Debates — General Debate

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

Here we are, 80 days or so out from the general election, and MPs are rightly talking about how we address the challenges New Zealand faces. There, on the Opposition benches, they never saw a problem they didn’t think they could solve with somebody else’s money. When there’s a problem that needs solving, the left are here, and their answer is new taxes. The list of new taxes is growing. First of all, we’ve got that old chestnut, the capital gains tax—that’s on the table. Then we’ve got an asset tax—Chlöe Swarbrick put that one on the table—and an inheritance tax, because why not tax death? You can tax people till they die, then tax them when they’re dead too. Then we’ve got a higher tax rate because why not scare off all the doctors and engineers and tell them to head on the first plane to Australia? Why not have a gift tax and a higher corporate tax rate—why not tell all the businesses to shut down?—a digital tax, a rentals tax so that the tenants can keep paying through the nose, and a land tax too?

Now, that’s the list of new taxes I’ve assembled, but I have to admit that it’s getting a bit confusing, because the list is growing by the day. At the heart of the confusion is: which of these taxes is Labour in favour of and which ones aren’t they in favour of? It’s pretty difficult to tell because, fundamentally, you can’t trust Labour on tax. They have a long-term love affair with tax, and they’re like people under Chris Hipkins who’ve sworn off the love affair, don’t have the love affair, but keep falling off the wagon. The problem is that they have all these unfunded promises and they know they need to sneak through some new taxes to pay for them.

We’ve had quite a few flip-flops, haven’t we, in the past few days? The first one that I found quite beautiful was: are they or are they not taxing Kiwis’ Netflix subscriptions? Well, the streaming tax—Hipkins was definitive: it’s not policy. There’s a small problem: not only had Willie Jackson taken the tax to caucus and had it approved by caucus; he had also submitted it as a member’s bill. Don’t worry. Just believe Chris Hipkins when he says, “Oh, no, no, no. That was never on the table.” But, you know, I have to commend Carmel Sepuloni because she was the most honest on this topic. Do you know what she told us this morning on Morning Report? She was asked about the streaming tax, and she said, “Well, look, as you get closer to the election, you do need to be careful about the optics of what you’re promoting.”

Good on Sepuloni. She said the quiet bit out loud, which is “Of course we want to do all these new taxes, but we’re just not allowed to talk about them. Chris Hipkins has told us ‘Don’t talk about the new taxes. We need to keep them quiet.’ ”, and, of course, he knows that playbook well. Who remembers him in the last election campaign saying, “No way I’ll ever do a capital gains tax. Absolutely not—not on my watch.”, and he’s saying to all of these guys: “Don’t worry, when you say that stuff it, doesn’t really mean anything, because look at us now. We’ve got a capital gains tax now.”—don’t you? Actually, what you say on tax cannot be trusted.

I’ll give you the next example: the ute tax. They didn’t campaign on that in 2020, but that didn’t stop them implementing it, and it’s not stopping Michael Wood from going doorstep to doorstep in Mt Roskill and saying, “Let me tell you about one of my greatest hits: the ute tax. Wasn’t that a winner?” That’ll be back—the ute tax will be back.

Then land tax—and this is another hit from Willie Jackson. Wow, he’s really on the tax train. He was asked by Ryan Bridge: “Well, what about the Opportunity Party’s land tax?”, and he said, “Oh well, we wouldn’t do it at that rate.”, and so Ryan Bridge said, “Well, so what percentage of land tax would you accept?” Willie grinned and said, “Who knows?” I guess it just depends on how many unfunded promises they want to make in the next 80 days.

What this actually comes down to is a party on the other side who fundamentally believe that the way to make New Zealand a better place is to punish the things we need: punish the savers, punish the investors, and punish the people who do the right things, who grow businesses, who create jobs, and who start enterprises. Well, National says no.

We say we need lower taxes. We need to back the hard workers, back the investors, back those who save, back talent, and back opportunity creation, and we are able to do that because we hold ourselves accountable for delivering with your money.

It would appear that auditions to be the next Leader of the Opposition have begun already, because that was a speech from someone who has given up on governing the country. Five whole minutes in the House, and not once did she mention anything this Government has achieved, probably because she could not find one good achievement to talk about.

Do you know what else Nicola Willis did not mention? Christopher Luxon. Not once—not one mention of the Prime Minister. So desperate are they to not talk about their own leader, she spent five minutes talking about the Opposition. They don’t want to talk about their own track record. They don’t want to talk about the turmoil and the chaos that is the leadership of their own Government, and so they spend their time making things up about the Opposition, instead of tackling the challenges facing the country.

If we had a Minister of Health that was focused on actually delivering, you know, healthcare for New Zealanders, we might not have the crisis in the health system that we have now. If we had a Minister for social development that was focused on making sure people get paid their entitlements on time, we might not have 15,000 pensioners going without the winter energy payment.

The real-world consequences of that are very clear to see. Older New Zealanders are sitting at home not turning the heater on because they’re worried they can’t pay the power bill, and this Government says, “Oh well, that just happens.” Louise Upston was told about that problem 10 weeks ago—10 weeks ago. One would think that a Government focused on the interests of New Zealanders would actually do something about that, but we know that’s not what the National Party have been focused on. They’ve been focused on fighting for their own jobs, not fighting for New Zealanders. There have been 15,000 pensioners shivering at home, not able to pay their power bills, because this Government cut their winter energy payment in what it claims was a mistake. It was simply incompetence from a Government that’s not focused on the job.

