Tuesday, 25 June 2019

TUESDAY, 25 JUNE 2019

TUESDAY, 25 JUNE 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Visitors

Malaysia—Malaysian House of Representatives, Speaker and Delegation

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome Hon Dato’ Mohamad Ariff bin Mohamad Yusof, Speaker of the Malaysian House of Representatives, and his delegation, who are present in the gallery, and accord the Speaker a seat to the left of the Chair.

The Hon Dato’ Mohamad Ariff bin Mohamad Yusof, accompanied by the Deputy Speaker, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements, policies, and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: What is a better reflection of New Zealanders’ living standards: GDP or GDP per capita?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: GDP per capita, obviously, is something that has sat around the 0.9 percent to 1 percent mark for some time and is a reflection, actually, of poor productivity. That is something that has been persistent. He would know it well because it sat about the same rate under his Government as well. It’s an area where, unlike his Government, we have a plan: investment in R & D, making sure that we are investing in the skills of New Zealanders, including things like fees-free and apprenticeships. All will make a difference, ultimately, to our productivity.

Hon Simon Bridges: What was annual GDP per person growth for the previous 12 months, and how does that compare to other countries in the OECD?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: While I don’t have the comparison for other countries with me in the House now, the increase in the last quarter, of course—we are sitting at about 0.9 percent. When you compare that to the 10-year rolling average, that sits at about 1.2 percent, from memory. And, again, actually, the member may do well to reflect on the fact that we’ve actually had an issue with our productivity for some time over the last 10 years. Unlike the last Government, our view is that we do need to address that by investing in our people. That’s something that’s been raised continually by the likes of the OECD.

David Seymour: How does the fees-free policy increase productivity?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Ultimately, our goal has to be to lift the skills and education level of all New Zealanders. If there is a barrier to that, then that needs to be addressed. I reflect, for instance, that the last time I was up North I had someone, a teacher, explicitly tell me the difference it was making to the number of students who were entering into post-secondary education because of a removal of that barrier—the cost of study. If we can encourage that for more and more New Zealanders, hopefully, we can, of course, make a difference to things like our NEET numbers.

David Seymour: How can the Prime Minister say that the fees-free policy has increased the skills of New Zealanders when participation in tertiary education under the policy has gone down nationwide?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is incorrect to assume that this is solely about those who enter into tertiary education. Our focus, of course, is lifting those who engage in industry-based training; those who enter into, for instance, apprenticeships in construction; vocational pathways—an area that we encourage with fees-free. In fact, an apprenticeship is free for two years, not just one year, and that’s the exact reason why.

Hon Simon Bridges: In light of her previous answer, isn’t the reality that GDP per capita in the last year has been a paltry 0.7 percent, and, given her reference to the previous Government, wasn’t it much higher at an average of 1.6 percent in the last five years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: It was 0.9 percent in the year to March. Again, the member, though, is raising an issue that—again, I think he’d be hard-pressed to refute—has been something that we’ve been dealing with since successive Governments; the difference is that we have a plan to deal with it.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is she aware that New Zealand’s GDP per capita growth in the last year was the seventh worst in the OECD?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I say, the member would do well to remember that average GDP per capita growth under his Government was 0.9 percent. GDP per capita grew at 0.9 percent over the last year; that’s the same as the year through to December 2018. Unlike the member, I’m actually recognising an issue that we have, and we are seeking to resolve it. There was no plan, however, when the last Government was in office.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why, in the last three quarters, has GDP per capita grown at only 0 percent, 0.2 percent, and 0.1 percent when the terms of trade are at historical highs and exports are rising?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, if the member wants to talk solely about individual quarters, that is his prerogative. I noted that, when his Government was in office, that was the reason it was us that tended to talk about quarterly GDP per capita numbers rather than GDP numbers as a whole, because, of course, on that measure the member wouldn’t want to discuss it because the OECD has pointed out, as it well should, that our GDP numbers, our growth numbers, our inflation numbers, our employment numbers, our surplus demonstrate that our economy is in good shape. You don’t need to listen to me; just ask the OECD.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Prime Minister tell us how many GDP per capita growth policies her Government inherited?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As far as I can tell, there was no plan to address that issue. The last Government’s economic policy, as far as I can tell, was based on immigration and an inflated housing market.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why is GDP growth slowing when the terms of trade and exports are rising?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We had this discussion the last time the House sat. Again, I have pointed out that, when you look at our GDP growth within the international environment, we compare pretty well. If the member wants to talk about, though, our issue with trade, the growth we have actually seen—relative, though, however, to services—he’ll see that the issue we have raised continually about the international environment is playing out in that number as well. Tourism numbers declining while our export growth continues—that points to the international environment we are operating in.

SPEAKER: Before I go to question No. 2, I’m going to ask the Hon Jenny Salesa to move the box that she has to her left. Thank you.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements, policies, and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): This will surprise the member: yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she stand by her statement from January, when asked if Phil Twyford would keep his job at the mid-year reshuffle, “Yes.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I expressed then confidence in the Minister and I continue to express confidence in the Minister—in particular, because we are now a Government that is building more houses than any Government since the mid-1970s. We have 2,000 additional public housing places. We have expanded Housing First and our work on homelessness across the country. We are building more State houses. I am proud of our record. We have tried something in KiwiBuild that has never been tried before, and it’s an ambition that we are not stepping away from.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why did Phil Twyford say in January that a KiwiBuild reset would be “a couple of weeks away”, then signalled it would be in April, and then, in May, stated it would be “probably mid-June”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Look, we are absolutely focused on making sure that we do the reset once and do it right. Houses continue to be built in the meantime, and I’ll continue to point out that that includes State houses as well, of which I’m very, very proud of the fact that we have quadrupled the number that are under construction. We’re now at 2,700 State houses under construction. The member would do well to remember that we’ve actually had to pick up the pieces on housing across every single area: transitional, State, public housing places, and homelessness—every single corner you turned in housing, we have had to fix.

Hon Simon Bridges: When will the KiwiBuild reset be announced?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When we’re ready to announce it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Are the answers to Mr Bridges’ second primary question the same as her answers to his first primary question, because the questions are the same?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: One could make that assumption.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will the KiwiBuild name survive the housing reset?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, the most important thing is whether or not we are continuing to build houses, and the answer is yes. The member, I know, may not be inclined to look at polls, but there was a poll on KiwiBuild where 60 percent of New Zealanders want us to keep going, and the reason for that was that they accept—even if the member does not—that we have a crisis, that it requires intervention, and that we cannot give up on ensuring that we have affordable housing in New Zealand.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will the name KiwiBuild survive the reset?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I say, I see that as the least of the issues—what something is called. The most material thing is whether or not we are going to keep building houses, and the answer is yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: When was the last time she said “KiwiBuild”, and can she say it today?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’m pretty sure I actually might have said it in this House, but KiwiBuild.

Hon Simon Bridges: How many KiwiBuild houses has her Government built?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As we have said before, currently—and I said just this morning, if the member chose to listen—we’ve got around 480 that are currently under construction, 10,000 that are currently contracted—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The members’ leader asked a question. I think there were about four members there who need to turn down the volume and, in some cases, the frequency and, in some cases, the repetitive nature of their interjections.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the difficulty is I’ve asked how many KiwiBuild houses have been built and the Prime Minister is not answering that question.

SPEAKER: Well, given—

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. To be fair, I didn’t actually complete my answer and I’d be happy to do so if the member would give me the opportunity.

SPEAKER: That’s what I was attempting with my intervention. The Rt Hon Prime Minister, completing the answer.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I said, 10,000 homes are currently under contract to go under construction; 480 are currently under construction; 141 have been completed; 2,700 State houses are currently under construction; 1,200 State homes, since we took office, have been completed; 2,000 more homes have families living in them—public housing because of us—and, of course, we have the additional investment in Housing First. The reason I mention that, for the benefit of members, is because, as I’ve said, in every single area of housing we have had a crisis that we have been addressing and we will continue to address.

Hon Simon Bridges: Of all the houses she’s mentioned, KiwiBuild and otherwise, how many of them were not already consented or under construction at the election; and isn’t the answer “Stuff all, if any.”?

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, that is not an appropriate question. Does the member have a further question?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it be reasonable for you to perhaps explain what was inappropriate about that, given the series of answers that we’d had from the Prime Minister?

SPEAKER: Well, I think it’s fair to say that the answers we’ve had from the Prime Minister may have been fuller than necessary but, whether or not that is the case, it is not a reason for the Leader of the Opposition to use inappropriate language as part of his question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you now ruling—

SPEAKER: Order! Mr Brownlee has the floor; Ms Bennett will be quiet.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Are you now ruling that the use of the word “stuff” associated with the word “all” is inappropriate parliamentary language?

SPEAKER: Yes.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent announcements has he made about the review of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): It’s a topic of great interest to the House. The coalition Government has been reviewing the 30-year-old Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act to make sure it is fit for purpose for the 21st century. Last year, we delivered on phase 1 of the review by updating our monetary policy settings so that the Reserve Bank takes employment outcomes into account alongside price stability. Phase 2 of the review focuses on the financial policy and prudential regulation side of the Reserve Bank’s operations. Yesterday, I announced a number of in principle decisions that Cabinet has made. These include that the Government will introduce a deposit protection regime in New Zealand to bring us in line with the rest of the OECD. I also announced further—

SPEAKER: Order! That’s enough and could well be going beyond the question.

Kiritapu Allan: Why did the Government decide to implement a depositor protection regime?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand is an outlier in the OECD in not having a formal deposit protection regime to support Kiwi depositors in the unlikely event a bank were to fail. We know that depositor confidence can help support a strong banking system. The Government has listened to advice of the OECD, the IMF, past Reserve Bank Governors, and sector experts to introduce depositor protection in New Zealand. The proposal being discussed is for a regime with a $30,000 to $50,000 limit, which would cover 90 percent of the deposit accounts in New Zealand. This is an initial suggestion based on advice, and we welcome New Zealanders’ views on this range during the phase 2 consultation process.

Kiritapu Allan: How is the Government looking to strengthen the Reserve Bank’s enforcement powers?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A number of countries around the world, including the UK and Australia, have strengthened their accountability regimes, including for bank executives, to make sure that they are fit for purpose and include the right balance of measures to hold banks to account. Cabinet has now decided that now is the right time to look at whether the Reserve Bank supervisory regime is sufficiently strong. That includes the enforcement tools the Reserve Bank has, including whether penalties are tough enough to discourage certain types of behaviour. The review will look at elements of overseas frameworks, with final decisions to be announced in 2020.

Question No. 4—Transport

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Transport: What estimates has he seen on the cost of light rail from Auckland City centre to Māngere?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Light rail will be able to carry 11,000 commuters per hour, the equivalent of four lanes of motorway, through the middle of one of the most built-up parts of Auckland and connect commuters to two of the biggest concentrations of jobs in the country. The most recent cost estimate that I’ve seen is around $4 billion. However, it’s important to note that the business case and final design will provide more certainty on the final cost.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with his colleague the Minister for Infrastructure’s comment last week in the select committee in relation to the Auckland light rail project, “I’m told, Mr Goldsmith, that it could cost $3.8 billion to put a new harbour bridge over Waitematā; let’s just say that.”, and then “I’m also told that a light rail project could be double that.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I think that might have been lost in translation. I almost always agree with my colleague the Minister for Infrastructure, and I’m sure if we had a correct account of what he’d said in the context, I would agree with it.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with this statement from the same Minister in relation to the project, “But as to where the money will come from, I haven’t been, to date, a part of any detailed discussions in that regard and I think we’re quite some way off that.”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, we are indeed quite some way off it. There’s a business case process that’s under way, there’s a procurement process that’s under way, and we’ve always made it clear that there’s $1.8 billion in the Auckland Transport Alignment Project, in the National Land Transport Fund, essentially as seed finance, but it’s our full expectation that the light rail project will be subject to some kind of private financing arrangement.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What success does he think he’ll have in persuading Kiwis that light rail halfway down Dominion Road is the right priority for spending billions of dollars, if he hasn’t yet persuaded his coalition partners?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, I think we have persuaded coalition partners. It’s the Government’s policy to build this project and, as for persuading Kiwis, Aucklanders don’t need any persuading that our city needs a modern rapid transit network that provides 21st century public transport across the city and allows people to move around on a daily basis and get access to the things that they need, whether it’s work or education. They understand that simply adding more lanes to the existing motorway network, which was the policy of the former Government, won’t cut it.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How many Aucklanders has he met who have agreed with his proposition that a slight improvement to the public transport offering down Dominion Road is the No. 1 transport priority in Auckland?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It’s one of a number of priorities. I know the member likes to caricature the light rail project as a slow tram down Dominion Road, but it is about building a rapid transit network that joins together with the heavy rail network and the rapid transit Northern Busway to move tens of thousands of people around the city at peak hour in a way that the road network can never do.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Just how fast is this rapid transit?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: That is actually something that is going to be considered as part of the business case and design process, but I’ll say this to the member: speed in rapid transit is important because, if you want commuters to choose public transport and leave their car at home, you have to provide a fast and efficient service. That is the priority outcome of the business case and design process.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What is his definition of “rapid”?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, when we talk about rapid transit, we’re talking about public transit that doesn’t compete with cars and moves a lot faster than the current motorway network in Auckland, which we’ve inherited, which is jam-packed at peak hour and condemns Aucklanders to daily gridlock.

Question No. 5—Health

5. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: How is the wellbeing of cancer patients in New Zealand affected by the Government’s policies and actions in health?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): This Government has prioritised the health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders, including those living with cancer, since day one. The Wellbeing Budget included a $2.8 billion uplift in funding for district health boards (DHBs)—the largest in at least the last decade. That will support DHBs to continue to deliver the full range of cancer treatments and interventions, including screening programmes, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. We’re also moving to make those services better and more consistent through the interim cancer action plan, which is currently being finalised. The Budget also included specific funding of $36 million to extend the bowel screening programme to a further four DHBs, which, when rolled out, will benefit an additional 70,000 New Zealanders per annum. And $1.7 billion in capital spending was included for health in the Budget, some of which will support better and more advanced cancer treatment.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen comments from former Dunedin-based cancer patient Claudine Johnstone, “To me, this isn’t about politics; this is about people’s lives.”? And does he believe her wellbeing has been improved by the Government’s policies and actions?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I haven’t seen those comments.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he support Dunedin North MP Dr David Clark’s advocacy for Dunedin resident Stuart Neil’s wellbeing after his file was misplaced, resulting in urgent surgery for advanced bladder cancer?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have not got that detail in front of me.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe Dr Clark’s holding up in this House of the photo of a 79-year-old cancer patient who waited for an extended period at Auckland Hospital is appropriate and tasteful advocacy for the wellbeing of cancer patients?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think members do need to be very careful in this House as to how they use individual cases, if that’s the point the member’s making.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is it the Government’s intention to make sure all Kiwis get world-class cancer treatment; and, if so, in which Government document, speech, or statement is this commitment contained?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I’ve said many times—in fact, in many question times over the past week, I have reinforced this Government’s focus on the importance of the health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders, including those living with cancer. I also think the fact that we are investing in our health system, which was neglected for nine long years under that Government, speaks louder than any kind of pledges.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, it’s actually a lie.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I actually think that what matters is we continue to deliver the cancer care—

SPEAKER: Order! Mr Brownlee, stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I’m going to warn the member that there can’t be an excuse for what he just did.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it’s not; it’s a question. What is the remedy for anyone sitting in this House listening to comment delivered supposedly in the public interest that is, if not questionable, certainly very, very debatable?

SPEAKER: I would have thought the answer to that was obvious: at the end of question time, there’s a debate. Debate it.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Has he seen comments from the Cancer Society’s Shayne Nahu, whose society was disappointed to see cancer not being made a priority and—quote—“For a long time now, we have been advocating for a cancer agency, but we have seen no commitment from the Government for this.”? And is that a sign that he won’t deliver on his promise of world-class cancer treatment?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government is focused on delivering an interim cancer action plan in coming weeks. That is what we said would be in place when the director-general pledged to have an interim cancer action plan in place by the middle of this year. That’s not news—that’s not news to the member. That was announced at the time, just to be clear, so that the sector and others can have an opportunity to provide feedback on that interim plan so that we do have a plan that those working in the sector will stand behind. Let’s acknowledge that, while this Government is determined to put a lot more money into health than the previous Government did, because we do believe in making sure we have an adequately funded public health system, we are also dependent on the clinicians and the cancer experts who get up every day and go to work and provide that quality cancer care. And I want to salute them for the hard work they did previously in an underfunded environment, and I also want to thank them for the work that they will do to improve cancer outcomes with the new cancer action plan when it is in place.

Question No. 6—Transport

6. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: Will the boost to rail in the Wellbeing Budget benefit New Zealanders; if so, how?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Yes, rail has huge benefits for New Zealanders’ wellbeing, including unlocking regional economic growth, reducing emissions and traffic congestion, and preventing deaths and injuries. Also our Government is helping create 40 new jobs at the KiwiRail Hutt workshops through our investments in rail, including the Hamilton to Auckland commuter service, which will start next year.

SPEAKER: Question No. 7.

Paul Eagle: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Well, the member needs to stand up rather than talk to the person beside him if he wants a supplementary.

Paul Eagle: Sorry, Mr Speaker. What investments has Budget 2019 made in KiwiRail’s business?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, rail Ministers—myself, the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister Robertson, and the first citizen of the regions, Shane Jones—announced this morning that KiwiRail will kick off the process of getting more than 100 new locomotives and 900 new container wagons as part of the Wellbeing Budget’s $1 billion investment in making sure that New Zealand has a reliable and sustainable rail network.

Paul Eagle: Where will these investments be made?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The benefits will be felt throughout the country. The new container wagons will be used in the busiest corridors, including Auckland-Tauranga, Auckland-Christchurch, and all lines serving the ports. This will allow the worst of the 900 existing wagons to be retired, with a small portion of those being repurposed to carry logs. Part of the funding package will go towards replacing the tired and worn out old—

Hon Shane Jones: Tired.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —50-year-old locomotives in the South Island—

SPEAKER: Order! Mr Jones, turn it down.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —which will mean more reliable services and lower maintenance costs. After the chaos that Auckland commuters faced last week, it’s also important to reassure New Zealanders that we are investing in tracks, bridges, tunnels, signals, and control systems around the country to make train services more reliable.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister tell the House and the country how the regions and provinces are receiving these visionary policies?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, the response from regional New Zealand has been tumultuous, particularly with the recent reopening of the Wairoa to Napier rail line, which has long been a symbol of the regional neglect and the running down of those economies.

Question No. 7—Education

7. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by all his statements and actions around the review of vocational education?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Dr Shane Reti: Have 80 percent of submissions to the review not supported the idea of a single New Zealand institute of skills and technology?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I understand that the Minister is yet to receive a full breakdown of the submissions. There are parts of the discussion document that they support and there are parts that they have concerns around, but we are looking forward to receiving that breakdown from officials shortly.

