, and where are those promised rent decreases for renters? We are still seeing rents rise. We're seeing tax breaks for tobacco companies and the reversing of our world-leading smokefree policy. What we are seeing is a watering down of the protections we put in place post - 15 March around our gun laws. We are seeing, as I've mentioned, Dunedin Hospital being walked away from. We're seeing that cut for first-home grants and first-home borrowers. We're seeing so many things being cut.

But one of the things, over the last couple of weeks, that I think has been so concerning for New Zealanders to hear about is the Government fessing up—the way in which the Minister of Finance tells us—that we don't get rich by selling to ourselves. What they're cooking up is they want to get rich by selling it all off. There is a very clear privatisation agenda. The Minister of Finance has been getting lists drawn up by the public sector, looking at our State-owned assets, and seeing what it is that we can be ready to flog off. We only need to look to our past to see what happens when we flog off and privatise our State assets. We can look to KiwiRail, we can look to what happened in health, and we can look to what happened in energy and how this has not benefited New Zealanders.

Now, coming from the people's republic of Wigram, where we have a very clear idea on what it means to not sell off our State assets. This is something I will fight with every fibre in my being. I grew up in South Christchurch in the 1980s when the Addington workshop was shut down because it was privatised. I watched the parents of my friends lose their jobs, and their families, in many places, lose their dignity with that paid work. That is what it means, and that is why the Labour Party will stand strong against a privatisation agenda.

The other thing that we've seen in recent weeks is the Prime Minister feel the need to appoint a special envoy to the Southern lands, those lands that lie to the south of Lyle Bay—commonly known but unknown to this Government—called the Southern lands, the South Island. There is now a Minister, a Minister outside Cabinet, who's not there when decisions are made, who has responsibility for the South Island. When we were in Government, we just called that Cabinet. We just had enough people from the South Island sitting around the Cabinet table. We didn't have one person, who got demoted in the last reshuffle, sitting at the Cabinet table and having to fight the fight. Any Government that feels the need to appoint a junior Minister outside Cabinet to be the special envoy for the South Island is showing, in black and white, it is failing the people of the South Island.

But it is no wonder that they've had to do this. Let's look at the litany of let-downs for the South Island. Let's start—I know Rachel Brooking is sitting behind me and so is Tracey McLellan—with Dunedin Hospital and the walk-back on the promise to the people of Dunedin around a badly needed new hospital and the wider South. We've had that mirrored at the top of the South with Nelson Hospital and the way that Nelson Hospital is being walked back on. We've seen the literal severing of the South Island with the cancelling of the ferries, breaking down that vital link that we need between the North and South Islands and the commitment to rail-enabled fairies to ensure that we can have good flow of goods and services. We've also seen this in transport funding. Of the 12 or 17 roads, I think—17 roads—of national significance, two of them were in the South Island. And guess what? They were the two smallest projects in the programme. The South has been shortchanged. Five percent of transport funding coming through in this Budget went to the South Island, when we make up a quarter of the country's population. It is no wonder that this Government has felt the need to appoint someone to be that special envoy.

But one of the things that cuts me to the core, where the Government has walked away from the South Island, is the commitment that was needed to our 15 March families. This is a Government that has let down a group of New Zealanders, a group of people in Christchurch, and has simply turned their backs on them. It's not just about walking away from the gun reform that was done post - 15 March; it's about actually dealing with a group of people who were subject to a terrorist attack with any kind of empathy and any kind of heart.

This is a Government that is failing New Zealand. It is a Government that is not putting their priorities first. It is not a Government that is saying yes to the people of New Zealand. It is a Government that is saying yes to its mates.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, sir.

Hon Erica Stanford: Mr Speaker.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: Apologies to the member. Sir, I know that we all believe that debates should be held in this House with a level of decorum. Now, there was a comment made during that speech which was unparliamentary and targeted personally the Hon Dr Megan Woods. If the member that made that comment wishes to withdraw and apologise now, I'm quite happy to leave it there. If they choose not to, then I will raise it but I won't do so publicly.

SPEAKER: OK. I was listening to the speech of the Hon Megan Woods and didn't hear the comment. If there was an unparliamentary comment made by someone, it would be wise to withdraw and apologise.

Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Isn't it nice to be lectured by a previous Government Minister who has conveniently forgotten that in the previous Government they had a Minister for Auckland! Minister Wood was a representative for Auckland. And, tell you what, James Meager is going to make an exceptional Minister and an exceptional representative for the people of Christchurch and the people of the South Island. It's also worthy of note that Labour put in place a delivery unit. We call that "Cabinet". We are the Government of delivery, because we have been delivering for the good part of a year now and we are going to continue to do so through focusing on economic growth and prosperity for Kiwis. We are a Government who are going to say yes, and we are Ministers who are making sure that we are putting in place the conditions for growth.

It was great to be part of one of the first announcements out of the blocks with our digital nomads policy, because we are saying yes to economic growth, yes to more tourists, yes to more high-value tourists. The Labour Party used to like talking about high-value tourists, but apparently not anymore. We are saying yes to highly skilled IT executives overseas who might want to come here and work in the wee hours of the morning and, in the afternoon, have a surfing lesson at Raglan, walk a Great Walk, play golf at Tara Iti, but all the while spending their money in our local businesses, going to local cafes, drinking in local bars, eating in local restaurants, especially during the shoulder season. We're only at 86 percent of where we used to be for tourism. We cannot afford to be like the Opposition and say no to everything. We are saying yes to digital nomads, and it has been a massive hit. We've been featured in the BBC; we've been featured in the New York Times. Brett O'Reilly has been talking about people from LA who have been affected by those devastating fires coming here while they rebuild their homes. And we are saying yes to that.

If we want future economic growth, our immigration system must be match fit. We have to play our part in setting the conditions for economic growth, and our policies must support business. We know that it's absolutely crucial that they have access to the skills that they need to grow their businesses. When we took office, processing times for the three gateways for the work visa were 81 days. Today: 32 days. We have made sure, in the last year, that we have got Immigration New Zealand to be match fit. We've changed some of the policies, but we've also made sure that our processing is speedy and efficient, all the while making sure that we still have our eye on the ball when it comes to risk management and ensuring that we are verifying all of the documentation that is coming in from our applicants.

We're saying yes to international students. Thirteen days was the average time it took to process an international student visa in December last year, 40 percent better than the same time last year. There were no queues, there were no wait times, and there still aren't. And this is our peak time. We are match fit. And we're saying yes to international visitors and tourists. In December, it took eight days to process a visitor visa, and that's our peak time. Immigration New Zealand is match fit, and we have made sure that they are match fit. This Government is making sure that our immigration settings are responsive, that they're efficient, that they're fit for purpose, that they're speedy to drive economic growth, and we are going to have a lot more to say and a lot more announcements later this year.

The long-term drivers of growth are just as important as some of the short- and medium-term factors that I've talked about. And our single-most important long-term driver of growth is our children. We have a moral obligation to make sure that they are meeting their full potential and getting a world-leading education. These young people of today are the future Peter Becks. They are the future doctors and nurses and policemen and teachers, and we have to invest in them. For too long, we have been watching our results decline over many, many decades. But our focus—the focus of this Government and a focus of mine—is making sure that we are getting changes in the classroom in reading, writing, and maths; professional learning and development for our teachers; resources—books, tactile resources—in the classroom; structured literacy in the classroom; clear reporting to parents; twice yearly assessments; and, most importantly, support for those learners who are falling behind, and catching them early so that we can help them to catch up. In under a year, we have implemented a huge shift in education. We have a focus on back to the basics and evidence-based and sensible changes.

I want to talk, firstly, about the curriculum, because last year we completely rewrote the maths and English curricula to be making sure that we are following a science of learning approach. The curriculum is year by year, knowledge rich. Teachers and parents will know exactly what is to be taught and what is to be learnt every single year and that, no matter where they go to school, no matter which part of New Zealand they are in, it is clear and consistent. This year, 65,000 young children are going to start school, and every single one of them going to a State school is going to learn to read using structured literacy, an evidence-based method we know is the very best way to teach our young children to read. It is absolutely crucial that young New Zealanders have great literacy, and structured literacy has been proven to make sure that young people learn to read, and 90 percent of them learn to read using structured literacy. And the really important thing is that we catch them early when they are falling through the cracks. This year, we will see at 20 weeks and at 40 weeks a phonics check—a one-on-one check between a teacher and a child—to make sure that they're progressing as they're expected to be. And we're doing all of this in te reo Māori as well. We're giving schools up to $5,000 per year for four years to purchase extra structured literacy resources on top of the free ones we're already producing.

Numeracy is also crucial. We have been watching our results plummet over the decades. We know that only 20 percent of our year-8s are at curriculum and where they should be. My message to parents is clear: your kids are going to know their times tables, because instant recall of basic facts and times tables is back. It's embedded into the curriculum. Too many parents have said to us that their young children are falling behind but they find out too late. Well, every single parent in this country will be able to see exactly what their children are learning, where they should be. We just delivered nearly 500,000 maths books, to 92 percent of New Zealand schools up and down the country who ordered them. That is absolutely massive. And not only are they workbooks and textbooks for students but they are guidebooks and lesson plans for teachers as well. We are making sure that we are putting in place evidence-based methods, especially when it comes to mathematics. It's so important that young people are taught explicitly, in a structured way, that they master topics before they move on, through practice, through games, through tactile resources, and through group work.

As I said earlier, it's so important that young people don't fall through the cracks. This term, 3,000 years 7 and 8 students will be receiving tutoring up to four times a week to make sure that they are at the level they should be. And the schools have been told over the last couple of weeks which schools will be included in that trial, and we will roll that out later in the year once we see the results of the trial. There has been a revolution in education. Parents around the country can feel confident that their children are receiving a world-leading education. And I want to just mention a story that I heard from Joseph Mooney just a couple of days ago. He said that he was speaking to a young mum who said, "I was going to home school my child. And I've been preparing to do so. But given all the changes that your Government has made, I'm enrolling them in their local school, because I can see that it's a year-by-year curriculum, structured literacy, structured mathematics, and all of the resources you're providing gives me confidence that my child will be receiving a world-leading education."

If we want future economic growth and prosperity for our families, the key is making sure our young people of today are receiving that world-leading education, have confidence in their abilities, and can go on to live the life that they want.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Envy is ignorance; imitation is fatal, to paraphrase Emerson. The economics of Aussie envy will be fatal for New Zealand, because we must stand on the integrity of our own values, on the value of our own ecosystems and our own resources. For us to attempt to become a little wannabe backwater mined-up Australia will be disastrous for who we actually are.

The mentality of the 19th century extractive economy is more than merely a backward idea; more than merely Old World thinking. We know the consequences that it has for human society. We know that fundamentally the extractive mentality is what has led us to the existential crisis we face as a species. The crisis of climate change is fundamentally the consequences of us believing that we can keep extracting oil, gas, coal, and various minerals from the ground and burning them and sending that sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. In fact, that is the end of the viability of life on this planet. I don't want to sound dramatic; it's unfortunately the science of it. The science is that what makes us a viable and livable planet is through the health of the relationship that we as a species that belongs to this earth holds with the integrity of the ecosystems on which we depend.

When the environment is sick, when the rivers are polluted, so too will we be sick and will we be unwell. It is a basic reality of what we have learned over centuries of industrialism, that we have to stop thinking like we're in the 19th century. The pollution economy that this Luxon Government is advancing is utterly the wrong direction, not just for the world but it is certainly the wrong direction for Aotearoa New Zealand. Gold is not golden here; clean and green is golden here, and that is what we must be standing for.

When the likes of the Minister for minerals and resources and the likes of the Prime Minister say they're going to mine in Otago and say they're going to extract millions of tonnes of sand from Bream Bay up in Northland and say they're going to dig up the seabed in Taranaki for Trans-Tasman Resources and say they're going to reopen gold mining on conservation estate in the Coromandel and say they're going to do more coal mining on the West Coast of the South Island, we as te Pāti Kākāriki, as the Green Party say to those communities: we will stand with you in defence of those magnificent ecosystems. We will stand with you in defence of your communities, your communities that have fought and fight now to maintain the integrity of the place in which you live.

You know when the Aussie gold miners come over here and they rip and they strip and they bust and they head over the horizon with the profits that you are left with the legacy of acid mine drainage and cyanide and arsenic-laden tailings dams. Long after the profits have gone offshore, you are left with that legacy. That is not the way forward for communities in this country. It is not the way forward for us as a nation in terms of our economy. We must provide a means for people to sustain their lives that is regenerative, that is renewable, that is circular, that allows us to have a means of sustenance that is not short term, that is not destructive, that doesn't lead to the contamination of our groundwater, the orange pollution that we just recently saw in the Coromandel running through rivers from mines that were mined over a century ago.

We need to find a way of making a thriving society and a thriving existence on this planet that does not threaten the very viability of life. We cannot mine our way to a livable planet, and we should, after all these decades and centuries of trying to do that, understand that by now. This Government is taking New Zealand backwards and we as te Pāti Kākāriki will stand with those communities who are defending an idea of a genuinely authentic, unique Aotearoa New Zealand where we stand on our own merits. Kia ora.

BENJAMIN DOYLE (Green): E te Māngai, tēnā koe.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Nurture the seed and it shall blossom.

One in five Māori tamariki live in households struggling to put kai on the table, struggling to send their children to school with full puku, decent clothing, and proper resources for learning. In his speech to the House, the Prime Minister celebrates a curriculum that nobody asked for. One hour of literacy and numeracy, as though that wasn't already happening in classrooms across the motu, and as though that can address the significant structural inequalities depriving our children from accessing the education they truly deserve, an education focused on nurturing the wellbeing of whānau, community, and te taiao, rather than the results of an arbitrary over-assessment.

While the Prime Minister pontificates about his glutton for growth, our own tamariki are being subjected to the growth of the most insidious nature: inequality. Recent data from KidsCan shows that 6,000 tamariki in desperate need of support are on their waitlists alone—6,000 tamariki. Instead of cuts to school lunches or dictating classroom content, instead of removing essential relationships and sexuality education without anything to replace it with, despite overwhelming support from whānau and tamariki, instead of the looming prospect of privatisation, unqualified teachers, and ballooning ratios, this Government could be addressing the root cause of educational inequality: poverty. Growth will not undo the harms of intergenerational systemic oppression. Growth will not fix the broken industrial education complex. Growth will not address the intersecting and compounding determinants of health, which result in the disproportionate harm experienced by tangata whenua.

The Prime Minister spoke about investing in healthcare but failed to mention how his Government has left the most vulnerable members of our communities behind. We are witnessing an unprecedented assault on takatāpui and rainbow communities by this Government. Attempts to limit access to basic gender-affirming healthcare are under way, and the only national organisation supporting the specific and severe mental health needs of LGBTQI+ communities has been left to fend for itself. At a time of global hysteria and disinformation about the lives of trans, non-binary, and rainbow people, this Government must take an evidence-based approach to upholding the rights and mana o ngā tāngata katoa o Aotearoa.

It is of particular concern that only days before the commemorations of Waitangi Day, the Prime Minister admitted any mention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi or the needs and aspirations of whānau Māori from his speech. We cannot achieve educational or wellbeing targets without addressing the broken promises the Crown has made to Māori. We cannot achieve educational or wellbeing targets by allowing one in five tamariki Māori to live in extreme material hardship or attend school without the basics. Equity is achieved by listening to those most affected by the decisions we are making. It is achieved by focusing on the particular needs and solutions that they generously and continuously offer us. It is incumbent upon the Prime Minister to act in the best interests of all those he represents, not just those who exist in his own sphere of experience.

Teachers are telling us they need to be resourced, valued, and empowered so that this week tamariki can arrive at schools adequately prepared to nurture their learning and hauora. Whānau and tamariki are telling us they are struggling to send their kids to school with the basics, not that they want the Government to impose an hour of reading and writing. Takatāpui and rainbow communities are telling us they deserve their basic human rights, not to be treated as a vessel for imported transphobia. Trans lives are taonga and trans healthcare is a human right.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Pleasure to be standing in the House for the start of 2025, and I hope everyone's had a great holiday. It's great to be back, and, as the Prime Minister said in his state of the nation speech, it's all about saying "yes". As the Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister, I'm also saying "yes" to making sure that consumers and businesses across the country get a better deal: "yes" to more competition; "yes" to more choice; "yes" to a thriving economy, and for Kiwis being better off.

As our Government gears up to supercharge our economy, we want to make sure that this economy has the right framework to be able to achieve the growth that we ambitiously set out and want to see happen, because, ultimately, what that means is that people have more money, which means they have a better standard of living. We as a Government also ultimately benefit because we get more taxes, which we can invest in roads, schools, education, and health facilities—all the good stuff that everyone wants.

But an important part of that is competition, because competitive markets boost our productivity and also create and provide for innovation. They also create employment opportunities and lift living standards. When consumers have confidence to invest, then that's when businesses have confidence to invest and also to innovate, and that is what ultimately drives the economy. That's why I'm proud to be leading a couple of areas around changes in competition to promote better outcomes for New Zealanders.

The first one I want to talk about is the review of the Companies Act. The Companies Act 1993 hasn't been reviewed for 30 years and it is an essential empowering piece of legislation that sets out the framework for how businesses operate in New Zealand. It is really important that we have the right framework, and it's surprising that it has not been reviewed for 30 years. So we want to make sure that New Zealand businesses do have the right framework to operate and to operate successfully and to operate fairly, so what we're going to do is we're going to modernise, simplify, and digitise the Companies Act. I am very excited about this piece of legislation because it is such an important driver of how people operate in New Zealand, and I want to make sure, ultimately, as an outcome of this process, that we're in a better position where businesses can be more successful.

So, some of the elements of that bill: first thing is we're going to deal with the issue around directors having to disclose their personal addresses. We're going to remove that requirement, but, interestingly so, we're also going to remove the requirement for companies in terms of where you have a director and you have a shareholder—often they're the same person, so we're going to remove the requirement in both cases. But to deal with the issue of poor performing or directors who do not fulfil their duties adequately, we're going to give them a unique digital identity so we can track who they are.

Alongside that, very concerned about phoenixing of companies, which is the process where people get paid, for instance, if you were doing an extension of a house—and I don't want to highlight, particularly, the building and construction sector. But by way of an example, if you were doing a small build on a house, you pay your builder a certain amount of money, they don't fulfil their obligation and they put the company into receivership and then set up the next day—that is the phoenixing of a company. We're going to deal with that issue once and for all because it's bad for individuals, bad for Kiwis, and it's also bad for business practices. So we're going to strengthen the arrangements around that; the Companies Office is going to be much more involved in that process, and we're going to also make some tweaks around the insolvency laws to make sure that those people are captured.

We're going to get rid of screeds of regulation set out in the Companies Act that are no longer relevant, that should be removed—expunged from the law because it's now 30 years old. We're going to embrace the thought of digitisation so that people can file accounts digitally, and we're also going to look at how we simplify a lot of the stuff that companies and businesses have to do. That is a big chunk of work and I'm very proud of it.

The second bit that we're going to do around competition is the review of the Commerce Act. We're currently out for consultation on the Commerce Act. It is another piece of legislation that hasn't been reviewed for 20 years, and I find it staggering that no one—no Governments—have thought about doing a major review. Of course, the Commerce Act sets out the framework for how mergers and acquisitions, and how consolidation of industries take place, and the rules that govern, and how the rules that the Commerce Commission must act.

What we're doing in the consultation that's out for consultation at the moment—we're expecting to hear responses back on that later this month—is how do we look at those rules? How do we make sure that merger settings are appropriate so we don't see agglomerations of sectors of the economy that we've seen in the past. Obviously, we've seen—supermarkets are clearly one area that shouldn't have been allowed to get to that point over time, but there are a number of other sectors that have been allowed to do it, and it's been as a result of poor settings in the Commerce Act. So what we're looking to do is to make sure we can do that.

We're also consulting on the issue of whether the Commerce Commission can do issue codes to make sure we've got better behaviours occurring in certain sectors, at the Commerce Commission's choice, to make sure we are driving as much competition. We're making sure commercial activities of industries, where they are controlled by very few players, operate in a much more fair basis, and that the Commerce Commission has got the authority to do it. One of the things I've instructed the Commerce Commission is to be a courageous litigator, and we're seeing, increasingly, more action from the Commerce Commission. We want to be tougher on those entities that are using their market dominance to poor effect, which is affecting all New Zealanders.

The other third area relates to open banking and open energy, which is all—the first part is part of the banking competition review that the Commerce Commission did recently. We are embracing open banking. I've engaged extensively with the fintech industry, which is merging competitors to the large banks. I meet with them regularly, and I'm due to meet with them again in a couple of weeks' time, with the Commerce Commission. We want to enable those fintechs to be able to offer discrete, competitive products and services in competition with the large banks, but also to introduce new products.

It's also beneficial for banks, open banking. For instance, in Australia, you can now get a bank to provide you a mortgage offering within 10 minutes, and they do it because they can use open banking rules to access all data—only at the sanction of the person wanting that mortgage offer, but open banking provides for that. So it is something about driving more competition, new products and services. We've talked a lot about open banking and expecting to have the arrangements in place by the end of this year: the Consumer Data Rights Bill will be coming before the House hopefully in the next three weeks for the second reading, but we're expecting to have that, targeting to have open banking in place by the end of this year. At the same time, we will be doing open energy, which is about creating opportunities for competitors to offer better and more wide-ranging services in the energy markets, because we know how significant electricity costs are for households.

Those are the three big things, but there's a fourth one, which is around capital markets—I haven't got time to talk about it, but in due course I will do. And, also, we are having a major focus—the Commerce Commission is having a major focus on surcharges, credit card charges that people pay when they go to buy a cup of coffee or to buy schoolbooks for their children this week. So we want to reduce that. I'm encouraging and supporting the work of the Commerce Commission. It is vital we reduce surcharges.

So there's a range of things that we're doing around competition. We're serious about improving competition in New Zealand because it's a good thing for all New Zealanders and good for business as well. Ultimately, it means everyone is better off. Thank you very much.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Te Pāti Māori is the party that will fight to the end for te iwi Māori. It's in our name. That was one thing I committed to doing when I swore myself into Parliament, as did my tupuna back in the 11th Parliament: Eparaima Mutu Kapa. To fight day in and day out for our people. This isn't a career, nor is it an academic exercise, this is what it means to be Māori. This is the mokopuna movement. W'akapapa is important to te ao Māori, and let's not forget Te Pāti Māori was birthed out of a time where Government did what it has always done, take what doesn't belong to it. This forcibly drew Māori together, back in 2004, a time we might acknowledge as crossing the floor.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

I take the opportunity here to acknowledge the legacy of Dame Tariana Turia and her role in Whānau Ora. This is a successful, Māori-led initiative that minimises whānau need to engage with State-delivered services. It prioritises a Māori way, delivering health, economic wellbeing, social wellbeing for our people. This is a proven and successful model for our people—an indigenous Māori model. It works.

I acknowledge the kōrero of our co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, delivered yesterday, and this will endeavour to build upon those messages she gave on our behalf. As our co-leader alluded to, it was the unspoken words in the Prime Minister's statement that spoke volumes. So while he preaches on the so-called economic growth our country is meant to be experiencing, I acknowledge the harsh reality for everyday people. We call that "poverty in paradise". Poverty in paradise for many of our whanaunga in Te Tai Tokerau, Tairāwhiti, Tāmaki,

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

As this Government's economic delusions live rent-free in our minds, many of our whanaunga search for any place to live and an income to pay the rent for such places. Poverty is also a future many now stare at, even for those who seemed to be doing OK and getting by at one time. The Budget 2024, despite the Prime Minister's optimistic commentary on this, does nothing for Māori, and in fact it takes us backwards. It signifies that Māori lives do not matter to this Government, and in fact it would be just as easy for us to give it up to this current agenda.