Those members promised that they were going to fix the cost of living. What have we seen instead? The price of bread—which Christopher Luxon didn’t seem to know yesterday—is up 72 percent under this Government. Butter is up 85 percent under this Government. Company liquidations are at a 15-year high. Youth unemployment is at a 30-year high. KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals are at the highest rate ever under this Government. Those are people who are desperate.

But this Government said they were going to get the country back on track and they were going to fix everything. They keep going on about the previous Government, so let’s compare the track records, shall we? Prior to the election, by now, unemployment was forecast to be at 4.8 percent. What is it now, after they fixed it: 5.5 percent—after they fixed it. Government debt—because they go on a lot about Government debt, don’t they? Despite the fact that half the debt that the country currently has was accumulated under National Governments, they do like to go on about this a lot. By now, in the pre-election update, it was going to be down to 39.6 percent of GDP by 2027. What’s it going to be now by 2027 under this Government: 45.6 percent. After they fixed it, it went up. The overall deficit—remember they were going on about, “Oh, we’re going to get the books back in balance.”? Well, by now, if the previous Government’s forecasts had been correct—because we’d been re-elected—we’d have a $1.5 billion deficit. It would be going into surplus next year by $2 billion. What’s happened since they fixed it? Anyone want to guess? Well, the deficit this year is going to be $15 billion. Not $1.5 billion—$15 billion after they fixed it; and next year, when it was supposed to be back in surplus, instead, it’s going to be $14 billion in deficit. Goodness me, imagine what being off track might look like these days. If they think this is what being on track looks like, they need a reality check.

And, of course, remember: growth, growth, growth, that’s what this Government is all about. 2026 was forecast to have a growth rate of 3.7 percent before this Government got elected. What’s it forecast to be now? Anyone want to guess? 1.2 percent. They’ve cut it to a third of what it was going to be—so much for growth, growth, growth. But we now know what’s really been on the Prime Minister’s mind: not only keeping his job but, apparently, if you put a cycleway between his apartment and Parliament, he needs to charter a limousine to come across the road in order to get here, because with the cycleway in the way, apparently, he doesn’t know how to cross the road. Clearly, if he can’t figure out how to cross the road, maybe his colleagues were right—maybe he should give up the job. I’ll tell you what, in just a few more days, he’s going to be giving it up.

You’ve got to feel sorry for Chris Hipkins. He’s sitting on a powder keg of taxation expectation from his colleagues: the Trojan Horse, of course, the capital gains tax that will metastasize over time, already $5 billion in getting rid of Investment Boost, bringing back the ute tax, Willie Jackson trying to introduce the streaming tax, and does anyone believe Barbara Edmonds’ soothing sounds as she tries to placate Marama Davidson and Chlöe Swarbrick? Has she not been paying attention as they rage against the machine day in, day out in here as they look to bring in a wealth tax, a capital gains tax, an inheritance tax, and a rental tax, killing inspiration and killing business with a wrecking ball through our economy? If you need any more—banning nitrogen fertiliser, well, that will be ruinous for our agricultural powerhouse; or keep a cap on The Opportunities Party who seem intent on introducing full-blown communism. Te Pāti Māori, what are they on about? No one really knows, apart from standing for ethnically dividing New Zealanders into two. Good luck with that, Barbara Edmonds.

Kiwis do not want to be taxed more; they want a fair go. New Zealand First is the party with the courage to take on the vested interests that are sucking Kiwis dry. The supermarket duopoly, we’ll break them up; the Aussie banks are going to get some much-needed competition; and we’ll break up and go after the gentailers as well, those entrenched entities that are using their market position to feast off the paychecks of hard-working, everyday Kiwis at will. New Zealand First is the only party that has the courage to take them head on. Tweaks to the status quo will not be enough. We have them fair in our sights.

New Zealand has an infrastructure deficit, as has been well traversed. There has been a recently announced road of national significance north of Auckland—$3.6 billion for 26 kilometres of road. We announced this week the next phase in planning for the Auckland Harbour Bridge, which will cost eye-watering sums of money, but we must not forget about rural and provincial New Zealand. It’s where 82 percent of our merchandise exports come from.

At the same time as those announcements were made, Mayor Rob Scott of Southland was threatening to rip up rural roads and return them to gravel—hundreds of rural bridges to maintain. That does not look like fixing the basics and building the future; that looks like a provincial powerhouse not getting its fair share.

At the South Island conference, it was revealed last week that the South Island is only getting 11 percent of the road transport budget, yet we produce 30 percent of the exports. We need the Hope Bypass. We need the Woodend Bypass. What chance does the badly needed Mosgiel bypass have to feed the newly instituted inland port that was invested in by the Regional Infrastructure Fund?

There is a saying: “By their deeds you will know them.” New Zealand First has always been the party that has used its political capital—every ounce of it—to return money back to regional New Zealand, whether it be the Provincial Growth Fund in a previous Parliament, or the Regional Infrastructure Fund in this Parliament, getting infrastructure investment ring-fenced for provincial New Zealand.