Dr Shane Reti: Under the review, will the organising of apprentices that currently sits with industry training organisations be transferred to providers such as polytechnics, as per the leaked Cabinet paper?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Firstly, there has been no leaked Cabinet paper, because there has been no actual Cabinet paper. If the member is talking about a draft document that he has seen, then those decisions are yet to be made, so I cannot confirm nor deny.

Dr Shane Reti: Under the review, will the New Zealand institute of skills and technology hold the cash and other assets currently owned by polytechnics?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: At this stage, Cabinet has made no decisions about the submissions made, the discussion document, and Cabinet has not seen any Cabinet papers. So I’m, unfortunately, unable to confirm or deny.

Dr Shane Reti: Under the review, will polytechnics still be able to have campuses and provide services outside of their region?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Unfortunately, there have been no Cabinet papers go to Cabinet. Cabinet has made no decisions, so at this stage there is no way to actually answer the member’s question—because there has been no decision made.

Question No. 8—Workplace Relations and Safety

8. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Has he seen the findings in the literature review released today by BERL that sector bargaining through fair pay agreements could increase wages for some of the lowest-paid workers in New Zealand, while fostering sustainable productivity growth; if so, what is his response to those findings?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes, both the Business and Economic Research Ltd (BERL) and OECD reports released today say that the reduction in sector and collective bargaining after the Employment Contracts Act of 1991 led to a growing inequality in wages and worsening conditions for hard-working New Zealanders. The research out today also makes it clear that sector and enterprise collective bargaining contributes to better pay and conditions for workers. That’s why we’re working on fair pay agreements to build a modern economy fit for the 21st century.

Jan Logie: Is he concerned that, over the past 30 years, wages for cleaners, security guards, and retail workers have stagnated despite significant productivity growth in these sectors?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I am concerned that previous policies to reduce sector-level bargaining have meant some of our hardest-working New Zealanders have not benefited from productivity gains. We are working on fair pay agreements to address this inequity. Sector-level bargaining is proposed by both the OECD and BERL in order to reduce inequality in wages and conditions for working New Zealanders.

Jan Logie: Does he agree that Australia’s modern award system is delivering a better deal to comparable workers in Australia, and does he believe fair pay agreements here could help redress this imbalance?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I am aware that Australia has sector-level bargaining which has helped them maintain higher wages than New Zealand, especially for those in lower income roles like the security guards that I spoke with a few weeks ago. They told me how their employers were competing for contracts by keeping their wages low and not providing training or decent health and safety. They work long hours in order to pay the bills and don’t get to see enough of their families. This Government is building a sustainable, productive, and inclusive society that supports everyone so more New Zealanders have decent wages and conditions.

Jan Logie: Does the Minister think it fair that workers doing exactly the same commercial cleaning job are paid a different rate depending on whether they’re employed directly or employed through a contracting company, and how would fair pay agreements help to fix this?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Well, everyone deserves a fair day’s pay for a hard day’s work. Fair pay agreements would set minimum pay and conditions for those doing the same work. What is also unfair is that people working two cleaning jobs and doing well over 40 hours a week can’t pay the bills and spend a reasonable amount of time with their children. New Zealanders need good wages, decent conditions, and the ability to train and learn on the job, and that’s why this Government is working on fair pay agreements.

Jan Logie: Will he commit to implementing the OECD economic survey of New Zealand recommendation to adopt a combined model of sector- and enterprise-level bargaining to promote higher employment and more equal distribution of wages?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The coalition Government is working on a form of sector-level bargaining through fair pay agreements, because we want to bring the human face of capitalism to New Zealand.

Hon Scott Simpson: Can the Minister tell the House and the country when we can expect to hear the Government’s response to the Bolger working group report on fair pay agreements?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As soon as the Government has completed the detailed design work that the working group said was still required. When that design work is done and there are proposals ready to go out for consultation, the member will be amongst the first to know.

Question No. 9—Police

9. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by all his statements, policies, and actions in relation to the Government’s firearms buy-back scheme?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yes, and I would expect all MPs to support police in their work to implement legislation that nearly every member voted for. It is disappointing that the Opposition spokesperson feels a need to constantly undermine our police at public meetings, when I think they do a fantastic job of keeping our communities safe.

Chris Bishop: Is it correct, as a member of the Firearms Community Advisory Forum and an expert involved in helping KPMG devise the pricing scheme for the buy-back says, that the experts had just five hours to devise the pricing scheme, and is this really a fair way to treat the thousands of licensed firearms owners who’ll be potentially thousands of dollars out of pocket?

Hon STUART NASH: Well, I have seen reports that a large gun owner said that he is encouraging people to comply with the law, I’ve seen another gun owner say that he thinks the price is reasonable, and I think we have landed at the right place.

Chris Bishop: Point of order.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t need a point of order. I’m going to ask the Minister to at least address the question.

Hon STUART NASH: Mr Speaker, yes.

Chris Bishop: Why are accessories only being compensated at up to 70 percent of the value when the experts involved in the pricing process and KPMG agreed they should be compulsorily acquired at full retail value?

Hon STUART NASH: Because we think we’ve got the value right at 70 percent if they’re in near-new condition.

Chris Bishop: Does he stand by his statement, “You know, this is not about ripping people off. This is about paying fair market value for these firearms”, and why are thousands of licensed firearms owners saying that the price list for the compulsory acquisition of their firearms does indeed rip them off?

Hon STUART NASH: Well, that’s interesting, because I have seen reports where a large gun dealer has said he will encourage gun owners to comply, I’ve seen a spokesperson for the gun lobby say that her organisation would be encouraging people to follow the law, and I’ve seen the owner of The Gunshack in Blenheim say, quote, “In reality, the price is fair.”

Ginny Andersen: What reports has the Minister seen about inquiries to the police website and the 0800 number from firearms owners?

Hon STUART NASH: Thousands of gun owners are already playing their part to make the country a safer place and have handed in their weapons or have notified police that they intend to. This amounts to more than 5,000 weapons. Since March, police have also seized around 700 unlawful weapons during the ordinary course of policing. There have been almost 800 calls since the buy-back details were announced. Of the phone calls received, on average, around 80 percent of calls were positive and only 5 percent of calls have been negative. Police have had over 32,000 views to the dedicated firearms page on their website and have announced the community collection points for the first three months.

Chris Bishop: Why is there no pricing information for Bushmaster AR-15 rifles, of which there are thousands in New Zealand?

Hon STUART NASH: We have always been clear that, if there is a weapon that is now prohibited that is not on the list, the commissioner has the ability to amend that list.

Chris Bishop: Why is no compensation being offered for now prohibited ammunition made illegal by Order in Council and for safes that people have spent thousands of dollars investing in for firearms they are no longer allowed to own?

Hon STUART NASH: Well, as the Minister of Finance alluded to, there were no tanks in the Wellbeing Budget, so I don’t see why Kiwis need armour-piercing bullets.

Question No. 10—Police

10. GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Police: Will the extension of video victim statements in Budget 2019 help victims of family violence; if so, how?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Budget 2019 provided a major boost of $41.8 million to police’s raft of family harm initiatives, and, more specifically, $5.86 million was earmarked for victim video statements. Victim video statements provide police the ability to take online statements from victims of family violence. By using video victim statements, police are helping reduce the trauma for up to 30,000 victims of family violence every year. This funding directly provides victims of sexual violence with the ability to provide evidence in court in alternative ways to help reduce the risk of experiencing further trauma. Breaking the cycle of family and sexual violence and better supporting survivors is a major feature of the Wellbeing Budget.

Greg O’Connor: What reports has he seen on recent evaluations about victim video statements?

Hon STUART NASH: In 2018, an evaluation was carried out by the University of Canterbury and the New Zealand Police on the use of video victim statements. The report described that there were often multiple complex reasons for victims’ retractions of their statements, including, in some cases, direct pressure by the offender on the victim to recant, victims not wanting to end their relationship with a violent partner, and, most frequently, fear of retaliation. The results showed a 50 percent increase in early guilty pleas as well as an increase in overall guilty pleas of 77 percent. These results indicate that video victim statements be used to reduce demand pressures on the criminal justice system due to a reduction in cases proceeding through the court system, saving both time and resources. In addition, witnesses do not have to appear in court, reducing the chance of additional trauma.

Question No. 11—Fisheries

11. JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany) to the Minister of Fisheries: Why is Cockle Bay subject to a season ban, when Eastern Beach, Ngunguru, and Whangateau are closed for the taking of cockles, despite having a higher cockle density, and is he confident that the season ban at Cockle Bay is sufficient to protect the cockle fishery from over-harvesting?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Fisheries): Because, in the other bays, there is actually evidence that shows there is a downward trend in terms of cockle numbers. However, the evidence in Cockle Bay does not show such a trend. However, if the scientific evidence does begin to show such a downward trend, then we will take the appropriate sustainability measures.

SPEAKER: I’m just going to ask Mr Nash: next time, when he answers a question, can he make sure he’s talking to the mike. Thank you.

Jami-Lee Ross: Will he review the partial closure at Cockle Bay given that the beach has been depleted so much that it now has fewer cockles than those comparable beaches where complete bans on harvesting are in place?

Hon STUART NASH: What we will do, and what we always do with fisheries, is take an evidence-based approach, and if the evidence does show a downward decline, like it does in the other beaches mentioned by the Minister, then we absolutely will look at sustainability measures, but at this point the evidence does not point to a downward trend. But we are monitoring this if not every year then at least once every two years.

Jami-Lee Ross: How does he account for his belief that there has not been a downward trend at Cockle Bay given the number of cockles in 2011 has been declining since that year and, all of a sudden, in one year it doubled in 2018?

Hon STUART NASH: When I talk about taking an evidence-based approach in terms of density—that’s cockles per square metre—in 2014 there were 212 per square metre, in 2016 there were 136 per square metre, and in 2019 there were 275 per square metre. As mentioned, if that trend continues downwards, then we will have a look at sustainability measures.

Question No. 12—Corrections

12. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he agree with the decision by the Department of Corrections to not notify local schools after two child sex offenders were placed in the Waimakariri electorate; if yes, why?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Acting Minister of Corrections): On behalf of the Minister, I do not accept that schools in the Waimakariri electorate were not advised that sex offenders are placed in that community. Corrections has regular contact with schools, early childhood centres, and other community organisations about the presence and management of offenders, including sex offenders, in Waimakariri. In relation to the two offenders the member is referring to, one is an adult sex offender and the other a familial child sex offender. One was first released into the Canterbury region under an extended supervision order in 2015. The other was released into Canterbury in 2016. From November 2018, both were housed in Waimakariri. This was notified to that member in December 2018. Both continue to be electronically monitored. In all the time they have been monitored, no black spots have been evident in the monitoring. Both have been under daily supervision, and apart from one incident when one of the offenders refused an instruction in 2016 to get into a car, both have been fully compliant with their conditions since released three and four years ago respectively.

Matt Doocey: Following that answer, if the Minister’s saying corrections notified the school, why did corrections write to me in May saying they placed two child sex offenders and did not make notifications?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, the corrections advice to me is that they routinely speak to schools and other relevant community organisations about the placement and management of offenders, and that advice to those organisations includes words to the effect that there will be offenders, including sex offenders, placed in this community.

Matt Doocey: I seek leave to table a letter from the Department of Corrections informing me they placed two child sex offenders without notification—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member knows that he does not go into that detail. The member’s asking for the House to agree, in an unusual way, for a letter to be tabled to him from corrections relating to sex offenders. Is there any objection? There is none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Matt Doocey: Does the Minister believe that parents should know whether two child sex offenders have been housed near their children’s school?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, I am confident that corrections are doing their job appropriately in maintaining regular contact with schools and other relevant organisations about the placement and management of sex offenders in Waimakariri and the wider Canterbury region, as indeed that member was notified as part of their routine engagement with relevant people in the community. This is always a difficult area, when offenders—particularly sex offenders—come to the end of their sentence and have to be released. Corrections takes a very, very clear approach with community safety first and manages offenders appropriately and properly. That member also has a duty to his constituents to advocate for community safety, but in all his public commentary on this issue he has not identified a community at risk.

Matt Doocey: What does the Minister say to parents of students at the four schools in the town of Kaiapoi, in Waimakariri, who recently received an email from school principals warning them that a child had been approached by an adult male in the community just days after it was revealed that corrections failed to notify schools about the placement of two child sex offenders in the area?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, I would say to all the parents and all of those schools and to that member who represents them as their local MP, that corrections’ track record on working with schools, notifying schools, as well as placing offenders and managing the risks associated with them is a very good one. Those schools are told, as part of the routine advice from corrections, that if they have any concern whatsoever, they must notify corrections. I go back to the track record in relation to these two offenders who have been released, respectively, for three and four years: with the exception of one breach of conditions that related to failure to comply with instruction to get into a car by a correction officer, they have been fully compliant with all conditions.

Matt Doocey: Does he agree with former Labour corrections spokesperson Kelvin Davis, who said in 2016, in relation to the placement of two sex offenders in the community: “Personally, if I was the Minister I would’ve said, ‘That’s just not good enough and I’ll look into it,’ instead of just doing the old Pontius Pilot and wiping her hands of it and putting it on to everyone else.”?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, I stand by the assurances that I have given on behalf of corrections in relation to their engagement with that member and his community and the schools and education institutions within it, and the management of these two offenders.

Matt Doocey: Does he agree with Māngere Labour MP Aupito William Sio, who was reported in 2016 as saying there needed to be changes in the law to stop sex offenders being placed near schools; what changes have occurred?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: On behalf of the Minister, I refer to my earlier answer, in which I acknowledged that this is a difficult issue, especially for corrections, who do not make the decision on length of sentence, but when an offender comes to the end of their sentence, then corrections has to manage that offender. They have access to the device of extended supervision orders. That applies to both of these offenders, who have been in the community now for three and four years respectively and, with the exception of one minor breach unrelated to any issue to do with community safety, they have been fully compliant. It’s because, in addition to the daily supervision that they are subject to, they are subject to electronic monitoring. Corrections has managed these two offenders appropriately and properly.

Question No. 7 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): I seek leave to make a personal statement to correct an answer to a supplementary question to oral question No. 7.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I have been subsequently informed that the Minister has seen a summary of submissions around the review of vocational education. I have also been informed that it is not correct that 80 percent of the substantive submissions oppose the full reforms.

Budget Debate

Bills

Appropriation (2019/20 Estimates) Bill

Debate resumed from 20 June on the .

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Mr Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to stand in the Chamber today and acknowledge both our Prime Minister and our Minister of Finance for delivering a Budget that has done something that not only has not been done in New Zealand before but something that the whole world is looking at as a new and a better way of delivering a Budget, to ensure the wellbeing of all of the people who we in this Chamber are elected to serve.

I am, of course, talking about the Wellbeing Budget, delivered in this House just a few short weeks ago. It is a Budget that does things differently. It is a Budget that fundamentally focuses not just on the narrow strictures of GDP; not just on the narrow measurement of a surplus or a deficit; this is a Budget that says, “Yes those things are important, but they are means to an end.” And that end, which we in this Government stand towards and serve, is the wellbeing of all of our people and all of our community. This is a Budget which delivers in a big way on those objectives.

This Budget picks up that concept of wellbeing and delivers practical, real-world change.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Name two things.

MICHAEL WOOD: One thing that I have been enjoying doing over recent weeks—and I’m sure the honourable member for Ilam, on the other side of the House, has done this as well—has been to go around my community and speak to my community about the things that really matter to them. When you ask a room of New Zealanders what the things are that matter, what are the things that they tell us? They tell us that what matters are the health and the happiness of their children, living in a decent environment, having a good education system so that everyone can be equipped to do well in life, knowing your neighbours, and having good social relationships and friends. The National Party needs some friends—we know about that—and most New Zealanders want to have friends and good relationships as well. These are the things that are important in the lives of New Zealanders, but for too long successive Governments haven’t focused enough on those things that actually make our lives worth living.

This Wellbeing Budget says that we will not only talk about those things but we as a Government will measure ourselves against those things and ensure that the policies that we are delivering are driven by evidence and can actually be tracked to show the difference that we are making to the lives of our fellow New Zealanders.

There are three key areas in which the Wellbeing Budget says that we will work differently as a Government to the way that Governments have worked previously. For a start, this is going to be a Government that doesn’t just look down narrow departmental budget lines; this is going to be a Government and a Budget which works across Government departments to actually deliver the outcomes that New Zealanders need. This is going to be a Government and a Budget that doesn’t just focus on the short-term sugar hits to make a Government look good—something to get us through the next three years and make us look good at the next election—we’re going to focus on the real long-term challenges that we need to reach to make New Zealand a better country for our fellow citizens.

We’re also going to focus on different and wider measures of success. I just want to speak about each of those in turn and some of the initiatives that point to the way that this Wellbeing Budget is different. The first is that cross-agency approach. After this debate in the House, I am looking forward to going to a unique Estimates hearing that the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be hearing, with a number of Government Ministers and Parliamentary Under-Secretary Jan Logie, to talk about and ask questions about the family and sexual violence package, a $300-plus million package that brings together different Government Ministers and different Government agencies and says, “We have to work together as a country and as a Government if we want to solve the scourge of family and sexual violence in our country.”

I know that there is not a single person in this Chamber who believes it’s acceptable that we have the rates of family and sexual violence in our country that we do, but for too long individual agencies have been going down their own tracks and not working together. Well, that changes with this Wellbeing Budget, because in this Budget our Ministers were told by the finance Minister, “Don’t just come to me and ask for a cheque to be written to your department; come to me and tell me how you are going to reach our Government priorities to make life better for New Zealanders.” One of those priorities was improving child wellbeing and dealing with that scourge of family and sexual violence.

So we had multiple agencies and multiple Ministers coming together with an integrated plan. They have worked with the community agencies and there has been outstanding feedback from all of those people in our community groups who work with our families, who work with the victims of sexual violence, who have said, “Yes, finally there is a Government that listens, and it’s working collaboratively with us and collaboratively between Government departments to actually deliver a better outcome for our families.” That is going to make a huge difference and I’m proud of it. This is a Budget that focuses on the long term, not just the next electoral cycle. I want to speak about the relentless focus that our Prime Minister and the Minister for Child Poverty Reduction, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, has brought to that issue within this Budget, because this is a Budget which does something that no other Budget has done before. No other Government has had the courage before to put numbers down in the Budget and commit themselves to reducing child poverty. Because of this Wellbeing Budget, and the different approach that we are taking, this Government and future Governments will be held to account at Budget time for reducing the number of kids living in poverty in Aotearoa. I don’t think there can be a bigger stain on our nation’s conscience than the potential of our children being squashed by living in poverty.

This Government has said we will halve child poverty within 10 years, and they’re not just words; they’re hard numbers in our Budget. We have put the programmes in there and the evidence in there to show that we are on track to reduce child poverty in this country. We, on this side of the House, are immensely proud of that. This is a Budget that builds on the Families Package last year that will shift between 50,000 and 70,000 of our kids out of child poverty. This is a Budget which does what the Children’s Commissioner Andrew Becroft said last year was the single biggest thing that we could do to lift our kids out of child poverty and that is the indexation of benefits within our system. This is a Government which has had the courage to take on those steps for the benefit and the wellbeing of our children. This is a Budget which has a different measure of success; not just GDP, not just a surplus or deficit. Those things are important and we are meeting all of our targets in this area. Let’s not forget, this is a Budget which delivers consistent surpluses over the next few years. This is a Budget which sees unemployment down at 4 percent, lower than that previous Government ever got it to. This is a Budget which sees economic growth continuing at good levels well above most of our major trading partners.