The continuation of colonial practice via financial colonisation is seen in the Budget 2024. It manifests this exactly in this current practice from this House—for example, a $1.5 million fund to Oranga Tamariki where only 2 percent was given to Māori, despite our tamariki making up 70 percent of those in State care. This says, in the Prime Minister's words, yes to colonisation inaction. If the need is 70 percent Māori, then the funding surely should also have been reflective of that at least; 70 percent of $1.5 million should and could be delegated to Māori. Yet the Prime Minister said yes to placing Māori value at 2 percent. It was just another yes from his discussion yesterday. If that fund was allocated to Māori, kaupapa Māori, Māori organisations, te iwi Māori, our children would no longer be trapped within these Pākehā stream systems.

Another yes from the Prime Minister to these exact systems purposely designed to keep us below and never beside. The removal of Section 7AA is the epitome of exactly that. The section itself offered Māori too much say in how our children are cared for by the State. And that is exactly what He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi affords us—mana motuhake in our own right.

While in my childhood He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi weren't discussed as it is today. The climate of today, though, demands we debate the validity of our founding documents. Such validity is argued this week in the submissions of the Treaty principles bill. While David Seymour recognised in his 15-minute spiel the likelihood of his bill being voted down—I'd say yes to that—he highlighted that once an idea is put forth in motion, it cannot be undone. He also highlighted various bills that have endured many rounds of voting before eventual success. While the idea of his racially divisive bill cannot be removed, it can and will be trumped by the response of te iwi Māori. Whānau are now having discussions on He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi—I say yes to that. It looks like it, and it is that in action within their lives and within the lives of all in Aotearoa. We have tangata Tiriti joining alongside us, supporting us and walking with us on our path to liberation.

What we see to begin this year off is the true embodiment of what Kiingi Tūheitia asked of us—kotahitanga. That is an idea, a concept too, that cannot be undone. You see, when our tūpuna took their names to pen and paper, signing Te Tiriti o Waitangi, our mana we share with our mokopuna through w'akapapa was protected against a changing world.

I reflect on all I've said in the context of what it means to be mokopuna – decision centred and focused. I know our movement is on track. I await with anticipation to see our future generations inherit this movement—say yes to that. I'm waiting for some yeses—please, join in. But I know there is still work to be done. I challenge the Prime Minister in this to say no less, and yes to more theory; to say yes to a mokopuna Māori authority; say yes to GST off kai; say yes to a Māori justice authority; to say yes to a Māori health authority, again; and say yes to not one more mokopuna. Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou e te Whare.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My remarks will be quite brief, I believe it's a split call. I want to talk about rural New Zealand and where we're taking the country.

I am aghast. I heard the Leader of the Opposition yesterday not mention rural New Zealand once. Try and reconcile that—50 billion bucks, not one remark. The Hansard is a wonderful tool. I went through the Hansard to digest if the Leader of the Opposition would reconcile $56 billion to our economy. And, for the sake of this House, I want to share a couple of figures to contextualise where we are and where we're going. Bear in mind, Chris Hipkins didn't share this once.

Horticulture: 7 billion bucks, not a mention. Zip, nada, zero. Dairy industry—

Helen White: You realise you're part of the Government. You get to do whatever you want.

MARK CAMERON: —22.4—Helen White—$22.4 billion, not a mention by the Leader of the Opposition. Time to reconcile sheep and beef: $10.5 billion.

Helen White: Time to grow up and lead. Give it a go, not just whinge.

MARK CAMERON: Again, not a mention. Nada, zero, zip—Helen White. From the leader of the Labour Party, the biggest sector in the country got no oxygen, no time, no mention. Fisheries, there's another one didn't get a mention, $1.8 billion. Well, I come into this House every day—

Helen White: Unemployment's pretty important too. Talk about that: why is it up?

MARK CAMERON: —and I represent my party and the people that make $56 billion that that member's leader—$56 billion—didn't want to talk about.

But there are fantastic opportunities that this Prime Minister, this side of the House, my party, our coalition partners, have spoken about and we have delivered, because we believe in rural people—absentee owners over the other side. We reformed conversations in and around the Resource Management Act—what does that actually look like? Long-term water storage facilitation—well gracious me, there's a novel—

Helen White: You said no to good, affordable water solutions.

MARK CAMERON: —idea, Helen White. In terms of winter grazing, actually listen to the people that do this stuff. Stop evangelical sermons out of Auckland saying, "Well, you can't do these things with dairy calves." Not one iota—it's not mentioned once in the Hansard.

Climate change, the bane of all things. And yet we actually listen to farmers, the technology that they employ, the technology that they couldn't. Let's have an independent review of methane. All the time, I hear the sermons in this House: "There's no money left. We will have spent all the money, but it's burnt." Well, let's go back to the sector that makes most of it and support them so we have a better future, and we do it on this side of the House.

Fresh water: a problem, a real problem in rural New Zealand. We understand there is sedimentation, there's E. coli, there are various attributes of farming that impugn, effect, have a perverse outcome for fresh water. But we listened to locals, we listened to farmers, and we said—genuinely—there can be catchment-level solutions. This Government did it. We are delivering because we believe in rural people every day. Not when it's convenient, not when it's an election year, every bloody day I come to this House because I believe in rural New Zealand.

Significant Natural Areas: well, there's a novel idea. Let's protect property rights. Go back to who owns it, who pays the rates, who pays the mortgage, and are they investing in ecological, biological outcomes? Invest in those people and stop restricting what they do with their private land and how they care for it.

And finally, Madam Speaker, I'll tie off with animal welfare. Some of the nonsense I have seen previously are framed up in some of the proposed reforms for animal welfare.

Helen White: Have you watched the videos on the live animal—

MARK CAMERON: Totally misunderstood. Helen White, again; Auckland, speaking to a farmer about the overall outcomes when it came to the welfare of animals, how were they were farmed, the housing, the farming practices, because we on this side of the House actually listen to the people that do it.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. From that side, we have heard so much negativity, and, actually, I'm not going to delve into that. What I want to say is that on this side, we believe in success, we celebrate success, we want everybody to achieve success, and this is not just the current generation but our future generations, as well. That's why we are working hard to ensure that our people feel confident going forward in their lives.

We know that students, those who are enrolling to go into university—they are really hopeful of getting a degree. We want them to gain qualifications here in New Zealand that will open doors for bright futures, not here in New Zealand only but also on the world stage, because some of these students might want to go overseas and explore some opportunities there and bring those unique experiences back to New Zealand. We want to see that for all these students, those who are gaining qualifications here in New Zealand, that qualification is of the same level as any world-class university around the world.

But I'm concerned. I'm concerned because the University of Auckland, our most prominent higher-education institute, has decided to introduce a compulsory Māori course for all undergraduate students from this year. This is irrespective of the subject that the students want to study. They will have to do this compulsory Māori course—all undergraduate students will have to do this—from this year, and I know that this is not going to serve the best interests of all students. What it shows is that the university has just imposed its ideology, rather than giving thorough consideration to what is in the best interests of students.

Education, actually, should be rooted in evidence and in practicality, not in political ideology—political ideology that was started under the previous Labour Government—and what is surprising, and shocking, actually, I should say, is that it has extended to even classifying some Māori traditional myths, Māori traditional beliefs, as science. Those things were funded as scientific projects, and I must say this: I come from a culture where we have lots of cultural events, but we shouldn't blur the line between cultural and traditional beliefs and science. It's insulting to science.

We must make sure that science is based on evidence, and I'll give an example. One of the projects that was funded under the previous Labour Government was based on the concept that sperm whales and kauri trees are brothers, and if sperm whales' music or noise is played to kauri trees with kauri dieback or trees with myrtle rust, then it will help diminish those diseases. There is no evidence of this, and how can this be funded as a scientific project?

This ideological framework is dangerous, and the ACT Party is here to break this ideological framework. I realise that we are a nation that is built on a bicultural foundation, but the reality is that we are a multicultural nation, so any notion that gives prominence to one race over another race should be rejected. Any conversation that is rooted in race should not be allowed to dictate how funding is allocated or how our policies are designed. Why? Because it leads to a form of racism. It leads to a form of racism, and, as an immigrant, I have this responsibility to speak against such notions which give prominence to one race over another race.

I know that there are some who are questioning who am I to talk about any issues—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Order! Can I remind other members in the House that a speaker is entitled to be heard in silence. Interjections are to be rare and, often, are done in a light-hearted way. The barrage is becoming a bit overwhelming. Sorry to interrupt the member.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know that some individuals are questioning who am I to talk about anything that relates to Māori issues, and they're questioning this because I'm an immigrant. Let me say this to these individuals—let me say this to these individuals. Yes, my accent is different, I look different, and I was born overseas. But I am as much a Kiwi, like these members, and like those individuals who are questioning my talking about anything that relates to Māori issues.

I'm standing here and saying all this on behalf of all those immigrants, those who are told to go back to where they have come from when they talk about these issues; I'm standing here and saying all this on behalf of all those New Zealanders who are sick of these conversations that lead to giving one race prominence over another race; and I'm saying this on behalf of all those New Zealanders who want to see that every dream is given a chance to flourish, irrespective of the race of the person whose dream it is. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. First, if I may, I'd like to join the many voices around the House in lamenting the sad loss of Dame Tariana Turia and the many others who have tragically passed on since the House sat at the end of last year and, of course, to today. A collective voice across the House is always reassuring that despite politics in this House, it is about people, and we remember those people today, and our condolences, of course, are to their family.

Just like many members across the House, we enjoyed a summer—well, some of us did. Where I come from, it's always sunny, and even when it's raining, it's sunshine in liquid form. So where I come from, we had a family reunion. It's the Reti family. For those across the House that don't know, Dr Shane Reti is indeed my relative. My grandmother is a Reti, so that's the connection between myself and—well, one of the connections between myself and the good doctor.

Others know that he was also my family doctor. He was also the doctor that delivered my son who now works in the healthcare system, so we've got roots that go way back. At that reunion, we applauded the success of this man. He came into Parliament in 2014 like myself, and, of course, you, Madam Speaker. He had a meteoric rise to become the first New Zealand Māori-trained doctor to become the Minister of Health, and I think that's something to celebrate.

He came into the role—hear me out here. He came into the role and the House knew that he was a well-respected doctor, a GP, a lecturer and academic in health science—in fact, at the highest of institutions at Harvard. He came into the role with all of that expertise. What happened to him? Let me be very clear to the House. He was asked to defund the health system. He was asked to close Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority. He was asked to put a hiring freeze on nurses and other workers in the health sector, which has ground our health sector to an absolute halt—in fact, taking it backwards. Then what does he get for his reward and for his hard work? He gets sacked. He gets shown the door. He gets told that, actually, not only is your expertise no longer welcome in such a crucial role, but we're going to indicate to the good people of Whangārei, which is the electorate that Mr Reti holds, that this Government doesn't care about Whangārei. They've been silent on the rebuild at the hospital. They've been silent on what's going to happen in Northland with respect to health.

That is the reason why I stand today to say that the performance of the new Minister, Simeon Brown, was absolutely disgraceful. He talked about a health system he inherited. Well, he inherited it off his own colleague and off this Government, and now has the job to actually make sure that people get the healthcare that they deserve.

The Prime Minister yesterday in his statement spoke about people getting what they need. Right now, it's very clear to the country around the barbecues that I certainly experienced during Christmas and New Year, around the tables and pubs as people enjoyed themselves over the holidays, that when you're sick, the wait time to see a doctor has increased and it's far too long. When you're unwell and you go to see a doctor, the prices to see a doctor have actually increased materialistically right across the country. If you are in emergency need and you go to the hospital and you seek emergency healthcare assistance, the wait time has increased exponentially. That is not the country that the people of New Zealand deserve. That is not a health system that serves the people in this beautiful country of ours, and one that they deserve. That is a huge blow to our health system, to appoint a new Minister who, sadly, holds some views that will continue to be explored throughout his tenure as the health Minister.

But I want to come back to Whangārei. The Government reshuffle actually sends a few other signals. It says to the backbench, the strong backbench of the most recent intake by their own self-acclaimed—it says to them, "Well, actually, we don't care about Whangārei. We'll demote Mr Reti." It says to them, "We don't care about Coromandel. We'll overlook Mr Scott Simpson.", a man who served in a Key Government, which I know National supporters actually really quite liked. So they've said to Mr Simpson, "No, you're probably not worthy of elevation."

Then, of course, my good colleague Dr Megan Woods spoke about how this Government continues to ignore the South Island. So let's explore that a little bit. They've said to Mr Stuart Smith, who has served longer than the most recently promoted Minister, "We don't care about Kaikōura. We don't care about ferries. Once again, we don't care about the South Island." What does it say to the South Island as well? It says, "Well, we're going to take important portfolios off Mr Doocey, the member for Waimakariri. You know what? We probably don't care too much about that electorate either."

What's clear to me is that when they promoted Mr Meager, they're obviously sorry that they didn't step in as this economy was taking a dive under this Government's leadership to stop the closure of the meatworks in Timaru. It says to them that "Actually, we're really sorry. We took our eye off the ball. We're going to give some responsibility to a new Minister for the South Island, and we're going to heap all of the bad decisions this Government has made on that particular person."

I know what the answer is going to be every time he's asked the question in this House—"Sorry, I'm not the Minister responsible for that." We're going to ask about infrastructure and he'll say, "Sorry, I'm not the Minister responsible for that." We're going to ask about the most important Dunedin Hospital and he's going to say, "Sorry, I'm not the Minister for that." So the question has to be put to New Zealanders: then what is he the Minister for? He is the Minister that says sorry to this country of ours, this beautiful country of ours, and makes clear that this Government clearly took its eye off the ball.

They're driving this economy into the ground. I've spoken about the job losses in Timaru. I'm coming now to the job losses in Tokoroa, which, once again, decisions made by this Government could have turned around the fate of many workers and their families here in Aotearoa New Zealand. I hear my friend Mr Cameron speak of the rural areas—Timaru, Tokoroa, rural economies, rural communities heavily impacted by the decisions of this Government not to support the industries that support those communities.

We know that those ripple effects are still being felt today and will be held and felt for many generations to come. My colleagues on this side of the House have made it clear. Thousands and thousands of New Zealanders are making it clear to this Government that they don't believe in their vision for this country. They're going to Australia. A lot of our whānau call them "Mozzies", they call them Ngāti Australia—they call them a lot of names, but the bottom line is this: they are our own people and they have decided to leave this country, disillusioned with the leadership, in particular, of the economy by this Government, and that's an absolute travesty.

We heard today and we hear in the Prime Minister's statement that they want to get the economy moving and they want to increase productivity. Let me give you an example of not listening to the science and not listening to the community. We heard today that on State Highway 1 in Moerewa they're going to increase the speed limit in Moerewa. Well, let me give you a clue of what that looks like. When you drive on State Highway 1, you get into a place called Kawakawa; you slow down to 50. You get through Kawakawa; you increase to 80. Then currently, as it stands, you get to Moerewa and you drop to 50 before you pass through Moerewa and go to 100. Now, under the new proposed rules made by this Government to increase productivity, you drive into Kawakawa at 50. You increase your speed to 80 before you get to the township of Moerewa you slow down to 70. Then you slow down to 50 as you go through the township before you speed up to 100—absolutely absurd rules put on to a place that don't make sense.

Every Aucklander who goes up north for a holiday is going to drive through and go, "Hmm, am I going the right speed? This Government changed it again." All to improve productivity, and there is no evidence that productivity will increase if you did that in Moerewa. But I'm simply reminding this House and the members within it of what the conversations are right around this country. These are the conversations had by people right up and down from the north to the south.

I want to be clear, though, that this Government has forced this country into economic recession and kept us there. I want to say, though—and I want to take the words of Mr Peters in this House, which I do very rarely and seldom. I want to say this: hang on; help is on its way. Because on this side of the House, our job this year will be to say to New Zealanders that we can have a brighter future from decisions that are made in this House and in the communities around the country. We're saying to the community that under the leadership of a Labour-led Government, we can show that prosperity belongs here in New Zealand. We'll bring our people home from Australia. We've already made it clear that our leader said yesterday that we will repeal the regulations bill that is already being put forward by the ACT Party despite them saying the bill hasn't been drafted, but we know what their intentions are. We know what it is: defund, destabilise, and privatise, and that's where our country is going.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for the Public Service): Oh, thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, what a delight to take a call on the Prime Minister's statement from yesterday, and wasn't it fabulous? I just thought, honestly—you know, I've worked with so many Prime Minsters over the years, since I've been in Parliament, and he's my favourite—absolute favourite. I don't care about anybody else. The reason is because he's got courage. He comes into the job, he says what he's going to do, and then he gets on and does it. And he's been able to pull together and hold together this wonderful coalition with National and ACT and New Zealand First. And, by the way, I've been in quite a few Cabinets too. It's the best Cabinet I've been in. We actually have so much fun getting through stuff, and we don't bitch at each other—I shouldn't say that, should I? We're actually really good.

People think that's sort of strange because they were told that it would all fall apart and everybody's going to be at each other. Actually, it's a hell of a lot nicer, from my point of view, than any other time I've been in Parliament. So I'd like to say a big thank you to the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon. He understands that we can't just take the money and the wealth of the country and chop it up in different bits and somehow we're going to magically get more; we have to actually grow the economy.

When I hear the other side, particularly our dear colleagues in the Labour Party—I have to feel a little bit sorry for them because they're basically trying to polish something they shouldn't be trying to polish. They talk about, why do you want to be funding this or defunding that and defunding this? Do they not realise that our interest bill as a Government, as a country, has increased by $8 billion a year? So that is like a huge chunk. That's a big lot more than the entire Defence budget. That's actually a big lot more than the Police budget. It's a big lot more than the Corrections budget. It's a big lot more than anybody should be paying, but that's because when they were in Government they went on a spending spree, and the rest of us have to try and live within our means.

And I know it's really hard for New Zealanders when they've got mortgages in particular, because the banks have kept those mortgage rates up. But what we've seen under this Government was with interest rates coming down, now, because of inflation coming down to 2.2 percent, now, within one year, this Government working together in the coalition has been able to bring everything that we could bear to make sure the Government wasn't going to be pushing inflation up. And we're now down to the level that we should always be, which is between 1 and 3 percent, not the 7-odd percent that we had under the previous lot and we inherited. So, actually, I think we're doing an excellent job.

I heard someone say the other day to the Prime Minister, "Well, why can't you do this as fast as President Trump does?" Well, number one, we're not living in a presidential system. Number two, we have a Parliament and all our laws have to go through Parliament. So, yes, things take longer. But the thing is, in one year we've done more to rebuild this economy, this country, our mojo, our law and order than that previous Government, the Labour Government, did in the six years to destroy it. So, six years to destroy; in one year we're rebuilding and really doing a great job.

One of the areas I was particularly pleased that the Prime Minister spoke about was my beloved—was previously my beloved—science innovation and technology, now replaced by my beloved public service. And one of the things I want to talk to you about is making sure that science is actually about science. I know there are arguments about mātauranga Māori and science and things, but one of the things I think the previous Government did so wrong is they started talking about Western science versus mātauranga Māori. That's not fair, actually. Science is science, and some of the things that are traditional beliefs of Māori will absolutely be science—absolutely. It's not Western science. And I think one of the things that they did is they thought, "Oh, there's this Western science versus mātauranga Māori." No, there's science. Tell the people of East Asia that they don't have science because Megan Woods decided there was this thing called "Western science".

Well, what does that mean? The answer is it was a cheap shorthand way of trying to say, let's split everyone up rather than actually saying what really works. And when I look at things like gene technology—and I am actually a bit disappointed in other parties over that side for not supporting the bill in the first reading. What they've done is they've forgotten that the people who are most likely going to benefit the most in this country from the excellent gene technology work of our scientists, who are currently only allowed to have them in labs in most cases, are actually the people who currently are suffering from terrible illnesses brought about by genetic mutations. These are the people with things like inherited stomach cancers, which we know are prevalent within some families within Māoridom in particular.

When I think about families who have inherited horrible diseases like, say, cancers—breast cancer, prostate cancer—some of which are caused by some of these particular genetic mutations, these are the sorts of science that our people should be working out how to cure, and having got them, let's cure people. What's wrong with that? And, by the way, let's also commercialise it and take it to the world. But, not only that, I'm also talking about drought-resistant grasses so that our farmers in Canterbury, our farmers in the Wairarapa, our farmers in Hawke's Bay do not have to send all their stock off to the works at a time when they're getting nothing for them, and these poor stocks are hungry when they go. It's simply stupid that this country has allowed itself to hold itself back. Even though I have now passed over that portfolio to my good friend Dr Shane Reti, I know that he, as someone who appreciates the science involved, knows that this is about saving lives, this is about making lives better, it's about growing the economy, it's about protecting our people, just like the Australians do it.

I've heard all sorts of things from another party, saying that, apparently, all sorts of bad things could happen, because apparently they think that New Zealanders are too stupid and we can't manage these situations, and, yet, our Australian cousins, as lovely as they are, apparently they can manage it. Why can't we? The United States is the largest producer of organic food in the world. They're also the largest producer of GM food in the world. And so many of these people who talk about these things, they talk about feelings. I think this country had six years of talking about a politician's feelings. I'm actually over it. I want to actually make sure that this Parliament gets back to the basics of actually protecting New Zealanders, helping New Zealanders, growing the economy, and getting on and doing that job and keeping New Zealand safe.

You can't do that without money. You simply can't. You cannot have hospitals without money. And every time we have these plans, we're going to do it. In 2017, we campaigned on building a hospital in Dunedin, except Labour campaigned on building a hospital in Dunedin. And what did they do? They got a Cadbury car park. What the hell was that all about? They put it in the wrong part of town where the Cadbury factory was because they'd lost the Cadbury factory. Listening to Peeni Henare—I've got to say, the nicest thing you can say about him is he's a nice person, right? OK? That's about it. But he was talking about going off and saving businesses—private businesses, the Government should be doing. Well, why didn't he save the chocolates of Dunedin? He could have done that. Why didn't he? The answer is because Governments don't have that sort of mandate from the people of New Zealand.

This is not our money. It's not the Government's money; it's the New Zealand taxpayers' money. And the only time it's not the New Zealand taxpayers' money is when the New Zealand taxpayer is paying the interest bill because of the spending—the borrowing and spending—that that previous Government left us. That's it. You take other people's money—they have no choice about it—you then waste it and then you say to them, "Oh, that's a shame. But, you know, I felt really kind about it when I did it."

So I can tell you this, I am over people slagging off the great work that this Government is doing. We are working so hard. We are working so hard and we are making a difference. I know that every day we are in Government, we are making this country a better place, a safer place, a more prosperous place. And, yes, it will take time, because we can't just sign an executive order and make it all happen; we actually have to go through due process, and our system is different. But I know that the Prime Minister is doing the most wonderful job, with courage and conviction, and that's why I'm so pleased to be able to take a call on this speech from the Prime Minister. It's very important we get behind this country, we talk it up, and we don't go around bagging it every chance we get.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I am thrilled to be standing today to acknowledge this Government's great work, this highly successful coalition Government, this highly successful Cabinet of colleagues that I am proud to work alongside. I would like to commend the shift in mood, as we start this new year, to one of encouragement, to one of aspiration, and, might I say yet again, to one of yes.

But, before I start, I think it's relevant to reflect on a few words that were spoken yesterday—the disdain that exists for the small businesses, the farmers, the landlords, the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the hard-working Kiwi battlers on which this country relies. Those are not only the ones that employ but they train, they develop, they donate, and they create. We heard yesterday from the leader of the Green Party that no one is entitled to make profit. Let's pause for a moment. No one is entitled to make a profit. This suggestion that we ignore the production of wealth and constrain ourselves with this ideology of redistribution of wealth, it's this insane notion that somehow there is a fixed amount of wealth and we can't create any more of it. We have to just redistribute what we have now. Well, this Government knows we can create wealth.