I just came back from the Chatham Islands last week where I was opening a new airport and the finishing of the runway, a mix which will fortify the island and futureproof it. We also announced upgrades to wharf infrastructure and upgrades to their fuel storage facilities. We put in new wind turbines there to give them renewable energy. It’s that sort of investment in regional New Zealand where New Zealand’s wealth is created—the farmers, the fishers, the foresters, the horticulturalists, the miners, and soon to be drill, baby, drill, when we get out there with New Zealand First’s $1 billion investment commitment.

This is where our internationally renowned tourism locations are situated. It’s critically important that they have the infrastructure. They want a fair slice of the pie in regional New Zealand. They know that New Zealand First is the party that will always back the regions, has always fought for their interests, and will be taking a huge platform of regional economic development through the $100 billion future fund going into the next election. New Zealand First: for the regions.

Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. Wasn’t it interesting listening to Mr Hipkins’ speech, where he was desperate to talk about anything else except for his taxes—absolutely desperate to talk about anything else except for his taxes. He sounded more like someone sitting on the side of the road barking at passing cars rather than providing solutions for the problems facing New Zealanders. All I heard in his speech was lots of complaining, lots of problem definition, but no solutions for the future of this country.

I tell you what: in around 80 days, New Zealanders will be going to vote in the voting booths. They will be going to the election and they’ll be asking the question, “What on earth has Chris Hipkins been doing for the last three years? Nothing. Well, he has been up to something—he has been up to something. Sometimes he’s been up to things he’s not quite aware of.

One thing he is aware of is that he said before the 2023 election that Labour, under his leadership, would never, never, ever put in place a capital gains tax. Well, at least he’s had the honesty of his conviction to get out there and tell New Zealanders that actually, no, Labour will bring in a capital gains tax if elected at the election this year.

But there have been other things that he is just not quite aware of. On Sunday, Nicola Willis put out a press release pointing out that Labour was campaigning on a streaming tax. Chris Hipkins gets down on the tiles and says, “No, that’s not true. That’s hysterical. That’s absolutely false. That’s fake news.” Well, lo and behold, Willie Jackson had a member’s bill in the ballot for a streaming tax. He had it in the ballot box. Not only was it in the ballot box but it had 34 names of Labour MPs signed up in support of it, one of which was Chris Hipkins. Chris Hipkins was supporting a bill he didn’t even know was in the ballot box as of yesterday morning.

Well, New Zealanders know this is just scratching the surface of all the taxes that Labour’s got coming. Of course, they have an $18 billion funding gap for all of their freebies. I’ll tell you what: a freebie is not a solution for the problems facing this country. You don’t fix the challenges facing New Zealand by throwing money around. You don’t fix the problems facing New Zealand by simply promising a bunch of freebies. Of course, that is the only solution the Labour Party is taking to this election—freebies here, freebies there, and freebies everywhere. The reality is every single one of those freebies needs to be paid for somehow.

We’ve now heard Chris Hipkins and the Labour Party out there saying “The only tax we’re taking to the election is a capital gains tax.” Well, every single person in this House knows that’s not true. Labour has already said, “We’re going to axe Investment Boost”, a $5 billion tax on businesses up and down this country. That’s an additional tax they’re taking to the election, and everybody knows that they can’t wait to reverse the changes on interest deductibility. They want to put in place a tax on renters once again.

Hon Willie Jackson: Just on you.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Last time they were in Government, the average rent went up by $180 per week—Mr Jackson, you remember that because that’s what you did. Under National, since we got rid of the renter’s tax, we have seen flattening rent increases because of our policies.

Of course, this is the other thing that everyone knows: Labour needs the Greens and they need Te Pāti Māori, and they need the Opportunity Party’s taxes, too. So there’s not only a capital gains tax, a digital services tax, a business tax, a tax on 45 cents in the dollar on income over $160,000 coming, an inheritance tax, a gift tax, a rental tax, an asset tax, and, of course, the Opportunity Party’s land tax—because not only do they want to tax you until you die, they then want to have an inheritance tax to tax you when you die, and the land tax will be there to tax the cemeteries so that you keep paying after you die. And, of course, the streaming tax and the ute tax—well, we know that those will come back, because Willie Jackson can’t wait to bring in a streaming tax and Michael Wood is out there door-knocking his heart out for a ute tax.

National is campaigning to lower the taxes on New Zealanders—keep taxes low. We say no to Labour’s taxes. Party vote National to stop Labour’s taxes.

Today, I rise to congratulate the Hon Chris Penk. What a good man. As our leader said, the only member of the National Party caucus with the intestinal fortitude to say out loud what every New Zealander’s been saying for the last 18 months—where are you going?—that this Prime Minister is not up to the job. And his reward? Kicked out. Because that’s what you get when you launch a one-man coup, isn’t it? You get kicked out. But as Mr Peters said—making some sense, for once—in his whole lifetime he’s never seen a one-man coup.

We all know it wasn’t a one-man coup. They were all on it. The problem is they couldn’t work out who would be the leader, and they lost their nerve, and they lost their numbers. And I’ll be coming to you shortly, Mr Meager. As Matthew Hooton said—he called them “villains”. I prefer a more accurate term; I think “gutless wonders” would be a better term. Traitors, not just to the National Party traditions, as Chris Finlayson has said, but to that fine young man, Chis Penk.