But it doesn’t just measure those things—this Budget also says that we’re finally going to take mental health seriously. I know that every person who is listening to this speech will have someone in their family or someone in their community who has suffered from mental health problems over the years and hasn’t had the support that they needed. Well, I am so proud that this Government finally takes mental health seriously and will invest a $1.9 billion package that will deliver free community-level mental health services for all New Zealanders who need that help. No longer, once this package is implemented, will Kiwis have to wait until they’re at an acute or crisis stage to get mental health support. Kiwis will have access to a free and comprehensive mental health service in their communities, delivered at the community level, in a culturally appropriate way, getting people the help they need when the problem can be dealt with.

This Budget invests $40 million in suicide prevention measures and $100 million in Housing First so that the people who are living rough on our streets, who often have mental health problems, can get into a decent house and deal with those other problems—substance addiction, mental health, alcohol abuse—that so blight their lives. I am very proud that under our Minister for Ethnic Communities—who I serve as under-secretary—the Hon Jenny Salesa, this Budget sees a significant uplift in our support for ethnic communities; the first major increase in resource since the early 2000s when the Office of Ethnic Communities was first set up. Nearly a 50 percent reduction in staffing across the Office of Ethnic Communities to directly work at grassroots with our ethnic communities—that is going to make a real difference.

As I finish, I would like to paraphrase the great Robert F Kennedy who spoke about the limitations of GDP around about 50 years ago, and I’m paraphrasing here for a New Zealand context. He said that—well, I’ll say, that GDP counts alarm systems for our homes and new prisons for those who break into them. It counts the repairs from rebuilding from climate change disasters and the culverting of the streams and urban sprawl. It counts the healthcare costs for preventable cancers and body armour for our police. It counts the buyback of dangerous military-style weapons and social media revenue driven by hate and intolerance, but it measures neither our goodwill nor the great coming together of our people after the tragedy in Christchurch. It measures neither the happiness nor the health of our tamariki. In short, GDP measures many important things but it does not measure the wellbeing of our country.

This Government does measure the wellbeing of our country, and this Government and this Budget support and improve the wellbeing of all of our fellow New Zealanders. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand in opposition to this debate. The previous speaker, Michael Wood, whatever he said, I think it will be summed up in this line: that Labour is failing on delivering their promises. This Labour-led Government—all the three parties made different promises. Every time we see what’s happening in this House, we can see that this Labour-led Government is failing on delivering their promises.

I would like to start by quoting one of the journalists who I feel is very independent and well-respected in journalism, Duncan Garner. In one of his articles he wrote, “but the truth is Labour told you a bunch of utter garbage. They told you what you wanted to hear—dog-whistle politics to keep up with Winston Peters. But the truth is, they have done diddly-squat to get there … I’ve watched politics closely for the last 25 years and this Government is the least effective of them all, by some margin”.

That sums up what this Labour-led Government is, including their coalition partners New Zealand First and the Greens. We see, from time to time that their policies—what New Zealand First is advocating, Greens are opposing. What Greens are advocating, New Zealand First is opposing.

Darroch Ball: What nonsense.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: I will prove it—listen to this. It is not nonsense, you listen, have some patience. Keep some patience. First of all, when the Green Party defence spokesperson Golriz Ghahraman said the country should be spending all that money which they are spending on big planes, equipment in defence—that that can be invested in smaller planes and the rest of the money can be invested somewhere else. New Zealand First is advocating for all this spending in the defence area, and the Greens are opposing it—that was what I wanted to say then.

Darroch Ball: How could they oppose it?

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: They are opposing it. They are opposing—there is a crack.

Darroch Ball: They have voted for it. How could they oppose it?

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yeah, listen to it. Listen to it. What she is saying, you haven’t heard it. You haven’t read what they are saying. So what you are proposing, they are opposing it.

The second point where I would like to show that the cracks are coming up is that all the three Government parties had a policy to reinstate the Mental Health Commission, but it had had long standing support from the Greens. The Greens advocated for this policy for a long time, and we just heard from Michael Wood how he was proud that the Labour Party has implemented the mental health policy. On the other hand, New Zealand First issued a press release claiming credit for it even before it was announced, and it claimed that New Zealand First had identified that mental health was the major issue this country was facing, as if no other party realised it. That shows, again, what I am trying to say, which is that the policy was advocated by the Greens and New Zealand First claimed that that was their policy. That is a total crack in these three parties, and we will see further that this is going to happen from time to time.

Another point which I would like to pick up on in their broken promises is that every day I go out in the community—and we have got the Minister of Immigration sitting over here—and people are, time and again, asking me what’s happening to the parents category. The Minister has had, sitting on his table, the report—which has been sitting there for almost the last 18 months—about when the review was to be taken up and the decision was to be made. I hope that the Minister is going to take a call and explain why the decision has not been made on the people who are waiting for the decision for their parents to come over and join them. They are just very eager about it, and National said that this policy will be reviewed after two years and the decision will be made. But it is another broken promise, I would say, for the people who are expecting that this policy will be reviewed.

Another area in immigration that I would like to touch upon is the delay in the processing of visas. Time and again, we are seeing—particularly from the Asian subcontinent—that the visa processing time is taking longer and longer. In particular, I would like to touch upon the student visa, and it has been reported that with the way this policy is going ahead there could be at least a $33 million cost to the New Zealand economy because of the lack of visa processing for the students. There are so many institutes that are coming and talking to us and saying that there is not any kind of assistance from New Zealand Immigration for getting these visas processed. These are the broken promises which are not being delivered on by the Labour-led Government.

Another broken promise is on KiwiBuild. We were promised that there would be 100,000 houses in the next 10 years, which meant that every year there would be 10,000 houses. The goal for the first year was reset so that 1,000 houses would be delivered in the very first year, but what we are seeing is that not even 100 houses are being built. It is less than a few weeks from 1 July when those 1,000 houses were supposed to be delivered. Now, the talk about the next year was that another 5,000 houses were to be delivered—no clue what is going to happen. In the third year, 10,000 houses were supposed to be delivered, but we are seeing nothing happening on that front.

What we are seeing is the Minister, every day, coming to the House and talking about those houses which were already consented or were being built. They are being included in this KiwiBuild project, and they are buying the houses in bulk from the developers, from the plans. So, again, I will repeat that the Labour-led Government is not delivering on their promises, and the people are disappointed in the performance of this Government.

I would also like to touch upon some of the taxes. The promise was that there would be no new taxes, but what we have seen to date is that seven new taxes have been introduced. We saw on the day of the Budget, under urgency, that two new taxes were introduced and passed. It is going to—

Barbara Kuriger: Tax, tax, and more tax.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Exactly. Tax, tax, tax—that is the policy of this Government, whereas the promise was that there would be no new taxes.

They also promised that there would be cheaper doctors visits: $10 for a visit to the doctor. What is happening? Nothing. They also promised $20 million for access to lifesaving medicines for New Zealanders with rare disorders, but in this Budget there is nothing. Again, our Labour-led Government is not delivering on their promises.

We also had the promise from this Government about the annual health and eye check for seniors. Seniors are totally disappointed. They thought this Government was going to look after them, but they are very much disappointed. They also promised for early childhood education funding for 100 percent qualified teachers—nothing in this Budget. They also promised that no one would be sleeping in their cars last winter. We are now in the next winter, but still that promise has not been delivered on.

Hon Aupito William Sio: That’s what your lot caused.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Aupito William Sio knows very well that in his electorate a lot people are sleeping in cars and garages, and he is doing nothing. He has got all the power. He can do a lot for his people, but I am seeing nothing happening from his side.

We also saw the commitment in housing that people would be moved into houses, but what we are seeing is that more and more motels are being taken up to accommodate those people. They also promised light rail to the airport from Auckland within four years, and I think that light rail was supposed to go through, again, Aupito William Sio’s electorate, but still we haven’t seen the business plan for how it is going to happen. We know that the Minister is not able to deliver what he has promised. So those two major projects, which are housing and transport, they are totally failing on, and I think that this is the time to oppose this coalition Government to ensure that we give the message that this is a failure of this Government.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): The good people of New Zealand are excited by the Wellbeing Budget and all that it brings in dealing with things like taking mental health seriously; delivering cheaper education for families; delivering housing for the homeless; lifting Kiwi children out of poverty; and delivering low unemployment, low debt, and a strong surplus. New Zealanders are excited about their Government. They’re not excited about Simon Bridges—they’re not excited about Simon Bridges. I think the National Party has hit on a new strategy and that is to deploy Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to stupefy the population of New Zealand, to hypnotise them with his long, drawn-out speeches like the one we’ve just had. But there is no curbing the enthusiasm and excitement from New Zealand about the Wellbeing Budget.

But before we can have a Wellbeing Budget, we’ve got to make sure the Government manages the books responsibly, and I want to start my contribution by acknowledging the finance Minister, Grant Robertson, because in all the excitement I think what people might have overlooked is that the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy are incredibly strong, and that’s because we have a Government that is focused on wellbeing but is equally focused on managing our economy and maintaining those fundamentals. So this Budget does deliver a strong, sustainable surplus and strong, sustainable GDP growth, and it maintains the Budget responsibility rules that the Labour and Green parties agreed to before the last election. Net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP is forecast to be just 19.9 percent by 2021-2022, delivering on our promise to get net debt down below 20 percent. That strong surplus is projected to grow to $6.1 billion by 2022-23. And, of course, we all know that unemployment is now stable at a little over 4 percent.

In fact, going around the country and talking to employers from Cape Reinga to the Bluff, I hear one story over and over again, and that is that the thing that employers need more than anything else is people to fill the roles that are being created in this strong economy. Over the last 18 months, 70,000 new jobs have been created. And I would say, even more importantly, the average income for New Zealanders is up by $65 a week. That means wages are rising at a faster rate than inflation. That means that working people are better off in real terms, and no small part of that is the fact that the Government has lifted the minimum wage to $17.70 an hour. So people are not only in jobs, they’re in good jobs that pay well, put a roof over their head, food on the table, and clothes on their children. That, ultimately, is what budgets and governing are all about.

The other person that we all must acknowledge in this Budget debate is our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, who has chosen to lead with kindness and compassion and, as a result, the world is watching New Zealand. The world is impressed with what they see, and the world is deeply impressed with the Wellbeing Budget because it is a Budget that puts the real wellbeing of people and families at the centre. The biggest set piece—the biggest single piece of funding: $1.9 billion—went to finally taking mental health seriously. In this Government, we do want to make sure that all New Zealanders who are in need can access free mental health and addiction support and support that works for them, that they have choices about what that support looks like, that they can get it when they need it—that when people present with a mental illness or they present with an addiction, they are able to get the support and treatment that they need immediately, when they are looking for it, and that they can get it where they need it, whether it’s in cities, whether it’s in provincial towns, or whether it’s in our rural communities.

It’s important that that mental health support is delivered through our primary care system so that people can go to their local health centre and they can talk to someone who knows how to respond to the issues that they are presenting with. We need intensive support for those who need it, including suicide prevention services. We also need to support the people who are bereaved by suicide. Suicide can do enormous damage to families and communities. We need to make sure we are not only doing a better job of preventing suicide but we are supporting people who deal with its fallouts.

Investment in mental health and addiction facilities: we need people and we need the bricks and mortar, the facilities that people can go to to get the support that they need. We need to provide better mental health and addiction support to those in our corrections system to help break the cycle of addiction and of reoffending. This is a very good example of the approach that this Budget takes where we don’t work in our departmental silos but we actually get cross-portfolio bids like the mental health bid that covers health, education, corrections, and a variety of other portfolios to make sure that we are taking the holistic approach that is necessary to deal with those significant, ingrained community issues that New Zealand expects their Government to work on.

We’re reducing child poverty and improving child wellbeing, including addressing family violence. We’re committed to tackling New Zealand’s persistent and long-term challenge of child poverty and making New Zealand the best place in the world to be a child.

We’re addressing family and sexual violence through the largest ever investment in family and sexual violence support and support services. The package to address New Zealand’s long-term record on family and sexual violence includes funding and support for sexual violence crisis support services for children and young people, enabling victims of sexual violence to give evidence in alternative ways to reduce the risk of further trauma, dedicated funding for a kaupapa response to sexual violence, and covering one million New Zealanders with integrated safety response sites.

These are the interventions that are needed to break these long-term and ingrained cycles, and it’s only by making this kind of investment and setting the improvement of child wellbeing as one of the priorities of a Wellbeing Budget and looking at things through a wellbeing lens. That’s the only way that we’re going—

Barbara Kuriger: Where’s the money going to come from?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —to address these issues. Now, the member opposite is asking “Where is the money going to come from?” Well, this is the brilliant thing. It is all budgeted for and there is a surplus—a surplus that is going to grow to $6.1 billion. We’ve reduced debt. We’ve done something the National Party was not able to do in its nine years in Government. We are on track to reduce core net debt down to 19.9 percent, below 20 percent—something the National Party was never able to do. So I say to the member, Barbara Kuriger, who is a reasonable member who I have respect for—a reasonable member I have respect for—that, actually, it’s not about where the money is going to come from; it’s about priorities. It’s about setting your priorities and determining as a Government what you’re going to do. And if you run the books sustainably, if you manage the books responsibly, you run surpluses, you get debt down, you can find the money to pay for the services that make a real difference in people’s lives.

I spoke earlier about housing. We do have a housing crisis. That is something we inherited from the previous Government—an enormous housing crisis that they were not prepared to deal with. And, yes, this Government is ambitious and, yes, sometimes when you have ambitious plans things won’t always go right the first time, but I want to point members opposite to the enormous investment in public housing. There are 1,200 additional public housing sites, 1,200 additional families in public housing, new State houses going up all across the country—getting the people who are in greatest need into the warm, dry, secure, affordable homes that they need. That has been an enormous success over the last 18 months, but more is needed. We all know more is needed, such was the scale of the crisis that this Government inherited that it was never going to be fixed in one year, two years, or even five years. This is a decade-long project that this Government has the ambition to tackle, something that the National Party did not have when it was in Government.

So I want to acknowledge Grant Robertson, the finance Minister. I want to acknowledge the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, our incredible kind and compassionate and visionary leader, who has led the work on this Wellbeing Budget, this new approach to doing budgeting and governance in New Zealand, and I commend this incredible Budget to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d actually like to start by addressing something my cousin from the top of the South over the hill from me, Dr Smith, raised about KiwiBuild and why they’re not actually mentioning it. I think the Labour caucus has fallen into the trap of the well-worn habit of thespians, not to mention the play. They won’t mention the play Macbeth and the Labour caucus won’t mention the word “KiwiBuild”. It’s a curse. It’s an absolute curse that they are trying to distance themselves from as much as possible. When the reshuffle is announced, I have it on very good authority that Mr Twyford has statistics and seeing that James Shaw’s made such a mess of the census he’s going to get KiwiBuild, so we’ll just see an ongoing disaster unfolding in front of us.

However, I want to address the Budget, the Wellbeing Budget. Wellbeing: no one can suggest anyone doesn’t come into this House seeking to help the wellbeing and the livelihoods of New Zealanders. That’s what we all come in for. However, I think this Wellbeing Budget is actually a “well-meaning Budget.” And Kiwis deserve more from their politicians than being well-meaning; we have to be able to deliver, and that’s why I support the amendment moved by the fine Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Simon Bridges, which was that we have no confidence in this Government and their botched Budget and all of the other promises that they will fail to deliver along the way.

I think it’s quite strange. Michael Wood raised some very interesting questions about the “Well-meaning Budget”, saying that he thought it was going to do things differently. But what is “wellbeing”? That’s what we’d like to know. What actually is wellbeing? It is a subjective measure. What wellbeing is to me may well be quite different to what wellbeing is to you, Madam Speaker, and to other Kiwis. So there is no definition of what “wellbeing” is, and there are no measures. He said they were going to measure it. What are the measures? We haven’t seen any measures. The Better Public Services targets were all deleted as soon as they got in—no measures. So if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. That’s a well-known maxim in business. It works because that’s how it has worked many times through business—they know that if they can’t measure it, they can’t manage it.

Child poverty—he talked quite a lot about child poverty and how they were going to get it down, but I would ask the member: what’s happened to the stats on child poverty in the last 12 months? They’ve gone up under their watch—they’ve gone up. Where was that Wellbeing Budget? Why didn’t they bring this Wellbeing Budget in in the first Budget that they had? If they cared so much about it and wanted to make some traction on it they should have moved on it right in the beginning.

I think one of their biggest failings is the oil and gas ban that they brought. This is just an appalling piece of legislation. The cost of the ban has actually been estimated at $28 billion by 2050. Where is that $28 billion going to come from?

Barbara Kuriger: What about the cost to climate change?

STUART SMITH: Well, the cost to climate change—the member Barbara Kuriger raises a very interesting point. In fact, the Interim Climate Change Committee has actually pointed that out: it will likely increase our emissions. So where’s the money coming from? Where are the jobs going to come from that are going to be lost because of this oil and gas ban? We know Taranaki has the highest GDP per capita in the country, underpinned by that industry, and we are all underpinned by it. I think the big issue, really, from this transition to a renewable electricity target, which is in 2035, is that the climate committee estimated that electricity prices for consumers would go up by 14 percent and it would be 39 percent for industry. For those people who think that what electricity prices the industry pays won’t affect them, believe me they will. All of that will flow immediately through to costs in our economy, and unless it is mirrored offshore, that will also impact our exports. And that will have a huge impact on the wellbeing of New Zealanders.

Higher electricity prices will also, the committee points out, slow the rate of decarbonisation in our economy. We will have to change quite rapidly to electric cars, and electric cars are more expensive than internal combustion engine cars, are higher priced, and we also have an average age of our vehicle fleet of 15 years. We’ll have to turn that fleet over far more quickly than we have been to date to get up to that target. Yet the people that are going to be impacted the most by increasing energy prices will be those on lower incomes. It is quite a regressive tax, and that has not been addressed. Among other things we’ve seen from this Government, they haven’t actually done the homework. They had nine years in Opposition, and they just simply didn’t do the homework.

It is estimated we have only a 10-year gas supply left, and that is running down quite quickly. We’ve seen two exploration companies that have walked away from block offers just off the East Coast of the North Island, which could have been a phenomenal resource for New Zealand. In the first quarter of this year we’ve seen an increase in coal consumption for electricity generation of 138 percent. We are on target to burn 500,000 tonnes of coal this year in electricity generation, and that is in part due to the interruption in supply for maintenance on the gas fields. We don’t have enough gas here now. We need more supply, and we need more than one or two fields; we need these fields on stream to drive our electricity system.