As I stand next to this outstanding Minister of Foreign Affairs, who can attest to all the countries to which we can compare ourselves and find ourselves wanting, we know we can do better, we know we can create wealth, and by God we will. This is a completely undisguised Marxist notion of wealth redistribution with absolutely no examples of where in the world that exists.

We heard again, today, the discrediting of the idea that we will educate our children—how appalling an idea. This is an insane notion that we will rob our children of their opportunity to be prosperous because we have to dumb ourselves down to a small minority rather than lift ourselves up.

This is the type of agenda that we have to fight against. For those who—whether they arrived in this country hundreds of years ago or last year—have toiled, worked, and sacrificed to serve their families and their communities, across this side of the House, we're expected, rather than to celebrate their success, to hold them in contempt. Well, I can say, New Zealand First will not condemn those battlers to be demonised for making a profit.

It was evident yesterday, from many contributions from the Opposition, that this relevance exists by starting a fight. We have to pit landlords against tenants, we have to pit employers against employees, we have to pit the wealthy against the poor, and, most importantly, we have to pit Māori against everybody. But, in the real world, we know that if you want people to be helped, then you tell them the truth, you bring them together with solutions, and you empower, you encourage, and, most importantly, recognise the importance of personal accountability.

We need better than robbing our young people of the belief in opportunity, and I think we need a lot better than insulting our older New Zealanders for their hard work in doing the unthinkable, which is obtaining wealth and making a profit.

I will go from this now to talk about the practical stuff, the practical stuff that this Government is doing to turn things around, to deliver. I will talk specifically about the areas for which I have responsibility and the practical steps and the successes that we can see. Firstly, as Minister of Customs, I think that we have to give credit to a ministry that is largely unheralded and unseen for the huge contribution this dedicated team delivers. They help us build the economy. They collect over $17 billion worth of revenue. They facilitate the trade agreements that are so cleverly and strategically negotiated. They truly are unheralded. The hard work behind the trade agreements that are signed is often unseen. The ability to facilitate and make the technical and administrative processes work needs to be recognised.

Not only do we have a presence here in New Zealand but we have a presence around the world. We have dedicated representatives who continue to meet and negotiate and facilitate trade around the world. They break up the bottlenecks of trade. They make sure that when there's a hiccup, there's someone on the ground to make it happen. And we will continue to expand their presence around the country, because New Zealand has an outstanding reputation in international trade. We have an outstanding reputation of getting things done, and we will continue to grow that reputation.

Not only do we facilitate trade but we also facilitate travel. We have developed the New Zealand traveller declaration form, which is online, and just before Christmas, we've had a nearly 70 percent take-up in the use of the online traveller declaration. This is exactly, as the previous speaker talked about, the use of technology, the advancements that we can achieve to get better things done. We are also upgrading the eGates, and we have allowed eGates to expand to include a large number of other countries to make it easier to get into this country.

But, unfortunately, the fact is we need to protect our borders, and our vulnerability from organised crime continues to expand. We have to protect our border to protect our reputation of being a safe place to travel to and a safe and easy place to do business. And that is the investment we will continue to make and expand from Customs to ensure that our borders are safe, because, unfortunately, the levers of legitimate business will often end up with crime following shortly behind. And we are doing an outstanding job. But I know, with Police and Customs' reputation of working well together, that we can do better. We can do cross-agency better support to attack the organised criminal businesses that undermine our most vulnerable communities, the scourge on our society that organised crime brings. I know we can do better, and this is why we have stood up the ministerial advisory group to ensure we can facilitate better cooperation across all agencies that will help combat organised crime.

Finally, I would like to touch on aged care because it is something that I hold dear and close to my heart. We have work under way, and I look forward to the outcomes of the Health Committee around the review into aged-care services and the current aged-care review around the funding model, which will implement new solutions. We have to be innovative, and we can do better, and I look forward to a cross-partisan approach to dealing with these solutions so we can have a long-term stability in the delivery of aged care. But we need to, importantly, remember that over 85 percent of our over-65s are living completely independently and well without any intervention from the State. So we have to recognise that some people have got it right, but we need to make sure that we have the stop-gap measures to provide the support when people need it.

We talk about ageing in place, that does not mean we're constraining people to live in unsuitable conditions, but we want to protect their ability to live in the communities they know, and we know there are tremendous solutions—whether it's papakāinga, whether it's kaumātua housing, whether it's an Abbeyfield house. We know there are good solutions, and we need to do more of it, and we can, and we will. We have also, under New Zealand First, the commitment to build 60-square-metre subsidiary dwellings in the coalition agreement. We will support subsidiary dwellings because that will support multi-generational living. It will free up housing and will create a better environment for those that are vulnerable to live in.

We will continue to work in this Government because we are the yes; we are the can-do. We know how to run farms, we know how to run businesses, we know what it means to employ people, we know what it means to worry about making payroll, and we know that it's OK to make a profit. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I just wanted to use these 10 minutes to take the public through what we're actually debating here, in accordance with Standing Order 362(2)—why we are actually debating with six 20-minute speeches and 66 10-minute speeches. And some of the Opposition are going on a conspiratorial rampage of speculation and revisionist history. I don't know where they were for the past six years! But I want to stand up and talk about what's actually in, what I would argue is, the most comprehensive and ambitious Prime Minister's statement to Parliament. It does not deserve to remain in the bowels of Parliament or at the back of the parliamentary website. It needs to have some light shone on it.

I think that the biggest indicator of the change that's happened from Government to Government is the recess—the summer recess—where it was starting to become a two-month parliamentary summer recess, basically mid-December to about mid-February. And that was the last Government's level of ambition. Well, not anymore. This is why you've got Parliament, for the second year, back and running in session in January, and that will continue. It's less than a month now, and that is the most demonstrable thing I can point to, to anything, as far as how ambitious this Government is. Look at that summer recess, and that really sets the tone. Not only does it set the tone for this Government but it shows how lazy the last Government were—how lazy they were.

I want to take you through some of the highlights of the Prime Minister's statement to Parliament, just to shine some light on what good things this Government is focused on—the high energy of this Government, the motivation of this Government, and the three keywords: growth, growth, growth. As the Prime Minister said in his statement, this Government was elected with a strong mandate to change course, and let's not forget that: elected with a strong mandate to change course. Since then, this Government has embarked on a series of big changes to change that course, and already we are seeing some positive signs. Already we are seeing some rays of sunshine—a long way to go, but it's happening.

We're seeing inflation dropping significantly, we're seeing interest rates starting to fall, and we're seeing wages continuing to rise. This Government, in 2025, will relentlessly focus on unleashing the growth—grow, grow, grow—that we need to lift incomes, strengthen businesses, and create opportunity. We will no longer listen to the word no. We are a yes Government—we are a yes Government. We are a can-do Government. And whether it's through the fast-tracking legislation that was passed last year, whether it's through the comprehensive Resource Management Act reform that we will see unroll from this year, whether it's rewriting our health and safety laws, or whether it's enabling our farmers to grow with much less red tape, that is our determination. And, frankly, New Zealanders deserve it. New Zealanders deserve to see those rays of light at the end of the tunnel, because they deserve higher incomes, they deserve quality public services, and they deserve stronger local businesses and stronger communities.

That is why this Government, for the first time in a long time, is in this debating chamber in January. And it has dragged the Opposition back too. It's dragged the Opposition back from holiday to come here in January. And, in fact, if you're the Prime Minister, I think you're back on about 3 January. But he's an exception—he's an exception. And so 2025 will be another massive year as we do everything we can to unleash that growth—grow, grow, grow. If you've got three words to remember, those are the three that you remember. And where have we been? Where have we been? Do you remember the giddy heights of 7.3 percent inflation in the first half of 2022—7.3 percent inflation—the robber in the back pocket, as our exceptional finance Minister, Nicola Willis, would say. And now we are close to 2 percent. We are well within that Reserve Bank mandated band—2.2 percent.

So what we are seeing is the official cash rate (OCR) falling three times in the last six months, and we've got another decision by the Reserve Bank on 19 February. So we will wait and see. We are seeing interest rates starting to come down after successive OCR climbs and interest rates skyrocketing, and inflation and everything else. We are seeing them coming under. And we know what that means for homeowners, don't we? We know what that means for homeowners when interest rates come down. That has meaning for the average lender with a home loan, hundreds of dollars every month in savings just because of getting interest rates under control. And that is the best thing you can do for a lot of families: get those commitments to the bank, reduce them, and give them more discretionary spending to put into local businesses, put into local communities, invest in their families, invest into extracurricular things for their kids, go away on a break. That is why we are committed, unsexy as it is, I know, but that is why we are committed to reducing inflation and lowering interest rates.

Let's just reflect on Budget 2024 for a bit. Who remembers tax relief for 83 percent of Kiwis or 94 percent of households? Who remembers that with our tax package, with the average-income houses benefiting by an average of up to $102 per fortnight? Who remembers—the numbers continue to increase—our FamilyBoost payment for those with kids in early childhood education? Over 50,000 FamilyBoost recipients there already that have received payments—50,000 families already—and that will continue to increase as people become more aware of that FamilyBoost payment that's available through the Inland Revenue Department website. And that was Budget 2024, just a snippet of it, and now we've got coming forth—and the finance Minister announced it in the Finance and Expenditure Committee today—a Budget date. Write this down: 22 May—22/05/25, OK? 22 May—that's a good way to remember it, eh? 22/05/25 And that will be another great day for New Zealand. It will be aimed at working New Zealanders, and we are focusing on the Government's priorities for Budget 2025.

As the Hon Nicola Willis articulated in the Finance and Expenditure Committee today, and as she has through the media, and the Prime Minister's statement reinforces that, lifting economic growth through measures to address New Zealand's long-term productivity challenges—productivity—that's what we are focused on. No one else has been for the last six or seven years. This Government is focused on the shameful productivity record that we have crept into as a country. We are implementing a social investment approach to drive better results, and you will see the Social Investment Agency really ramp up under the guidance and shepherding of the finance Minister this Budget. We are keeping tighter control—tight, tight control—of Government spending. You will see that with a number of high-priority Government policy commitments and cost pressures that will be sorted through reprioritisations, going from the back line to the front line, going to those public services that the public so, so deserve.

And we are delivering a sustainable pipeline of long-term infrastructure investments, and we're also committing to building the north-west dedicated bus corridor. We are going to do that, aren't we, Mr Penk? We're going to do that out in the north-west of Auckland. And Mr Penk has also effectively lobbied for a Kumeū bypass too. And so, with this Government, there is a project for everyone. And so I am so proud to be part of this Government. A year ago, the Prime Minister promised that this would be a Government of action, and we've heard leaders over the last six years make lots of promises, lots of 1 o'clock statements, lots of speeches and no delivery. We all went broke in the interim, but this is a Prime Minister of action. These results will come through in Budget 2025. We have had a great year, but the next coming year will be even better. Help is on the way for hard-working New Zealanders. Thank you.

KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Can I say what a privilege it is to be able to speak after my wonderful colleague Cameron Brewer, the new chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, because he did an excellent job at reminding everybody what was in the Prime Minister's statement. Because so many people keep forgetting because they're talking off piece about all sorts of conspiracies. Like my friend says—so here we are to remind you. It is all about economic growth. And, gosh, we love to talk about economic growth.

We're going to get the job done. And I just want you to imagine what that's going to look like. Because we were doing it last year too, but we're about to take it up a notch. So let me talk about what we did last year. We passed the Fast-track Approvals Bill. I was very pleased to be part of that in the Environment Committee. We're going to be getting kicked off with the further Resource Management Act (RMA) reform very, very soon, and I'm excited about that too. But hear me out on six projects in Hawke's Bay that we're seeing come across the line very soon on the Fast-track Approvals Bill.

We've got a housing development for a post - Treaty settlement group, which the Opposition voted against. Funny that. Affordable houses for iwi, business, park, recreational grounds—this is going to be huge. We have more housing development. We have the reconsenting of a hydro dam that powers most of Wairoa. We have the four-lane expressway, which is going to be doubled. It is getting done at a great rate of knots. I tell you: every single time I drive on that road, more is being done. They're clearing the road. They're using silt from the Hawke's Bay cyclone to lay the foundation for those four lanes, which is so exciting. We've got the Tukituki water storage, which is unlocking potential for growth in horticulture in Hawke's Bay and to back our farmers. We are doing water pumping for Napier City Council, which is very necessary, given the recent situations we've had with flooding. All of these things are going to go a really long way to get us where we need to go with economic growth, because it's about productivity and it is about getting the job done.

My colleague Cameron Brewer talked about FamilyBoost—getting more people into a position where they can go back to work, where they can earn higher incomes, because we know that the best way to get ahead for people is to get into high-value jobs. So we need to grow the economy so that everything they go to work to do is worth more for them. We introduced charter schools, which are about to get going, and, gosh, we've got some interest. The opportunities are endless. And if we talk about what we're going to do for the economy in each of our local areas, we have a chance to partner up our schools and have those students learning something that's going to go a long way for the economy that we are growing. We brought back the 90-day trial for businesses with employees of over 19 people to bring back productivity into the workplace, giving employers the power to get in there and take risks so that we can get back to business.

But let me not just talk about what we did last year. Let me talk about where we are going. You know what, we just heard from Minister Judith Collins and the work that she has done on introducing the Gene Technology Bill. My goodness! Now, let me talk to you about an example of what that means for Hawke's Bay. There is currently an apple being grown in a lab—and, yes, that's right. It is stuck in a lab because we haven't got the laws to make it happen on the ground, and we are changing that. Now, after Cyclone Gabrielle hit Hawke's Bay a couple of years ago—we're nearly at the two-year anniversary—it wiped out 80 percent of our horticulture sector. To grow back those trees—to replant them and grow them back—it's going to take six years at least before we get fruit on those trees that we could sell. Now, once we pass that Gene Technology Bill, we can plant trees that will grow fruit within a year. What that means for our economy is huge. So if anyone questions the bills that we're passing and its relevancy to economic growth, I point you to that example, and, boy, it's exciting.

I mentioned before the upcoming RMA reform. We need to build things faster. Now, I have a perfect example in my own neighbourhood in Mārewa in Napier, the day that Minister Penk, our wonderful Minister for Building and Construction, announced the granny flats legislation—60 square metre or less secondary dwellings—my neighbour started building. The foundation was being laid. It's the path I walk past with my dog when I go for my dog walks in the morning. And I have been watching the building take place, and it is nearly done. They are just doing the deck on the outside. Now, how cool is that. There is another house for somebody in my neighbourhood, and it is just perfect.

Let me talk about the digital nomads changes. Now, how exciting is that. I want to take this opportunity to invite every future potential digital nomad to Hawke's Bay, because it's currently 30 degrees in Hawke's Bay right now. What a place to be a digital nomad. I had someone just say to me, "Oh, hang on. It's not like Bali." Well, actually, it is a bit. Ha, ha! We've got some pretty good temperatures. It's pretty nice. But we—

Stuart Smith: The food's better.

KATIE NIMON: That's right. The food is better, Stuart Smith, thank you. And the wine too. We can take that offline. Ha, ha!

But at the end of the day, everything we are doing is about growing the economy. We need to stimulate our very, very much suffering hospitality industry. Because ever since COVID-19, they have not had the belief in them that they can give us what we need as a country. Because if you look at the restaurants that you have in your region, they are there because of tourism. We are able to go to our amazing Italian restaurants, Indian restaurants, Pasifika restaurants because our tourist economy props them up. And we are opening the doors to more and it is so exciting. Because if you grow the economy, you grow incomes. And if you grow incomes, you actually grow the superannuation as well. It's about time people realised those on-flowing effects of the decisions that we make because it is exciting.

Now, I've got some even more exciting examples of economic growth in my electorate. You might not realise that in the small little humming industrial area of Onekawa, there are some amazing international businesses that are absolutely taking the world on from a small industrial area in Napier. Let's take Kwetta, for example, formally Red Phase. They've just been in the paper for—very shortly after the Prime Minister's state of the nation address talking about our focus on investment and on growing the economy and taking our businesses global—securing $17.5 million to take their business to the next stage.

Now, you might go, "What is Kwetta?" Kwetta is an amazing business. They create electric vehicle (EV) superchargers. Oh, that's another idea that we had as the National Party Government. Isn't that wonderful—supercharging our EV-charging network. Now these guys are actually making it happen. And they don't just sell to New Zealand. They sell to Australia. They sell to the European Union. They are global. Now, they have a big partnership now with Z Energy. And if you see more Z Energy superchargers popping up around your neighbourhood, you know they are being built in Onekawa in Napier. Now, these guys are doing amazing work and the sky is the limit for them. They don't look at Hawke's Bay and go, "Oh, this is our limit." They look at the world. And that is what we need to be doing with our businesses, and that is what our Government is saying is we are here to back them. Because Kwetta support other local businesses.

Let me just take you down the road to another little local business called IMS. Now, IMS—I was in there the other day—they do manufacturing services specifically for helicopter parts. But what else do they do? They build Kwetta's supercharging EV shells. Isn't that amazing. So it all stays in our local economy. We sell internationally, we bring that money back to New Zealand, and we power ourselves up. So a little company in Hawke's Bay called Kwetta, which is able to power up our grid by 10 times and get more power than is otherwise there to anyone else, then being built by IMS fabricators, who are creating what's called Cloudburst and Ground-Effects, which is a fertiliser bucket and a fire attachment to drop water on fires which, obviously, for America is a very big deal at the moment in LA. They are putting $100,000 at least a year into going overseas and pitching their products to the rest of the world. Now, that's an incredible investment.

And when I went to meet with them the other day, they said, "This is the best announcement you could have made to stop work with Callaghan Innovation and get money going into Invest New Zealand and get the investment coming into our businesses. Because we are open for business and we want to get out there, but we want New Zealand to believe in us too." So these companies, they build our amazing conveyer belts. IMS has built the Taylor manufacturing conveyer belts. And Turners and Growers, who are putting the apples out of the orchard and through the conveyer belts and out into the world—all of this plays a part.

Now, might I bring your attention in the last minute that I've got here to talk about Rocket Lab. Now, Rocket Lab's another international example who are absolutely unlimited. In fact, the sky is certainly not the limit; the sky is beyond the limit. Now, they're launching rockets from Māhia Peninsula, which I always like to take the opportunity to remind everybody is in the Napier electorate. So we are launching rockets out of the Napier electorate, and, boy, we are lucky. But Rocket Lab also has the opportunity to bring tourism. We have people coming from far and wide to watch rockets get launched in Hawke's Bay.

Now, how lucky are we that just down the road Mōrere hot springs has reopened, which had been closed for years because the Department of Conservation didn't have a focus on commercial activity. Well, we have brought that back. And we have indications from our Minister of Conservation that we are out there to mean business, and conservation and tourism go hand in hand. So let me tell you: things are happening in Napier, and it all comes down to the direction that we have from our wonderful Prime Minister, and we are here to grow the economy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call—the Rt Hon Adrian Rurawhe.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I stand here today in support of the amendment to the motion moved by the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins, and I do so for a number of reasons. You see, the Government has choices that it makes that impact on the economy. And I say to members across the House, it has made some choices that have impacted negatively on the economy. In particular, we heard the Hon Judith Collins telling us that the Government can't do this and it can't do that—it can't just turn on a tap of money, but it did turn on the tap of money. It turned on that tap of money for landlords—$2.9 billion of it. The impact on the economy has been huge. We've been in a recession for nine months out of the 12 months that this Government has been governing, and, I say to the House, it needs to do a lot better—so much better for all of our people—to improve the economy.

The economy and the choices that the Government has made has impacted negatively on a lot of people. I'll give you an example. Well, the Government can't go and save all these private companies, but it has a responsibility to make certain that the environment for those companies to exist—like in Timaru, like in Ruapehu, like in Tokoroa—so that they have the best economy to be able to survive. In actual fact, if you have a look at the impacts of the decisions that this Government has made, it has negatively impacted and has caused huge unemployment. That's why we see so many people leaving Aotearoa to go to Australia. There won't be a single person in this Parliament that does not know young people and older people who have left because there are no opportunities for them here.

And I say to the Government that it has failed. They have failed to address the cost of living. Inflation has reduced after COVID-19. It was trending downwards anyway. But why are we in a recession? That's the question that I'm asking, and the only answer I can see from the factual information that I've received is that they have made choices that have impacted on the economy negatively. And I say they need to do better.

I, also, am very concerned about discussions that I've had with people who work within the public sector who are inundated with work after many of their colleagues have been made redundant. And so it looks to me like we're in a similar situation to where we've been before. We're in phase one of the privatisation journey, I believe, and phase one starts: start defunding. And what's happening out there. The work is still coming in. There is a backlog of work in those Government departments and ministries. Things are not getting done. In about 12 months' time—maybe less—the Government's going to tell us the system is broken; we need to sell it. That's what's coming. That will be phase two, and then phase three will be somewhere around the next election. So I say to members across the House, that's not good enough.

Privatisation by stealth where the Government is actually the mechanism by which that happens is not right. We need to do much, much better, and, as the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins said in his speech, we're going to reverse some of those things. We think that we could do a much better job.

I point also to a number of other things that the Government has made, like I can't figure out why they cancelled ferries just to buy more expensive ones that are smaller—things like that. They just don't make sense. I think the Government is lost in their own theories of how things should be operated, and, like they say, they can't see the forest for the trees. Kia ora.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I have a very clear message for this Government and this Prime Minister: Southerners can't stand this Government, quite frankly. And that is the message that is coming through loudly and clearly. That is the message that led to the appointment of a brand-new Minister for the South Island. And yet, crazily, the new Dunedin Hospital does not seem to be in his top three priorities. Very strange indeed.

And the reason that Southerners can't stand this Government is because Southerners believe in trust, in trusted relationships, and this Government cannot be trusted. It's callous. It's been callous to the disabled community: there are people in Invercargill who are very activated and leading some of the best work in New Zealand around the cuts to the disabled community. We've seen the languishing of the Dunedin Hospital; we've seen the ferry decision, as alluded to by my colleague. And not only does the ferry decision disadvantage South Islanders but, actually, in my own electorate of Taiere, with the Hillside Workshops—$105 million investment from the Labour Government, the revitalisation of the local economy, jobs for young people, that is all now in jeopardy thanks to the lack of decisions and the crazy decisions, quite frankly, of this finance Minister.

Southerners don't like this Government because Southerners, many of us hail from Scotland, and the Scots are known to be very good with money and with fiscal prudence and we are not seeing that from this Government. In fact, what we have seen is not only the worst austerity since 1991 but cuts and economic mismanagement that have led to record people leaving to go to Australia.

We don't trust this Government because of the decisions that are affecting our own communities. For example, Kāinga Ora have just announced the mothballing, if you like, of a housing project in Kaikorai Valley, and the regional manager actually wrote in the letter that there had been a lot of money spent on doing plans and on doing redesigns and yet there is no return on that investment, it is absolutely wasted and down the drain.

Today, at one of the schools in my electorate, there were kids that went hungry, who couldn't get their school lunches because this Government have botched up the school lunch system so badly that the schools were not on the list of the new provider. So the school had to cook up some sausages. Some of the kids have gone home hungry, we've been told, and if you see what they were served yesterday, it didn't look very appealing.

The other reason, the main reason, that we don't trust this Government is the spectre of privatisation. We are seeing the sweating of assets. But, more foreboding, are the signals that are being made by the person who is about to become the new Deputy Prime Minister, David Seymour. The one thing about David Seymour, to give him credit, is that he will speak openly about his agenda. We have not seen the National Party do that. And yet today, Christopher Luxon in question time in the House could only caveat his discussion about privatisation, saying, "Not in this term of Government." Clearly, there is a privatisation agenda.