Now who were these useless detractors? Who were they? Oh, well, the boy wonder’s just left. We heard him with Jack Tame talking about the Prime Minister. He said the Prime Minister’s working hard every day. The problem is he couldn’t name one thing that the Prime Minister had done—not one. Then there’s the future first Māori Prime Minister in his mind, James Meager. When asked whether he supports the Prime Minister, he talked about the All Blacks, he talked about rugby, he talked about everything apart from the Prime Minister. “Mr Meager, do you support the Prime Minister?” “Oh, those All Blacks are going well. That rugby is going well.” Oh, Mr Meager thought he was on his way back to Cabinet, but down the tubes—down the tubes he went. Then there’s “Goldie”—then there’s “Goldie”—admittedly a Prime Minister supporter, but when he was asked whether he would be interested in the job, he thought, “Well, I don’t really do much anyway. I’ve got all these portfolios, and Willie calls me the ‘Minister of Doing Nothing’. I’m No. 7 on the list and, if I was the Prime Minister, I’d be No. 1.” Did “Goldie” make himself available? Well, yes, he did—yes, he did.

Then we come to the two big players—the two big players—the “Bish” and Erica Stanford, the Minister who, according to the New Zealand Herald, was going to wear the crown while Chris Penk wielded the knife. The problem was that the “Bish” lost his nerve—and lost the numbers—and the only knife he used was the knife he used to cut Chris Penk’s throat. Poor Chris Penk, a good man.

Which brings us to Erica Stanford. Who will ever forget the image of her walking through Wellington Airport, sashaying her way through Wellington Airport like she was the Queen of Sheba. She thought she was on the way to the prime ministerial job, but she didn’t know Nicola was behind her—the Minister for women’s affairs, coming behind her. “Do you support the Prime Minister?” Not a word—not a word—of support for the Prime Minister. She thought she was on the way to glory, until the Minister of women’s affairs said, “Well, we’re good mates, great friends. She’s just not prime ministerial material.” Poor, poor Erica—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Under the bus.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Under the bus—under the bus. Shamed and thrown under the bus by the Minister of women’s affairs. A shambolic coup fell apart—a disgraceful coup. Shame on this party.

But that’s this Government. It now spends more time managing itself than managing the country, and on the very day this Parliament debated the leadership coup, we had 15,000 pensioners suffering. That’s the story this coup buried. That’s what this Government has been doing while its senior Ministers have been counting numbers in the corridor. Chris Penk did the country a favour. He held a mirror up to the Prime Minister and asked him to have a look. The Prime Minister sacked the man holding the mirror. In a few months’ time, the voters of this country will hold up their own mirror, and this Prime Minister, and every single one of the Ministers I’ve named, are not going to like what they see. Kia ora, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The honourable Carl Bates—sorry—

Carl Bates: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Just a minute. The member will wait for me to call him: the member for Whanganui, Carl Bates.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. To have a good tax policy, it helps to have people who actually understand tax. The Labour Party doesn’t have a single chartered accountant in Parliament, nor does Te Pāti Māori or the Greens. It’s a bit like a hospital without doctors, a school without teachers, or the Labour Party without unionists.

Maybe—maybe—that is why, when it comes to economic policy, the only answer they seem to have is “tax, tax, tax”. No matter what the question is, the answer is always the same. Need more spending? “Tax.” Need a new programme? “Tax.” Need to pay for another promise? “Tax.” As we head towards 7 November, New Zealanders are looking at the Labour Party, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori and their menu of capital gains taxes, wealth taxes, inheritance taxes, land taxes, digital taxes, streaming taxes, and business taxes. It’s pretty clear that the Opposition’s manifesto has more tax proposals on it than a McDonald’s menu. Next, you’re going to hear the Labour Party’s campaign ad say, “Would you like tax with that?”

The real issue here isn’t any one tax; it’s the pattern of taxes—and ever more taxes, at that, I might add. The Labour Party, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, and Opportunity have built an agenda around new taxes and higher taxes. Labour is also being questioned on bringing back that ute as well. The question for New Zealanders is simple: when the answer to every problem is another tax, who pays? The answer is households, the answer is workers, the answer is farmers, the answer is businesses, and the answer is families.

What makes the Opposition’s “tax-athon” especially concerning is their tax stack. This refers to the fact that some of the taxes stack on top of the other. This is where understanding tax becomes important. Yet, Labour doesn’t understand it. Labour and their mates just want more of it. They don’t understand how these taxes will destroy our economy, nor do they understand how they’re going to eat into the hard-earned savings of every New Zealander. Let me give you an example of the Opposition’s collection of taxes and how they stack together.

Look at their proposed taxes on multinational tech companies. The Greens want a withholding tax on offshore profits; Labour wants a digital tax—different names, different mechanisms, but both potentially hitting the same businesses. This “tax-athon” attitude of Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori brings with it this broader mindset—and speaks to this broader mindset—that when the Opposition needs more money, they don’t ask “How do we grow the economy?”, they ask what we can tax next.

National has a different approach. Instead of taxing investment, we are encouraging it. I’ve spoken with businesses making decisions because of Investment Boost: the transport operator who bought seven new truck-and-trailer units and expanded their fleet; the concrete company that invested in a new forklift to create and lift their productivity; the farmer who bought new tractors to get the job done easier. That is how you grow the economy; not another tax, not another levy, not another money-grab dreamt up in the Labour Party’s caucus room.