The renewable electricity options are simply not here yet. They were just out here 10 years ago; they’re still just about out here. We’re almost there with these renewables and these batteries, but we haven’t got those technological breakthroughs enabling us to shift to a renewable electricity system by 2035 yet, and it looks unlikely to be there. We need that oil and gas exploration for our economy to be less at risk. We only have to look at Germany, where they tried to decarbonise there and push renewables by highly subsidising them, but they have the luxury of importing electricity from offshore or from over the border. We don’t have that luxury, and, ironically, their electricity prices are the highest in Europe. And, on top of that, they also have increased their carbon emissions, because they’ve had to burn more coal as well. So it’s not been a very good outcome all round. Actually, the last thing I’ll close on, on that, is: can businesses and households afford a 39 percent increase in their energy costs? I would argue that they cannot.

We move on to methane targets, which is certainly an area of concern for anyone who lives in provincial New Zealand. These methane targets are out of line with what is being considered overseas. It’s out of line with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s recommendations in his fine report, and it is also—with these subsidies and all of the work that the Government is doing around its billion trees—forcing good, productive farmland into forestry. The question for the members on the other side is: how many schools are going to close in rural New Zealand as a result of these policies? How many small towns will simply become ghost towns because of this target? It is unwise, and also the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment thinks that the policy of allowing CO2 emissions to be offset with the planting of trees—we’re the only country in the world to allow 100 percent of that—is a very bad policy and it should be done away with.

I want to close on earthquake-prone buildings, because the Minister of Finance, actually—his own electorate—has a significant number of apartments in his area which are earthquake prone. I went along to the inner city Wellington meeting of those affected apartment owners, and the finance Minister is acting like a backbench MP, making quite sweet noises that he really sympathises with them; he’s in a position to deal with it—overnight if he wanted to—for his constituents. Instead, he put a miserly $10 million in the Budget to help those people in some way—and other apartment owners around New Zealand. It’s totally inadequate. The Minister should actually man up. He’s their electorate MP. If he can’t do anything, simply be honest and tell them that he can’t and he won’t, but don’t try and have a dollar each way, as he is now.

In closing, I support the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment. This is a botched Budget, and it is really bad for New Zealand. We have no confidence in this Government. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call. I call Clayton Mitchell.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have to say the member across from me, Mr Stuart Smith, is a well-intentioned member—one of the nicest people in Parliament—but I have to say I think he’d be a better sleep therapist than he would be a politician, because that 10-minute monologue even put his backbench and the gallery to sleep. Anyway, let’s spark things up again. Right, here we go—this nonsense about it being a botched Budget.

But, before we get to that, ladies and gentlemen, let’s talk about what people actually care about, which is the fact that 7 percent of New Zealanders actually feel that they have confidence in members of Parliament and that they trust us. Now, why do you think that is? I’ll tell you why it is: it’s because we get a constant barrage from the Leader of the Opposition, where leaking information from him to the Rt Hon Winston Peters in the build-up to the last election was acceptable—“It’s pretty legal.”—but yet, when his information gets leaked from his expenses three days early, all of a sudden we need a royal commission of inquiry—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’d rather the member actually addressed the Budget. Can we talk about the Budget? If it relates to the Budget—

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Yes, it’s about the integrity of the Budget.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, you get to the Budget. You need to actually bring that into your speech.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: So the Budget—it’s important for people to understand what we said when we set out on a pilgrimage to build our economy from the bottom up, because we’d had enough of neo-liberal, trickle-down, free ideological thinking from this previous Government for nine years.

So the first thing we set out to do was to ensure that we gave capitalism a human face, and by doing that, we had to build this economy from the bottom up by lifting the minimum wage, which we’ve taken another big step towards, building an economy surrounded by a living wage. We’ve invested money into areas that this country hasn’t seen investment in for a very long time. Ten years of neglect, and our rail system now is seeing a boost. And we see the members across the Chamber shaking their heads, saying, “It’s not going to go far enough.” It’s not going to go far enough because we had 10 years under a previous Government where no money was ever funded there—well, nine years. I have to say I gave them a year’s credit there. It was actually only nine years of neglect. So now we’ve got a Government that’s absolutely committed to start looking after those integral parts of our community: the people—the workers—on the bottom that are actually creating the opportunities out there.

We put $300 million into the idea that we’re going to have venture capital where young, emerging, innovative businesses in New Zealand can get that kickstart they need to put that innovation in, to get it really working so we’re not so reliant on international money. We’ve got the $1 billion R & D tax credit, which is a huge boost to people, to actually lift our R & D spending to 2 percent of GDP in this country. It doesn’t get us away from the fact, though, that we have seen the neglect by a Leader of the Opposition, and this royal inquiry that was being brought upon them, and asking for a public execution of one of his own members for leaking information. And yet it’s acceptable that the member can leak other people’s information, like the absolutely unacceptable, deliberate, unauthorised assault on the Treasury books—to release that information. Now, that’s the integrity that people want to see lifted. It’s absolutely unethical, it’s absolutely immoral what has taken place, and they wonder on the other side why the voters of this country have had a gutsful of their behaviour.

They are not trusted, because they promised everything and haven’t delivered on it—from 10 bridges to ghost highways that have never been built, with no money that’s ever been put there for State Highway 2A going north from Tauranga—all these loose promises: 15th Ave, Turret Road.

Matt King: Three bridges have been built! You should come up sometime.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: No money has ever been brought forward by that Government—just a lot of hollow promises. That member over there is like a sneeze looking for a mouth to shoot out of. Isn’t that right, Mr King?

Anyway, we’ve got a minute left on the clock and I’ve still got so much more to say. We’ve got LSV numbers doubled under this Government—these are Limited Service Volunteer schemes. We’ve got not engaged in employment or training—we’ve doubled that from 800 to 1,600 people. We’ve got a huge amount of money—$49.9 million—going into our Mana in Mahi to get disengaged youth off the couches, my colleague over here Shane Jones likes to refer to it as getting those nephs off the couch, giving them an opportunity, giving them something to work towards, building their pride in themselves so that they can become an asset to themselves, to their families, and to our country and our economy moving forward.

We’ve got $21 million that we have put into a very important service that we have with St John’s, but we have also turned around the racing industry with recent changes in the Racing Amendment Bill, with more changes to come to get that industry up on its feet again. And that’s about my time, and I’m going to hand it back to my colleague—over to you Darroch Ball.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This has been a very good Budget for the coalition Government. I might be a bit biased, but I’d like to say that New Zealand First has had some very, very good, serious wins out of this Budget.

We’ve just previously heard my colleague Clayton Mitchell list a few; I’d like to list a couple as well. These wins focus not only on the regions, though we did make some good wins in the regions, but we are focusing on our services, we’re focusing on our seniors, our vulnerable children as well, and everyone in between, I must say. We’ve put a billion dollars for KiwiRail. We’ve got over a billion dollars for Oranga Tamariki with our vulnerable children. We’ve got over $2 billion for our defence force—our underfunded defence force that was neglected under the National Party—all of the three services: the navy, the air force, and, of course, the army as well.

We’ve invested $7 million into a super SuperGold Card. We have—as my colleague Clayton Mitchell said—managed to secure funding for our ambulance services and St John’s over the next couple of years; over $4 million for veterans, and around $60 million for our forestry sector. So you can see that we have wide-ranging and effective and very serious wins on this side of the House.

But one thing that hasn’t been mentioned which I think is ultimately important as well is the increase in funding to our police force. The reason why I want to mention it is because last week we had Chris Bishop stand up in the House and, unbelievably, criticise this side of the House for increasing the police numbers—that’s what he did. So New Zealand First, as part of our coalition agreement, is to strive for 1,800 new police officers over the next four years—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: And you’ve done 450.

DARROCH BALL: —1,800 over the next four years. We’ve got the likes of Chris Bishop, but now we’ve got Dr Nick Smith as well, talking about that we’ve only got around 500 so far. Well, over the nine years that that National Party was in Government, how many did they add to the police force?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Hundreds.

DARROCH BALL: One-hundred-and-fifty, Mr Smith, 150. So now they’re complaining that, 18 months in, we’ve got 500 and climbing. That’s net by the way—that’s net by the way. Over nine years, Dr Nick Smith’s Government only had 150. In fact, in 2017 they went down by 60. They lost police officers. The year before that they lost another 40. And now they stand up in the House and want to criticise us for striving for 1,800 police officers.

I’ll tell you why that’s important—I tell you why it’s important, because there’s what’s called a golden ratio of one police officer per 500 members of public. If it goes above that—if there’s more members of public per police officer then it makes it very, very difficult for our police force to do the job effectively. In 2009, when the National Government took over, that was one police officer for every 498 members of public—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just relate it to the Budget.

DARROCH BALL: Well, I’m talking about the increase—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just keep it focused on the Budget, not on history.

DARROCH BALL: I’m talking about the increase in police numbers—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t argue with me or I’ll stop the member. Relate it to the Budget.

DARROCH BALL: In 2009, we had one police officer for every 498 members; in 2017 that went from one police officer—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Relate it to the Budget now.

DARROCH BALL: —to every 547 members of public, Madam Speaker. The increase in police numbers that this Budget has overseen has done a couple of things. There were, in the 2018/19 financial year, 831 new recruits. That is a record number. Never once in the history of this country has there been more police recruits gone through the Police College. The previous record, actually, funnily enough, was 683 new recruits, and that, again, was when New Zealand First was in Government. We’ve got the largest police workforce in New Zealand history, with more than 13,000 men and women, and because of that our victimisation fell by 7,000 within the last year.

So I find it a bit incredulous that the National Party stand up and want to criticise this side of the House for having record funding in the police force, record numbers going through the recruitment process, and the largest police workforce in the history of this country. This is a good Budget for the coalition Government and for New Zealand First.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Botany): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is the ninth Budget that’s been delivered in the time that I’ve been a member of Parliament. Normally I stand up and give some tub-thumping speech saying what the other side’s doing is wrong and what my side’s doing is right. Of course, I don’t have a side to be yelling at now in the Chamber, and it’s an interesting situation.

But the upside that I’ve found through my current situation—where I am an independent, sitting up the back, looking down at the rest of the Chamber, and also spending considerably more time in my electorate talking to real New Zealanders and not getting too wound up in what happens in this place, in “Planet Parliament”—is the world out there and the way New Zealanders see our politics in New Zealand isn’t as black and white as we make out in this Chamber. It isn’t the case of everything the Government does, if you’re a Government MP, is right and everything the Government does, if you’re an Opposition MP, is wrong. It isn’t a case of members on that side and the Government saying, “Our Budget is great. Our Budget is perfect. We’re delivering on everything.”, and then the Opposition to say, “They’ve got it all wrong. They’ve broken all their promises. It’s a botched Budget.” That’s not how New Zealanders see budgets in this country. It’s not how New Zealanders see our politics.

One of the real downsides that I see now that my eyes are really opened up too is just the fact that we don’t do enough to work together in this Parliament and Government on addressing solutions for all New Zealanders. I want to say, actually, congratulations to the Minister of Finance. He’s delivered a reasonably good Budget. Actually, it delivers on most of their promises. Actually, it’s a Budget that could have been delivered by Bill English, or it could have been delivered Steven Joyce. The only difference is rather than it being called a Wellbeing Budget, Bill English would have talked about social investment. When it comes to the likes of job creation, when it comes to the likes of investment in important areas like health and education, a National Government probably would have done many of the same things.

The Government is doing more in mental health. This Government is putting $1.9 billion into the mental health system, and good on them for doing that. It’s 19 times what the National Government promised in 2017—19 times. Through that election campaign—because I was a National MP at the time—many of us would go to public meetings or go to mental health - specific debates and we’d be hauled over the coals for the lack of investment in mental health. Actually, National got it wrong in that area. We did a lot to increase the number of operations, we did a lot to improve health services, but we didn’t do enough for mental health. So good on the Government for doing what they’re doing in mental health.

The great thing about what this Budget’s doing around mental health is it’s going to get some of the funding into those front-line services and into the areas where people can get access to care early, so they don’t end up in the acute system. If an individual gets in that system, they’re exposed to hospital-grade services and they do get quite a lot of support. But where we’re failing New Zealanders when it comes to mental health is we’re failing to help people to get the support they need early on when they’re identifying that they’ve got challenges; when they’re identifying that they’re needing support, before they get to that crisis point.

If we can solve a situation where people don’t get enough support before they get to crisis point, where they don’t get enough help and assistance, then we’ll be able to ensure that we reduce that suicide number. And getting access to mental health services in the community—if the Government can crack that nut then they’ll be doing a huge amount for New Zealanders.

But in terms of the overall Budget, I really struggle when I hear the terms being flung about about how the Government is doing something wrong, or how the Government is botching a budget. That’s not how New Zealanders see it. The taglines we give policies, and the taglines we give budgets, and the debate we have in this Chamber, that’s not reflected out there in reality.

The Government is doing a lot when it comes to the economy that, actually, the National Party could have done as well. That debt target that I heard Iain Lees-Galloway talking about—getting debt to below 20 percent of GDP by the early 2020s—that’s the target that Bill English announced four or five years ago. They’re doing exactly what National put in place. The Government can’t stand up and say they’ve solved it all and they’ve done everything right and it’s their Budget which is achieving that because the fundamentals were put in place by the National Government—the fundamentals were put in place by Bill English and by Steven Joyce. So what I’m trying to say is that when we look at Budgets and when we debate them, we’d do New Zealanders and ourselves a lot better if we were to actually identify things where we can work together as a Parliament and identify things that we agree on. When I read the amendment from Simon Bridges, basically saying that the Government’s bungling and incompetent and they’re overseeing a slowing economy and declining job creation—well, actually, that’s not the reality. It’s a nice political point to make, but it’s not the reality.

I have to say, the Government isn’t getting everything right, though. I do struggle when it comes to housing and understanding what the vision is. There was no vision delivered on housing in this Budget. The key question that many people, particularly in Auckland, want to know and have answered is: what is a Government, whether it’s blue or red, going to do to deliver on a vision where young people can get access to housing? KiwiBuild—for all that they’ve tried to throw at it—it’s not working. It’s failing. It’s not delivering cheaper housing for New Zealanders.

But at the same time, my old friends in the National Party—we couldn’t claim that we got everything right either. Nick Smith, I have to say, put a huge effort into trying to make changes in housing. He sweated blood and tears to try and get reforms in the housing sector, and good on him. He did very well. He tried very hard, but we didn’t crack that nut either. We left Government in 2017, leaving young New Zealanders without the ability to access affordable housing. We left Government not delivering a vision on how young New Zealanders and how children and grandchildren can afford housing into the future.

The solution has to be genuine Resource Management Act reform. The solution has to be increasing land supply. Sitting back and hoping that small changes and tinkering around the edges will make big adjustments to housing won’t work. Sitting back and thinking regulating a little bit more and a little bit here and there is going to work is not actually going to achieve the solution. We have to open up considerable chunks of land in Auckland so there can be greater housing supply. We have to put more infrastructure in place so that the people that will be moving into that new housing can get good transport, can get good water, can get good access to services. But by sitting back and just tinkering around the edges it’s not going to be doing very much.

While I’m talking about housing, I want to say that we also need to seriously look at the way Auckland Council is operating. The way I relate this to the Budget is that there is a review that’s going on at the moment around rates, and there’ll be work internally within the DIA around how local government is operating efficiently or not. I have to say, it’s been almost 10 years now that the Auckland Council has been in place, and if the Minister of Local Government is sitting back asking herself, “What do Aucklanders want to see from local government?”, I think the answer that she needs to arrive at is that Aucklanders aren’t being delivered efficient local government. They’re not being delivered local government services cost-effectively. They’re seeing costs escalate. They’re seeing staffing numbers grow year on year, but they’re getting less and less for their money. It’s about time—it’s been almost 10 years—we start to seriously consider whether the changes that this Parliament put in place in Auckland are working for Aucklanders, and whether or not Aucklanders want to see some more reform and some more changes in that area. If we don’t get local government in Auckland working right and we don’t have local government working with the Government to deliver a vision on housing, then those young New Zealanders aren’t going to get access to the housing services that they need.

Finally, I also want to say thank you to the Government for putting in place measures to deliver more police. They’re not doing it fast enough, though. We do need to see more front-line services in the police force and we do need to see more support there for those officers. In the emergency services space, why did the Government stop at the level that they did when it came to ambulance services? It wouldn’t have cost much more to fully fund ambulance services, and I think that’s something New Zealanders would like to see happen into the future. Ambulance services and dental services—whilst the health system is receiving considerable boosts, those are two areas that I think New Zealanders would expect the health system to do more on and that the health Minister could work on for future Governments.

This Budget delivers on many of the fundamentals that New Zealanders want to see Government deliver. It doesn’t present enough vision and it doesn’t solve all the problems, but, actually, it delivers much of what New Zealanders want. It’s a Budget a National Government could have delivered with a different name and a different tag line. It’s not as bad as the Opposition makes out, but it’s nowhere near as visionary as the Government makes out either. I think we should work better and closer together in the future as a Parliament. I think there are more areas we could collaborate on. The “them and us” attitude that we take in this Chamber doesn’t serve New Zealanders well. When you take the blue-tinted glasses or the red-tinted glasses off and you actually sit there and observe politics in New Zealand, actually, there’s a lot we agree on, there’s a lot we can work together on, and there’s a lot that we should do more on as a Parliament.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to start my part in the Budget debate by acknowledging our finance spokesperson, Amy Adams, who’s just made an announcement today that she’s going to be leaving Parliament at the next election. Amy Adams did a fantastic job of guiding us through this Budget process, as she’s done in the past in her roles, back even right down to when she was an associate. She’s a great person with the numbers, and we’re dearly going to miss her skills. She’s made a fantastic contribution thus far to this place and she’s not finished yet, so I acknowledge her.

I would disagree adamantly with the previous speaker. New Zealanders do care about the Budget, and they’re not impressed. We talk about a Wellbeing Budget. Stuart Smith asked before, “What is the meaning of wellbeing?” Well, wellbeing, when I just looked it up in the dictionary on my phone, it said “the state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy”. So if we say the words “KiwiBuild” and “cancer treatment”, there better be a lot of “kinder” and “more caring” going on to make up for the other two parts of wellbeing that seem to be in some sort of disarray. Michael Wood said, when he spoke up, about this Budget being a means to an end. Well, my constituents are hoping that this will mean an end to this Government.

I was at Fieldays just after the Budget came out, and it was where the Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries was released. If you go through that document, it shows that things, the expectations, are good at the moment for dairy, for sheep and beef, for a range of other products. We all know that horticulture is going very well. But what I was finding at Fieldays, and what myself and my fellow members of Parliament from this side of the House who joined us at Fieldays—there were a large number of us. We could not get over the uncertainty of the mood of the primary producers at the Fieldays, and it was down to the uncertainty related to this Budget.