Cuts are the start, getting reports done on State-owned enterprises—which is exactly what's happening at the moment—is the second part. And, yes, certainly they will have that agenda going forward, and we know the cost of that very dearly in Dunedin. Awanui Labs are about to go on strike, and I got a very hard-hitting email today from the outgoing past president of the medical lab science group who talked about the corporate millions and millions of dollars that are being plundered from the system—taken out, defunding, having them run on pretty much an empty gas tank, which leaves only the life-necessary services available next week. And this has been going on for a very long time. It's exactly what will happen to the rest of the healthcare system if indeed David Seymour, the next Deputy Prime Minister, gets his way and enables people to opt-in for private healthcare.

But the hospital's the big one. Last year, the hospital and cost of living were level pegging in our research. It is by far and away the biggest issue in the electorate. People need a decent hospital and they're really sick of the financial mismanagement, the haemorrhaging of $120,000 to $150,000 per day that this National Government doesn't make a decision. The medical school in Dunedin will get kneecapped if there isn't a decent hospital, and we've already seen that none of the business cases for the Waikato Medical School stack up, and they put in jeopardy the Otago University programme.

So New Zealanders don't want the division, they don't want a Government that ignores the South Island. They want to know that they can get ahead. They want a vision, and they want a united New Zealand, and that's what Labour will give them at the election.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I take the next speaker, interjections are fine but when someone's speaking, having people from each side of the house literally yelling at each other is not an interjection. So can we just—I know it's a tense debate, but we might just have to restrain ourselves a wee bit.

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, it's good to be back, though if I could suggest everyone stops asking me how my holiday was—I had a long list of farm work to do and barely touched most of that list.

But it wasn't just me; I'd like to show some appreciation to the Ministry for Primary Industries staff who also had to do a lot of work over the summer holidays. Not only was there still the work required to manage the bird flu incursion but also we had a fruit fly show up—thankfully only one. Also MPI welfare staff were also busy over the summer break as well, so appreciations for all their hard work.

Now, some of you during the summer may have experienced a bit of average summer weather. Rather than be disappointed, you should be ecstatic, because rain in summer means grass growth. Grass growth means more production on farm, which means more jobs, more economic return for this country. This may come as a shock to a few people on the other side of the House who, going by yesterday's speeches, seem to believe that economic growth gets driven by nanny State—well, driven into the ground maybe.

Last year was a good year for New Zealand farmers. The war on farming ended, and a number of actions were taken that made farmers' lives much easier, which my colleague Mark Cameron already commented on earlier, so I won't go down there.

But this year, there's a lot more work to do. We've got a lot more on the agenda. It's going to drive farmer confidence even more, because as I've spoken about before, confidence is key. Without confidence, you don't feel like investing in your business, you're not driving production and productivity, you're not creating jobs, and you're not creating wealth for this country, so the actions we take this year are going to be vital for driving and improving not only farmer confidence but business confidence.

Top among the list of things that we need to be focused on is, of course, Resource Management Act reform, and my colleague Simon will undoubtedly talk about that very soon, but I just want to share an example of how broken our system is. Now, to get to Feilding, recently I've had to travel through some road works; they've just sort of started. I've noticed that they're not doing a lot of work there every day—a lot of road cones out but not much happening.

Now, why is there not much happening? Well, it's because they can't access enough gravel to do the work to build the road. Why can't they access the gravel? Well, because the council won't reissue itself a consent to allow for gravel extraction to occur from riverbanks. Instead, these contractors must now try and bring in gravel from further away—higher emissions, higher costs, slows everything down. This is the challenge of our resource management system where we just can't say yes to things; we can only say no. A council can't even say yes to itself; it says no to itself.

Now, of course, we can get gravel, the contractor, by digging up holes in productive paddocks and extracting the gravel from there. This makes no sense, destroying a productive piece of land instead of removing what is, in effect, a flood risk on our riverbanks. So that's just a perfect example of how broken our system is and why it needs to be fixed.

It's not just about replacing the broken things this year. I'm really looking forward to getting into work on biodiversity credits. They are a tool that has been talked about. Farmers are keen on it. We have a nation of farmers that have done more for biodiversity on their farms compared to anywhere else in the world, with little or without any subsidies whatsoever compared to other nations. Yes, other nations' farmers are doing biodiversity work, but they're subsidised to help them do it. Ours do it out of love and passion, and this year I want to be able to work on being able to provide some rewards to them for doing that.

Finally, I just want to touch on food safety. It's one of the portfolios I've got. Last year, I heard anecdotally from a number of food businesses about regulation, red tape, costs that were being imposed on them. We saw the Business New Zealand report that talked about that and also just talking to bigger businesses about the challenges they've got. So this year, my big mission over the next few months is to get out there, talk to small and large food businesses, really get an understanding, get into the detail of what regulations are needed and what aren't, and make sure that we have a system that is not duplicative, that makes it easy for businesses to get food to all the customers around the world but also maintain our world-leading food safety standards.

This year is a key year for our Government. We need to be driving that growth forward, and the key thing here is reducing red tape. We need to put a slasher through it, and that's what I hope to do in my portfolio areas. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you very much, Minister Hoggard, for setting the scene of why we need to put the Resource Management Act (RMA) through a shredder.

This Government has had a hugely productive year in 2024. We've set some big wheels in motion and we've laid some important foundations for growth, and in 2025, New Zealanders and those looking to New Zealand from overseas are going to see some of the results of the hard work that we've already done. But there's more to do.

The Prime Minister has made the point very clearly that New Zealand, over many decades, has become a "no" culture. People who pride themselves as being pioneers and are used to saying "Yes, we can." have found themselves tied up in red and green tape. Nothing exemplifies this more than the example that Minister Hoggard just gave of a council unable to issue itself a consent to get gravel out of a river—gravel that is a flood risk and that needs to be removed. Gravel will continue to build up in rivers because—guess what?—rivers are at the bottom of the hill, with that big hill being a big mountain like the Tararuas. These are natural processes, and the resource management system needs to be fundamentally reformed so we can take advantage and make the best use of our natural resources, not find that we're trying to fight floods and fires and get things built with one hand tied behind our backs.

There's an example I could draw on in Auckland, as well. Now, believe it or not, big cities like Auckland, of over a million people, produce thousands and thousands of tonnes of waste every day. Some of my colleagues in the Green Party might say, "Well, what about zero waste? Why don't you stop it?" Well, it turns out that despite all of their friends—Te Papatūānuku—we haven't been able to stop producing waste and putting it in landfills, and that is why Auckland needs a new landfill.

Now, nobody wants a landfill next door. I know that because I lived next door to one—200 metres from the machines—for a couple of years. But modern landfills are needed so that we actually have a sanitary place to put waste that comes from our cities.

The people wanting to advance the consent for the Auckland regional landfill have spent tens of millions of dollars and have spent over half a decade trying to explain to regulators and decision makers what's going to happen if 5,000 tonnes of waste a day doesn't have a landfill home. If it can't be collected, your city is going to grind to a halt.

Steve Abel: Why don't you just go and burn it in Waimate?

SIMON COURT: Steve Abel says, "Well, why don't we burn it?" Can you imagine trying to get a consent for waste to energy under the current RMA? There are too many people allowed to object to these developments. These are absolutely vital pieces of infrastructure that we need in order to keep our cities operating.

Too many people are allowed to object on all kinds of grounds—spiritual, environmental, traffic—but, in the end, these facilities have to be built, and it's not just landfills. It's renewable energy, it's bridges, it's roads, and it's water and waste-water treatment plants that the resource management system needs to allow to proceed. That is why in 2025, in my role as Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the resource management reform Minister Chris Bishop, I'll be working on replacing the resource management system based on property rights that recognises that our system is fundamentally broken, and while we can make some tweaks to the current system to ease the pain, we can't train the Resource Management Act donkey into being the racehorse we need to unlock economic growth.

The new system will focus on property rights because when people have stronger property rights, they can say yes to investment and they can say yes to innovation and they can say yes to hiring more workers, based on being able to develop their property. A replacement system is going to eliminate, as far as practical, the opportunity for every Tom, Dick, and Harry, and random, to turn up and object to vital infrastructure and resource developments.

Our expert advisory group has delivered a blueprint to replace the Resource Management Act before Christmas, and I look forward to working with Minister Bishop on turning that blueprint into a true reform based on property rights. It's that kind of initiative that is going to unlock our economic potential as a nation so we can get on with building, get on with developing infrastructure, and get on with unlocking our economy, which is so desperately needed. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Thank you. I understand this is a split call—is that correct? Scott Willis.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's 2025, but Kiwis, hearing the Prime Minister's vision that the Government is going for growth, would be right in thinking that we're simply doing a re-run of the 1990s. I heard a confused soap salesman hoping like hell that selling his story will make people buy his dud product before the business goes bust—all soap and suds, empty of substance, ultimately leaving Kiwis with nothing but dirty dishwater. That's all the Prime Minister could muster yesterday.

But we do have a tremendous opportunity in Aotearoa, and I'm heartened by the passion for people and planet that we encounter all around the motu, both tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti, who all understand that we can't afford the myth of limitless growth or limitless resources. People understand the folly of believing that technology is always going to be there to save us. There are so many opportunities, but this Government seems not only completely disconnected but are also unable to deliver.

Take energy. The Prime Minister told us that, this year, they will progress legislation to enhance our energy and electricity security and implement an offshore renewable energy permit. All good. If only there was some depth to his words, some connection to community or industry to unlock that potential. So far, the Government has missed its own deadlines to deliver a National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation. They said it would be delivered six months ago. They've missed their own deadline to deliver a national energy strategy. They said it would be delivered by Christmas. And, more than that, so far the Government has said no to any restructure of the electricity market, despite an already prepared bill in the ballot that would enable innovation and competition in both retail and generation markets and help drive down electricity prices for consumers.

Instead, the Government is looking to attract more overseas investment. How's that going? Well, BlackRock, the largest investment fund on the planet with $19 trillion under management, pulled out and left SolarZero at the end of November, two years after purchasing it. Staff contractors in the New Zealand Green Investment Fund have been badly burnt—no holiday pay, no contractors paid. In total around $4 to 5 million is owed, and New Zealand Green Investment Finance is potentially out of pocket by $100-plus million. Many of those contractors out of pocket are small family-owned businesses. Around $1 million is owed to these 30 or so businesses. All up, some 250 families are impacted by BlackRock's exit, and nearly all employees and contractors spent the Christmas period on the unemployment benefit. The Prime Minister has not even responded to requests from affected staff and contractors.

Is this the growth that the Prime Minister is advocating for? Growing unemployment? Growing business hardship? This Government simply can't see that an economy is not separate from the natural world. The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. The Prime Minister appears to have been drinking some of the same Diet Coke that Trump drinks, and he's parroting his "drill, baby, drill" talk. But what I want the Prime Minister to know is there is no growth on a dead planet.

To date, all we've seen from this Government is a lost opportunity to provide a sustainable pathway forward. They talk about a culture of no and have said no to rail-enabled ferries to connect the South. They've said no to the southern hospital, forgetting their pre-election promise. They've said no to clean, healthy rivers. And, this summer, one of our favourite camping spots by the Manuherikia was filled with toxic algae. They've said no to any meaningful emissions reduction plan, placing their faith in unproven technology, demonstrating that this Government has now become a modern-day cargo cult.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. I stand to speak on community. I stand to reflect on the way that mahi tahi has been rolling out across Aotearoa over the Christmas break, where we saw over 300,000 submissions come in on the Treaty principles bill. But further, mahi tahi didn't stop there. Mahi tahi's been going on for generations because there's Māori, non-Māori, tauiwi, tangata Tiriti—we work together every day. And on the weekend, we saw a perfect example of tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti standing together in Bream Bay to say "no". No to sand mining in Bream Bay; no to the fast track, because our community stood and said fast track is a fast track to destruction, and 2,000 whānau, 2,000 mokopuna, 2,000 kaumātua, residents, and community stood and said it's a fast track to destruction in Bream Bay. The community has been mobilised.

We have over 8,000 signatures right now on a petition that sees community and tangata whenua stand side by side and say, "Not in our rohe. Not in our rohe will sand mining be allowed on our ākau in Bream Bay, te Paepae o Tū." Because that's unity, that's standing for te taiao, that's standing for our tomorrow. Because if McCallum Brothers gets let loose in Bream Bay, we can only see the destruction of ngā taonga o Tangaroa, just like they did in Pākiri.

And I speak to those members of the House that know the Pākiri community and know the destruction of 80 years of sand mining in the Pākiri community. In April last year, McCallum Brothers were rejected by the Environment Court, and now they've turned their attention to Bream Bay. Our community and tangata whenua say kāhore, they said kāhore clearly on the weekend and said "no". As a community, they say fast track is a fast track to destruction. That's what the community is saying and that's what tangata whenua are saying.

Now, our mokopuna, they train at Bream Bay, at Ruakākā, they go out and they're young lifesavers and they're out there training. It's a beautiful thing. If sand mining starts in Bream Bay, the water will change. Just like in Pākiri, our whānau stood in the marae, at Omaha Marae, and said they can't send their mokopuna out into the moana anymore because of the sand mining. It's too dangerous for the mokopuna, you can't get any horse mussels anymore, and the tara iti are at risk. They stood there and showed photos of 30 years of degradation—only 30 years—but it's been going on for 80 years in Pākiri, and this company could be set for 35 years to dredge 9 million cubic metres of sand from out of the ākau of te Paepae o Tū, Bream Bay, five days a week, six hours a day. Like a thief in the night coming into the rohe.

And they will mine and they will take the sand out of this community and impact ngā taonga o Tangaroa. The moana, the ability for these mokopuna to be able to train and enjoy, the ability for us to hī ika in this important kainga of Whangārei-Te-Rerenga-Parāoa.

But that's not the only fast track, no, no, no. We have six coming into Whangārei, six fast track projects of which we know that the community has also stood alongside tangata whenua before the environment commissioners and said "no" to Northport, and the commissioner said kāhore, and yet—there we go again—the fast track goes and lists Northport as a project and yet it's already lost, just like McCallum Brothers.

That's the problem, it's that we're putting profit before people and the environment. Our residents, our community of sand mining in Bream Bay can see through the haze, see through the rhetoric. They can see exactly what it is because, ultimately, we want to enjoy the ākau, we want to enjoy the moana and all of those taonga that we benefit from as community and as tangata whenua. And this community, these tangata whenua, are standing up right now—and it's going to continue on.

So what are we going to do? Continue to ignore the voice of community, if we're really talking about localism? Because fast track's closing the door on community. Fast track's not going to let the community have a say on these consents because it's all done without transparency. That's the problem with fast track, and it's coming to a neighbourhood near you, e te whānau. Be careful. The fast track's coming to get you and it's a fast track to destruction. Kia ora.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for the South Island): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I just wanted to start my contribution on a slightly more serious and sombre note by acknowledging, of course, the passing at the start of the year of Senior Sergeant Lyn Fleming. I want to send my best wishes and thoughts to her family and, of course, to the family of Senior Sergeant Adam Ramsay as well. On the Justice Committee we have a lot to do with the Police family and it's always a tragedy when someone loses their life in the act of service for this country. So I wanted to acknowledge Lyn, and just to note that I am intending to make my first visit to Nelson as a Minister tomorrow and also hopefully next week as well, so I hope I get a chance to pay my respects to the police in person.

Can I also just take the opportunity this year to acknowledge Nikki Kaye, a good friend of mine, and, of course, a friend of mine, Chris Allen, who passed away in a tragic accident at home last year.

Madam Speaker, happy New Year to you. Happy New Year to colleagues across the House, and, of course, happy New Year to our Prime Minister, and to endorse wholeheartedly his statement and to reject the terrible amendment to that statement. I support the Prime Minister's statement, of course, and the Prime Minister's mission to say yes—to make us a country to say yes. Say yes, Francisco Hernandez. Say yes to growth, say yes to more tourism, say yes to more exports, say yes to more food and fibre in Mid Canterbury and South Canterbury, say yes to more technology, say yes to more productivity, say yes to more jobs. And speaking of more jobs, the Prime Minister is so enthusiastic about creating new jobs, he has created several new jobs, and some of those I want to talk about today.

Of course, I'll start off by the most significant new job that I can think of, and it's the promotion to chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee of Cameron Brewer. A flawless performance this morning. And I'll tell you what—oh, I can't actually say what I would like to say because I'm sure it was done behind closed doors, but what a wonderful performance Mr Brewer had and I'm sure he was roundly supported by all members of that committee.

Of course, the other new job I wanted to talk briefly about was the job that the Prime Minister asked me to do for him and for the country. I think it was last Saturday now, at the Black Clash at Hagley Oval, when I got a call from the Prime Minister and he asked me to step up to his team and become part of his ministry. I'm very proud to play that role and I'm very proud to be the country's first Minister for the South Island, along with my ministerial responsibilities for hunting and fishing, for youth, and associate transport.

I was very upset to hear the comments of the Leader of the Opposition saying I was far too young to be handed such a portfolio. I was just so disappointed about the message that sends to tens of thousands of very young people like me, and like Katie Nimon and Tom Rutherford and all of the young people across the country, that they are not old enough or experienced enough to have a say in our democracy. I was so disappointed in that, but, as the Minister for Youth, I will be doing my best to make sure that the message to our young people is: "Don't listen to that disappointing Christopher Hipkins. He was a youth once, he remembers what it was like. Listen to us. Listen to the support that we will give you. You can engage in the process. You can be the Minister for the South Island too, despite being so young."

So Mr Hipkins, I'm very disappointed in those comments, but we'll move on from those because I wanted to talk about that portfolio of the Minister for South Island. I've heard some more criticisms earlier on, from Peeni Henare, and it's very heartening to see that the Labour Party now have a spokesperson for the South Island in Ingrid Leary because of her passionate speech before about southerners. And of course, Ms Leary is a proud southerner—such a proud southerner that when she ran for Parliament in 2020, she said, and I quote, "If I don't win my seat, I'm never taking the plane back to Dunedin." Well, I'm sorry Ms Leary, but being a southerner is not about being a fly by night and temporarily inhabiting there. Mr Francisco Hernandez didn't win his seat and he's still a proud southerner in Dunedin. Scott Willis didn't win his seat and he's still down south. Kahurangi Carter didn't win her seat and she is still a proud southerner. Jo Luxton didn't win her seat and she is still a proud southerner.

So I say to all the members of the Labour Party: embrace the fact that we have voice and representation for the South Island across the aisles. I am looking forward to working with every single member of Parliament who wants to achieve our goal of growing the South Island, growing the South Island economy, growing more jobs, more hope, more opportunity for the South, because that's what New Zealand needs. New Zealand needs growth across the board from the South Island, the North Island, Chatham Islands, Stewart Island, Kāpiti Island, the Auckland Islands, and whatever islands want to become part of the South Island; the growth is what we need.

So, I'm very, very proud to play that part in this turn-around, and there has been a turn-around job so far and we have seen signs of progress. Inflation is down to its target range. Interest rates are falling, and with that comes falling mortgage rates, providing welcome relief for Kiwis who have been doing it tough over the past couple of years as we saw inflation go out of control and interest rates through the roof. Business confidence is back. It's a good start, but we need more. We need more investment. We need more trade. We need more goods to market.

In terms of what we want to do down in the South Island, nothing is more important than the food and fibre that we grow down there. Food security is vital. It is absolutely vital in 2025. It is vital for the rest of the world. We are a nation of 5 million that feeds 45 million. It is absolutely vital that we continue to do our part in agriculture, and the food and fibre sector is crucial to not only our success but also to the world's success. Feeding the world is what we do best. Think of the first shipment of frozen meat leaving Port Chalmers in 1882. It sparked an absolute frenzy over in Britain, selling for twice as much as what you could get here in New Zealand. And, of course, Te Wai Pounamu has been exporting food across the world well before 1882. It will continue to do it well after 1882, well after 2025, and for as long as we want to continue playing our role to feed the world and to grow incomes and to have a country which is based on what we grow and what we sell and what we do and what we make. We'll always be exporting food to the world. I hope the parties across the aisle will always support that.

We do need to do more. We definitely need to do more. We need to do more to support our agricultural sector in terms of supporting water storage. I'm talking about the Waimea Dam, I'm talking about the Klondyke ponds, I'm talking about rules to make sure that irrigation and water storage becomes a permanent activity and that farmers don't need to jump through hoops and red tape and court cases in order to actually get access to sustainable levels of water so that they can grow the food and fibre that we need to feed ourselves, to feed the world, and to get it around the world.

We need to do more in Resource Management Act reform. We need to do more in renewable energy. I look forward to members across the House coming down to the South Island and opening up the largest solar farm at Lauriston. You are all welcome to cut any ribbon of any colour. I don't care how big the scissors are, but I invite you to come down to Lauriston, open up that solar farm and see what it does for renewable energy in the South.

I want to talk also briefly in the, well, 2½ minutes I've got left, about tourism because tourism is the other major contributor to our economy. We heard the Minister for Tourism talking about how it is our second largest exporter, and in terms of the South Island, we well and truly punch above our weight.

The South Island is 25 percent of our population, but we produce 40 percent of the international tourism spend, 31 percent of the domestic tourism spend, and 43 percent of the guest nights in the country are spent in the South Island. So we will play our part in Nicola Willis' growth story and I hope members across the House will continue to support more tourism, because if people like Ginny Andersen don't want tourists to come to Wellington, if people like the member for Ikaroa-Rawhiti don't want people to come and visit the East Coast of the North Island, we'll have them in the South Island. We'll have them down on the Otago Peninsula, we'll have them down in Akaroa, we'll have them down in Timaru and Milford Sound and Nelson and Tasman and in the mighty West Coast. We will have the tourists there. Because every time you get a tourist there spending tourist dollars, that is money into the back pockets of hard-working Kiwis. That's money and income for the cafe owners, for the retailers, for the taxi drivers. When people say no to tourism, they are saying no to food on the table of those hard-working New Zealanders.

So I very much look forward to joining the Mayor of Queenstown and making my pitch to him as to how we can work together to ensure that we get more tourists into Queenstown, into Central Otago, and do it in a way which meets the infrastructure needs and meets the infrastructure concerns, using things like the International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy, using things like the general taxation pot and the funding that the Government provides, and creating those regional and local deals.

When you do come to the South Island, make sure you go hunting and fishing because we have some of the most beautiful lakes and rivers in the country. We have the most beautiful scenic game tour guides and blocks. What I say to people who want to come hunting and fishing is do make sure you get your licence. Go to your local licence retailer and get an annual fishing licence so that you can go fishing anywhere in the country and play your part to making sure that we have sustainable fisheries and habitats.

Look, I could go on for hours and hours and hours about the benefits and the merits of the South Island, but I wanted to conclude by saying this: this isn't about North versus South; it is about the whole country playing its part. It's about Taranaki - King Country playing its part. It's about the Far North. It's about Te Atatu. It's about the mighty Hamilton playing its part in the Government's growth agenda. So, I'm very proud to be part of this Government, I'm very proud to be serving my country, and I look forward to working with all members across the House in doing so.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call—Hon Phil Twyford.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Fact: National is pulling $2 billion out of the public health system right now to pay for its tax cuts for the well-off, for landlords, and for tobacco companies, and that has real-life consequences in our communities. In my community in West Auckland, at Waitakere Hospital last year, one-quarter of all the shifts were below the safe staffing levels for nurses. I'll say that again: one-quarter of all the shifts at our local hospital in West Auckland were below the safe staffing levels, at a time when Health New Zealand had instituted a hiring freeze on nurses. What's more, the emergency department at Waitakere Hospital in West Auckland, more often than not, according to the nurses there, has twice the number of patients that it has capacity for. This is a direct consequence of National's austerity policies in the health system.

They've also restored the $5 prescription fee at the counter, meaning that more people will pick and choose what medicines they can afford, they will get sicker more quickly, and they will end up in hospital. The other day, I was at the Te Atatu South Medical Centre, and the staff there explained to me that they are having to put up their fees; 97 percent of all the ProCare GP practices in Auckland are putting up their fees, some as high as $70. Why? Because National is underfunding the subsidies for GP practices, and GP practices cannot maintain their services with the low level of funding they're getting. As a result, GP practices are closing their books. People cannot get in; they cannot enrol at their local GP. GP practices are cutting services like after-hour services, and the result of this is that more people are putting off going to the doctor. They can't get in to see the GP; they're either turning up at the hospital emergency department, and often clogging that up, or they're simply not getting the treatment they need, so they are getting sicker more quickly and, ultimately, they are paying the cost for National's funding cuts. It's a false economy, as always, because people end up getting sicker and having to go to hospital.