Ultimately, this comes down to a choice. It comes down to a choice between Labour, the Greens, and Te Pāti Māori, along with Opportunity’s approach, to more spending, more borrowing, and more taxes. National’s approach is to grow the economy, back investment, create jobs, lift incomes, and help Kiwis get ahead. New Zealand doesn’t need another tax; we need economic growth, we need higher incomes, and we need a Government that understands that you cannot tax your way to prosperity. When Labour sees a problem, they reach for a tax. When National sees a problem, we reach for growth. Only by growing the economy can we help all Kiwis get ahead.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to talk about the integrity of our democracy and the system that we have here. ACT has serious concerns over recent allegations of electoral fraud in Manurewa. This has recently been reported in the New Zealand Herald, and it is quite alarming. I expect that all parties across the House should be concerned by what allegations have been printed by the Herald.

Elected Manurewa local board member Raewyn Bhana QSM has laid a formal complaint with the Auckland Council, and she has passed that complaint on to New Zealand Police and the Serious Fraud Office. The complaint comes from a whistleblower who has told her that he was part of a team of people who, over seven nights, went around people’s letter boxes and started taking electoral voting forms from those letter boxes. He and others then went to an address, where they opened up those ballots and they filled them in. Where some of those electoral voting forms were wet, they even put them on heaters to dry them out, so that they could fill them in.

The whistleblower has then suggested that a number of them took handfuls of these voting ballots and went to several supermarkets around the area to deposit them. This is of absolute concern, not only because this has happened but also because of the threats that have now occurred towards Raewyn Bhana QSM and her whistleblower. Raewyn has been told to watch her back, and the whistleblower has indicated that there’s been a gang hit placed upon him. Police are making inquiries into this issue, and of course the independence needs to be tested and verified by New Zealand Police as they look into this very serious matter. We should not pre-judge exactly what has happened here, but equally, New Zealanders should be concerned, because caution must not come at the expense of complacency.

The reason why I feel that this is so important is because liberal democracies like New Zealand’s are actually not the norm in the world. The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index 2025 indicated that there’s only 26 full democracies around the world. More than half of the world’s population does not live in a democracy. Liberal democracy means we have a right to vote in free, fair, and regular elections. We have a history of doing so. In 1853, the first members of this House of Representatives were elected. In 1867, all Māori males aged over 21 were allowed to vote. In 1879, universal male suffrage, for all men over the age of 21, was instigated. In 1893, universal women’s suffrage was also implemented. We were the first in the world, and we did all this before 1900, and I note in 1974, we lowered the voting age to 18, and in 1990, the Bill of Rights actually affirmed the right of adult citizens to vote in genuine, periodic, and free elections. When I look around this Chamber, I see the plaques that represent the lives that were lost by so many representatives of New Zealand: our soldiers who fought to allow us to stay in a free and liberal democracy.

If these allegations are proven, someone is deliberately taking away the rights of a person to have their voice, their choice, and their vote heard. A stolen voting paper is not just mail; it represents stealing the democratic voice of individuals, that is then being taken and used by someone else. The right to vote is the right to be heard, and the right to have a say. The right to vote is the opportunity to choose a representative for you, and the right to vote also gives the people the power to remove people that they don’t want there. The right to vote also holds people accountable—

Hon Damien O'Connor: You took that away.

SPEAKER: No, I didn’t take anything away.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: —to the people that they serve. These allegations strike to the heart of New Zealand’s democracy, and we must make sure that those voices and our democracy are protected.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This week we have heard about the Government’s rushed changes, through urgency, which left 15,000 pensioners without their Winter Energy Payments. I just want to list off some of the temperatures from MetService in the last month: 1.7 degrees in Wellington, -2.8 degrees in Hamilton, -4.6 degrees in Christchurch, and -5.1 degrees in Taupō—the electorate of the Hon Louise Upston. It’s a disgrace, that during some of the coldest months this year, 15,000 pensioners and veterans lost their Winter Energy Payment because of National’s shoddy lawmaking processes. Losing this payment meant that our most vulnerable New Zealanders have been living in freezing homes, losing this payment at this time, during a cost of living crisis, where the cost of living is soaring, food prices increasing, and the cost to see a GP also increasing. This is what National delivers to our kaumātua and kuia, to our elderly citizens. National bungled the Winter Energy Payments for Kiwis, making it tougher for them through winter months. This is the human cost of their rushed lawmaking.

Today, we have seen a report from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services. The report is titled The Older Persons Poverty Monitor. What that report shows is that 76,000 elderly people were accessing Special Needs Grants; 25,000 elderly people living without the essentials; 51,000 elderly people putting off a GP visit due to the cost. Yesterday, in answers to questions in the House, the Minister said, “Oh, it was less than $300.” Well, that means a lot to these elderly people, who as we see from this report released today, are putting off going to see the doctor because of the cost. We know they were not turning on their heat pumps or their heaters because they had not been receiving this support. In fact, to share a quote that I received, a person wrote to me about their 98-year-old mother, who was affected by this botch-up: “She received a letter of suspension in her mailbox on Saturday, 25 July 2026, and said she was stressed, anxious, nervous, sleepless, and worried because of these changes.”