If you actually look at some of the reasons why, and there’s money in here—we’ve got down here “Meeting the climate change challenge”. Well, we’re all very concerned about putting all of this—there’s $95 million in here related to the climate change challenge. Well, the climate change challenge in their eyes is not having the right tools for the methane targets. It’s also those small communities that are really, really worried about, you know, the billion tree programme—$183.8 million operating going into the billion tree programme. There is no strategy to that billion tree programme. That’s what they’re worried about. Nobody’s opposed to planting trees. We all believe that we need to do things for climate change. But it’s a right tree, right place, right catchment, right time strategy, and they are really worried about planting all those trees—what’s it going to do to the rural roads? We already have Ministers talking about slowing down rural roads because—that’s a funding issue, in terms of dollars. We all know what’s happened to most people’s roads. I’m still hoping that the Mount Messenger project, which is up for appeal shortly, is going to happen. I have heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport say that it’s going to happen—trying to also claim credit for it when it was actually appropriated in Budget 2016, but at least it looks like that road is still going to be happening.

We see $197 million in here for the reform of vocational education. Well, we’ve heard questions in the House today from our member Dr Shane Reti, who’s been looking at this reform of vocational education, and all it seems like is everything else that I’ve read in this Budget document is pulling everything back into Government level, because it appears that everything in these documents says this Government knows best, and the people who are trained in farming, education, whatever field that they’re in—their knowledge is not important: “Let’s take it back in here and do something about it.” I’ll give you an example here: “Productive and Sustainable Land Use: Climate Change Commission and Government Response—$42.7 million operating”, and then there’s a little bit of capital on top of that. It “supports New Zealand’s transition to more sustainable land use” and low emissions, and it talks about “key institutions and regulations” and ensuring the “resources to deliver on its obligations”. What about asking the community? They’ve been out there flat-stick trying to find some solutions. They don’t want more key institutions and more regulations and more red tape. They want to be able to have some tools that they can use, that can put the power in their hands, that can make sure that they have some control over their own future. They don’t want everything done to them. This Government is leaving people behind.

The second one is “Productive and Sustainable Land Use: Enabling the Transition in Agriculture”. So it’s funding for “on-the-ground advice for farmers”. You know, we hear again, “Oh look, there’s going to be some more advice, because we know best.” Well, what happens to the Dairy NZs, the Beef and Lambs, the people that are actually already out there giving advice? Why don’t we just collaborate a little bit? Why don’t we sit around and talk to each other and find out solutions instead of all of these things coming down from the top, coming down on communities, coming down and telling people “Thou shalt do.” and “Thou shalt be done.” and “We’re going to regulate you.” and “We’re going to find the answers for you.” Ninety percent of the answers are already out there, so they don’t want more institutions; they just want more autonomy to be helped to find their own solutions.

Also, in this Budget there is more funding for Mycoplasma bovis. Now, that’s been a huge, huge, huge process, that eradication process, and we know what that eradication processes has meant in terms of cow numbers, cows, trying to stop that disease from spreading throughout the country. You know, we’re monitoring and we’re still evaluating around the whole feasibility of it, and I hope that is being monitored all the time. But it’s actually not been a great process for the farmers involved. It’s been a terrible, terrible wellbeing situation for all of them. I have seen, over more recent times, how the care and the wellbeing for those people has picked up, but I know that our rural support trusts have spent hours and hours and hours out there, actually trying to deal with the people welfare of this issue. So it hasn’t actually been a very kind process, and while the decision was made to do that, I think the way people were treated on the way could have been much better.

Now, on to the subject of Taranaki—on to the subject of oil and gas. We all know that in that process, all of the advice was ignored, and not just around the Budget dollars. So it’s all very well for people to say, “Oh, we’re going to do wellbeing.”, but wellbeing takes money, and you actually need money to be able to sustain the wellbeing. You need it to sustain the health system. You need it to sustain the education system. There is nothing in this country that’s going to run without money. So if you ignore the figures that were put in front of us around the oil and gas, around, you know, making the decision that this Government has made—which, by the way, makes absolutely no benefit to climate change in all the advice that I’ve seen; in fact, it only has detrimental results in that light.

Look, developing a new energy development centre in Taranaki is a little bit like—you know, it’s just a lolly scramble in comparison to coming along and taking away not only the bread and butter for that province but for the whole country before they’ve had a chance to develop the new technology. Everyone knows that when you go from A to B, you need to know where am I today, how am I going to get there, how long it’s going to take me, and what’s it going to cost. Now, we all know where this wellbeing Government wants to be in 20 or 30 or 40 years in terms of what they want for this country, but nobody out there is certain about what does it mean tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year, because the tools that we had are being taken away before new tools have been developed, and taxes are being talked about before we have the tools to mitigate. So it’s a disaster. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Huri noa ki a tātou katoa ōku hoa kaimahi, tēnā koutou. The wellbeing of our people and our environment should be at the centre of everything that we in this House do. It should be at the centre of all the decisions we make because it will ensure that our grandchildren’s grandchildren have any sort of dignified and sustainable future. So I am proud to be part of a Government that is starting to take a different approach for the first time through this Wellbeing Budget, an approach which the Greens have long championed and called for, because right now truly transformational economic, social, and environmental solutions are needed more than ever. The way that we respond to the climate, inequality, and biodiversity crises in Aotearoa will lead the way for a world based on justice for people and our planet. So I wanted to pick up on a few of the initiatives that I’m proud of that the Greens, being at the table, have managed to secure, including across welfare, transport, mental health, and the environment.

Also, I wanted to be very clear that the Greens know that there’s more we need to do, that we need to be even bolder right now to meet the urgency and the scale of the challenges we face, because the climate crisis poses an existential threat to our planet and way of life. The science already shows us that we only have 12 years, tops, to transform our economy to focus on sustainability and wellbeing rather than what we have been held hostage to forever, which is profit at all costs. While our economy has grown in some measures, other measures are still a raging concern. Too many people are facing housing insecurity, our waterways have been degraded to the point where too many of our awa are too polluted to swim in and 4,000 of our native species are facing the risk of extinction.

So I’m pleased to see that the climate change and environmental and conservation work that the Greens have been able to do under the leadership of our fabulous Ministers has come through in this Budget, including laying the foundations to tackle the climate crisis with a transition to a low-carbon economy and getting up the Climate Change Commission. But I also want to acknowledge many civilians, societies, and groups, including School Strike 4 Climate and their calls for more honest and substantive Government action. So that is something that the Greens will absolutely have a strong voice on.

I cannot leave out in my speech heralding the $180 million in conservation funding, especially through the tourism levy and the international visitor conservation levy, because our indigenous species are calling out for our protection, and so safeguarding indigenous biodiversity was able to be championed through this Budget.

I want to acknowledge iwi leadership and water and the funding that will help iwi in Whanganui, Gisborne, and in my northern Ōmāpere area improve the health of local waterways, because the leadership of mātauranga Māori will be essential to enduring conservation for our whole country, for all of our waterways, and for our generations to come.

I want to be very clear that we need more investment in public and State housing. Everyone needs a decent home to live in, and we need real investment in public housing, not just extraction of profit by private landlords, which is what we have seen for far too long. We need to move away from housing as a commodity and understand housing as a human right for everyone. The Wellbeing Budget made significant steps to ensure the improvement and expansion of support under programmes like Housing First, which, essentially, puts in the supports—social supports and health supports—and ensures that we can put people into homes. We’re going to extend that with an extra 1,044 people and places. So I was particularly pleased to see that for people with a disability and families with children who struggle with homelessness and insecure housing in particular.

Beyond this Budget, though, the Greens will keep focusing on ensuring a rent-to-own or a progressive homeownership scheme, and that’s what we agreed to with Labour as part of our confidence and supply agreement. A rent-to-own scheme is just one policy that will help the very people that, actually, my colleague Jami-Lee Ross previously talked about—people who are not even entertaining the thought of ever owning their own home and properly putting down roots in their own community. They haven’t got a chance of raising any sort of a deposit. The Green Party is very clear that we want to bring back the principle of a Government-funded scheme in partnership with other organisations to allow for more people to actually own a home. This will add to the security and sense of community relationships—schooling, ensuring children can stay put for longer, is what I see would fill a massive gap in the trend that we are currently seeing of less people being able to afford to raise a deposit and own their own homes. So we’ll stay really strong and loud over that.

Listen, we’ve heard Ministers across the House, actually, rightfully, praise Under-Secretary Jan Logie and her leadership on the work to eliminate sexual and domestic violence and the work to a joined-up approach, across ministries and agencies, to be able to, for the first time ever, have such a transformational approach to ending and eliminating domestic and sexual violence. I too proudly—proudly—herald the work of Jan Logie in pushing something in a way that the Hon Grant Robertson as finance Minister also upholds as being quite a revolutionary approach to working with our Budget bids. So we are particularly proud of that work.

But change needs to continue, and I want to finish my focus somewhat on the Whakamana Tāngata report, the expert advisory report—quite a historical report that seeks to understand what needs to change in our social security support system. A range of diverse experts who were on that panel came out with a very clear blueprint for how we can actually ensure that people can seek security and income with a sense of dignity. For decades, successive Governments, actually, have at best allowed our social support system to stagnate, but at worst we’ve deliberately eroded it, leaving families and people without enough to survive, leaving people in low-paying jobs, struggling to be able to survive without a good social security net.

So we are very clear, and it was good to see some changes come through this Budget, including tagging benefit increases to wage growth, including removing some of the harsh sanctions and allowing for people to earn more before their budgets are cut. But the report, the expert report, was very clear: we need base income amounts to increase, and that is something that the Greens will be very clear on as part of our confidence and supply agreement to properly overhaul our social security support system.

When we are facing entrenched inequality and poverty and unstable climate and rapid loss of species and ecosystems, we know that truly transformative economic, social, and environmental change has never been more important. I’m proud of what our team, our Green team, has been able to achieve in Government, but we also know that there’s so much more that needs to happen right now, that we can actually do right now. The Greens will be insisting on seeing more of those changes coming through in the next Budget. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe I just have a few short minutes before—

Hon Grant Robertson: Precious moments.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: “A few precious moments.”, says the Minister of Finance, and I am going to take them, because, ladies and gentlemen, I was just looking at it, and there is no doubt about it that this well-meaning Budget is an abject failure—an abject failure. It fails to deliver for New Zealanders; it fails to deliver on the many promises that we have seen from this Government. It is a well-meaning Budget; there’s no way that there is that level of wellbeing.

We heard earlier when, actually, Winston Peters decided to go with Labour and form a Government and he talked a lot about how this was going to be the change and it was going to be a transformational Government and it was the pinnacle of where we were going to see—rather than the modified status quo that was National—this absolutely amazing change. Yeah, nah—yeah, nah. Maybe he meant that was in the big billion-dollar KiwiRail, but it certainly wasn’t a transformational Budget in what it could’ve been.

So, well-meaning—and I looked it up. The Collins Dictionary says well-meaning—[Interruption] I know, thank you. I know you guys didn’t, so that’s why I did. I know they didn’t look at wellbeing and what it means, because if they’d looked at wellbeing and what it means, they’d be delivering for New Zealanders on their promises. If they knew what wellbeing means, there would be more jobs for New Zealanders and not fewer. If they knew what wellbeing means, we would not have New Zealanders going overseas for cancer drugs and going to Givealittle because this Minister would not even give a little to Pharmac to see them. If they knew what wellbeing means, they would actually see fewer people living in cars and we’d see fewer children that are actually in poverty, both of which have gone up under this Government and are not getting delivered to in this Budget. So, Minister, if you want to start giving this side of the House a lecture on what wellbeing is, let me help you out.

Well-meaning, though, which is what I think it actually might be, because well-meaning means a person that intends to be helpful or kind but is unsuccessful or actually causes problems, and that, ladies and gentlemen, pretty much sums up this Budget. Yep, it might be kind, it might even have tried to have been a bit helpful, but it certainly has not delivered for New Zealanders.

I have been through what I think is missing in some of it, but let’s get to KiwiBuild. Can we get to KiwiBuild, because what—

Hon Jacqui Dean: Well, they haven’t.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, they haven’t got to KiwiBuild. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s like the babysitters are currently looking after the country and they’ve been on a little bit of a sugar rush, they’ve spent a lot of money, but it ain’t going to be long before they need mum and dad back because the food’s running out, they’re now living on the credit card, and, quite frankly, the mortgage needs to be paid.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): That was a fairly solid leadership bid there from the Hon Paula Bennett. Although, I strongly advise her not to use the Collins Dictionary—because I think if you look up, in the Collins Dictionary, the meaning of the word “utu” you might find that member’s name, possibly, under there.

I thank all members of the House for their contributions to the Budget debate. It is an important part of our system that we have a robust analysis of the Budget in this House. I’ve heard some magnificent speeches given, mostly from this side of the House, I have to say, but I also do acknowledge those on the other side of the House who have contributed.

On that note—just to diverge, briefly—I do want to acknowledge Amy Adams for her announcement today. She has dedicated herself to public service for well over a decade, was a Minister in the last Government, and, as I noted earlier on today, was part of an historic move to expunge convictions for people who were convicted before homosexual law reform; so I want to put on the record today, my appreciation for that and my acknowledgement of her service in this House. I wish her well for the future.

This Budget is fundamentally different from every Budget that has gone before in New Zealand. We promised, at the outset of this process, to focus on the long-term wellbeing of New Zealanders. I have news for the members opposite—that is, as I have travelled around New Zealand over the last few weeks, talking about the Budget, time and time again what I’ve heard from New Zealanders is finally there is a Government taking mental health seriously. Finally, after all these years, one of the biggest issues that has faced New Zealanders in terms of their wellbeing is actually being looked after. I want to give credit to Dr David Clark, the Minister of Health, who at the core of that package has come up with something that will change the lives of New Zealanders, that will save the lives of New Zealanders: and that is a new frontline mental health service—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What happened to your suicide target?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —so that wherever we are in New Zealand, we know that if there are issues for us or our whānau or our friends, we will actually be able to support those people to get the help they need at the front line. That $455 million investment will pay off time and time again.

Dr Smith is yelling out about suicide prevention services—$40 million in this Budget to finally actually begin the process of supporting New Zealanders who find themselves in those situations. But more than that: taking addiction services seriously, finding more residential prices for people who need support in that area, making sure that we enhance our nurses in schools programme, making sure that we actually deal with the addiction and mental health issues of people who are currently in prison. We know that if we can actually get to the root causes of crime, we can actually make sure not only that those people don’t reoffend again, but they come back and join us in society in a way that means they can contribute positively. Minister Kelvin Davis has produced, I think, one of the big step changes that are in this Budget in the way in which we focus on people in prison being supported to not reoffend again. I want to acknowledge Kelvin Davis for the terrific work that he did.

On the priority around improving child wellbeing, I do want to acknowledge what Marama Davidson said before. We have in front of us the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. Again, this is not a Government afraid to face up to the big challenges that are in front of us; and in this Budget we take meaningful steps to address that. For example, we are moving to the indexation of benefits to the average wage—again, the meaningful contribution that will make to people’s lives is recognised as I go right around New Zealand.

So also is the decision to stop so-called voluntary school donations. Actually, right across the country, those in decile 1 to 7 schools know that they can actually bank on this Government. I want to read what one school principal said: “As a citizen of Aotearoa, I want a Budget that is driven by values that result in a quality life for every person who lives here.” She went on to say: “The school donation change means that my school will be better off by $40,000.” The most the school had ever received in donations was $2,000. This principal went on to say: “So much in this Budget will start to move us to a country that is more equitable, compassionate, respectful, tolerant, and rich—in the widest sense of that word.”

What that lot over there don’t understand is that being wealthy and being rich in a country is not just about money. Yes, we want to be prosperous, but we also want to be rich as people. We want to be rich in terms of our environment. We want to be rich in terms of our communities. The myopic view of the other side of the House of what constitutes success is going to mean that they stay there for a very, very long time, because what they’re missing is that New Zealanders want a Government that values our overall wellbeing. They want a Government that is investing in children. They want a Government that is investing in making sure that our mental health system works properly.

I am also proud of the priority in this Budget that says that we can support Māori and Pasifika aspiration, because time and time again, when the evidence had shown that we needed to do better by Māori and Pasifika populations, the previous Government ignored that. Well, this Government’s not doing that—nearly half a billion dollars of initiatives to support Māori development, a big boost for Whānau Ora, and a big boost for languages.

I am proud to say that on this side of the House, the coalition Government has come together to say that we can do universal funding—and we are—and we can do targeted funding where we know that that works. I know among the Pasifika community as well, there’s a lot of support for the initiatives that we’re taking there too.

The priority where I think a lot of New Zealanders will see the long-term benefit is our work to build a more productive nation. I want to acknowledge my colleague David Parker for the work that he did to produce the $300 million fund that is going to lift the prospects of entrepreneurs in New Zealand and make sure that venture capital stays and flows through the New Zealand economy—I believe that will make a massive difference. A huge investment in innovation. A huge investment in transitioning to a new low-carbon economy.

Then there are the practical things. I was at the Tauranga Chamber of Commerce—perhaps you might not think of it as the most welcoming of places for a Labour finance Minister, but at that event the first thing they were saying is: “What’s Simon up to?” The second thing that they were saying to us is: “This is a Budget that supports productive business. This is a Budget that’s focused on a 21st century economy.”

It’s the small things in a Budget that can matter. The Business Connect programme: a single platform for business to interact with Government. It has been asked for for years; never came from the supposed party of business over there, but this Government is delivering on that. I am extremely proud of the fact that we’re doing that.

Then there are the big investments in our infrastructure that are contained in this Budget. Today we were down at the Wellington Railway Station with the four tenors: myself, Minister Jones, Minister Peters, and Minister Twyford—thankfully, Minister Jones was the only one who sang today. At that announcement, we were talking about the practical difference that more than a billion dollars of investment in our rail system will make in this country. On the other side of the House, they neglected rail. They didn’t care about the decline of our rail system. Today Simon Bridges was interjecting saying: “Oh, it’s a drop in the ocean.” It’s a billion dollar bigger drop than what that Government did at any point. We know this will need a sustained commitment—this will need a sustained commitment to rail. But on this side of the House, we have three parties in this Government who believe in rail—believe in the importance of it for our climate change goals, for improving productivity, for creating jobs, and for connecting the regions of New Zealand back with the cities of New Zealand.

We’ve made a big change in this Budget to a multi-year capital allowance, so we can plan ahead properly. Schools know what they’re going to be getting in terms of buildings for the next four or five years. The construction sector knows what they’re going to be getting for the next four or five years. In the health sector, we’ve got two $850 million capital spends. The last lot put virtually nothing in year on year.

This is a Budget that will transform New Zealand. This is a Budget that is about the overall wellbeing of our population. That means that in New Zealand we truly value the contribution of every New Zealander, and we measure our success alongside the values of New Zealand that, yes, we believe in prosperity but we also believe in making sure our environment is clean and protected. We believe in our people and we will invest in our people. We believe in strengthening our communities. That is what wellbeing is. This is the first Wellbeing Budget, and I am extremely proud of it, and there will be many, many more to come from this coalition Government.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges be agreed to:

replace the words after “That” with:

this House has no confidence in this bungling and incompetent Government because they are overseeing a slowing economy, declining job creation, a rising cost of living, and they are failing to deliver on their promises to New Zealanders.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2019/20 Estimates) Bill be read a second time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a second time.

Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill

First Reading

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill be now read a first time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a first time.