National is also—and this is something that's not yet widely known—cutting the support for home help for older people. The other day, I spent time with Joop and Hendrika Lankreier of Henderson. Joop's 97; Hendrika, his wife, is 93. They've both recently sustained injuries that make it very difficult for them to do even basic housework like vacuuming, but they live on their own in their own home. They want to continue living independently. It's Government policy, and has been for ages, to encourage people to age at home and look after themselves and be self-sufficient, but to do that, people like Joop and Hendrika, they need a helping hand. They need to be able to get home help in so they can continue to live independently in their own home. But Joop and Hendrika got a letter from Health New Zealand saying, "We are no longer funding home help for people like you who are aged and living at home." Joop was furious when I talked to him. He's 97; he said, "I've paid taxes all my life. I expect this kind of support, and when I need it, it's not there." This is incredibly short-sighted, and it's another example of National underfunding the health system. It's death by a thousand cuts. It's classic National: run down the public health system, introduce fees, cut the services that are available, and then, when the service is on its knees, you start talking about privatisation.

Only the other day we had the man who will be the next Deputy Prime Minister raising the prospect of privatisation of the public health system. We have a public health system that by international standards delivers high-quality care with fair access for all. It's not perfect, but we have to look after it. These economic geniuses on that side of the House are putting the public health system at risk, and I want to say this: the people of New Zealand will not stand for it.

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to talk about the Prime Minister's statement, from the point of view of the eyes of my constituents. Now, the eyes of my constituents have been rather put upon recently when Shane Jones gave a speech where he referred to the people of Sandringham as swivel-eyed. So I thought they'd had their fair share of being, really, abused by this Government. But, in the Prime Minister's speech and repeatedly before, there were comments made by the Prime Minister about his intention or his wish that we run roughshod over the views and the actual needs of my community at Eden Park.

In Eden Park, there has been a restrictive policy on concerts, which went to a number that was dictated by a resource management process. I live in that area, and what I did, as any responsible local MP would do, is I surveyed the members of that community about how they felt. And they weren't saying no—they weren't saying no. I surveyed and, like, one in nine people responded. It was a good survey. They were very responsive to the survey and they were interested and they were positive about the move in concerts to the 13 concerts. They were positive about that move because they know that that's helpful for the small businesses in their community. They wanted things like more events in that stadium, so it was used well.

But what I don't expect is that their interests are utterly ignored, that the Prime Minister, when he's down in the polls, will ignore any interest they've got. He's not putting it next to his beach home in Onetangi Beach and he's not putting it next to his house either. He's putting it next to my community and saying that they must pay a price, without thinking about that community, because he's down in the polls. It's not necessarily a logical thing to do for small business, which is suffering in Auckland. We have a recession in Auckland that's very serious. But if we want to help small businesses, I suggest that we do some things that are really active—(a) we involve the community in our decisions, and (b) we think about the things that happened last year when this Government actually steamrollered through and retracted a law that would have meant that the small businesses in my area got paid and without delay by big businesses.

We had an Act which did that, and what happened last year was, for some reason, it was urgent that that was taken away. So now our big businesses can delay payment to our small ones. Xero did really good research on this and it warned—it warned in July last year—that people were paying a price for this. There was an exponential growth in the delay of payment to our small businesses. It cost our small businesses last year $827 million in one year because our big businesses are using our small businesses as banks because they cynically can. And what did this Government do to protect the small businesses in Sandringham? It did nothing. It said a voluntary code was coming, which, by the way, doesn't work in Australia. And when I have asked questions of the Minister, I have found that it's just been "Oh, New Zealand business—Business New Zealand's doing something." At the moment, I cannot see that any work has happened on even a voluntary code.

What is wrong with a Government that favours big business actually taking the money that is not owed from small businesses? What is wrong with them? What is wrong with a business that will do that rather than look after those small businesses? Instead, it would rather trade the rights of an area and trade any kind of cooperation and localism, which, by the way, it promised when it was going into Government. It trades that, it disrespects that, it doesn't involve people. It runs the risk of a community that was saying yes to more concerts, that was involved and active and engaged in it—it runs the risk of souring its relationship with all those people, and, quite frankly, it's as contemptuous as a statement which called my constituents swivel-eyed. That's how contemptuous it is.

It is not OK. It is arrogant behaviour, it is out of touch, and it says that the people in my area don't count. It doesn't help the Auckland economy; it is ham-fisted; and it is very, very unfair on my community. I'll be standing up for them.

DAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): I am pleased to provide my comments on the significant strides our Government has made over the past year and our bold plans for the future. The last few years have been very challenging for New Zealand—there's no doubt about that—and it is still tough for very many people in our communities today. But we are now seeing the early signs—the green shoots, as Cameron Brewer puts it—of recovery and growth directly as a result of the very busy 2024 that this coalition Government has had.

When we were elected, the Government inherited a New Zealand that faced high inflation, high interest rates, and rapidly rising debt. However, since our Government took office, we have been acutely focused on reducing the cost of living pressures and have implemented policies that have led to a drop in inflation, interest rates falling, and have quelled the rapidly increasing debt on our balance sheet.

Budget 2024 provided much-needed relief to families across our country, particularly to middle-income earners, and the FamilyBoost programme, which has been taken up by so many, has helped also. There's also good news ahead, with business confidence for consumers and businesses on the rise, and growth is expected to rise to a healthy level this year.

Our focus this year has been clearly articulated as unleashing economic growth, or as once again the MP for the upper north says, "Growth, growth, and growth." We aim to create an environment where businesses can grow and thrive, hire more staff, and invest in their future. This includes comprehensive reforms such as the fast-track legislation and reforming the Resource Management Act and changes to the health and safety rules.

In 2025, we have already, in what must be a record time, signed a trade deal with the UAE, eliminating tariffs on 98.5 percent of our exports. Along with recently announced changes, we are working on attracting more investment in science and technology for it to deliver what New Zealanders want and what New Zealand businesses need.

We know that high-quality infrastructure is also critical for economic growth. As already mentioned, we have passed the fast-track legislation which is to expedite 149 nationally and regionally significant projects. These include new homes, roads, and renewable electricity projects. As I've also mentioned, we are overhauling the Resource Management Act to make it easier and cheaper to build and get things done—doesn't that make sense?

Our Going for Housing Growth Plan aims at increasing housing availability by strengthening planning rules and removing unnecessary barriers that frustrate so many, and thank you to the Hon Chris Penk for your work on that space.

Another area of note is delivering better results for the $70 billion invested annually in social services. The Social Investment Agency will establish a Social Investment Fund to test different ideas and improve Government contracts with social service providers. Our goal is to break the cycle of disadvantage that challenges so many and ensure that every New Zealander benefits from strong economic growth.

Everybody knows the health system is far from what we want and, indeed, what we expect, and we are taking steps to stabilise it. We have reintroduced priority health targets and replaced the Health New Zealand board with a commissioner to provide service delivery and financial control.

In education, we are focused on raising achievement and closing the equity gap. We have set an ambitious target for student attendance and curriculum levels and we are rewriting national curricula to help with consistency and, ultimately, success.

Restoring law and order is a top priority. We are investing in more front-line police officers, greater rehabilitation for offenders, and prison capacity. We have also passed legislation to crack down on criminal gangs and introduced measures to reduce youth offending. Our goal is clearly centred on safer communities for all.

Our Government is committed to taking bold action for a prosperous future for New Zealand. We are moving from a former Government that was delivering no and slow for our economy to an economy based on yes. We are focused and we will deliver. Together, we can build a country of aspiration, ambition, and opportunity. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is adjourned and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m. this evening.

Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT (BUILD-TO-RENT AND SIMILAR RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): I present a legislative statement on the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I move, That the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Overseas Investment Act 2005 to support investment in build-to-rent housing. Now, for those of you listening and members who aren't familiar with build to rent, this is medium to large scale residential developments that are designed and built specifically for renting, not sale. Encouraging investment in build to rent is one part of our programme of work to increase the supply of housing and housing choice in New Zealand, making it easier for Kiwis to get into a warm and dry home. I'll be the first to say that this is not the sole answer to New Zealand's housing woes, but it is part of the solution, and as everyone in this House knows, I think, ultimately, what we need to do is increase the supply of land, make it easier to build, reduce building costs, free up land for development, sort out the infrastructure funding and financing, and create competitive land markets that drive down the price of land and, therefore, drive down the cost of housing and price of housing over time.

Build to rent can and, I believe, eventually will make a difference, We're seeing a little bit of it in New Zealand already. Last year, the Prime Minister and I opened Resido, which is Kiwi Property's development in Auckland. Indeed, there is quite a lot of interest in build to rent.

What the bill does is introduce a streamlined consent pathway under the Overseas Investment Act, which enables investors to purchase established large-scale rental developments, if they intend to continue to operate them as rental properties. The reason the bill does this is that it responds to concerns raised by stakeholders that the Overseas Investment Act is a barrier to selling established build-to-rent assets to overseas investors. And the uncertainty over the ability to on-sell the assets creates liquidity concerns for developers, which may discourage them from building housing. So the changes in the bill will boost housing supply by providing certainty for international developers. But if they build a build-to-rent development, they can on-sell the development to domestic or overseas investors.

The pathway for build to rent will complement existing pathways under the Act, such as the increased housing test, which enables overseas investors to develop new housing. I want to stress that the bill retains the foreign-buyers ban. The pathway is only available for investors seeking to operate large rental developments of 20 dwellings or more. Small-scale investors and overseas persons will, in most cases, continue to be unable to acquire residential property, and the bill has been very carefully calibrated to make sure that the so-called—it's called in the vernacular— "foreign-buyers ban" is protected. This is a relatively small change in and amongst quite a complicated piece of legislation, actually, that will assist in growing housing supply.

Can I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their work on the bill. As I say, it's a small one, but it's important to get it right. It's a complex piece of legislation, and it's important we provide clarity to overseas investors about the conditions they can invest. I'm advised there were 27 submissions on the bill. The submitters included groups of individuals who build housing, provide community housing, people who represent renters. There were a variety of views.

Some were sceptical that international investors can or should play a role in addressing the housing crisis. I suppose the point I'd make to that is that, globally, international investment has been important in ensuring that countries have high-quality infrastructure that meets people's needs and that capital plays a similar role in housing. I just simply take the view that if someone wants to turn up here with some money and build houses for, let's face it, predominantly Kiwis and deploy it, then I think we should be pretty welcoming of that. Investors looking for long-term stable returns can help ensure New Zealanders have access to high-quality rentals, as they have in other countries.

There were quite a lot of submissions in favour of the bill, people welcoming the move as a positive step to unlocking further investment. There were some submissions from developers that the bill will make a practical difference to help them then build more large-scale housing.

The committee, as I understand it, has recommended one very sensible change to the bill. One developer raised concerns that it was unclear whether the existing increased housing tests in the new pathway adequately provide for developments operated by intermediaries. It's important to get this right as operating facilities like build to rent through an intermediary is likely to be a common arrangement for institutional investors like super funds, for example. These could also include community housing providers. And we want to make sure the legislation's fit for purpose for a range of potential business models and partnerships.

The officials' advice to the committee confirmed that the draft of the new test would adequately provide for these scenarios, but the existing increased housing test for new build-to-rent developments may not. This means that investors who have built new build to rent could be required to sell these assets if they decided to contract a third party, such as a local tenancy management company, to manage the properties. As such, the committee has recommended a change to the existing clause 20 of Schedule 2 of the Act. This change aligns the provisions for build to rent under the existing increased housing test with the new pathway, which does provide for operation by third parties.

I understand the committee discussed the 20-dwelling threshold, which is both the minimum number of dwellings that a development must have for the new pathway to apply and the minimum number of dwellings an investor must continue to make available for lease in order to retain their interest in the development under the Act. A minimum was required to ensure the pathway was not used by small-scale landlords, which wouldn't be consistent with the foreign-buyers ban. Twenty dwellings was chosen as it reflected the existing treatment of build-to-rent developments under the Act, as well as the definition of build-to-rent land in the Income Tax Act, which is largely how the market has defined it to date. An alternative minimum, such as a proportionate approach, would have resulted in similar owners and assets being treated differently under the Act, compromising fairness in the regime, so we're not going to do that.

As I said at the outset of this speech, the build-to-rent market's small at the moment. Property Council figures suggest there's around 1,900 build-to-rent developments in the country or build-to-rent units. But, as I said at the start, it is a sector that has the potential for substantial growth. It's certainly been the case in the United States, for example, where it represents around 17 percent of the country's total housing stock, and in the UK, where it represents around 5.4 percent of the value of housing.

And I note there is a bit of interest in this already, both from international investors but also domestic. Simplicity, for example, which I think most members will be familiar with, has a development of more than 300 new build-to-rent homes in Remuera, which they started in November last year.

Look, I would not suggest that this is the silver bullet to New Zealand's housing crisis. It is a useful and positive step forward, and it's something that the Government is advancing at the same time as progressing quite comprehensive reforms to infrastructure funding and financing, land supply, density in our cities, and freeing up land for development, because those are at the root cause of the housing problems we have in this country. So it's a useful step forward. I thank the committee for their work considering the bill, and I look forward to its passage through the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is the motion be agreed to.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his introductory speech. I do hope he's able to hang around, because there's a few things I want to say, in good faith, that I think might be able to improve the bill. What I've learnt is if you raise these things at committee stage, it's a bit late in the piece, so I thought I'd raise them now.

First of all, we support this bill. The Minister is right that the build-to-rent sector as an asset class can play an important part in addressing the housing crisis. It's not going to solve everything, not going to even come close, but it would be negligent, I think, for us as a Parliament to overlook the role that build-to-rent can play. I think it's important to state that we must continue to have ambition for people, that we mustn't feel that build-to-rent is going to be their lot—but it can play a part in providing stable rental accommodation, a home for people while they save for a deposit to home. This Parliament should never give up on the aspiration for people to be able to purchase their own home.

The 20-unit limit, Minister, is the bit where we want to explore more. Now, I note your comments, and fair enough, because this bill is consistent with what was in place for the previous Government around an exemption for new apartments, and the 20-unit limit is consistent with what was in place in other aspects as well. But I want the Minister to consider what missed opportunities there may be if we stick with such a strict threshold. At the moment, it's a minimum of 20, but in a provincial city like New Plymouth, Napier, Masterton, Oamaru, or wherever, a development of 20 units is actually quite a big deal and unlikely to happen. So what I wanted the select committee to explore more was both.

You've got 20 units in your large urban centres. Now, that could be the entirety of a development. Actually, it might be 10 percent of a development, which is another discussion, but let's try and keep this constructive. If we were to make changes that said that in large urban centres the threshold is 20 units, but in smaller provincial centres it is, say, 100 percent of the units in that development, then it would qualify for the exemption proposed in this bill. What I mean is that if someone was going to go and build a six-unit build-to-rent development in the West Coast of the South Island, they would still benefit from the exemption proposed under this bill. But at the moment, as it's currently drafted, they wouldn't, and so it probably wouldn't happen. I do hope that the Minister considers this, because including the either/or, whatever's lower, doesn't actually take away from what the Minister's outlined as the objective of this.

We accept the premise of this—that we need build-to-rent homes, that at the moment there is a barrier to these developments happening because the on-sale potential is restricted if it is only limited to domestic buyers. Obviously, we would not want to see changes to the overseas investment rule for residential property, but given that this is a designated asset class and can only be purchased if these are kept as build-to-rent, we are comfortable with that. But if the intent, Minister, is to build as many of these as possible, why wouldn't we consider that—a two-tier change? So it doesn't affect your larger centres like Auckland—your 20-unit threshold is maintained—but if another developer in a different area can demonstrate that it is 100 percent of the development—six, eight, 12 units—why would they miss out on this?

What was disappointing was that we tried to raise this at the select committee—not, you know, resolute that this is the answer; just to explore it. And we didn't get anywhere. I found that was disappointing, because we were entering that in good faith. We were trying to be constructive. I hope that, at the very least, the Minister will say to his officials, "Well, look, why don't we just go away and look at this. And if we come to the committee stage, I'd stand up and say, 'Well, look, we looked at it and it doesn't work because of this.' " Fine. But what I don't want is when, as a Parliament, we're trying to make the rules right, to see as much development as possible—that we miss an opportunity, only to have to come back in three or four years because we've found out from many developers and provincial centres that it doesn't work for them. So let's try and work together, and go and explore that. If it doesn't work, fine. But if it does, that's great. And I would like to think that that's what people would expect of this Parliament. So we support the bill.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Housing is a human right, and that should be, first and foremost, the basis of our housing policy. It's our opportunity and responsibility as a nation to ensure that every single person in our country is able to live in a warm, dry, healthy, stable home, and we have failed that for many generations now. Aotearoa New Zealand once led the world in providing housing in the 1930s, '40s, and '50s, but no longer. I have to say the previous Labour Government actually did start to make steps in the right direction of increasing the supply of public housing, but that has totally come to a standstill now because this coalition Government has halted new builds that were planned by Kāinga Ora. So it is totally difficult for me to understand how they could be serious about increasing the supply of housing, about increasing security for renters, when this very Government is proposing to bring back insecurity for renters through bringing back no-cause evictions.

The whole basis, really, for this Government's approach to housing—and I accept that the Minister does have some genuine commitment to cities and to increasing the supply through a better approach to zoning. But, when it comes to increasing the supply of housing in our country, there is no question that there is an incredibly important role for the public, whether that's at a central government level or local government level. We need "for public good" housing being built, not just the private sector, not just the community sector. It needs a Government underwrite and support. And, in every country in the world that has reasonable access to housing, you see a really strong role, if not entirely the role, of local or central government, or partnership of the two, to build and develop new housing.

So what this bill does, and the reason the Green Party won't be supporting it, is that it is not clear that restrictions on selling large rental developments to overseas investors is a substantial barrier to investments in new rental housing. We're huge supporters of "build to rent". I'm a huge fan of what Simplicity is doing. I think it's incredibly important and useful. But Simplicity is kind of doing the job that Government should be doing. And good on Sam Stubbs for doing that. But, at the same time as this Government says they're going for growth in housing, I talk to builders in my electorate who had $70 million worth of new work for Kāinga Ora lined up, all of it gone over the next five years. The construction sector is suffering right now, and it was the construction sector that was actually gearing up to deliver a lot of high-quality density done well in Rongotai, in Wellington Central. And they've had the future completely cut out from under them. It's spun out to affect so many different people who support big house builders, home builders, apartment builders. People who work in selling kitchens and bathrooms to largescale developers have gone from having 60 employees down to a third of that in the last year because of the actions of this coalition Government.

Now, I know the members opposite are in complete denial about the fact that the recession is in a large part—in fact, the vast majority—due to their own actions, but that is the reality. The Green Party knows that we don't need foreign investment or the sale of already existing largescale "build to rent" apartments with over 20 dwellings. Making it easier to sell that to foreign investors isn't going to increase the supply of housing. What will increase the supply of housing is changing the rules on zoning that are incredibly restrictive, and that is something the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS) were going to do. I note that this Government repealed the MDRS. What will increase the supply of housing is actually funding Kāinga Ora to do the housing that was planned, which would have been scaling up. And there is a huge advantage in having public-led development of housing, because they can do it for public good.

We know that the development sector can face very, very thin margins at times, a boom and bust cycle, and that's why countercyclical building by Governments is so important to keep up the supply of housing. I know that's against the ideology of this Government, but like, hey, the facts are on our side here—a strong public interest in ensuring we have enough of the right housing in the right places and that every single person has access to housing, has access to stable housing. When kids are growing up in a family where they might be booted out from their rental property at any moment, that introduces a huge amount of insecurity for them, inability to develop community and relationships, maybe having to change school multiple times a year. We know that's not good for their educational development, it's not good for their emotional development, and it's not good for the strength of our communities.

And it's our communities that need to be able to put down roots, not to mention have access to affordable housing and healthy housing. We know that there's a lot of properties in New Zealand that are not really up to scratch, and that puts stress on our public health system. When you are renting in a dwelling that doesn't have curtains in the bedroom and the temperature falls to 6 degrees during the winter, that is directly related to emergency department visits by people, whether that's elderly or young people. It can have lifelong impacts on their health.

So, just bringing it right back to the beginning, it's like there simply is not a case that this bill is needed in order to increase the supply of housing. There is not a case for that, and this is a Government who have demonstrated that, because their No. 1 priority is letting those who already have the most wealth and power accumulate more, they've spent billions of dollars giving tax cuts to landlords who—

Hon James Meager: House people!

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Those dwellings already exist—those dwellings already exist. The billions of dollars does nothing to increase the supply of housing—zero—but it does enrich their donors. So we can understand why they would do that, but it's not what we do if we want to increase the supply of homes in this country. Opening up for foreign investment is not how we grow and develop productively as a country. It just means we're owned by other people.

So there's nothing in this bill that is actually going to contribute to a more sustainable, a more equitable country, and it's really sad because there's such an opportunity for New Zealand to have a more thriving society, one where we can address so many of our health costs, our public health costs, inequality, to do all of that. We had a plan—there was a plan in place—that was gearing up to increase the supply of housing. Now that's been sent backwards. We're at record-low consent applications, I believe; it's certainly been a huge crash from a few years ago. And that is directly related to Government policy choices to prioritise letting the wealthiest people in the country become wealthier rather than using our collective resources to build more homes, which helps everyone in the country.

To reduce the security for renters at this time is like, mask off, who are these people governing for? They're governing for the property owners who are making a passive income off owning property, often heavily leveraged, and they can just keep acquiring more property. It goes up in value. They have no real accountability to their tenants. We already have some of the worst tenant protections in the world, and this Government is going to make it worse. So don't come to this House and pretend that you actually care about renters. It's very obvious the Government members do not care about renters. They do not actually care about doing the effective things to increase the supply of housing. And when they say, "Oh, we couldn't afford it, we didn't have any money. We had to cut all those planned housing developments that Kāinga Ora was going to build"—that were actually going to result in more housing—"but we are going to borrow billions and billions of dollars to build a few motorways that will not pay for themselves in tolls", that's the extent of it.

Let landlords get richer but borrow tons of money that will make the climate crisis worse, that will make transport affordability worse for the country. They're quite willing to bankrupt the country for their ideological pet projects, but building more housing and protecting renters is not one of them. The Green Party does not commend this bill.

CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a privilege to rise and speak on this bill, and I would like to start by saying I'm not actually a member of the committee that examined this bill, the Finance and Expenditure Committee; acknowledging Todd Stephenson, who does a great job on that committee for the ACT Party and, I'm sure, contributed greatly to some of the changes we saw in there. Well done to the Minister of Housing for adopting the commentary and taking that on board.

I'd also like to say there were some great contributions from around the House. Kieran McAnulty's done a good job opening up a discussion about whether the limit is set at the right place to enable enough housing to be built around the country. I think it's a fair conversation to have, but as I say, I wasn't in the select committee, and I'm sure it was discussed quite vigorously and that the decision was made for the best interests of New Zealand.

This is a specific bill that's enabling and addressing one specific part of our housing supply—that is, build-to-rent developments: a great idea about getting responsible corporate landlords, in a way, to oversee large developments and also to have some stable rental supply. I think that is something we can expect to see more of—build to rent—which is a large asset class overseas. America is quite a renowned place for build to rent, and I think New Zealand's going to do well from having some more of that here. It's a long-term investment where someone with capital supplies that to employ tradies; planners; consultants, in a lot of cases; pay council fees to build a property; and then give it to someone to rent. I think that is a truly generous thing to do.