These law changes were rushed through without proper scrutiny and without consultation. Yesterday, the Minister and the Prime Minister gave what I think are pathetic apologies to those who have been impacted by something that was of this Government’s doing. What did they do? They threw their officials under the bus. The Minister said it was a policy mistake; the Prime Minister said it was an IT issue. Well, the Minister also said that this probably wouldn’t have been picked up if it had gotten more scrutiny. What I’d like to point out for the House today is I actually went back through the entire Hansard, and it was being picked up—and if it had gone to a select committee, it would have had a better chance of being corrected there, because in fact, Ingrid Leary, who is in the House today, raised it in her contributions. Ricardo Menéndez March actually had an Amendment Paper on the table to expressly exclude the Winter Energy Payment, but no. It was rushed through urgency, no proper scrutiny, no select committee process, and then we have 15,000 veterans and pensioners impacted by this, losing their Winter Energy Payment.

The Minister should take responsibility for this. It was her legislation, rushed through urgency without proper scrutiny, and without proper process. The other thing is that the Minister said she found out about this on something like 14 August. Actually, she was emailed by the Labour Party 10 weeks ago, and her office ignored it. It was in the title: Winter Energy Payments could be impacted—or are being impacted—by this. No, ignored—and so these elderly people, like I said at the beginning, were sitting there in the freezing cold, not receiving something they should have been entitled to.

Oh, the irony though. The Government, the Ministers on the other side, they’re entitled to their entitlements, but what about our senior citizens, who were entitled to this but were ripped off because of botched lawmaking processes. Kia ora Mr Speaker.

Tax, tax, and more tax. This is Labour’s answer to paying for all their so-called free promises. Well, let me tell you: nothing comes for free. I teach my children that, and we are learning that nothing comes for free. “Sugar hit” economics is not the way to help hard-working New Zealanders get ahead. It is just a short-term fix. Between Labour, the Greens, Te Pāti Māori, and the Opportunity Party, they’re proposing nine new taxes. Let’s name a few of these nine new taxes. A capital gains tax: the Kiwi dream of owning a bach, Labour wants to tax it. Higher income tax: doing well at work and earning more, the Greens want to tax it, 45 percent. Inheritance tax: if your grandparents leave you something when they pass away, they’ll tax it. A gift tax: want to help your kids get into their first home? The Greens want to tax it. A streaming tax: you watch Netflix, they’ll tax it. A digital services tax: if you’re on Facebook, they’ll tax it too. A rental tax: own a rental, they’ll tax it. A business tax, a land tax, and let’s not forget: the ute tax.

Those hard-working farmers, tradies, and anyone out there owning a ute—they want to introduce a ute tax, again. We scrapped it. We’re not punishing all those hard-working tradies and farmers out there, and we don’t want to live in a country where your hard work is taxed and taxed—everything is taxed.

The National Party is the party of lower tax. National is the party that provides tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders, and Labour are already saying they’ll take away this tax relief that we’ve worked so hard to implement.

Let’s take Investment Boost. Our Government worked really hard to introduce Investment Boost to support businesses to grow jobs and opportunities. Investment Boost offers 20 percent deductible tax relief for businesses investing in capital assets. This is practical, it’s targeted, and it stimulates growth. It creates jobs and it helps us lift incomes in this country.

We’re seeing real results, and I speak firsthand of seeing the real results in Hawke’s Bay, the fruit bowl of New Zealand. Just last week I was out in Kelston Orchards with our amazing Minister of Immigration, Erica Stanford, and we saw tax relief and Investment Boost in action. It’s enabled them to invest in the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme accommodation and to house over a hundred RSE scheme workers each season. The RSE scheme ensures they have the seasonal workforce when they need it to pick the fruit at the optimum time so that they can get it off to market and help grow our economy.

It’s also enabled us to grow many, many permanent jobs for New Zealanders, and it was impressive to see our growers using Investment Boost to invest not only in the RSE scheme accommodation but in cool-store innovation, packhouses, automation, and robotics. Recently, I opened the Mt Erin cool-store, and they were also using Investment Boost and providing a lot of new jobs—permanent jobs—for New Zealanders.

We want to see more of this growth and, of course, we’ve got to remember that Investment Boost also flows into other areas of the economy. It provides jobs in the civil and contracting area because, of course, they’re getting the flow-on effect of the growth of our horticulture sector. Just recently I visited Stephenson Transport, a wonderful stock truck company in Central Hawke’s Bay. They’ve also used Investment Boost to invest in their trucks, and there are many, many more stories where we’ve seen landscape companies investing in robotics, scrub-cutters in Hawke’s Bay, and cafes investing in new equipment because it’s this type of tax relief that grows jobs and grows opportunities and it lifts wages. That’s what works to build the future of New Zealand.

Thank you for that segue, Catherine Wedd, because I think that that quote that you said in your speech around it being the Kiwi Dream to own a bach is just so far out of touch with reality. Most New Zealanders—

SPEAKER: It wasn’t actually me that was speaking, but carry on.

TAMATHA PAUL: Most New Zealanders, and particularly those of my generation, are really worried that we won’t even be able to afford a house or a family home, point blank—period—without even considering the idea of one day ever being able to own a bach.

I’m glad you segued that because that’s exactly what I want to talk about, because for the last two days in this House, I’ve heard Chris Bishop get up and tell us that it is the best time ever to be a renter, that things have never been better for renters, and that rents are so affordable, which is just in total conflict with what Renters United! and over 3,000 renters said in the report that came out over the weekend.