Bills

Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill

Second Readings

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill be now read a second time.

I thought it might be helpful at the outset to let members know exactly what these two bills are. The Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill makes new appropriations and changes to appropriations in the 2018/19 Estimates, to reflect decisions taken by the Government since the 2018/19 Estimates were finalised in April 2018, prior to Budget 2018. The Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill provides interim bulk spending authority for the first three months of the 2019/20 financial year, until the Appropriation (2019/20 Estimates) Bill is passed by the end of September.

Members should note that a sessional order, agreed to by the House on 8 November 2018, requires that the third reading debate on the main Appropriation Bill should be completed within four months after the Budget day, instead of the previous three months. Accordingly, the Imprest Supply Bill that is now in front of the House now provides for the first three months of the new financial year, instead of the first two months as in previous years.

I will run through some of the specific items in the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill that are outside of the normal process and are major items around the $50 million - plus mark. They actually highlight a number of the things I was talking about before, which are priorities for the Government.

I do want to start with one that will be noticeable for anyone who gets into the weeds and the detail of financial Estimates, and I welcome Mr Goldsmith to the House. That’s his future: in the weeds of those Estimates, trying to work out if he can understand what it all means in the finance portfolio. One of the things he’ll find, when he gets into the Supplementary Estimates, is that there is an extra $259.5 million to deal with Mycoplasma bovis. I do want to mention that today, as one of the things that the Government had to face up to and deal with that was unexpected. The first time we actually got any kind of indication of the bill for this was just after we confirmed the Budget for 2018, and so it is only appropriate today that when we look at the Supplementary Estimates bill, that amount of money is there.

I do want to put on the record of the House my acknowledgement of those farmers and those in the communities affected by Mycoplasma bovis, because this has been difficult. This has been a very challenging time. There were teething problems at the outset, in terms of the way in which the Ministry for Primary Industries and farmers work together. But, actually, they’ve come together now. Payments are being made, and forms of compensation, and I know around the Fieldays this year, there were still a few restrictions with moving day, but, actually, people had a much better understanding of how that works, and the additional funding provided in here for Mycoplasma bovis is extremely important in that regard.

As we go down the list of extra funding that’s required in the Supplementary Estimates, we come to the injection required to support the school property portfolio. This is an excellent example of the way in which this coalition Government is changing the way that we think about issues like school property. Shortly, the Minister of Education will release a long-term plan and vision around school property, but what we know is that for too long, the annualised allocation of money for school property has created uncertainty for schools, but it’s also created uncertainty for the construction sector. One of the things that we are moving to do is to provide much greater certainty.

Another initiative that’s covered in the Budget this year is the creation of the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission: another thing that the business community have been calling for for years, to have a clear pipeline of construction activity going out 30 years. Again, the so-called “party of business” across the aisle didn’t do anything about that.

Well, in this Budget we’re funding it, and combined with the multi-year capital allowance that we’ve established, there is now a pipeline, there is now certainty, and the construction and infrastructure sector are very pleased to be able to support that.

Another item that we’ll find in the Supplementary Estimates is around the question of health expenditure, and, in particular, the equity required for capital projects in health. Towards the end of my contribution in the last debate, I was making the point that last year the coalition Government put aside $750 million for health capital expenditure. Now, as the Prime Minister has made the point, some of the spending is actually not all that sexy. She’s going to the reopening of lifts. Well, that’s because the lifts weren’t working in a whole lot of our hospitals. And that’s why we have to do the very, very basic maintenance that was let go under the previous Government. What we know is that there were actually some years where there was almost no health capital expenditure set aside. In the year before we came into office, I think it was around about $150 million. We upped it to $750 million, and now we’ve given two years of $850 million for health capital, because we know that investing in the quality of our health facilities will save lives. It will also improve the working experience of those dedicated health professionals that we have. So the money in the Supplementary Estimates to support health capital is absolutely essential.

Another of the initiatives in the Supplementary Estimates is the gun buy-back fund. I do want to make an acknowledgement here of the New Zealand Police and the work that they are doing to facilitate the decision of this House by 119 to one—I’m not even sure if Mr Seymour actually made it for the vote in the end, but certainly the vast bulk of people in the House supported the passing of the law to ban military style semi-automatic weapons. We now have to have a system in place to make sure that those weapons are returned safely. We have done that via the funding that is in this Budget and in this bill. We have acknowledged that it may be that there is some additional funding needed for this. We’re going on the basis of the advice that officials have given us up to this point. But this is a significant moment for New Zealand—that we move not only in response to the events of 15 March but also to make sure that New Zealanders feel safe in their own country, and that those people who go about using guns on their farms or through duck shooting also know that they’re in a position to be able to do that. I am very pleased to be able to say that that funding is in this Budget.

I also want to make a special reference to the support that is in this Budget around tertiary education and, indeed, the funding of tertiary education through tuition subsidies. We made a very conscious decision in this Budget to shift funding across to support vocational education and training. What that means, in laypersons terms, is that we are actually, finally, going to be supporting trades training and apprenticeships in the way that we should have for a very long time. I greatly value the fact that people in New Zealand go to universities, get qualifications, and carry on and contribute to our society, but that will not be the only pathway for people. We need to properly value the trades in New Zealand, and through this Budget, through the allocation that we’ve made of $197 million towards our reforms of vocational education training, we will start to properly value those apprenticeships in our scheme.

The other half of this piece of legislation is the Imprest Supply (First for 2018/19) Bill. I just want to make really clear to members opposite, who, bizarrely, voted against the first reading of the Imprest Supply (First for 2018/19) Bill: that’s what keeps the lights on in Government for the next three or four months. That’s what pays the salaries of the public servants that we have. This is about making sure that money is available, and, historically, I think you’ll find that mostly the imprest supply bills have flowed through this House. But what that shows you is the incredibly negative mindset of members opposite. We’ve seen throughout the Budget debate, and then in that vote on the first reading of this bill, an Opposition party that only knows the negative; they cannot see the positive. Well, actually, that’s nearly true—the Leader of the Opposition actually said, in commenting on the Budget, that there were some things he really liked in it. He hasn’t told us what they are yet, but he did say that there were some things that he really liked in it.

So it is my pleasure to commend these two bills to the House. They represent the changes that have been made in the Estimates over the last year and appropriations, and they represent the next three months of expenditure after 1 July so that the operations of Government can continue. This represents further the implementation of the Government’s wellbeing agenda, and this is a bill that I am very proud to commend to the House.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. I, up until about an hour or so ago didn’t have this spokespersonship, and so it’s been an interesting afternoon. I’d like to start by, I suppose, acknowledging my predecessor in the role, Amy Adams, who today has announced her impending retirement from politics. She will have had 12 years and made a massive contribution over many years to New Zealand’s politics in her many roles in Cabinet, and through the time in Opposition. Over the past 18 months she’s worked hard to hold this Government to account for its spending decisions and its taxing decisions.

We’ll be opposing this bill primarily on the grounds that it relates to some of the Supplementary Estimates that have been added to this bill, which are a reflection of very poor Government decision-making over the past few months; not all—some. I’ll take the House through this over the next little while, but the point I’d make, first up, as the Minister said, is that these are issues that we work together constructively on and that is, indeed, the case. I’ve taken up the role as finance spokesperson and am very keen to work constructively in support of this Government where it makes suitable decisions, and where it’s working in the interests of all New Zealanders to grow our economy. I’ll also be very focused on holding them to account where things go wrong. We’re seeing plenty of examples of this, because when we look at what this bill is about, it’s about ensuring that we’ve got an extra $150 million that we’ve spent, that we haven’t budgeted for, for the gun buyback, for example, and an extra couple of hundred million for dealing with the Mycoplasma bovis incident.

The point that that shows is that there’s always something unexpected turning up in Government—anything. There’s always something unexpected that you don’t plan for when you do your annual Budget. The previous National Government had, of course, a couple of colossal examples of that, with the Canterbury earthquakes, which sent us from being in a position where we could have got ourselves back into surplus to, suddenly, having an $18 billion deficit in one year. Then, of course, you have the global financial crisis, which is another thing where it came along out of the blue and all of a sudden the accounts that the Government had made for the Budget, suddenly, no longer step up. So it reinforces the importance of having well-disciplined and thought through Government policies in the Budget every year, and that, unfortunately, is not what we’re seeing from this Government.

What we’re seeing so far is pretty much a bog-standard left-wing Government where you come in and say, “We’re going to take the economy for granted and just assume that it doesn’t matter what additional costs and uncertainty that we add to business; business is there to continue to be milked and the economy will just keep clipping along”. That doesn’t happen, and we’ve seen that, in this Government, in this country, at a time when we have got historically high terms of trade, where the prices that New Zealand exporters are getting for their products, with the exception of wool, are at historic highs and we should be booming as a country. When you go around the regions, as Mr Jones does on a regular basis, you go to Hawke’s Bay and places like that and you see that all the mayors will tell you, “I can’t remember a time when the prices that we’ve been getting for our goods have been so high”. So at a time when New Zealand should be booming, in fact, what we’re seeing is the economy slowing dramatically. As the Governor of the Reserve Bank said a couple of months ago, there’s been a “sharp decline” in the New Zealand economy.

So that’s one path. At the same time, the Government is rapidly increasing its spending up to $3.8 billion of new spending, this time. We were spending, back in 2015, for example, a billion dollars. So they’ve almost quadrupled the amount of new spending. So on the one hand, you’ve got a slowing economy; on the other hand, you’ve got rapidly increasing spending, and New Zealanders can work out what’s going to happen as a result of that. They can work out, well, where does all the money come from? Well, it’s going to come from extra taxes somewhere down the line, or increased borrowing, and that’s what worries New Zealanders, and it’s why there’s such low levels of confidence, and such concern, out there.

So given that, when you have a bill like this which reminds you that anything can come out of the blue in the economy and you can, suddenly, be hit by massive unexpected expenditures, and if you’re not budgeting well, you’re not keeping within your means, and if you’re not disciplined about how you spend, then you quickly run into trouble. So this Government, when it came into power less than 20 months ago, inherited an amazing set of books with surpluses out as far as the eye could see, getting bigger and bigger. Already, we’re only in the second year of this Government, and its second Budget, and when we look at the forecasts for next year, the surplus is wafer thin. Wafer thin, zero point—what is the surplus presumed for 2019? As a percentage of GDP, it’s very small indeed.

Hon Willie Jackson: What is it?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m trying to find it. It’s so small I can’t see it—so small I can’t see it. Here we go: 0.4 percent of GDP for 2020. Now, we can see when we consider this bill, if you’ve got a projected surplus of 0.4 percent of GDP, then there’s a very high chance we’ll be back in deficit in no time at all. So you’ve come in, you’ve inherited an economy that was booming at nearly 4 percent with surpluses as far as the eye can see, and within 20 months you have halved the growth and we’re looking at potential deficits within a year or two’s time. So that is an indictment on the economic management of this Government, and it’s something we’ll be holding them to account on. It’s one thing just to say you want to spend more; you actually also need to focus on how the wealth is created and accept that Government policies have a real influence upon that.

So if we look at some of the other things that have been done by this bill, which as I, again, explain—the purpose of this bill, the primary purpose with the Supplementary Estimates, is to say that this time last year, the Government brought in a Budget, they said this is what we’re going to spend, this is what we’re going to bring in, and this is what we’re going to spend for this year. But by the end of the year, they figured out, actually, there’s a whole bunch of things that they had to spend that they didn’t plan for. So this bill makes those expenditures legal. So one of things that we’re changing is the extra $167 million for job seekers—for benefits. Well, what an astounding thing. So when this Government came in, they inherited an economy that was creating 10,000 jobs a month—10,000 new jobs a month. We’ve got Willie Jackson in charge of employment, and under his stewardship of the portfolio, we’ve gone from 10,000 jobs a month to negative—we’re losing jobs. We lost 4,000 jobs in the last three months.

We’ve got Shane Jones over there, who’s been given $3 billion in a job creation scheme, and he’s spending all that money to destroy jobs. You’ve got half a billion dollars devoted to forestry, where you convert land that’s currently used for sheep and beef farming, and convert two-thirds of it into native forestry, destroying jobs in the process. So we get to spend half a billion dollars to destroy jobs. It’s very strange. Then, the jobs that actually do need to be done to plant the trees—he wants to bring people from Melanesia to do those jobs, so it’s very hard to work out how that system works in terms of getting value for money.

But the upshot of it all is that notwithstanding the record high export prices we’ve got and the huge job creation we had in the previous Government, we’re now having to spend an extra $67 million on job seekers—on benefits—because benefits have increased. One explanation for it, apart from the poor economic management is the fact that one thing the Government have done in the welfare space is remove sanctions and obligations on people in order to get back to doing work, which I think the average New Zealander struggles to understand.

Then, we’ve got an extra $50 million shifting the underspend in the free fees area for universities, which is another, frankly, fiasco from this Government. They came in, they said that they were going to spend $2.8 billion on tertiary education in order to increase the access to tertiary education for New Zealanders, and then, lo and behold, they found out that fewer New Zealanders were going. That is, I suppose, one of the most dramatic examples of where this Government seem to think that they can achieve things merely by announcing that they’re going to spend more money on it, but, actually, the delivery of quality outcomes is much, much harder.

The other famous example of that, of course, is KiwiBuild, where they said they were going to build 100,000 new homes over 10 years, and they’ve completely given up. Poor old Phil Twyford should be shifted on on Thursday. Nobody’s quite sure if he will be, but in any normal Government that lack of delivery would be curtains.

So this bill should be making the Government think very carefully about—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired. Before I call the Hon Willie Jackson, can I just remind members—I didn’t interrupt the member. But when members are speaking, I remind members to use the correct honorifics and the correct titles and full names, even in interjection.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Tuatahi ko taku mahara ki tō tātou rangatira, a Jim Maniapoto. E te matua, haere ki te taha o tō tātou matua tipuna kua riro ki te pō rā. Haere, haere, haere atu rā. Ko tēnei te pō, nau mai te ao.

[May I firstly pay tribute to our revered leader, Jim Maniapoto. Farewell, sir, to take your place alongside our ancestor who has gone before you. Farewell, farewell, fare thee well. This is the darkness; I welcome the light.]

I’m just doing a little poroporoaki there, Mr Assistant Speaker, to someone who passed away last week in your electorate, a man who made a major contribution to Māoridom and to New Zealand: Jim Maniapoto, the last of the Maniapoto line. I mention him because I know how much he supported the type of people who we in Labour are supporting, particularly in that area. He was a brother-in-law, a whanaunga, to Georgina te Heuheu, who is part of the National Party. I suspect a number of the Maniapoto whānau voted for National, but they were supporters of the principles of what we talk about. It was a sad loss last week, the last of the Maniapoto brothers dying, and it was a big tangi up there—legends in rugby, legends in Te Ao Māori—and it’s only right that I mihi to him.

It’s a pleasure to talk today after Mr Goldsmith—the Hon Mr Goldsmith, I should say—because after his big promotion, it’s good to see that he has been supported there in the National Party. They’re looking for talent, and who knows where he’s going to be tomorrow.

But I stand today to take a call on the second reading of this bill. I want to congratulate our Minister of Finance in terms of what he’s done, and I’ve already made a contribution in terms of Māori and the Budget and what’s happened. I’ve covered those gains in terms of Māori, but I’d like to talk about what Budget 2018-19 and what the Wellbeing Budget means in terms of employment. In 2018-19, we announced funding for skills in employment programmes, and at the very heart of them, we wanted to address the skills shortages that were left by the previous Government—a huge hole in terms of the previous Government, a huge hole left in our communities that we have had to go out and fix up. That’s why I celebrate the work done in terms of the Hon Shane Jones and the Provincial Growth Fund.

We have seen, first-hand, regions who have been crying out for help. In the Ngāti Kahungunu area—a classic example—in the East Coast area, and in the Tai Tokerau, we have had regions that have been surviving just on baseline, and we have seen employers who have asked for help. So we can tell you today the type of work that’s been happening there and the type of support that a lot of our regions are getting. In terms of young people, we don’t want young people having to abandon their regions in search of dignified, skilled employment pathways.

We want an economy that works for everyone, and the previous speaker, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, talked about this wonderful economy that was left by the previous Government. Yes, we know employment was going well and things were going well for so many people, apart from Māori people and Pacific Island people and women and disabled people and all the people in all the groups that count in our world.

In our first two Budgets, we have committed funding for our employment programmes, that I want to briefly talk about, and those four programmes have been He Poutama Rangatahi, Mana in Mahi, Pae Aronui, and cadetships through Te Puni Kōkiri. Now, He Poutama Rangatahi received $26 million of new funding from the Wellbeing Budget over two years, focused on supporting rangatahi—young people—across the four existing regions of He Poutama Rangatahi but extending to the surge regions of the Provincial Growth Fund. Existing programmes are working with over 2,500 young people—rangatahi—who are most at risk of becoming long-term unemployed.

Now, these are the people the Hon Shane Jones has talked about. We all remember his kōrero when he talked about getting the nephs off the couch. This is the type of programme that is backing that, giving young people an opportunity where they never had an opportunity. They are young people, sometimes, who have come from intergenerational unemployment. Sometimes, they’ve come from families that struggle, families that have had too much drug use, too much alcohol. These are the sorts of whānau that we’ve been hitting. The Hon Shane Jones talked about them, and it may have been a provocative kōrero about a year back, when he said he wanted to get his nephs off the couch. That was not exactly embraced by some of the politically correct, but it was a message that rang home the fact that we had too many of those young people just wandering around doing nothing. So we have been able to get to them through He Poutama Rangatahi and Shane Jones’ Provincial Growth Fund.

The new funding will allow for further investment into these young people in the community in which they live, meaning they don’t have to move away from their support networks in order to have strong employment futures. I want to give some of those examples out there of the types of groups we’ve been funding: the Northland College pine plantation, completed with 12 of the 15 participants still in full-time work; Tupu Ake, a forest protection service with 30 rangatahi, developing skills and employment in forestry and ecological management; and a Hastings District Council youth connector programme, with more than 45 rangatahi into full-time employment and with 17 employers engaged in that programme. Everywhere we’re looking, we’re getting the support and the encouragement from people in the regions, and sometimes we get National Party MPs coming to our releases, which we embrace and we support, despite the criticism I’m hearing today.

Also, Mana in Mahi is a major kaupapa for us. Formerly seen as working for the dole, I changed that name. I changed it because there is mana in mahi. There is mana—whatever type of job you’re doing, whatever type of work you’re doing, at least you’re working, at least you’re being productive, and at least you’re supporting yourself and your whānau. That’s why Mana in Mahi fits the bill perfectly. We budgeted $49.8 million from the Wellbeing Budget over four years in terms of Mana in Mahi participants. Mana in Mahi is an existing programme that supports people, particularly in the 18- to 24-year-old area. With the $49.8 million, we want to extend Mana in Mahi to an extra 1,850 places. It was funded through baseline during phase 1 for 150 places. That number has been met and phase 1 was intended to strengthen the settings of Mana in Mahi, particularly around partial care both for participant and the employer. Mana in Mahi will contribute to lifting Māori and Pasifika income, skills, and opportunities by assisting participants to achieve and maintain employment, and will motivate them to participate in formal industry training. It’s a scheme that I think we should all be proud of, because we’re getting our young people productive and we’re supporting employers and we’re supporting our communities.