So this is a great piece of legislation, along with many other pieces of work that this Government has done to enable us to start getting on top of what has been a generation-long issue in housing supply. It's too expensive to build. It's too expensive to create land. It's too expensive to put infrastructure in the ground. Our country has done a lot of poor decisions over the last few years, and this Government is beginning to put them right. I believe, for its small part, this bill will also work towards that goal, so I recommend it to the House.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thanks, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this bill. As the Minister said, this is just a small part of a solution to a housing shortage across the country. Why we have that housing shortage, of course we've had a significant population growth over the last few decades and housing and infrastructure just hasn't kept up with that.

The other part which is interesting too is, actually, we're getting smaller and smaller household sizes. In the 1980s, we had a household size average of 3.2; it's now down to 2.7. The difference that makes alone is about 300,000 houses. So it is quite significant.

The Minister says that what we need is more land. Yes, we do need more land for housing, but, actually, also better use of that land is key. So, densification is really, really important in some of these places, and I would have thought that the speaker from the Green Party, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, would have focused on that, because what she did say was that this Government has cancelled the Medium Density Residential Standards, MDRS, process. But what that did is it said it didn't discriminate between a house at the backblocks of Upper Hutt and one right down in the centre of Wellington. So it didn't make a lot of sense from a transport perspective. She also said that the answer was Kāinga Ora. Well, the reason that this Government has clipped Kāinga Ora's wings is because they were inordinately inefficient and inordinately expensive, and they needed to. It was a very, very poor approach. I think the average which I was seeing, certainly when I was in Wellington, was something between $900,000 and $1 million per social housing unit.

So, anyway, back to the bill. What the bill does is it amends the Overseas Investment Act, streamlines the consent process. It makes it easier for overseas investment in large-scale rental housing, and, instead of relying on the benefit to New Zealand pathway, it introduces this new pathway called the large rental development avenue. So if you've got more than 20 houses or dwellings together, contiguous dwellings—maybe they're across the street from each other; maybe they're on the same property—you're allowed now to buy existing large-scale developments, where previously you had to build new. It's not allowed to be for your own occupation. It's not allowed to be the occupation of family or friends or people related to you. It's not for Airbnb; it is for renting.

Now, normally New Zealand First would be a bit uneasy and often very opposed to having the overseas purchase of certain types of assets. We do need overseas capital—that is not in question. We've always needed it. This country's needed it since—you know, in the last 180-odd years, it's needed overseas capital. But we're always very interested in making sure that that overseas investment is more about creating new assets, improved assets, not just about buying existing ones, because all that does is it puts us further in hock to other countries. And one of our biggest challenges, in terms of our balance of payments, is the fact that we owe so much in debt and we also owe so much, in effect, in dividends and returns to people who have bought stakes in New Zealand.

We are, as a party, economic nationalists. In fact, it is in our name; in fact, it is our name. We put New Zealand first. So we need to make sure that we get good value from our foreign investment or from foreign investment here.

Kieran McAnulty said that he wanted Labour—and I read the report. I'm not on that committee either. I read the report and they obviously had had this discussion about whether 20 was the right number, and he suggested that perhaps you could change that number for different sizes of community. Now, Auckland is something like 266 times bigger than, say, Westport—seeing as you mentioned the West Coast. So that means if you allowed 20 houses in Auckland, proportionally you would allow—hmm—about 0.1 in Westport or something like that.

So, you got it—

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Oh, that's not what he said.

ANDY FOSTER: Look, I know there's some absurdity in that, but the reality is, you will start getting very, very arbitrary. Twenty has been used as the threshold for a number of different purposes, and, in fact, the officials' advice was very, very clear that they thought that 20 was the right number and it was consistent with other decision making. So I think that it is sensible to monitor that, as is suggested by the Labour Party—to monitor that. As I said, it is sensible to monitor that, as suggested by the Labour Party, but to stick with what we've got and go through the process that we've got at the moment.

I did say we're much more interested in creating new assets, but the expectation behind this bill is, if you have an overseas investor who is buying an existing asset, what it does is it encourages developers to develop new assets with the expectation that they will then be able to sell them to someone. In other words, it's likely to generate more building, which, of course, is what we are trying to do. The officials' report said the amendments aim to encourage more housing development by giving developers greater confidence in their ability to sell build-to-rent (BTR) assets under the Act, complementing the existing pathway allowing investment in new development, which is the increased housing test. So it makes sense in this situation. And, of course, if the investor ceases to meet the requirements, then they must sell out, which is a sensible proposition.

I've already covered the issue around the consistency of 20 with other pieces of the legislation.

The final couple of things I wanted to mention: one is operation through an intermediary. I think the committee very sensibly, and the Minister has reflected on that, said, "Look, it's not reasonable to expect that an overseas investor will actually operate the rental housing, but in fact they will get an intermediary to do it on their behalf." The changes to the bill allow for that. That makes absolute sense.

And, finally, how much difference will this make? Well, the BTR market in New Zealand is currently very, very small, as the Minister highlighted. It's quite significant in the USA. It's pretty significant too in the UK. It's quite significant too, something like €40 billion, across Europe, particularly in Germany. So there is potential there for it to be an increasing part of the answer to our housing shortage.

So, with that, I thank the select committee for the work that they've done in bringing this to the House, and I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Ricardo Menéndez March, five minutes.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think the Government has got a pretty incoherent approach to addressing housing inequality and the lack of access to housing many people experience. We have just heard recent stories about how kids continue to live in damp, mouldy homes, many of them without adequate access to food. At the same time, we're seeing no-cause evictions coming through, which will put renters on the back foot and will diminish their ability to put roots down in their communities and to have security of tenure.

Also we're seeing how the Government is, basically, slowing down the building of public housing, which is one of the few ways that we can guarantee affordable rents for low-income people, and we have this bill, which we're told is going to unlock supply to ensure that people have affordable rentals. But if we look at this bill, it actually lines the pockets of offshore property investors, rather than guarantee affordable rentals for the many people in Aotearoa who are simply going without, and you can tell this if you pay attention to the rhetoric from the Government's side of the House in how they're pitching this bill. At no point have they made guarantees about how communities will have access to affordable rentals.

In fact, they probably can't even make that promise, because we're seeing rents being one of the key drivers of inflation. Why are we seeing this? It's because (a) this Government has no plan to cap the amount that rents can go up each year, and (b) this Government has no plan to increase the supply of public housing, which can help drive down the cost of buying a house in communities where public housing is being built and it can guarantee that people spend 25 percent of their income on rent. If we look at the bill in detail, all it allows is for offshore, wealthy individuals to make themselves rich by simply acquiring land and building these so-called build-to-rent properties, but the truth is that what we need is a greater supply of housing that stops treating homes like a commodity and treats homes as a public good.

We have seen the demonisation of public housing and public housing tenants by members on my other side, and yet we don't have a plan to actually address housing inequities. Submitters, even those that were wanting to use these build-to-rent provisions—many called for the Government to take a much more holistic approach to the housing crisis. We don't have that, and yet we have this bill juxtaposed with everything else that the Government is doing. I just think we cannot see (a) how this bill will meaningfully contribute to actually genuinely increasing the supply of affordable housing—housing that is, as I mentioned earlier, not a commodity—or (b) how this bill will give security of tenure for renters, because what we will have now is renters that are being displaced more and more as a result of policies from this Government being told to don't worry and they can move into, for an unspecified amount years, these build-to-rent apartments, only for them to be at the mercy of landlords that could kick them out for absolutely no reason.

I challenge members on the other side of the House to provide robust and substantive evidence of how exactly this legislation will push down rents, because, so far, this Government is genuinely just opening the doors to "Gentrification Central". That is what we're seeing in many communities in Tāmaki-makau-rau, where I live, where we're seeing rent prices driving people out of the communities—and it's honestly pretty disgraceful to see members of the ACT Party laughing at the idea that their own policies are making the housing crisis worse.

This is not a policy that has at heart the wellbeing of our local communities, nor is it Tiriti-centred in how this bill is being developed. At the end of the day, we've got to remember that many of these so-called build-to-rent developments that we'll see from offshore investors will actually be in places that have been previously confiscated, and it will make achieving Tiriti justice actually far, far harder.

So, once again, the Greens won't be supporting this bill. We challenge the Government to come with genuine solutions—not gimmick policies—to the housing crisis because our communities who are spending more than half of their income on rent to deserve a Government that is genuinely committed to treating housing as a public good.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I'm very pleased to speak in support of this bill that's gone through the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This is another story of this Government being prepared to deal after generations—certainly after six or seven years—with the supply side of housing. We've seen that with bringing in deductibility—phasing that in again; another phase on 1 April—as a genuine tax expense that can be put against for landlords, lowering the brightline test to two years, and, of course, lowering inflation and lowering interest rates, with the Reserve Bank set to make another announcement on 19 February.

So this Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill offers an opportunity to increase the supply of affordable and quality rental developments, and particularly it attracts—

Ricardo Menéndez March: You can't guarantee they'll be affordable.

CAMERON BREWER: —those large ones—and the Green Party member will like this—within walking distance or next to key transport links. That is what the Auckland Unitary Plan of 2016 really, really focuses on. That is why, Dan Bidois, if you're getting around the beautiful suburb of, say, Point Chevalier, you are seeing townhouses and small apartment complexes going alongside public transport, going alongside arterial roads, going alongside town centres, but not being buried down the far reaches of Point Chevalier Road by the Coyle Park reserve, for example. The unitary plan protects those family suburbs, those leafy character areas.

So this will enable that intensification that is much needed, and Auckland argued over it for many years, and has agreed with it with the 2016 enactment of the Auckland Unitary Plan for sensible intensification in places that make sense. Again, this is where these build-to-rent developments will be and that is where other city councils like the Christchurch City Council, when it confirms its district planning rules, will probably head as well.

As far as the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS), this Government is giving the option for councils to be able to opt out of the MDRS if they can prove that the density will go elsewhere. For the leafy suburbs of Northcote or Upper Harbour, Dan Bidois, that is great news, because allowing three-storey buildings, three townhouses on one section as a permitted activity without a resource consent—

Shanan Halbert: You're sending them out to Judith.

CAMERON BREWER: —is not popular in Auckland; you know that, Shanan Halbert. It's not popular. You heard that on the doorstep last time. It is not popular. We're giving councils the option because you know why? Because those leafy suburbs of Northcote that you once represented, they fought hard, I remember that, with the late Ann Hartley. I want to acknowledge her today, the late Ann Hartley, councillor. They fought hard to keep those single-house zones, those large lot areas free. They fought hard to retain their low density, and with the unitary plan and with this National-led Government, this coalition Government enabling councils to opt out of those permitted activities, we will see councils empowered and this will see, with the unitary plan and other district and city plans around the country, these build-to-rent developments. We will see them go up with foreign investment—much needed for supply in sensible places in and around the likes of Auckland, town centres, public transport, commercial areas, arterial roads, where they need to be built. Good news for the tenants. More are coming. I commend the bill.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is my pleasure to take a call on this bill. It is a very narrow bill in scope and a very small bill. It only makes a couple of changes. Labour is supporting this bill. I think sometimes in the House that maybe the speeches could reflect the fact that there is some agreement on points of policy. And the very simple reason that we're supporting this is that this is making some small changes to work that started under our Government. It's work we agree on. I actually think that when it comes to housing policy, that is a good thing that we can have some agreement across parties.

What the Labour Government when we were in Government did is that we bought legislation to this House that created the category of build to rent. It didn't exist in New Zealand law. As it was, it was a relatively new phenomena—well, phenomena in New Zealand it was new. Of course, we've seen build to rent around the world for decades now, but not a category of housing that existed in New Zealand. So we needed to establish a definition of what is a build-to-rent development? What does it look like? What distinguishes it from other houses that are built to be rented out? Because there were some very specific provisions that went with it.

We thought this was an important thing. It was one piece that we needed to put in place in terms of solving our housing crisis. Did we think it was going to solve our housing crisis on its own? No. But we did think it was important that New Zealand had the opportunity to establish this category of housing in New Zealand. Because alongside that definition sat some provisions that actually gave some rights to build-to-rent developments that didn't exist for other rentals. There was interest deductibility that was allowed on them. There was a range of provisions.

The advice that we got at the time as a Government is that we didn't need to amend the Overseas Investment Act, that there could be advice that could be given, that it had always been enabled under the law, and the advice from those offshore looking to invest was that it wasn't actually something that needed to be changed in law. There just needed to be some stronger guidance given to the sector, and particularly those giving legal advice to people seeking to invest in build to rent in New Zealand. That may well be the case. That advice may still hold and, in fact, officials seem to indicate that that could well be the case. But none the less there was a desire to see it writ large in legislation. We don't have an issue with actually making abundantly clear in the law what is the case and was the case before this passage: that under the provisions that we'd put in in terms of the ability for overseas people to invest in property in New Zealand, the ability to invest in new apartment housing, had always been there. So that wasn't something new.

But one of the things that we were very clear on as a Government when we introduced this category of build to rent into New Zealand is this did offer us opportunities. This provided opportunities for people that never wanted to own a house. We've seen this internationally. They could actually be some very well paid individuals that want to do other things with their money and homeownership isn't one of them, none the less they wanted a security of tenure beyond the one-year lease which is traditional in New Zealand. So one of the things that landlords needed to give was the right for tenants to initiate a lease for up to 10 years. The idea being that someone could enrol their kids in school, they could make their home, and this was a place where they could really put down roots in a community. And we see internationally that this can be some very wealthy individuals that take advantage of this.

But one of the things that we were really clear on is that we wanted this category of housing to offer a solution all the way through the housing continuum. One of the gaps that we saw in New Zealand was that space that used to exist between market housing and public housing. It's what councils used to let out before the sell-off under the previous National Government, when they made council and Government compete for the income-related rent subsidy. There used to be affordable rental housing that was usually around 75 to 80 percent of a market rent. It would be someone that wasn't eligible for a State house or for the income-related rent subsidy, but none the less couldn't survive in the private rental market.

So we saw an opportunity to work with iwi, to work with councils, around actually building community focused build-to-rent developments. That is why we put in place the Affordable Housing Fund and put in place the Affordable Rental Pathway. That fund has since been cancelled by this Government, but what we did see throughout the country is over 200 of these Affordable Rental Pathways come through—many of them falling within build to rent. In my own city, in Christchurch, we saw a wonderful partnership between the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust and Ngāi Tūāhuriri—the hapū at Tuahiwi, north of Christchurch—that put in place affordable rental housing that I think showed a model and a way through in which we could actually, if we worked together and put funding behind it, find some ways through to solving our housing crisis.

So we support the changes in this bill. It lays bare what is already possible under the Overseas Investment Act. It does introduce some more liquidity into the build-to-rent market in terms of the on-selling of these assets and how that works. We know internationally that there does need to be liquidity within this market, because otherwise the danger is rather than these staying as long-term rentals where people have these 10-year leases and the right to renewal on that, that potentially these developments can be broken up, rather than sold as a going concern. And what we wanted to do was create this long-term asset class that actually endured for decades and offered a different way of renting for people in New Zealand.

So making sure that we have build to rent is an important part of how we will solve our housing crisis. Though I do caution the Government that it does need to sit alongside funding and it does need to sit alongside initiatives to ensure that we can also make sure that it is part of solving our housing crisis. That, yes, you solve a housing crisis through supply measures, but you also need to ensure that you're ensuring that the people in most need of housing can get into that housing that is built. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Happy New Year, Mr Speaker. It's great to be back and to see you as well. As has been acknowledged, we've got a massive housing shortage, a chronic shortage, in New Zealand. I do acknowledge the party opposite, Labour, supporting this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Get on track because we've got lots more for you to support as we continue to say, "Yes". We're the party of yes—yes to more housing, yes to supporting more build to rents, yes to this bill. The Green Party would be the party of no. The Green Party member over there challenged me to provide 10—

Shanan Halbert: You said no to building 2,000 in Auckland alone.

RYAN HAMILTON: Sorry, what was that? Did you say KiwiBuild? Sorry, what was that about KiwiBuild? How did that go?

We need more housing across the entire spectrum. We need more emergency housing, we need more social housing, we need more affordable housing, we need more rental, and we need more private. We need more one bedrooms, two bedrooms, six bedrooms. We need all the typology. And we're not naïve to think that one piece of policy can solve it. It's a combination of things.

And so, Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, over the last 13 months we've been in Government, I just want to highlight some of the 10 things we've done to increase supply around housing. So I hope the Green Party member is listening. The first thing, of course, is we've got inflation back in band.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): You will bear in mind this is a second reading, and you will need to refer to what happened at select committee.

RYAN HAMILTON: Yes, Sir. Thank you for that reminder.

In that select committee—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): We go backwards, but usually as far as a select committee.

RYAN HAMILTON: Thank you, Sir. Obviously, that's had a direct impact on the official cash rate, which is fantastic. Mortgage rates are dropping, which of course means more cash for everyday Kiwis, which means they can afford the groceries, they can pay the rent, and they can send their kids to school.

As the new chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee has already pointed out, we've brought that brightline test back to two years. We're restoring interest deductibility back, so tax is actually part of a business expense, as it should be in any normal business functionality. And when people say "Tax cuts for landlords", I must remind them that 80 percent of landlords only own one rental. So that's your mum and dad investors, that's your brothers and sisters.

The fifth thing is fast track. The legislation is just—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The sixth thing had better be the bill.

RYAN HAMILTON: Actually, Mr Speaker, it's the 10th thing, which is the build-to-rent overseas investment bill, which goes to my point of supply and demand.

The earlier speaker from the Labour Party was very clear that the issue is around supply, and it is supply and demand. It's a bit like going fishing in New Zealand, as we like to go fishing. Up around my way, on the West Coast and the East Coast, we like to go snapper fishing. When you go snapper fishing and your friends say, "Well, can you drop some off on the way back home?" And you know if they don't drop any by on the way back home, it's because they haven't caught enough. But if they have got enough snapper, you're sure to get some. And the reason is because they've got enough to share, because the supply is large. They don't need to stack up the supply of fish at home with bread. Instead of having one fillet, they can have two fillets. If they've got enough supply, they can even put some in the freezer. I'm really drawing the analogy to this bill, this build-to-rent second reading. It's about increasing supply.

It's not one silver bullet; it's not one thing, but layer upon layer of the housing-support legislations. In fact, I'd used the words "proactive and enabling legislation". This is another thing which just layers up in 13 months to get more housing supply in New Zealand. So I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Deborah Russell—five-minute call.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wish to start by addressing something that the previous speaker, Ryan Hamilton, raised—and, in fact, there was a word that he used. He talked about the "chronic" housing shortage in New Zealand, and then talked about the measures that that Government is taking to attempt to address this. In that context, I just want to remind the House of what the last Labour Government did to address the chronic housing shortage. By June 20—

ASSISTANT (Greg O'Connor): You can only get to six.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Yep. By June 2023, the previous Labour Government had delivered 12,000 new public homes. Over the course of 5½ years, we had delivered 12,000 new public homes, a real supply-side measure, ensuring that there were houses available. In fact, by June 2023, one in seven public homes in this country had been built by Jacinda Ardern's and Chris Hipkins' Labour Government, despite the upheavals of a global pandemic. That is a record of delivering houses and taking real positive action to address a chronic housing shortage.

I want to turn to this particular bill. I agree: it is another measure that goes to help with respect to ensuring that people are housed—and housed in stable homes, homes that they can rely on to be there for up to 10 years because they have that right of renewal. So we do support this bill, because we think that this is a space where we do need to have more investment in New Zealand, where having more build-to-rent, more long-term rentals, would be really, really helpful for all sorts of people.

Now, we've addressed the fact that some of this new type of housing for us—and it is new for us—can go right across the spectrum in terms of the sorts of housing it can supply. People have talked about perhaps very wealthy people wanting to have build-to-rent—those styles of apartments so that they can rent for a long time. Perhaps people with some form of income insecurity might find it easy to be in that space. I'm particularly delighted to see this type of investment being facilitated for family friends of ours, whose two children, who both have autism, nevertheless have their own simplicity apartments in a build-to-rent apartment. Those young people now have guaranteed accommodation, a place to live for the next 10 years, and they can't be kicked out. That is an extraordinary thing to supply. You can see that this type of housing can supply all sorts of gaps in the market. For people who might otherwise find it hard to be housed on the private rental market, but also might not find it so easy to be able to buy a house of their own, it just fills that gap rather nicely.

It also fills another gap rather nicely too, in that one of the things that we would hope to see over time is that our own—perhaps our KiwiSaver funds; perhaps our insurance companies—might get involved in this sort of market too, perhaps with the leverage of overseas investment, creating that long-term, steady income stream that we know investors like to have. So there's all sorts of good reasons to promote this type of housing. On those grounds, this is a good reason to support this particular bill.

I do want to add just a little bit to what my colleague Kieran McAnulty said, about perhaps considering whether it might be possible to adjust these rules somewhat for smaller centres. I want to point out that Mr McAnulty never ever suggested a proportional measure, but was suggesting that perhaps in the smaller centres there could be a lower absolute limit, but with a proportion—saying that maybe, as long as your entire development fitted into this category, so none of it was going to be sold, none of it was going to be off to investors or whatever individual investors, then perhaps it might be appropriate to have a lower absolute number of houses. Maybe six houses provided 100 percent of the development, fitted into this category of housing. I think that is an idea worth exploring, perhaps in the committee stage, but perhaps the Minister will take it upon himself to investigate that further. So a good piece of legislation, and I'm glad to see it progressing further.

NANCY LU (National): I am so glad I can speak to this bill because we've been through the select committee, I've been out there to talk to different developers and people who are interested in this very build-to-rent (BTR) idea. It is new to New Zealand, but it is not new internationally, around the world.

But the beauty of democracy is that we can also listen to different perspectives, like Minister Bishop who has said this is not all of the solution to the housing shortage in New Zealand; it is only one of the many solutions. Just like the Labour members opposite to us tonight who have said that they will be supporting this bill, and in my head I thought, "Oh my God, Labour is right for once. Finally." But guess what? I continued—I went and talked to many people around the country, particularly who are interested in the build-to-rent. And particularly, I know that there are a number of developers who are actually watching us live because they are so interested in this topic, and what they want to hear from us is whether we are giving them the green light and the full support from Government to make sure that they can hire people, they can build for New Zealand.

I know, for example, Ken and Frank are currently watching live on TV, and they sent me this quote which I find very interesting: "Cost of creation of new lands are expensive, therefore maintaining a healthy density for BTR developments are essential." This, hopefully, will answer to Kieran McAnulty for your concern. But what they are trying to say is they want to build, they want to provide new houses for New Zealand, but they are now waiting because they are uncertain about the Government's direction. They want to know that we are fully in behind the construction and the housing sector; that we are here for them to build.

Now, the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon said just over a week ago in his state of nation speech that "We are a country with the culture of saying no." So in 2025, a National-led Government is about the country for growth. We are about growth. So we are saying yes not only to building new houses for our country but we are also saying yes to the developers for recruiting more people to go on to construction sites. We are saying yes to people who are looking for jobs. We are saying yes to economic development locally, regionally, and around the country.

So we are a Government about growth, and BTR—this very bill—is one of the pillars that proves that we are serious about growing New Zealand in 2025. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you, Mr Speaker. See, this is why I believe that Nancy Lu could have been a great chair for the Finance and Expenditure Committee. She's got a financial background and she follows all the Government key lines to the 'T'. So I applaud Nancy Lu, and my apologies to my new mate, Cameron Brewer, who was nominated as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: take your learnings from Nancy Lu. She is qualified in this space and so that's why I believe—and also follows those key lines. So I just want to pay acknowledgement to Nancy Lu for her speech there.