What they told us is that for 40 percent of renters, their biggest issue is the cost of their rent; for 42 percent of renters, their homes are still damp, cold, draughty, and mouldy, despite healthy homes standards coming into place; and 11.5 percent of renters said that they spend 80 percent of their income on rent. I hope that in this House we can all agree that that’s not good by any means.

Not to mention that this whole general debate has been about all of these taxes, the so-called rental tax—all of these different taxes. Again, it’s been a real slap in the face to have the Minister of Housing get up and talk about how great it is to be a renter when the reason that rents have stagnated or flat-lined in this country is not because of any policies or law changes that this Government has made; it’s actually because everybody is leaving, at a rate of 200 New Zealanders per day.

Hon James Meager: The supply and demand.

TAMATHA PAUL: Do you want to know why rents are declining in Wellington?

Hon James Meager: Supply.

TAMATHA PAUL: It’s because thousands of people have been laid off from their jobs, James Meager, and that’s not a funny joke. There are no jobs here in Wellington and people are leaving, and that is why there is not a lot of competition in the rental market. That is not something to get up and brag about, and, actually—

Hon James Meager: So you want more supply?

TAMATHA PAUL: It’s not as simplistic as a supply conversation.

Hon James Meager: You just said that.

TAMATHA PAUL: No, it’s not, because if everybody is leaving, of course rents are going to go down, because there’s no workers to fill those homes. Simple economics—which I thought that that side of the House understood.

Anyway, what I really want to talk about is the fact that this Government changed the rental laws two years ago, and we don’t really hear a lot about that any more, do we? But I want to talk about the fact that more than 60 percent of renters have said that their lives have not improved—not one bit—since the Government changed the laws and reintroduced no-cause evictions and decided to rob the 100,000-plus lowest-paid working women of pay equity. They’re happy to give $15 billion of tax cuts to landlords, and they will rob the lowest-paid workers in this country to pay that.

But let’s also talk about the fact that since the Government changed the rental laws, the number of Government MPs that have bought investment properties over that side of the House has grown. Let’s talk about the fact that ACT MP Parmjeet Parmar has bought five new houses since they changed the rental laws. Let’s talk about National MP Katie Nimon, who has bought three new houses since they changed the rental laws. Let’s talk about National MPs Erica Stanford, Simon Watts, Tom Rutherford, Joseph Mooney, Shane Reti, David MacLeod, and Grant McCallum, who have all bought another home to rent out since they changed the rental laws and changed rental tax.

Grant McCallum: I don’t rent my place out, thank you. I live in it.

TAMATHA PAUL: Or let’s talk about the National and New Zealand First MPs, including Grant McCallum, who bought a house in Wellington so that they can pay themselves the accommodation allowance while taxpayers pay their mortgages off.

Grant McCallum: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I have not bought a place to rent it out, and I do not rent it out.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): What is the point of order?

Grant McCallum: It’s misinformation. What she’s saying is incorrect.

TAMATHA PAUL: All right, I’ll read it out. The Spinoff reports that National and New Zealand First MPs Carlos Cheung, Jamie Arbuckle, Hamish Campbell, Ryan Hamilton, Mark Patterson, and Todd McClay all bought new houses—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Sorry to interrupt the member, but I’m just going to get some advice. Right.

TAMATHA PAUL: OK, I’ll proceed. It’s not a personal inference, actually. If the Government has changed the laws to make rental properties and rental housing that we rely on a commodity—something to make disgusting profit from while the streets are lined with sleeping bags and while people are paying 80 percent of their income in rent—that is disgusting behaviour. We need more people in this House who are not investment property speculators, because that is the reason why my generation will never be able to buy one single house, let alone a bach.

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to make a personal statement to correct—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): You’ll need leave.

GRANT McCALLUM: I request leave, please, to make a personal statement to correct the comments from that member.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

GRANT McCALLUM: The member opposite was concerned that I had bought a place to rent it out. I did not buy a place to rent it out; I purchased a place so I can utilise it to service the people of Northland when I’m in the upper half of my electorate. Thank you.

Tamatha Paul: Speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): There is no point of order.

Tamatha Paul: Speaking to the personal statement?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): No.

Monopoly is a classic multiplayer board game where we move around the board to buy, trade, and develop properties with houses and hotels. But imagine there’s a new version of Monopoly where every time you make progress, someone adds another tax.

Let’s start the game. You pick your favourite Monopoly piece, and if you choose a ute as your icon, congratulations—you may need to pay a ute tax just for choosing it. Then you move around the board and, finally, you land on the property you want to buy. You think “Great, I’m investing in my future”, but wait: there’s a land tax, asset tax, and capital gains tax waiting for you. All right, if you’re lucky, you go for a few rounds and you are finally are able to build a business and you manage to build a hotel. You think you’re going to create jobs and take a risk, but there’s another tax waiting for you: the higher corporate tax. Whoa! Tax everywhere.