I’ll read again the next part. More than 225 young people have commenced employment—225 people—through Mana in Mahi placements, with 385 employers registering interest in the programme. Where someone is unable to complete their Mana in Mahi placement, the Ministry of Social Development will work with both participant and employer to see if they can do things differently, to ensure that their participant is supported further.

Also we have what’s called Pae Aronui. Now, that’s funded through Budget 2018. It’s a programme aimed at tackling the number of Māori young people who aren’t engaged in earning and learning—very similar to Poutama Rangatahi. [Member knocks his microphone] Excuse me, Madam Speaker.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Passionate.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Very passionate, yes. It’s very similar to both Poutama Rangatahi, looking after our young people in the urban areas, in the south, in the Aucklands, in the West Aucklands, in the Hamiltons, in the Poriruas, in the Hutt Valleys—young people wandering around not doing enough, not being productive enough, but we’re getting them engaged, getting them into training, and getting them into possible mahi.

Also, there are the cadetships through Te Puni Kōkiri (TPK). We’ve got $6 million, from the Wellbeing Budget, over four years to expand the cadet programme through TPK. This is achieved by providing funding to employers to support the employment, development, and mentoring of Māori candidates.

It’s clear that when we became the Government there was a tremendous amount of work to do, but I’m proud of some of the initiatives that we now have out on the table. This is a Government that cares. This is a passionate Government who inherited nine years of no investment. We believe in dignity for our people, dignity for our young people, dignity in terms of jobs, and I’m proud to support this kaupapa. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s very nice to be able to talk in this debate. It was good hearing that Minister talking about work, and, of course, that’s his key responsibility. I think the first thing I would say is that we also support the ideal of working, because of all the dignity that comes with that. That is an essential role. But I just couldn’t but help, as I listened to the Minister talk about his portfolio—you know, he talked a good shop about all these wonderful proposals they’re doing. It sounds really nice—Mana in Mahi, and all that sort of stuff—but the reality is, I think, the essence is: what are we delivering—what are we delivering? That is the issue with this Government.

This is a Government that is failing to deliver on its promises. The very point that he’s chosen to talk about—we have seen a wholesale decline not only in economic activity over the last 19 months; we’ve seen a $3 billion loss of economic activity per annum—per annum. That is a huge impact on every small business in New Zealand, with the consequential loss of preparedness to go and employ someone. And that’s why we’re seeing the trend in the loss of new job creation. It’s nice talking about the platitudes and the new policies, and it sounds wonderful, and lots of money. That’s just talking about outputs and putting money into new programmes because we want to be seen to be doing lots. But the issue is: what are the deliverables and what are the targets and what are the outcomes?

What I know is that when we were in power, only a short 19 months ago, we were creating 10,000 jobs a month, and we actually created 240,000 jobs over a period of three years—an incredible number of new jobs. And since this Government’s come into play—since this Government has come into play and in operation—we have seen a wholesale decline. In fact, as the newly appointed finance spokesperson noted—and the Hon Paul Goldsmith will be excellent in the role—that’s come about through people losing confidence. And it’s not hard to understand why that is.

When you think about what it means for small businesses, and I’ve got our spokesperson beside me, the Hon Jacqui Dean—you know, when you bring in much more union-friendly labour laws, and there is always a role for unions, but when you talk about higher minimum wages, which will ripple right through the employment of a business, and when you talk about capital gains tax and when you add all the other uncertainties, that’s what leads to people saying, “I’m not going to take on new people.” That’s the issue about job creation, and that’s why I think that Minister’s not going to be able to deliver anything in this term of Government while he is in charge. [Interruption] He is failing; that is right.

Yesterday, I had a fascinating day. I happened to be in Auckland and I’d been asked to go along to quite an interesting conference. It was actually called the BuildNZ conference, and it had a whole stack of components, actually. It had KiwiBuild, and a very exciting and interesting discussion going on there. It had a suite of rooms at the Auckland showgrounds with all these people who were demonstrating all the fantastic products and services that are taking place in the housing and building and construction industry. So I was very lucky because I was able to be asked, and I was given half an hour, to talk about what National might do in the area of building and construction. Of course, I accepted that invitation very readily when it was sent to me, because why would I not go and be proud of what we’re going to do and what we’ve done? That’s why when I went there and there were, I think, probably about 200 people in the room—I don’t want to exaggerate, but of that order. It was good to be able to traverse a whole range of issues about what needs to be done and what we will do. I’ve got to say it was a relatively friendly sort of atmosphere.

I also had the opportunity to go into the KiwiBuild section and actually got asked a question while I was there, because people acknowledged me. Duncan Garner, who was MC’ing, gave me the opportunity to briefly respond to some questions. It was interesting—it was interesting—it was interesting. It was interesting that the Minister wasn’t there. I just was at a loss—I was at a loss because there were so many excited people in that room who were saying, “Look, get on with it. Get on with KiwiBuild.” But, unfortunately, there was no one there. There was no there to answer that question at the time when it was raised. Now, I do want to acknowledge the Hon Jenny Salesa. I do have to acknowledge you, Minister, because you did have the courage to turn up at one o’clock, I think. Unfortunately, I had to go just before you turned up, but I know you came for I think about 40 minutes—for about 40 minutes. What you should have been, Minister—and I know you were very careful not to talk about housing, because that’s not—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Address your comments to the Chair, thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY: Sorry. I know the Minister was very careful not to talk about housing, even though she was asked on a number of occasions, because, you know, that’s not your portfolio. But that’s right. You are certainly building and construction. I think the Minister of Housing and Urban Development should have been there. I really do. There were a lot of people asking about it and it was a missed opportunity. Do you know why—do you know why? The question is that this is the Government that promised 16,000—I have to repeat it to myself; 16,000—new homes in their first term—

Tim van de Molen: How many?

ANDREW BAYLY: 16,000, and there’s 140, I think, done. There are 140 built. And of course those owners of those building firms in that room who rely on the housing market to make a living, to look after them and pay for their families, and create a living for new people to get new jobs—oh, sorry. They’re not employing people at the moment because they were so concerned about the conditions of the housing market and the signals that are coming out of this Government.

I actually had one woman come up to me and she asked a public question about the stresses that they were facing in their business. They had had no orders for four months. The stress coming out of that industry because of the concerns about what’s going on—she talked about the liquidity, the banks toughening up. She was even talking about what she might do with her house. This is a market that is not working at the moment, and that’s why the people were there. They wanted to have an honest conversation. I think it was a very disappointing thing that the Minister didn’t show up.

But the worst thing, I think, is the claim that this Government is making: you know, they talk about all the different shops and different things they’re doing. They talk about Hobsonville Land Company—and I know Chris Aiken personally from a long time ago. He has done a great job. But that was a project initiated under the National Government. And then there are all the projects that they’re talking about that they’re doing, which I find slightly disconcerting, because Minister Twyford is very, very keen to talk about further developments at Mount Roskill, Northcote, Porirua, Māngere—a total of 27,000 houses, but unfortunately all those were commenced under a National Government.

In this Supplementary Estimates debate, one of the things that has come into these Supplementary Estimates is the issue of the buying off the plans cost. Now, we had Minister Twyford in before the select committee, and when we asked him publicly what is the cost of the underwrite, which is in effect the cost of buying houses from developers, should they not be in a position to sell, he repeatedly says that it is a zero cost. However, in this Budget—in this Budget—there is $210 million set aside for the cost of the underwrite. I struggle to reconcile the comments of the Minister. But the other issue that came out is that this Government is paying and buying those houses off the developers after 60 days. That’s a current sell time for a house, yet they’ve allocated $200 million to do that underwrite.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Ordinarily, it’s midnight when you hear howling. But the word “howl”, which is a verb, a doing word, is actually a protracted, prolonged cry of distress. That is not a cry for what was; it’s for what’s lying ahead. And in the context of this Budget, it is difficult for our colleagues on the other side of the House to understand it, because it’s got such a long-term vision they can never envision themselves being on this side of the House until the new leader of the National Party—leaving Air New Zealand—arrives. That’s got to be at least 2029.

I just want to remind the member Andrew Bayly, who’s sat down, that this is the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill. This is the imprest supply bill which actually enables us to enjoy interim spending authority until such time as the magnum opus has been passed. Now that I have explained that technicality to my colleagues on the other side of the House, let me focus—

Chris Penk: You voted against it in the last Government.

Hon SHANE JONES: —let me focus. Ah, I hear further noises from the back. Those are the noises actually inversely related to TV ONE on Friday, where the sitting member of Northland gushed enthusiastically. There was a torrent of congratulatory remarks in the National Party as to how well I’m doing in the provinces—how well I’m doing in the provinces. He’d better go and tell the new guy Christopher Bishop that he’s already agreed with a lot of what’s covered in this particular bill, in the sense of what the Budget represents—that he’s already conceded—but, of course, Christopher Bishop will soon understand, when he stands on his feet, that I’m not a Māori like Wally Haumaha. I’m not a guy to be bullied. I’m not a guy to be lied about. However, let me come back to transforming the economy, for fear of your issuing yet another admonition in my direction.

There’s a lot of fear amongst the people who wanted to tarmac—tarmac—New Zealand’s economy into the treacherous zone of climate change danger. Now, we have taken a more balanced and fair approach, which is why the interim authority that we seek is necessary, because, as a consequence of this morning, we’ve already started in terms of projects, employing people, rolling out the strategy for KiwiRail. Of course, the rail vision is not only in the regions. We are redressing the neglect in Auckland. And, today, Mr Twyford spoke about something that I do agree with, actually, in Auckland, which is providing another track to cope with the congestion. But, in relation to “Where is rail” in this Budget, and going forward, going to stand, it gives New Zealand businesses, investors—both domestic and foreign—a new opportunity to create both improved freight strategies but tourism as well.

Now, of course, the other side of the House aren’t interested in reducing emissions; they are creating them. But the pollution isn’t to the climate; the pollution is to the body politic. Now, of course, there’s a lot of cynicism expressed on the other side of the House about our extension services for agriculture. Now, we know that the farmers, we know that agribusiness leaders, do have a lot of anxiety about the future, and I have agreed to meet with the “Shady” group and I’ve said, “Come to the office and talk to me about your problems pertaining to the conversion of farmland into trees.” I have acknowledged that it’s physically impossible for them to channel Nathan Guy, because that would be a public health warning. So I look forward to them coming and working constructively on the projects currently covered in the Budget and in the interim authority we are seeking and passing as we wend our way through this process. Forestry has an incredibly important role to play not only in biodiversity, not only in catchment consolidation, not only in employment and exports but in providing an option to buy time while the heavy emitters—the heavy industry—seek ways to invest in science, technology, and improvements to their business in the context of our new climate change challenges.

Now, of course, research and development is something that our party regards as a key enabler, and we’re looking forward as the farmers come forward and say, “OK, we know that we’re being dragged along on a journey. We’ve mucked around. We tried to destroy Peter Hodgson in the days of Helen Clark. We knew we’d get a free pass from the John Key - Government.”—I shouldn’t mention the former Prime Minister’s name; I might receive the ire of my own leader. I’ll leave him and Mr Key to their unfinished business. But if we don’t have focused research and technology investment in areas such as gene editing, it’s very difficult to see where the farming community, where the agribusiness community, is going to find the solution. So I look forward to working with them. There’s considerable scope in that regard.

Of course, I should finish, as would be required of me, by talking about the Provincial Growth Fund. Now, just to remind the tiny group of New Zealanders who may not have heard me speaking about the fund in the past, the fund is dedicated, over a three-year period, to turn around the fortunes of the provinces by identifying deserving projects in terms of infrastructure. And, of course, recently we opened the Kerikeri Airport, Māori language mishaps aside, and then we have proceeded to invest in enablers within the agribusiness sector, because we like water storage; water storage is very important for the rural economy, and Hawke’s Bay has enjoyed our attention in that regard. Then there are specific injections of equity. I tried unsuccessfully on behalf of the Government to do something with Westland dairy. I didn’t know that Westland dairy was going through a process of being offloaded, but I’m sure others will talk about that at another time. But the most important thing is that the Provincial Growth Fund is going into territory that the earlier Government was unwilling to invest money in. They were prepared to take the money that we have used and are recycling into deserving projects, and they were going to give it away in tax cuts, and those tax cuts were going to benefit a tiny minority of New Zealanders; whereas our focus, quite frankly, is boosting equity in the provinces.

An area where that equity is now coming to pass is in digital connectivity. Now, there’s one thing I’ll say for Steven Joyce, despite what the Minister of Finance might say about him; there’s one area that did work out well—he may not have come up with this—and that was the investment in digital connectivity. An area, however, that has been overlooked is those particular spots around rural New Zealand that have not been able to attract attention. Therefore, the significant amount of money that we’ve dedicated—nigh on $80 million to $100 million—through the Provincial Growth Fund will provide an opportunity to create regional digital hubs, continue to connect those areas with there are black spots, where ordinary things that we take for granted in this House are denied our rural folk because we haven’t been able to attend to those areas of neglect.

And, on the Māori side—obviously, I’m very interested in this—is digitising the connections with marae to bring the young people back to the marae so that the marae represents a modern opportunity for them not only to celebrate identity but to remain connected all around the world. Now, of course, I accept that as more marae are connected, there’s going to be an increased awareness about how important security is, because a lot of the marae are in neglected areas, but that’s a specific case where we’re doing things at the big end of town with the agricultural sector, we’re doing things at the largest end of town with infrastructure and KiwiRail, and we have not forgotten about the people in the kūmara garden, down in the weeds and seeds. And when you have a Government that seeks to join all of those elements together, then you have sustainable economic development. You don’t have the self-induced feeding frenzy that we’re seeing in our largest bank. You don’t have that culture of entitlement which we’re seeing in the ANZ, our largest bank. I’m sure the Governor of the Reserve Bank will have more to say about that, and, hopefully, he penalises the directors, not unlike those who have paraded around believing their corporate virtue is beyond cavil. So watch this space. I’m sure there’s bad news on the way for them. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): It’s a pleasure for me to take a call on the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, and I want to start with a bouquet to the Government. I want to acknowledge that, in the Supplementary Estimates, there’s a belated appropriation of $259 million for the Government’s effort and the farmers’ efforts and the meat industry’s efforts to do away with Mycoplasma bovis. This is a very large appropriation in the Supplementary Estimates, and I think it’s a good call. What the Government and the industry are embarking on is, potentially, a world first—to eradicate a disease that’s known to have recently arrived to New Zealand.

So I want to take this opportunity to thank the Government for agreeing to be part of the programme. It’s a Government that farmers don’t often see as being attuned to rural New Zealand. It’s a Government that certainly hasn’t got a lot of credibility within the farming community. But this was a call that was made by the Government. It’s a brave call; it’s not a programme that’s guaranteed to succeed, although, at this stage, the information we’re getting on a relatively regular basis via the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) suggests that the programme is on track. It hasn’t been enacted without huge frustration amongst some of the farming community, and anybody who’s incurred this disease on their farm has certainly had some frustrating moments dealing with MPI. I think one of the biggest challenges has been around compensation when animals have been forcibly culled from properties. The compensation issue is not an easy one, and it does require realistic applications and realistic anticipation by the farmers of what is fair and reasonable compensation.

Can I just say, while I’m talking about Mycoplasma bovis, that one of the things the Government needs to grapple with is the current NAIT system—the National Animal Identification and Tracing system. It does not work satisfactorily, and I can say that from a personal perspective, as a Banks Peninsula farmer. We were recently required to re-register on to the NAIT system and identify the properties that we owned. I went on well before due date to do so only to be told by the NAIT programme that I no longer owned my farm; somebody else did. Well, I’m paying the rates, I’ve been there for nearly 40 years, I know which land I own, and the NAIT system is wrong. I emailed the NAIT people immediately to say their system was wrong. The email bounced back, and I’ve had no further communication with them. So for Damien O’Connor to blame farmers for not using the NAIT system correctly, he needs to get his officials in and have a good look at the system, because unless it’s user-friendly, farmers will struggle to use it properly, and until we get that right, then this disease and any other that may occur in New Zealand is very difficult to fight.

I want to refer to the earlier remarks of the Hon Grant Robertson, Minister of Finance, when, in his Budget closing speech and in the debate on the Supplementary Estimates, he made the comment that this Budget that he’s presented is fundamentally different. He then went on to talk about it being a wellbeing Budget. Well, I can say to that Minister, having listened to the presentation of the Budget, having now been around many parts of New Zealand listening to New Zealanders’ impressions of the Wellbeing Budget, it’s nothing but rhetoric. This Budget in many ways is no different to most of the other Budgets I’ve seen over my period of time. I guess there is one big difference—yes, it is fundamentally different: I never recall a Budget being given to the Opposition two days before it’s to be officially announced by the Government. So, in that respect, it’s fundamentally different, and I want to thank the Government—this current Labour - New Zealand First - Green Government—for their promise to be open and transparent, but to release Budget documents to an Opposition two days early is taking openness and transparency a little too far.

The next point I wanted to comment on was with regard to Vote Social Development and to say to this Government: this economy is contracting, and contracting fast, and if you want evidence of that in the Supplementary Estimates, look no further than an appropriation in the 2018-19 year of a $167 million additional money for job seeker grants. For those listening, job seeker grants are the old unemployment benefit. So what you’re seeing is an economy that was strong under a former National Government—10,000 jobs a month in the period leading up to the last election—and we now have, in the last quarter, under this Government, 4,000 jobs lost from the employment sector. And that’s because employers haven’t got confidence.

When you look at the terms of trade—the way this country should be trading—it should be booming. Meat prices: the highest I have ever seen. Dairy prices: good. Fine wool: good. The economy based on agriculture is in as good a space as it’s ever been. But go to the Fieldays and talk to the farmers and, while their confidence should be high, it’s not, and the reason it’s not is that they don’t trust the current Government. They don’t have confidence that they’ll get a fair deal out of the current Government.

I guess, in my closing comments, I wanted to talk about Vote Building and Housing. Of course there’s a large transfer there of $84 million, and I guess it’s around the ability of the Hon Phil Twyford to talk about KiwiBuild. I noted the Prime Minister, during a post-Cabinet speech on Monday night, saying the Hon Phil Twyford has done an incredible job. I want to know what she means by “an incredible job.”, because KiwiBuild was meant to deliver 100,000 houses in 10 years and 10,000 houses each year. To date, 19 months into this Government, it’s delivered 141 houses via KiwiBuild. So I say to Mr Phil Twyford, “Bye bye. You’ll be pleased to be getting some new portfolios, I suspect, when the Prime Minister does a reshuffle on Thursday afternoon.”