So I was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and we heard submissions on this bill. As the Minister has said, this is not a silver bullet for the under-supply of housing in New Zealand. We acknowledge the Minister for his comments, and again, Labour is supporting this particular bill. The Minister also referenced that there were about 27 submissions that were received on this bill. As you go through the submissions, actually the majority of them were against this bill for very much the reasons outlined by the Greens today. They believed that, potentially, we could lose more of New Zealand's land and that it's a privilege to own New Zealand's land.

The good thing is that this bill is very narrow. The Overseas Investment Act protections still apply as part of this bill. Some of those particular protections are part of this new streamlined test, which is if you're going to build 20 houses or more, you go through this new test. Is that consistent with the Act's intention to prevent overseas investors from purchasing land for speculation purposes or other intended uses? The pathway still requires investors to not occupy the land or have individuals connected with them occupy it. They have to utilise the land for the consented purposes within a time frame defined by the regulator, which is the regulations that will fall from this bill. They must divest their interest in the asset if the asset is no longer operated for consented purposes. So if the consented purpose was build-to-rent the 20 dwellings, then they could actually have that consent stripped from them if that's not what they're going to do when they divest of the properties to those occupiers. They must pay the fee: the bill also sets a fee for this particular new streamlined test.

Going back to the submissions and it was quite interesting for me to listen to the Greens discussions around iwi Māori. There was actually one iwi that submitted on this bill. I do want to acknowledge the submission from Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki. They are an iwi that cover some of my favourite parts of Tāmaki-makau-rau, in particular Maraetai. So my apologies to my whānau in Northcote and the North Shore, but Maraetai is definitely one of the better places in Auckland. But they supported this bill quite surprisingly in principle and that's because Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki had been to a seminar session that KPMG had held. They were really interested that there were a number of foreign investors who wanted to invest in New Zealand and also wanted to partner with some iwi and with some community partners in order to build these build-to-rent homes. So they bring that out as part of their submission, but they also wanted to make sure that those protections within the Overseas Investment Act—within the wider Act—were still there. This bill does not change that. They also wanted a condition for their support for this bill, which is that the cherry-picking of tenants couldn't be allowed. Unfortunately, that's out of scope of this bill, but I do want to acknowledge Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki for their submission on this.

A number of members have spoken in support of this bill. There are various reasons for it. I do want to reaffirm the comments by our housing spokesperson, Kieran McAnulty. I would have thought that maybe the New Zealand First Party, given their focus on the regions, might take into account some of the suggestions that our housing spokesperson had talked about, which is just giving it a bit more work. And there is time. We are in the second reading. We still have the committee of the whole House stage. There could be opportunities for Supplementary Order Papers and for them to reconsider whether there needs to be a test for some of those regions where 20 units is actually quite large. So I do want to implore the other side and the Minister to reconsider that, but in particular the New Zealand First Party. Given that they have a really strong focus on the regions, I think this would be something that would actually fall within those elements of which their focus is as a party.

I want to thank Treasury officials for their support on this bill. Land Information New Zealand will be implementing a large part of it—it's really important that that process and implementation is strong—but I also want to acknowledge the work done by the previous housing Minister, the Hon Dr Megan Woods. In her earlier speech today on the second reading, she went through the history of build-to-rent. There was no definition of build-to-rent. We put in the definition of build-to-rent. In 2021, that test was slightly changed around a liquidity asset test. That has then been changed again as work has progressed.

So I commend this bill to the House, but I do again urge the Government Minister, as well as New Zealand First, to consider that regional aspect to it.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Dan Bidois. Just before that, for the sake of Mr Hamilton, and without being biased or giving anyone any indication or rating speeches, that is what a second reading speech should sound like—Dan Bidois.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Well, it's a pleasure to rise and to speak in this important debate and to acknowledge my fantastic members of a new committee that I've just joined, the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It is a fantastic committee. I am just lapping up all the economic data, as I know my colleagues are as well, because we have a lot to do this year, and our Government is focused on going for growth. In the Finance and Expenditure Committee today, we had the Minister of Finance in to talk about her plans to supercharge the economy, and there were a lot of questions around growth—not many from the other side, but a lot of questions, earnest questions, around how we get growth in our communities and in our country.

But it is a pleasure to rise and to speak on this important bill, because we do agree on a lot of things in this House. We do agree that we have a deep, long-running supply issue with housing in this country. We do agree that we need to build more homes in this country and that they need to be financed appropriately. It is encouraging that in this House we do agree that the build-to-rent concept is an important part of the solution for our housing supply crisis.

So I am just satisfied, having listened to the speeches in this House, we've traversed the opportunity that we have in this space. I'm excited for the great electorate of Northcote to see how this might be applied to build more homes and to make sure that we are building a more sustainable housing market. So, without further ado, I commend this bill to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

CUSTOMS (LEVIES AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILL

First Reading

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs): I present a legislative statement on the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I move, That the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill.

This bill improves revenue collection on goods crossing our border by making collection more effective and fairer. The bill will amend three Acts: the Customs and Excise Act 2018, the Waste Minimisation Act 2008, and the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985. The primary aim of this bill is to introduce a levy regime to recover costs for Customs' goods management activities, which keep New Zealand safe and support our economy. This will provide a futureproofed and fairer alternative to the existing fees-based regime.

Currently, only fees which are a charge to individuals or specified parties for direct costs can be made to recover Customs' goods management costs. Levies are more appropriate for recovering costs across a broad class of payers to fund a specific purpose. A levy system will provide a more balanced approach that reflects the risks and costs that classes of levy payers create. It would also align the goods regime with Customs' cost recovery for travellers—the border processing levy. The power to make fees will be retained in Customs legislation. The bill will enable levies or fees to be made depending on which is more appropriate. This approach is consistent with the cost recovery for other border agencies such as the Ministry for Primary Industries. The levy-making provision in the bill enables Customs' costs related to managing seacraft and aircraft to be recovered by a levy on those craft.

The bill adds safeguards around cost recovery. Costs will not be recovered under a goods fee levy if those costs are recovered elsewhere, such as costs relating to managing passenger processing, which are recovered under the border processing levy. This bill does not amend existing rates for Customs charges. Those rates are being considered separately. Government agencies are working with industry towards the options for a more financially sustainable and fairer regime for recovering Customs' goods related costs, and this will mostly be done using levies made under this new power. Trade is reliant on a smart border that protects the legitimate flow of goods and people. Customs' goods management system needs to be effectively maintained if the border is to remain efficient and secure. Fair and robust charging supports the funding of Customs' services.

The second aim of the bill is to support a small change to the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to enable simple and more effective collection of product stewardship fees, which fund the reduction of management of some waste products. The change will clarify that regulations may specify another agency rather than the Ministry for the Environment to collect product stewardship fees. This means that, when certain goods such as tyres cross the border, the product stewardship fees could be collected efficiently upfront by Customs. This ensures that the costs of appropriate disposal of these products at the end of their life are covered.

The third aim of the bill is to amend the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 to make GST refunds fairer for people returning imported goods to an overseas seller. About 300 importers will be able to get a GST refund each year, where currently they are not able to do so. These are usually people who have bought an item which is faulty or not as specified. Currently, if imported goods are returned overseas, the importer can get other types of duty back but not the GST unless they can prove that the goods are faulty or that the goods were not as specified. All importers returning goods overseas will now have up to a maximum of 12 months to claim back GST instead of the two months as it currently exists. The bill also ensures people receiving repaired or replacement goods back under warranty will only pay GST once.

I ask Parliament to support this bill. It is important to help Customs and other Government agencies to collect revenue efficiently and make our system fairer. I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Labour—Panmure-Ōtāhuhu): Madam Speaker, I would like to wish you and all the members of Parliament a wonderful new year in 2025.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon JENNY SALESA: Before I give my speech, I would like to acknowledge and thank Robert Gallagher, a former senior vice president of the Labour Party, and one of the best people that I know who has mentored and advised so many of us. We laid him to rest today. Moe mai rā, moe mai rā, moe mai rā.

It is my honour to speak as Opposition spokesperson for customs, on this bill, the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and Labour supports this bill. However, we have a few reservations that we hope the Minister and the coalition Government will take into account as this bill moves through the House.

The bill has a focus on improving and enhancing the efficiency as well as the fairness of our Customs revenue collection system. As many of us know, Customs, as an agency, is the oldest Government agency in Aotearoa New Zealand, established over 184 years ago. Some of the core functions of Customs is to protect us and ensure that our borders are safe. One of its core functions, though, is to collect the Crown tax revenue for New Zealand, and this assists and supports the Government of the day to ensure that many of its priorities can be implemented.

In 2022-23, Customs collected $18.6 billion in revenue. In 2023-24, Customs collected $17.4 billion in revenue, a decrease in just over a billion dollars. So it is important to ensure that the collection of revenue that Customs does is done in as efficient a manner as possible. It is in all of our interests.

Customs also ensures an efficient flow of goods across the border. So this bill, the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, has three main parts, as the Minister already covered. Part 1 proposes a levy regime for cost recovery. Part 2, Waste Minimisation Act amendments, and I'll let my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking cover that part in more detail. Part 3 proposes GST amendments for imported goods.

Now, I turn to Part 1, the levy-making process. This bill introduces a structured levy-making process, and this should ensure that any levies that are imposed and implemented are done in a transparent way. Now, one of the features of this bill is it doesn't actually just recommend consultation; it actually requires consultation with all the relevant stakeholders and affected parties as part of the levy-making process. Key provisions in Part 1 are sections 414A and 414B, inserted by clause 6. It mandates that levies are to be payable by specified persons for customs, goods, management functions, and it also allows the chief executive to appoint collection agents, establish reporting, auditing, and compliance requirements.

But what we're wanting to ensure that the Minister and the coalition Government take into consideration as we finalise this bill is when Customs went out to consult on this proposed bill, many of our small businesses told us that they're worried that they may face higher relative costs, and initial implementation may increase their administrative requirements. So our hope is, this is something that the Minister and customs officials take into consideration.

There is, of course, a lot of support for this bill. The proposed levy regime is seen as more equitable—one of the reasons we're supporting this bill. It is seen as more flexible and aligned with public sector cost recovery guidelines. We fully support this bill, and I congratulate the Minister and Customs for bringing it to the House.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to support this Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I just want to echo the words by the previous member, the Hon Jenny Salesa, and I wish my friends, comrades, and colleagues on the Opposition side of the House in Labour, Te Pāti Māori, and the Greens a very happy New Year. I also want to wish my frenemies in ACT and National a happy New Year also, in particular my apartment complex floormate Cameron Luxton and my old frenemy from Otago University Students' Association days Mr James Meager, and I congratulate you on your promotion as well. I also wanted to wish my frenemies in New Zealand First a very happy New Year. I won't mention any of you by name, because being a foreign-born New Zealander—as your deputy leader put it—is not in the most fashion in your party at the moment.

I wanted to thank the Customs officials who've worked tirelessly over the holiday period. This is a bill which will make their lives easier. And so this is a bill which we will be supporting, and we wanted to thank all the Customs officials, whether they're in the front line or the so-called back line. All the mahi that you do for New Zealand, all the tireless work you do, particularly over the holiday period, is particularly important.

Thank you to the Minister for bringing this bill forward. This bill has a lot of good ideas, and this is why we will be supporting it. The three key things that this bill does is it sets up a system for cost recovery, it amends the Waste Minimisation Act, and it amends the Goods and Services Tax Act.

I'll go through the points, out of these, that we support and why, on the balance of things, we do support the bill. Now, the system for cost recovery enables the people who benefit directly from the goods that they order to, essentially, pay for it by enabling Customs to collect fees. It also helps put Customs in a more sustainable footing, and this is particularly important to all of us, I think. Not only in New Zealand are, I guess, Governments facing a lot of fiscal and monetary crises; this is a trend across the world with leaner Governments having to make do with less. And the principles for cost recovery will assist with that principle.

It also amends the Waste Minimisation Act to enable orders to be set via Order in Council and gives Customs the power to collect these in relation to products. This is particularly important for the product stewardship scheme. I just wanted to remind all my colleagues across the House that the Waste Minimisation Act is very much the baby of the Green Party of Aotearoa. The Waste Minimisation Act was a brainchild of Nandor Tanczos. This was a member's bill, and prior to that, it was something that the Greens are passionate about and still passionate about, the zero-waste principles in moving to a circular economy where no waste is generated. So it's particularly important to us that the product stewardship, which was something that the previous Government was progressing and working towards and this Government looks set to continue with by passing this legislation, will continue. Thank you for progressing that cross-party work. It's really important that we do carry on this work together because all New Zealanders—well, most New Zealanders—would agree that a waste-free New Zealand is a better New Zealand.

Now, the last thing it does is it amends the Goods and Services Tax Act. This is something that we like from the perspective of consumer-rights advocacy. Consumers will not have to pay for goods twice—you know, if it gets fixed. But it's also important from the waste-minimisation perspective because it means that if you've already paid GST on a product and you send it overseas and it gets repaired and it gets sent back to New Zealand, you don't have to pay that taxation twice. It's particularly important to support that repair economy because that culture of take, make waste is not a very sustainable one. We've got a lot of great ideas along those lines. I believe my colleague Marama Davidson has a right-to-repair bill that was drawn from the members' ballot, which has been carried on by my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March. And, yeah, so thank you so much for this bill. We will be supporting it. Thanks.

LAURA McCLURE (ACT): Firstly, I just want to say thank you, Fran. Happy New Year to you also and to everybody else in the House, and, yeah, happy New Year to those that are keeping our borders safe. It would have been extremely busy. While some of us had a really nice break, I'm sure a lot of you guys have not had any break at all. It's been a really good season for New Zealand tourism coming through the borders, and I'm sure you're very, very busy.

So this bill, being an omnibus bill, is pretty straightforward. They're quite small amendments, but they may have some significant impacts. The levies that do help keep our borders safe are really important. Like, we've seen the increase in organised crime and the likes of drugs and contraband and all kinds of things coming through our borders, so it is really important that we do have some revenue in order to tackle some of these huge problems.

So the first part of that bill, I think, is really important. I also like the fact that we're trying to find some efficiencies. I mean, isn't this what this Government's about, finding efficiencies? So it's great that we're seeing this happening.

The amendments made will have the provisions to relate to Customs' cost recovery charges, refunding goods and services tax, so GST, and collection of environmental product stewardship fees. This is also good for those businesses that do need to return things that they're importing. There are very few businesses that do this, but sometimes they need to return them back overseas, so that's a really important step for those businesses as well.

Some of the other little bits and pieces that this legislation does as well, it also engages existing levy regime provisions within the Customs and Excise Act relating to trust accounts, collection audits, auditors, and offences. Supporting effective fee collection clarifies that regulations may specify agencies that will collect fees to fund product stewardship. Essentially, this bill does quite a few little amendments, and I think it's a great step in the right direction. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm happy to rise and take a call on the first reading of the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Here we are at 9.00 p.m. debating the details of a Customs bill. It doesn't get much more exciting than this!

This Government is firmly focused, though, on economic growth this year. Now, this bill, we've heard some of the details from speakers already this evening, is a clear mechanism to help improve efficiency. Efficiency leads to growth and greater prosperity, and this Government—and the House will hear it many times throughout the year—is squarely focused on economic growth. This bill will contribute to that. It is about making it clear that we are open for business, that we are accessible, that we are easy to do business with. These are critical things that are important for any New Zealand business looking to import here, for any other international businesses looking to operate here as well.

Trade is absolutely critical for our long-term success. And as we see some economic challenges on our doorstep at the moment, we've been dealing with a lot of that over the last year or so, the future will get brighter. This Government will be absolutely delivering on that, and this bill is playing a small part in contributing to that as well.

So it is a pleasure to have the opportunity, as the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, to be considering this bill. Our committee, I am sure, will delve into the detail with great gusto, look for any opportunities to further improve the proposals put forward under this bill, and to ultimately deliver back to the House a good piece of legislation that, I think, will make some meaningful changes. I'm not going to delve in the details of each of those particular aspects, but it's clear that we're talking around looking at those efficiency gains where we can, I think, have a more practical, more workable system that will ultimately give greater confidence to those businesses looking to import products. Particularly, the one that I think stood out for me, though, was around the GST for those warranty claim aspects. If there's an issue and it's having to go back, then of course you should not be paying GST twice on that. And indeed, extending that period from two up to 12 months to allow for that—or indeed even longer if the warranty period is beyond that 12-month window—is an appropriate measure.

I think that, again, it's all about efficiency gains, streamlining the system and just making it easier to get things done. That is very clearly what this Government is about. So I look forward to shepherding this bill through the next stage in select committee and hearing submissions from the public on it on behalf of our hard-working Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee members. And so I commend this bill to the House.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Xin nian kuai le, Madam Speaker, and a privilege to stand up and speak on behalf of this. I don't want to dwell too long on the detail, because as we heard, you know, we're going to send this to the select committee where we can really look at this, but it's a step in the right direction, because it is all about improving the efficiency and the flow and the work at the border, as part of our broader strategy of growing our economy.

Can I just make three points—and, firstly, I want to acknowledge, as Ms McClure did, the hard-working Customs staff. I've had the privilege of working with a few both in and out of New Zealand during my career, and particularly I'm just going to mention PC—we don't need to use his full name, but PC, working on the other side of the world, doing a great job for New Zealand Customs. They do fantastic work, and we need to provide them with the tools and the framework to do that. That's what this bill is about.

Secondly, I think one of the key points—and maybe I'll let Dana Kirkpatrick, that great MP for East Coast, dig a little more into the levy versus the fees, but this is an enabling piece of legislation because it sets up the framework that's needed for secondary legislation to go and set the framework for the various levies that are going to be used. At the moment, the fee structure can be a bit of a blunt tool. We're all about a more nuanced approach, a more sophisticated approach. Just like these speed limits that we're reversing from today—Wairarapa will be happy; so will the people in Ōtaki, as they change. We can be a bit more precise with what we do. We don't want to slow down our country; we want to speed them up, and that starts at the border as we look to grow this economy, to bring a bit of equity. I note that this is backed up by the regulatory impact statement there on page 5, talking about the need for more equitable outcomes, which is what this legislation does.

And, thirdly, when I think about this enabling legislation setting up secondary legislation—and I just note some of the provisions that are in there, that the Governor-General is now able by Order in Council to set what these various levies and things will be. But the need for consultation, to "consult … persons, representative groups, government departments, and Crown agencies that [it] considers are reasonable and appropriate"—that's directly from this bill, and I think that's good. Again, the regulatory impact statement notes that, actually, although this is enabling legislation for secondary, it has got a sound process in place that enables fair consultation. I look forward to some of that consultation at the select committee stage, and until then, I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): As we've already said, we are supporting this bill, but there are some issues to explore at select committee. Now, as the previous speaker, Tim Costley, noted, the regulatory impact statement says that there has been no consultation on this so far. Normally, that would be a bit of a red alert to us here in this House, but the consultation will happen in the select committee process and more particularly in the fee- and levy-setting process. So I think, for once, it has been appropriate to have no consultation at this stage. It will come later.

I do think there is something that we do need to explore a little bit at the select committee stage and that is the difference between a fee and a levy and the circumstances in which we charge a fee and the circumstances in which we charge a levy. Now, it's interesting because the Customs Act, in terms of collecting Customs revenue, it's based on fees, but ordinarily to charge a fee there has to be a quite good line of sight—quite a line that you can trace easily between the service that is provided and the fee that is charged. I suspect that this is a hangover from the user-pays frenzy of the 1980s and 1990s.

Whereas a levy is something that is charged when a service needs to be maintained but it can't quite directly be linked to particular goods, particular services, and so on. So we need to maintain a Customs service—we need that border protection—but we can't quite charge the fees appropriate because we can't link them up correctly to the overall Customs service.

So there's a little bit of something for us to explore there in the select committee stage as to whether it is appropriate to go to a fee. Now, on the face of it, that certainly looks to be the case, and the reasoning in the bill itself and in the regulatory impact statement and in the departmental disclosure statement and so on does look, on the face to say, "Yes, it probably is appropriate to go to a levy." But we do need to explore that and have a little bit of a check on it and run a bit of a sense check on it.

Having said that, once we get to that stage, I think we will need to have a bit of a discussion, too, about the nature of the consultation that will take place in terms of actually setting those levies. One of the things we want to be sure about is that those levies will be set in an appropriate level, that they will be set in a way that the people who are being charged them feel is fair. Now, of course, most of us prefer to pay less for goods and services. Most of us prefer to keep a little bit of control over our pocket. Most of us do get a bit concerned about a levy and we say, "Well, hang on a second; what is this going to?" and want to know about it. So there will be a consultation process for setting these levies.

What I would like to explore in the select committee process is just how rigorous that consultation process will be, what opportunity there will be for people to push back on the levies, what will happen in cases of dispute and so on, so there's some issues there to be explored. So despite the fact that there's sort of a, you know, I wouldn't say a roar of agreement from across the House, because we're all being quite measured about this, but despite the fact that there seems to be quite a degree of agreement across the House about the appropriateness of this legislation, there are issues to be explored at select committee.

So there is another set of issues to be explored around the waste management fees, but I understand my colleague Rachel Brooking is to speak on this bill and she has a fair amount of knowledge in that area, so I'll leave that particular issue to her and I will simply end by commending this bill onwards to the next stage of the legislative process.

DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, before I start with the terribly exciting Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, I'd just like to, if I may, make a note to the two Gisborne teams competing in the six-day, 400-kilometre adventure race in the depths of the South Island, sitting in 13th place 300 kilometres in, the Gizzy Gully runners—George, Guy, Pete and Caroline—are going really well and I just want to wish them all the very best. It's a great, great race—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Great island!

BARBARA KURIGER: —and I want to wish that they're good—and now to the bill. Yes, quite right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think she was mentioning the South Island, actually.

Hon Rachel Brooking: Great island!

DANA KIRKPATRICK: Oh, the South Island! Yes, fantastic place. Yes, got a wonderful new Minister as well. Very pleased about that. You know, he's awesome. He's going to be great.

Look, so now to the issue at hand, the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, another way of getting this country off to a great start in 2025. Look, it's not terribly exciting, but it's a good, practical piece of legislation. An omnibus bill focusing on the introduction of new rules that will help Customs recover costs, improve how they collect fees and levies. There's changes to three Acts as a result: the Waste Minimisation Act, the Goods and Services Tax Act—Tax: the "T" in "GST" stands for tax, did you know that?—and Customs and Excise Act. And I think it's been pretty well explained already.

It's pretty simple, but it's worth noting just a few things that it will achieve. The policy objective is to improve revenue collection on goods by making collection fairer and more effective. Currently, Customs only has legal authority for goods fees, and this bill will create a new levy-making power. The entity needs to be able to charge different levies to different importers for different goods, rather than set fees; these changes will facilitate just that. Levies, according to the bill and to the commentary and the regulatory impact statement, are a more appropriate type of charge than fees when costs are spread across the different class of payers and there's not necessarily a direct line of sight to the costs incurred by Customs.

The ability to make levies future proofs the Customs and Excise Act and makes the goods cost-recovery regime more flexible and better aligned with best practice. So it's something that we're keen to see: more efficient, better practice in place. In addition, the Customs goods management system approach is best supported by a levy regime.

In Part 2, the bill enables Customs to collect a product stewardship fee as if the fee were a duty under the Customs and Excise Act. And in Part 3, it ensures that imported goods get the same GST treatment as other goods. Currently, some people who import goods and then subsequently send them back—as we have noted previously, from previous speakers—can't claim the GST back that they paid when the goods were originally imported.

So I look forward to working through the bill in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Select Committee, and to hear the consultation process that comes through that, particularly around some of the issues that have been raised here. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's with quite some delight that we have heard—from not just the past speaker, Dana Kirkpatrick, but the speaker before that as well, Dr Deborah Russell—the difference between fees and levies. That is a great way to start 2025 in the House. I'm interested in this because, of course, a difference between a fee and a levy is a tax, and there's always that discussion: when does it get so broad that it becomes a tax?