You think now that you’ll work harder. You want to earn more and try to get ahead. Sure—that’s the right thing, right? Not so fast: the Green Party just proposed another 45 percent top income tax rate. Well, you ask yourself, with all these taxes, how can you save money? If you’re lucky, you’ve managed to save some, but wait, you’ve got another one coming for you: a wealth tax. Then you think, “OK, I’ve got a little bit more money now. I would love to help another player. I want to give them some money or an asset to help them to get back into the game.”, but wait: you may have to pay a gift tax just for being generous.

At this point, you may say, “That’s enough, I’m getting off this game.”, but even leaving the game may not be so simple because your family may face an inheritance tax. You’re like “Well, I’m going to be bankrupt. Let’s go to watch TV to relax myself.” Finally, you sit down, you turn on the TV, and you try to turn on your Netflix and watch some drama. Whoa! There is another streaming tax coming for you.

It looks like everywhere you go, there’s another tax waiting for you, all right. You ask, “What’s the point? Why am I still playing Monopoly? Maybe I shouldn’t work at all.” I have to wonder how many families in Mt Roskill are expected to keep paying more and more taxes when the cost of living is already putting pressure on their household budgets.

New Zealand used to be a country associated with dreams, opportunity, and aspiration. We encouraged people to work hard, to start a business, to invest, to innovate, and to build something better for themselves and their families. But the Opposition is, basically, telling me that we’ve got to turn this philosophy upside down: “We’ve got to tax them. We need to make sure that for every single dollar they earn, we tax them.”

This is not the New Zealand we should be building. New Zealand already has enough taxes. The question is not “How can we find another way to tax people?”; the question should be: “How can we make better use of the money we already collect?” How can we deliver better infrastructure, how can we deliver better healthcare, and how can we make sure every tax dollar from hard-working New Zealanders can get their return? They want a Government that respects the money they earn, they want a Government that rewards hard work, they want a Government that encourages investment and innovation, and, most importantly, they want a country where there is still a pathway to get ahead.

This is what the National Government is focusing on. We have very, very clear Budget responsibility rules: we will make sure of our return to surplus and we will control the net debt and also control the Government’s spending because we know that a responsible Government isn’t about finding another square on the Monopoly board where we can take more money. It is about making sure the money we already collect is spent wisely and delivers results.

We don’t need to add another tax to the board; we need better Government, better value for money, and better outcomes for New Zealanders. This November, you have a choice: a Government of more tax and more wasteful spending, or a Government here, focused on fiscal discipline, growing the economy, and investing in New Zealand’s future. Obviously, the answer is very clear: on this side, we are fixing the basics and building the future.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There are two anchoring roles in foreign policy in New Zealand. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is the person who stands in Washington, in Beijing, in London, in Canberra, and in Suva, and tells the world what New Zealand’s values are. Diplomacy is the hallmark of his job, and when that individual creates friction in our relationships, the stakes are high for all New Zealanders.

There is another significant role in foreign affairs: it is the Prime Minister’s role. Now, something that’s probably not well known by members is that for much of the 20th century, the Prime Minister also personally held the role of Foreign Minister: Fraser, Nash, Holyoake, Lange, Moore, and Palmer. There’s a reason: because we are a small trading nation, our external relationships are existential. One in four jobs are linked to trade. Our reciprocal trade with China is $40.1 billion. The roles now sit technically apart, but they still sit very closely together.

The Prime Minister has responsibility, and so what should a Prime Minister do when a risk emerges in foreign affairs? Well, three weeks ago, we had the Minister of Foreign Affairs make statements—racist comments—in the House. The Prime Minister acknowledged that they were racist. He acknowledged they were offensive. He didn’t immediately contact the Foreign Minister—not until five days after the comments were made. He didn’t contact his Chinese counterparts at all to reassure them of the continuation of a respectful relationship. Instead, for a time he argued that it’s not within the purview of his oversight as the comments weren’t made as Foreign Minister, and so the big question is: does the Prime Minister in these circumstances have the authority to act?

He does on either of two foundations. The first is the Cabinet Manual. The Cabinet Manual is drafted broadly for a purpose: Ministers serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. He absolutely has the ability to make the call—in fact, it is his duty. Secondly, on 5 August, Minister Peters said in the House, “I stand by all my comments as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I also stand by my comments as the New Zealand First Party leader.”, effectively affirming, with his ministerial hat on, the racist comments he made a week earlier. He was almost inviting the Prime Minister to call him out—but nothing.

I, like others, believe that it is not tenable for the Foreign Minister to retain his role, but perhaps the Prime Minister has considered that. If he decided to leave the role as it was, should he on the basis of risk still have taken some sort of action? I say yes because there are two real risks here.

There have been two formal representations made to New Zealand about Minister Peters’ comments: one in a phone call from the Chinese embassy to New Zealand on 30 July, and one in phone call from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing to our Acting Deputy Head of Mission in Beijing on 31 July. We also know that there are sufficient reports in Chinese media itself in terms of taking offence at these comments. But the Prime Minister has chosen not to reach out to the embassy, nor to colleagues in Beijing.

The most serious issue here—the most serious issue—is not a debate on Minister Peters’ right to free speech; it is about the unwillingness of our Prime Minister to assume his role as chief custodian of our international relationships. New Zealanders deserve better than this. International colleagues deserve better than this.

As for Labour, we will not react in the room; we will not turn our back on the duty of diplomacy. Responsible foreign policy requires respectful, clear dialogue—clear in our independence and values, especially in today’s changing and uncertain global landscape.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.