Debates — General Debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Rutherford: Envy.

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

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

Hon Damien O'Connor: What about GST? Come on!

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

Hon Damien O'Connor: GST—John Key said that. Are you going to lie, as well?

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

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

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

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

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

SPEAKER: The Hon Damien O’Connor!

Reuben Davidson: Thank you Mr Speaker—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

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