We had that debate in the House at the Budget, when the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 was amended so that the waste levy could be spent on anything environmental, not tied to waste. What happened in that debate was that the purpose of that part of the Waste Minimisation Act was repealed, which had said that that levy was to be imposed on waste disposal to raise revenue for promoting and achieving waste minimisation, and to increase the cost of waste disposal, to recognise that disposal imposes costs on the environment, society, and the economy. And what a great statement that is. But, of course, that was repealed in the Budget urgency debates last year, which really makes the waste levy more of a tax.

I do want to talk about this Part 2 of the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, which relates to the Waste Minimisation Act. It is about the regulation that's setting aspects related to product stewardship. We heard from the Minister that when you have a product stewardship regime for something like tyres—obviously, tyres are not manufactured in New Zealand. We want to make sure that tyres don't just go to waste and end up on farms and get burnt, or something like that. That has a very bad environmental impact, so we have the Tyrewise scheme. But those tyres come into the country at some point, and so that is why there's now going to be a mechanism in the Waste Minimisation Act to enable specification of the person responsible for collecting the fees.

That's a change to section 23 of the Waste Minimisation Act, which is regulations in relation to products, and it comes at section 23(1)(d), which is setting fees payable for the management of a product, and specifying the class or classes of person who must pay the stages in the life of the product, when the fee must be paid, the purpose to which the fee must be applied, and then the persons responsible for collecting the fee. That seems to make some good sense. And then one of those people can be the chief executive of Customs—that also seems to make some good sense. I want to note, of course, that one of the final things we did when we were in Government was to get through that Tyrewise scheme, and that's something that we're very proud of. A number of Ministers had been working on that for a long time, up to a decade, even.

But, of course, the Waste Minimisation Act is an old Act, and it doesn't work that well. It's quite clunky, along with the Litter Act of 1979. The previous Government was going to update that so that we can have this circular economy that my colleague Francisco Hernandez was talking about before, and the importance of that. That is the exact opposite of what the chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was talking about when he introduced in his speech and said that this bill was all about growth and this Government is all about growth. But, in fact, product stewardship is very important, and it's not about growth—it's about a circular economy. It's certainly about being efficient, and it's not doing wasteful having-to-dispose-of products and all that goes with that. It is the opposite of just growing for growth's sake.

I wanted to point that out. I think it would be very important for the select committee—clearly, it's not the Environment Committee. I would advise, when consulting and asking for submissions, that there are some great groups like WasteMINZ and also Wanaka Wastebusters and the Repair Café. I hope that those groups will be engaged on this and that the Government continues to do much more work in this product stewardship area, so that we can work together in a bipartisan way for a circular economy.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Excellent, Madam Speaker. It's a great honour to rise as the last speaker on the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Of course, we've traversed a lot of this area already. The bill updates the law to improve how Customs collects levies, GST, and environmental fees, ensuring a more effective and efficient system. Of course, we need a modern and safe border. As we've heard during this debate, our ports and our airports are thriving hubs of commerce. We've heard that Customs collected over $17 billion last year, and that does just put into perspective what we're talking about here.

This bill, of course, makes three key changes. First, it amends the Customs and Excise Act 2018 to allow for the implementation of levies to recover the costs that Customs incurs in managing goods. Secondly, it clarifies the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to streamline the collection of products stewardship fees. I nearly thought that was the whole bill, since the last speaker, the Hon Rachel Brooking, was only focused on that! Thirdly, it amends the Goods and Services Tax Act to ensure fair GST treatment of imported goods, particularly when they are returned or replaced under warranty.

I think this is a very important bill. It's a very key part of our economy. There's a lot of things that travel to and fro over our border, and it is very important that we have a modern, up-to-date system that we can make good use of. Therefore, I commend this bill to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): Point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I seek leave for a five-minute call to make up for the lost call at call No. 6.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are not able to do that on a first reading, but I—

Arena Williams: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, leave is sought for that purpose, so I guess I would put the leave, but, really, that is a precedent that we wouldn't want to set, because we don't actually allow people to make up calls in the first reading. So it's probably best that we don't—yeah, I think I'm in order if I don't. I'll just check that with the Clerk, and he'll correct me if—I'm OK. OK, thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Customs (Levies and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be considered by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

ORANGA TAMARIKI (REPEAL OF SECTION 7AA) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I present a legislative statement on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I move, That the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I've stood before this House and highlighted examples on many occasions of harrowing abuse and heartbreaking tragedy where our young people are being let down. I've highlighted cases of neglect and death that I do not want to see happen again. I've spoken of Baby Nga Reo, Baby Ru, and I've spoken of Malachi, Maya, Carla, Leanne, Falute Vaila, and I've spoken of the Kāhui twins, Nia Glassie, and there are many more. These are just a few of the young people who have passed, and do not include those who have survived but not without a lifetime of trauma from the impact of their abuse.

Let this not be our future as a country. Let there be options and tools available to us to resolve this. This is why I am so motivated to put the safety and wellbeing of young people front and centre in all our decision making. And removing Section 7AA is just one of the components of helping to ensure this. I've seen firsthand the devastation on caregivers' faces and heard the pain in their voices after being told a forever home does not necessarily mean that. I've spoken previously of a family that managed to go back a few generations and find a Māori relative to avoid a reverse uplift after they were told their child might be removed from them because they were not Māori.

The system has not been working as well as it can. It needs some real change. My responsibility and my mission is to do everything I possibly can to help young people and to ensure their wellbeing and to provide the best outcomes for our young people in care. I want our system to ensure that every child in this country is raised in a loving and stable home that sets them up to succeed in life, regardless of their race or culture.

I would like to thank the Social Services and Community Committee for its examination of this bill. I thank and acknowledge the 3,748 submitters who contributed to the consideration of this bill. I especially acknowledge the submitters who spoke from personal experiences in the care system, including those who also contributed to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions. Care-experienced young people, caregivers, whānau, hapū, iwi—I want to thank you all sincerely for sharing your perspectives. By majority, the Social Services and Community Committee recommends the passing of the bill, with amendments aimed at preserving the strategic partnerships Oranga Tamariki has with iwi and Māori organisations. This change is set out in the legislative statement.

When I became Minister for Children, I made it clear that my intention was to focus the children's system on the wellbeing and individual needs of children. Of all the submissions on this bill, the importance of a child's wellbeing and safety was the most prevalent theme throughout. Some submitters—even ones who saw 7AA as well-intentioned—were concerned that it had mandated some harmful practice, was misinterpreted by many social workers, and was a barrier to best practice when making placement decisions with children. Unfortunately, 7AA has been used in some cases to justify unsafe care decisions or cause disruption for children and caregivers. I want our system to ensure that every child in this country is raised in a loving, stable home that sets them up, regardless of where they come from.

Removing 7AA from the Act reinforces the need to put the safety of the children first. I want to acknowledge the submitters who emphasised the importance of culture, whānau, hapū, and iwi connections. I want to be really clear: I have never said that whānau, hapū, and iwi should not play a role in the care of our young people. I support empowering all communities, and the Act already required this prior to the inclusion of 7AA. The repeal of 7AA will not alter that.

What this bill does do is ensure that these cultural considerations are never at the expense of children and young people's wellbeing and safety. I maintain that 7AA has created a conflict for Oranga Tamariki when making decisions that are in the best interests of the child or a young person. I consider that 7AA allows children and young people to be treated as an identity group first and a person second, and it creates a divisive system that has had a negative impact not only on caregivers but children as well.

Again, the most prevalent theme raised by over 1,500 submitters was the importance of wellbeing and safety. Most recognised that culture is important, but many submitted that this should never be considered at the expense of safety. I hear the concerns submitters shared that 7AA has led to decisions that favoured the interests of families, social workers, and legislators over what was the right decision for the child. If family or whānau is the right place for a young person, that's what should happen, but, unfortunately, that's not always appropriate and we need to make sure that safety and wellbeing come first.

There were caregivers who submitted on this bill who shared their experiences, with 7AA being used to justify decisions that were not in the best interest of the child or young person they were caring for. In some of these submissions, caregivers shared the emotional and stressful experience of having a child being removed from their care to be placed with family, or Oranga Tamariki attempting to do so. Those caregivers shared how these practices disregarded the connection and attachment with the child, and the trauma this disruption caused for not only the child but everyone involved and their families.

I never want to see a child torn away from a loving home for life because the caregivers are the wrong ethnicity, and I never want to see another child traumatised and sent back to abusers because they are the right ethnicity. That is what section 7AA has contributed to in some circumstances, and I'm really proud to repeal it.

I have always stated that I welcome the robust discussion during the select committee process, and I acknowledge the concerns many submitters raised about the impact of this bill on strategic partnerships. As I've said before, this bill does not prevent Oranga Tamariki from retaining its current strategic partnerships or entering into new ones. But I want submitters to know that their voices have been heard, which is why I support the recommendations of the select committee to maintain the strategic partnership provisions within the Act, locating them alongside the other duties of the chief executive.

Strategic partnerships support the delegation of statutory functions to community organisations, which in turn has contributed to keeping children and young people out of the care system in the first place by enabling community-led early prevention and support. Some submitters shared how these strategic partnerships have been essential in addressing the needs of children and young people through culturally responsive care. Existing strategic care and partners also submitted on the bill and shared how these have fostered strong relationships with Oranga Tamariki. Many of them felt that these partnerships needed to be kept in legislation, and that's why I commend the committee's recommendation.

Removing 7AA from the Act reinforces the need to put safety of the child first, and if this bill prevents just one child from being placed in a harmful environment based on ethnicity first, or prevents just one child from being removed from a loving and safe home simply because of this fact, it will have done its job.

As a Māori person who has experienced the care system myself, I can tell you there's not much difference between a Māori child and any other child when it comes to dealing with the care and protection system. We want to know that we're loved. We want to know that we're safe and we want to know that we're going to be cared for by those who are supposed to protect us and love us. This is why it's so important to treat our children as a child first, as an identity second, so that all children can have a chance for a better future and a better life.

I will continue to provide the best tools and options to support them to help protect all children from harm because abuse and neglect does not discriminate, whether you are rich, poor, Māori, or non-Māori. And I am so glad that we are making changes across the system, and I am so proud to be a part of a Government that prioritises our children. I am pleased that this bill will help provide another option to help safeguard our children and keep them together with loving, caring families in safe homes. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): E te Māngai o te Whare. It is a truly sad place that we are in this evening. I listened to the Minister's speech, and I don't even know where to begin on addressing a number of the things that she said in her speech that are just not correct. They are not substantiated by evidence, by experts, by the many, many submitters that submitted to our select committee.

She started by making what Tupua Urlich described, when we had the first reading, "an emotional plea, naming a harrowing list of children who had been harmed in State care", and that is absolutely tragic. However, it is not related to section 7AA, so why does the Minister do that? It is disgusting to make connections between those who have been harmed and died in State care before section 7AA even came into force, when we are discussing and debating the removal of section 7AA.

The removal of section 7AA is driven by political ideology. There has been no substantive evidence to substantiate any of the Minister's claims that there is some kind of conflict here; no empirical evidence. The Waitangi Tribunal ruled that; the submitters said that. The officials also said that there is no empirical evidence to support the Minister's problem definition that this bill is seeking to achieve. It is purely political ideology. It is absolutely disgusting that we are allowing the removal of section 7AA, which was put in—the very purpose of it was to reduce disparities for tamariki Māori in the care and protection system, because the history and the evidence shows that this mechanism was necessary to put a legislative requirement on the CEO of Oranga Tamariki to ensure that its policies and its practices through strategic partnerships, through accountability, and reporting would reduce disparities for tamariki Māori.

The Minister says that she wanted robust debate and was prepared to listen to the submissions, while she has cherry-picked some submitters that support her views and she has taken one of the recommendations but importantly has left out, in my view, the most important mechanism in that provision in that section, which was the requirement of the CEO to reduce disparities for tamariki Māori. So, on the one hand, to keep strategic partnerships but not remain committed to that very outcome—what is the point? And then further to that, we had robust debate at the select committee about the accountability provisions, and the majority, as in the Government side, voted to remove the legislative accountability requirements of—

Laura McClure: There's heaps of reporting.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: —Oranga Tamariki of the chief executive. The member heckling knows, because the official said what is there is not like for like. It is not a replacement. They are not the same thing. me be absolutely clear: what is there now is not what was there before. And so we have taken away the requirement of the CEO to reduce disparities, and the accountability—legislative accountability—of the CEO to that.

Tupua Urlich, a survivor of abuse in State care and an advocate for those in State care and rangatahi, said, "If section 7AA is repealed, it's a green light for this Government to continue to sever our ties to whakapapa and culture, the most important connections to have throughout life. We are going to see more isolated, disconnected young people emerge from the care system struggling to move forward."

There were many, many submitters, and I want to acknowledge the submitters. It was very emotional to listen to those thoughtful submissions that were being made from a wide range of submitters, a wide range of sectors and organisations, from survivors of abuse in State care to iwi organisations and Māori organisations, to paediatricians, health experts, hauora Māori providers, Māori Women's Welfare League. Even on social investment, there was a wide range of submitters and the majority of them, in oral submissions, were against what is proposed in this bill, and they gave so much good evidence to support their positions.

There were a number of men who cried—cried—making their submissions about the removal of section 7AA and the harm, the actual harm, that this will do to tamariki Māori. To see grown men presenting to a select committee in tears about what is being proposed is not something I have seen in my almost eight years here in Parliament. It was absolutely emotional, because this law change is going to have a devastating effect. The Waitangi Tribunal warns that the removal of section 7AA will cause actual harm to tamariki Māori.

So to hear the Minister gaslight us this evening, when we sat there and we heard the submissions and we saw the evidence—I'm so angry. I'm so sad. I can't understand how the Minister can stand here this evening, having received the royal commission's report into abuse in State care, which shows historically the very issues that section 7AA is trying to address, the very harm that not having something like section 7AA did to real people—chapters of evidence—many, many survivors who presented to the royal commission talking about their disconnection from their whānau, their hapū, their iwi, their reo, their culture, and the real impact and harm that that did to them.

The Minister was here for the tabling of that report. She was here for the apology, and yet that all meant nothing, because days after the tabling, there we were hearing submissions on the repeal of section 7AA. The Minister, the Government, did not even stop for a minute and consider the Waitangi Tribunal's report, which says it's a breach of Te Tiriti and it will cause harm, or the royal commission's report, which gives ample evidence that this type of action by the Government and inaction to do deliberate things to counter that is going to cause harm. And the Minister stands up here tonight and says she's so proud.

Well, I don't think she should be proud. This Government is letting political ideology be put ahead of the safety of our tamariki and mokopuna, and don't believe a word that the Minister said, because she doesn't have the evidence to tautoko it. I do not commend this bill to the House.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to completely and fully oppose this abhorrent bill. Back in the rā—back in the day—when a beautiful bubba, our precious taonga, was born into an iwi, a hapū, a whānau, they were cherished and revered. Māori understood then, as we do now, that tamariki, our precious taonga, come from the heavens, from the stars. Their mothers were understood to be portals who bring a soul into this world. There is an unbreakable connection, one that extends beyond immediate whānau to hapū, to iwi, and the world around them.

Children were and are so valued in Māori culture that they are included in every part of society. Back in the rā, children were connected and included at important hui where chiefs made decisions. Children sat right on their laps and listened, and not only that, they participated and interjected, because they knew that their voice was so valued that they would be listened to as vital members of their whānau, of their community, of nature. Children are te pito o te ao

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

—the centre of the universe, intrinsically linked to their whānau and environment. That was the world they were nurtured in, a world where their voices matter.

This callous bill is a direct attack on that world view. It is an attempt to erase the place of whakapapa and to sever Māori children from the cultural roots that nourish them. The Minister for Children persistently claims that removing section 7AA is about safety, yet their entire justification hinges on just two cherry-picked anecdotes. There is a massive difference between anecdotal evidence and empirical evidence. Again today, the Minister replied on those two anecdotal cases. The Minister for Children's argument lacks intellectual integrity. The Minister wants to simplify, but I believe in the ability of all of us to understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and empirical evidence.

Whilst the submissions were opened, I travelled across the motu from Auckland, Tauranga, down to Christchurch and listened to the voices of those who had care experience, who were taken from their culture, and those are the people that I stand with today. Those are the people whose voices I uplift today. Child safety is paramount, and they live and breathe that.

The Social Services and Community Committee received 3,748 written submissions. The Minister might not want to listen, but the experts were clear. Dr Luke Fitzmaurice-Brown, a lecturer in law at Te Herenga Waka specialising in child protection and Te Tiriti o Waitangi, told us that removing 7AA "breaches Te Tiriti o Waitangi, misrepresents tikanga Māori, will cause harm to tamariki and whānau, will reduce the accountability [of] Oranga Tamariki and will remove one of the only mechanisms for Māori to exercise genuine partnership with the Crown within a child protection context."

Care experience experts—people who have actually experienced the State as a parent—said, like from VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai, "Safety of our tamariki Māori and [the] connection to culture are not mutually exclusive. … The [Minister for Children] is presenting a false dichotomy". A focus on connection to whakapapa does not come at the expense of safety. The law is already clear. Safety of children is first. The wellbeing and the best interests of children are paramount. Whakapapa and whanaungatanga responsibilities are considered in care decisions but never to the exclusion of safety, stability, and wellbeing. We all want the same thing. We are all working for the same thing. We are working for the safety of our precious taonga, our tamariki.

The lived experience and advice from experts isn't enough for the Minister. The Minister has not even listened to her own officials. The regulatory impact statement prepared by Oranga Tamariki on 12 March 2024 stated clearly, "Repealing section 7AA is unlikely to contribute to improvements in safety and stability. However, a repeal … may undo … the progress that Oranga Tamariki has made in building trust, relationships, and accountability in the communities we work with. This may worsen the safety, stability, and well-being of our children with the greatest needs." How can we trust that safety is the objective here? This is not a bill that protects tamariki's safety; this is a bill that makes them more vulnerable.

Let's take a look at the bigger picture. Let's take that eagle-eye view, because the Minister for Children is not just removing section 7AA; she is gutting prevention by $120 million over four years, and the result of this will be funnelling more children into Oranga Tamariki care, into State care, simultaneously removing the only legal protection that protects them from being torn from their whakapapa.

In te ao Māori, we know that intrinsically everything is connected. Either the Minister listens now or this Government knows that in 20 years' time there will be another apology for another stolen generation of Māori tamariki for the Minister not listening. At the same time as the 7AA repeal is going through, the Minister refuses to accept the 138 recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care.

We must ask: what kind of children's Minister cuts prevention of funding, dismantles protections, and ignores a comprehensive report on historic abuse? How can we trust that the objective is safety for our tamariki? If this Government was serious about protecting tamariki, they would be focused on keeping them in safe homes and communities and not making it easier for institutions to take them away. An institution can never be a home; just talk to anybody who has experienced State care.

Under immense pressure, the Minister has made one minor concession, keeping strategic partnership in the bill. But let's be clear, at the same time she is stripping $1.5 million to one of those partnerships, Kokiri Marae, overnight. This is not a genuine partnership. This weakens Māori-led solutions.

The issue here is not that the law is too hard to understand or implement; it is that the Government is choosing not to listen. We've had inquiries, we've had investigations, we've had commissions and reviews, and we know what happens when Māori tamariki are removed from their whakapapa and placed in State care. We have the testimonies, we have the reports, we have the royal commission of inquiry findings of abuse in State care, yet the Government refuses to listen. An institution can never be a home. A home is within a whānau, hapū, iwi—the belonging of our taonga in safe, loving whānau.

PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): I'd like to begin by acknowledging and thanking the men and women of Oranga Tamariki, and every social worker who deals with families and young people and children, tamariki, and rangatahi. They are the people who make the operations of Oranga Tamariki run on a daily basis, and I acknowledge them. They see the worst of the worst, and the best of the best, and I thank them.

The Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill repeals two main aspects of the obligation imposed by the Act on the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki. The first obligation is that the chief executive must report on matters related to the chief executive's performance of duties in relation to Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations imposed to recognise and provide a practical commitment to the principles of Te Tiriti. The second obligation is to seek and develop relationships and strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations, including iwi authorities, in order to provide opportunities to invite in innovative ways proposals to improve outcomes for Māori children, young persons, and their whānau who come to the attention of the agency.

The object of the repeal is to refocus Oranga Tamariki on prioritising the safety and wellbeing of children in all care arrangements. This aligns with the principle that the welfare and best interests of children must always remain paramount. This refocusing on the safety and wellbeing of children in care clarifies that cultural factors must at all times support, but never compromise, the best interests of the child.

The Social Services and Community Committee received many thousands of written submissions—over 3,700—and heard from 117 submitters in person. I take this time and opportunity to thank all the submitters for the care, the time, and the passion and emotion, and for the difficulty that they took to put in their submissions and to submit in person, which was not easy for any of them. I also acknowledge the many submitters who spoke to us of their own personal experiences within the care system.

In our consideration of the repeal of the reporting requirements of the chief executive's duties under section 7AA, we noted that Oranga Tamariki itself prepares an annual report which measures performance against the standards agreed as part of annual appropriations. Oranga Tamariki also provides a quarterly report giving an overview of its progress towards its strategic directions, which, among other things, sets out how the agency is making a difference for children and young people, tamariki and rangatahi Māori, and their families and whānau. Oranga Tamariki also prepares an annual Safety of Children in Care report, which reviews and measures the findings of harm for tamariki and rangatahi in care.

Under section 448B of the Oranga Tamariki Act of 1989, the Minister for Children is required to report to Parliament every three years on whether existing legislation, Government policy, and other accountability documents are meeting the needs of children and young people, particularly tamariki and rangatahi Māori.

The Independent Children's Monitor, at least every three years, was required to report on the state of the Oranga Tamariki system. That report included the performance of the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki in his duties to commit to the principles of Te Tiriti. The Independent Children's Monitor also provides two annual reports. A report on the compliance with national care standards, including specific information on the degree of compliance assessments with national care standards for Māori children and young people and the impact of these care standards on Māori tamariki, rangatahi, and their whanau. A report on the outcomes for Māori children and young people and their whānau, which includes an assessment of the impact of measurements of measures taken by the chief executive in improving outcomes for Māori tamariki and rangatahi and their whānau, including the regard given to mana tamaiti and the whakapapa of Māori children and young people, and the whanaungatanga responsibilities of their whānau, hapū, and iwi.

The committee acknowledged that while the safety and wellbeing of children is paramount, there remains an overarching principle that the committee recognised in the importance of maintaining cultural connections, whānau relationships, and whakapapa. By maintaining that strategic partnership, Oranga Tamariki will be able to have a close encounter at all opportunities with regard to the care of tamariki, rangatahi, whānau. In maintaining that strategic relationship, there will constantly be opportunities for engagement between iwi and hapū and Oranga Tamariki, which will put the actions of the agency under close scrutiny at all times.

So, in sum, the committee has looked and heard and listened to the submissions and we adhere to the need for the continued maintenance of the requirement for maintaining that strategic relationship focus between Oranga Tamariki and Māori hapū and whānau towards the care of their tamariki and rangatahi. I commend this bill to the House.

TANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will take a short call on the Oranga Tamariki (Repeal of Section 7AA) Amendment Bill. I rise in support of the bill on behalf of New Zealand First. I would like to acknowledge and also echo the words of my colleague Paulo towards the submitters. It was a very emotionally charged, very passionate select committee process, and I really want to acknowledge how difficult it was for the submitters—those for and against—who came and were so incredibly vulnerable and shared their personal stories. It was heart wrenching. So I really do want to acknowledge them all in being so brave in coming forward and sharing their journeys and their stories.

Now, you know, with New Zealand First, we are steadfast in our belief in the immediate safety and wellbeing of our children, and whilst we believe that cultural considerations are extremely important, we don't want this to impede a process and possibly put a child's safety or security in any way at risk.

Before I close, once again, I just want to acknowledge the very brave people who submitted on this bill. And on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.

© Scoop Media