As a Christchurch MP, the last comments I wanted to make were around Vote Finance and Christchurch facilities following the earthquake. Can I say that the convention centre, started well and truly under the former National Government, is making good progress. It’s going to be a very impressive facility when it is completed and opened, but there is the Metro Sports Facility which appears to just be stalled. There’s a huge fence around the site that’s been apportioned to it, and I didn’t see anything happening from the time that this Government was elected. There is also the red zone—this massive area that’s now been depopulated to the east of Christchurch. Talk about some ambitious plans that were meant to be released months ago. I haven’t seen them, and I think there was a tremendous opportunity to utilise that land properly. It requires foresight, it requires ambition, and it requires things like a multi-international rowing arena that could really be used in the future and put Christchurch on the map. But, again, under this Government those projects are stalling.

So—

Dr Duncan Webb: That’s rich coming from you.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Sorry?

Dr Duncan Webb: That’s rich coming from you. What did National do for nine years for Christchurch?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: That is Dr Duncan Webb, the member for Christchurch Central, whose electorate these projects I’m talking about are in. He should be standing up, speaking for Christchurch Central and Christchurch generally, but he’s one of those people who, in Opposition, or before he came into this place, was an absolute lion about a lack of progress. He’s been an absolute lamb since he’s been here in Parliament.

What you see is an economy that’s declining. You’ve got employers right around the country worried about the direction of this economy. You’ve got terms of trade that are never better. We should be exceeding the growth rates of most of our trading partners and we’re not. That is because this Government’s not attuned to what drives an economy. What drives an economy is business. Business needs confidence to operate. It needs certainty. It needs sensible policies, and it needs a Government that’s prepared to tax reasonably and spend reasonably. What you get with this Government is one that taxes hugely, spends hugely, and when those figures don’t add up, it’s now going to be intent on borrowing more and handing a bill to the next generation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Kia ora. I apologise to the member; your time has expired.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Oh, moan, moan, moan—that’s what we heard from that side of the House. You’d think it’d be a pretty negative place to hang out, on the Opposition benches. Moan, moan, moan—I haven’t heard so much negative doom and gloom in an awful long time. Basically, David Carter spoke to a couple of people at Fieldays and he’s diagnosed all the issues of the country. Moan, moan, moan—that’s all that National was doing, moaning about roads, moaning about tax cuts. Moan, moan, moan.

Now, I’d like to start with something positive. I’d like to congratulate Paul Goldsmith for taking on the role as the shadow finance spokesperson for National. Now, if I was Paul Goldsmith, I’d be very happy that I gave that speech after I got the job, rather than before, because it was an incoherent, rambling exposition from the new finance spokesperson, who can’t even name an economist who he respects, apart from Bill English—who I don’t think was an economist. We heard a rambling, incoherent speech. I don’t think that should give the National Party much confidence. Maybe that’s why they’re so doom and gloom and depressed about everything in New Zealand.

What I heard that National member say was that he used the term a “Bog-standard Left Budget”, but then I just heard the last speaker, David Carter, say it was a “Nothing New Budget”. It was a type of Budget that National could have done. We had Paul Goldsmith say it was all about inefficient spending, when, actually, then National says, “It was the kind of things we would have done.” Now, it’s absolutely incoherent, because then National says that wellbeing’s nothing new, but then they’re criticising it. So what is it? Is it the worst Budget ever or is it nothing new? That’s why National was just focusing on the leak, because there’s actually nothing of substance to criticise in the Budget.

Actually, when you look at the economic indicators of New Zealand, it’s incredibly positive: incredibly low unemployment—4.2 percent; growing business confidence and optimism, the forecasts are looking positive—a forecast surplus of $6 billion. But, crucially—and this is what you won’t hear National MPs talk about is how the economy is reorienting to the future. Previously, it was built on massive migration, it was built on massive commodities, dairy intensification, and some sort of Beverly Hillbillies, Wild West fantasy of finding oil, which has never been found. We’ve seen a succession of oil companies leave New Zealand. What the Government is doing is reorienting towards the future. With the innovation in the R & D tax credit changes and with the investment in infrastructure, you are seeing growth in the productive sectors of the economy, not just trying to chase the lowest dollars when you’re trying to chase commodities.

Now, National, they don’t have a great economic track record to stand on. What we saw, actually, was a massive underspend in infrastructure, which this Government is having to catch up with; I’m thinking about our schools, our hospitals, our Public Service. We saw a National speech which focused on the desire and the wish for tax cuts. Now, what those tax cuts would have delivered was super profits for the Hiscos world and nothing for the people doing it hard in New Zealand. Under National, we saw growing homelessness, growing child poverty, and growing environmental degradation—the things this Government is turning around.

Now, why I think National is so incoherent and negative and focused on the petty politics of the leaks rather than the substance is because it’s incredibly popular. It’s exactly what the country needs, which has a focus on wellbeing. Now, this was something new. This is something which has received glowing international attention. The focus on wellbeing, rather than just gross domestic product, is a new concept. Treasury—all the spending contained in the imprest supply and Supplementary Estimates process for Budget 2019 actually went through Treasury’s processes, which asked how does it improve wellbeing. Previously, the Government would have asked how does it just improve GDP. This Government’s asking how does that improve wellbeing.

So that’s why you’re seeing the decisions contained in this legislation like the minimum wage—that’s up to $17.70. You see the indexation for benefits, which is going to make a real difference in the medium term to those families reliant on a benefit. You see the Families Package helping 384,000 Kiwis—more than 50,000 Kiwi kids lifted out of poverty. I see the member Jacqui Dean sneering—speaking under her breath. What I’m talking about is lifting 50,000 Kiwi kids out of poverty. Rather than just ignoring them, this Government’s acting and lifting them out of poverty as part of the Families Package and the tax changes.

Now, when you look at the actual substance of the Budget, the $1.9 billion extra in mental health is going to make a real difference for Kiwis. They’ve been doing it tough. They haven’t had access to the services because of the underfunding. This massive investment in the free front-line services and the massive investment in addiction services will help reduce the mental health challenges Kiwis face and will increase the country’s wellbeing.

As a Green, part of where I find my wellbeing is knowing that the environment which we love is protected and not being opened up for mining or drilling or fracking, knowing that threatened, endangered species are protected. That’s how I and many New Zealanders respect wellbeing.

Now, in this Budget you see an additional $180 million for the conservation estate. That’s on top of the single largest increase in the Department of Conservation’s history, which you saw in the last Budget. An additional $180 million is going to make a difference for the kakapo, the kiwi, the Māui dolphin, and the special places that we love. Economically, of course, this is the golden goose which so many tourists come from all around the world to experience, this beautiful natural environment of ours.

When you look at the sustainable land use package—this was something I was talking about this morning in Blenheim at the organic winegrowers conference. Here you’ve got the biggest organic conference in the country: 350 attendees from around New Zealand. What they heard was the good news that there’s an additional $229 million going into sustainable land use. When you look at their sector, organics in New Zealand in the last two years has grown 30 percent domestically to a $600 million industry. Organic exports are up 42 percent in the last two years. So we’ve got a massive growth opportunity in what’s a growing global market, and it’s that brand integrity, the credentials on sustainability—which our international customers are so discerning of and demanding at the moment—and the sense of a national story. That’s exactly what you see with the sustainable land use package, of which they were glowing.

Now, to get those products to market, you also need a modern, balanced transport network, and that’s why I was so rapt to see the billion dollars extra going into rail infrastructure in this Budget. Now, I will give the former Government credit. There was a little bit of money invested in KiwiRail, but not nearly enough to actually turn it around to make it economically self-sufficient. Yet at the same time, we saw, you know, the Hillside works closed down and some pretty retrograde policies. So this billion dollars extra for rail is going to help keep trucks off the road, which improves road safety, it reduces pollution, reduces congestion for people who have to be on the roads, but more importantly, it builds the national infrastructure transport backbone, which our exporters rely on. Coming from the East Coast, I was absolutely rapt to see the opening of the Napier to Wairoa rail line. I want to see it all the way up to Gisborne eventually, and there’s a feasibility study, thanks to the Provincial Growth Fund, looking into that area.

But we have to invest in infrastructure if we’re going to go forward as a country, and transport’s always going to be a mix between coastal shipping, rail, road, and air travel. What we did see under the previous Government, though, was a myopic focus on the seven roads of National Party significance. Here, National borrowed up big, with billions of dollars for just seven mostly urban motorway projects. What this Government is doing is finding a balanced, modern, smart approach.

When you look at the energy component of this Budget, of course there’s the winter energy payment, which is making a huge difference for Kiwi families, but, importantly, it’s also transitioning New Zealand into the future. Now, I don’t know if members are aware but National threw more than $200 million at one very wealthy industry, the oil and gas industry, as special financial treatments—$235 million over the preceding nine years. What this Government is doing is actually looking towards the future, because when you listen to, say, the former Saudi Arabian oil Minister, he says, “Well, the Stone Age didn’t end for want of stones; it ended because we found something better.” That’s exactly what’s happening with the global economy, where there’s more net international investment in clean energy than fossil fuels. In fact, what we see with the forecast is the price decline. I mean, just across my lifetime, the cost of solar panels has dropped 99 percent, and that’s going to keep going into the future.

So if National wants to keep being the cheerleaders for coal and fracking, go right ahead. The future, the markets, and the public all want to focus on clean energy, and that’s why the money for the clean energy R & D centre in Taranaki and the winter energy payments will help transition New Zealand towards the clean energy economy. When you couple that with the other work the Government’s doing, from the zero-carbon bill, the massive increase in public transport, walking, and cycling funds—the work to help grow a low-carbon economy. So across the Wellbeing Budget, you see this great focus on people and the environment and the economy going forward, which, of course, is built upon the people and the environment. So this is legislation I’m very proud to support on behalf of the Green Party. We have been very privileged to play a role with our focus on protecting people and the environment, and it’s a good day for New Zealand, despite all the moan, moan, moans from that side.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Despite the best efforts of the previous speaker, Gareth Hughes, where I come from, you can’t get the train to Wellington, you can’t get the plane to Wellington, you can’t bike to Wellington, you can’t walk there—well, you could if you walked better than me. But that’s one of the problems we have in rural New Zealand.

Anyway, I want to talk about a few things in respect of this bill, but the first issue I want to raise was a very interesting thing that happened to me last week when a young woman from Taihape, who came into this House for the first time with a group from Taihape, as I just said, asked me what made me think I could represent the Rangitīkei. Well, I nearly sat down, I suppose, but it was a very interesting question. I think every MP should ask themselves what makes them think they can represent the people they come here to represent, because it does take a bit of thinking about. So, having thought about that, I thought I would talk about the issues in this bill that actually impact on the electorate that I come here to represent.

Like David Carter, I think there’s some things in this bill and in this Budget that actually have quite a positive impact on my part of the world. Of course, the Rangitīkei has the three big defence bases in New Zealand in it. Well, I call them the three big ones—can’t worry about Auckland or Christchurch—in Ōhākea, Linton, and, of course, Waiōuru. The significant spend in defence and the increase in personnel that will follow that spend in defence I think is not only positive for the Rangitīkei, it’s positive for New Zealand. So I commend the Government on that, and I think it’s good to see faith in our defence forces. From our perspective, that’s a hugely positive thing. From my electorate’s perspective, it’s positive as well.

Of course, we, like every other electorate in New Zealand—every large rural electorate—have some special challenges with health, education, and things like that, and a lot of them relate to transport. It’s very difficult—and going back to the last speaker’s words on transport—for us to find other ways or alternative forms of transport when you’re as remote as places like Taumarunui. I was a bit intrigued by Minister Jones going on about his railways. If he gets the Taumarunui railway station up and operating like it did in the 1950s, he really will have achieved something. But I’m not sure how he’s going to do that, because, of course, Taumarunui on the main trunk line was a very famous railway station in its day. You always got a good pie there.

Hon Scott Simpson: Will the pies be better?

IAN McKELVIE: They will be better now. The meat quality’s a lot better than it used to be. Of course, my electorate also runs on the sheep’s back, so to speak. But I wanted to get back to one or two other things that impact the Rangitīkei, and the tertiary sector is one of those, in that Massey University is part of the Rangitīkei electorate and the Universal College of Learning (UCOL) serves a large part of my electorate from Taumarunui—where Unitec comes in at the top end, as well—to Palmerston North, and, of course, it goes across to Whanganui and down into the Wairarapa. So I have a very large tertiary sector either related to my electorate or sitting in my electorate. The fees-free scheme, which was designed to boost that sector, didn’t really have the outcome it set out to achieve, and, of course, money has been returned to the Treasurer as a result of that. But the tertiary sector is none the less very important for me, and I’ll be watching with interest the changes to UCOL, which is, of course, the tertiary institute in Palmerston North. It will be significant and it will be very important for my electorate, the result of that, but it’s equally as important to those remote towns because they do provide services into those towns—hugely necessary.

So I wanted to now turn to the gun buy-back scheme and the $150 million - odd that’s allocated in this document for that purpose, and, of course, it’s a bit more than that now with the top-up from ACC. We supported the legislation around the gun legislation, with some reservations but certainly we supported it, and I think the legislation achieved what it set out to achieve. There’s some areas that, with hindsight, could have been done differently and perhaps better, but that’s all very well. The heat of the moment brings out some interesting decisions. But the reason I want to comment on the gun buy-back is because I think we have, in a way, undermined the work that was done by that bill, because I think the lack of confidence in it is going to be significant and I think it’s going to take some getting over. I just hope when they start to come in, which will be any day now, that it does work, because I’ve got my grave doubts about that.

The other thing that seriously challenges me about the gun buy-back scheme is that there’s no real provision for all those guns out there that are held by people with no licences or are held illegally. Now, just because someone’s got a licence doesn’t necessarily mean they were held illegally before this bill was put in place. Those people will not be able get anything for those guns. Are they going to hand them in? Who knows, but it certainly could well force those guns underground. So I think that, effectively, our gun buy-back scheme looks like it’s going to—I was going to say it’s going to penalise gun owners; it won’t penalise every gun owner but it will certainly penalise a number of gun owners unless some reasonable recompense is reached. It’s certainly not going to penalise all those people that hold illegal guns in the country, because if they don’t take advantage of the amnesty—well, if they take advantage of the amnesty, they don’t get any money for the gun, so are they going to do it? Probably not. I think it’s going to force a whole lot more guns underground and I think it’s very unfortunate.

I think it’s interesting, because the other thing that happens in rural New Zealand—and I saw the list of venues that they’re going to host these things at, and they’re quite well spread, so, I think, in that respect at least, they’ve got a spread that will enable rural New Zealanders to hand those guns in when required. But none the less, I’m hugely, I guess, disappointed in the way they’ve got to the point of pricing those guns and the way that they’ve encompassed the guns that aren’t necessarily legal in New Zealand.

I want to talk about a couple of other things. David Carter touched on one of those, and that’s the M. bovis situation. I think I’ve said before in this House that I go back to a time when I saw large numbers of cows going out the gate in the early days of the TB clean-up in New Zealand. It was much easier in those days because it cleaned up the TB—well, it hasn’t cleaned TB up yet entirely, but it’s done a great job, really. But there was a payout and the meat was valued, and it worked in that extent. There was never a compensation for milk or anything like that. The world’s different now, and so it’s a much more complex compensation system we’ve got to go through. But I want to congratulate the Government for carrying that on. Very difficult circumstances—I think they’ve done pretty well. It is difficult for those families and those people who are in that situation, particularly in the South Island. In the Rangitīkei, it’s not nearly such a serious problem but I do have great sympathy for those people caught up in that, and I think it’s an issue that the Government is managing about as well as they can.

I want to move on to, I guess, what I think is a very interesting issue. So I attended the national Fieldays on the first day of the Fieldays, and since then have had a number of meetings in the rural parts of my electorate. Last night, there was quite a large meeting run by the dairy section of Federated Farmers in Palmerston North, really about the climate change bill and the legislation around that—the methane situation. The speakers, I think, did a very good job, but I’ve never known in my time in rural New Zealand—particularly with prices like they are; as good as I’ve ever seen them—where there’s kind of like an air; it’s almost a sombre air, so an air of nervousness, and there’s no confidence in rural New Zealand to invest in anything. It’s an unusual circumstance, I think, we’re in, because there’s so much change up in the air, but none of it’s definitely been confirmed. I think farmers and rural towns are very nervous about where we’re getting to with the future, and I think the Government needs to make some positive decisions and make them pretty quickly. Whatever the decisions are, they need to be made, because I think the air of uncertainty is certainly going to drive our economy backwards and it’s certainly providing significant nervousness in rural New Zealand. So I’d urge the Government to move in that area.

I just wanted to talk very quickly about the tree situation in respect of that as well, because we’ve got a situation in rural New Zealand where trees are being planted about as quick as they can be bred, actually—in fact probably they’re not going to get bred quick enough to plant the trees that are wanting to be planted. I think that there’s some issues with that, and I know the Government’s aware of those issues, but I think the real problem for us is where there are going to be trees planted, and there will be large tracts of them planted that will never be harvested because they’ll never be economic to harvest. Now, some of those trees that are being planted will be economic and they’ll do a great job for New Zealand and they’ll be planted in the right places, but there are some problems with some of that and some inhibitions in the way they can be planted in the right areas. I think we need to seriously consider how that happens moving forward, and it’s urgent that we do it, too, because we could see some land use change that we don’t want to see, and in 25 years’ time the country will be paying the price for that, because carbon’s only—you know, basically, if the trees aren’t cut down, its use is going to expire and the trees will, effectively, rot away. That would be very unfortunate, and I don’t think they’ll revert very easily, because pine trees don’t have a great impact on the rest of our community.

So those are a few things I wanted to touch on. There’s other things going on in our community which I think are pretty positive, but there is that air of nervousness that I think the Government needs to move quickly to get over. I think that a lot of the issues that are included in the Supplementary Estimates papers are issues that are sort of unknown and are things that we need to get on top of quite quickly, so I urge the Government to get on with that. And that’s my words on the bill. Madam Speaker, thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Dr Deborah Russell, you have five minutes.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): This is actually a highly technical bill. It is actually designed to ensure that we have ticked all the boxes and gotten all the words correct with allocating money for expenditure, partly for the past year but also for the future year. I think something that demonstrates just how technical this bill is comes from the Supplementary Estimates for Vote PCE, or Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, where, if someone takes the time to actually read the document, they’ll see that $1,000 is allocated—an extra $1,000—and carefully recorded as a “1” in the correct column. I think what this demonstrates is the care and attention which our public servants bring to the jobs that they do to ensure that we actually get all the money right, that we record it properly, that we ensure that it has been properly endorsed by Parliament. So as I open with these few words, I would like to pay tribute to the public servants who have done all the work behind the numbers on this Budget in getting them all together. I think it’s very important that we acknowledge their work, because Government doesn’t happen just in this room. It doesn’t happen just in the Beehive. It also happens with the work from our public servants, and I commend them for what they do.

I wish to address some of the issues that have been raised by other speakers in this debate. In particular, I want to think about the strength of the economy. Again, we can see some of this by looking at some of the actual appropriations that are sitting in these documents that have been so well prepared for us by our public servants. In particular, I’m looking at extra appropriations for child support payments and decreased appropriations for the family tax credit. They actually point to increased strength in our labour markets, that people are getting more and better-paying jobs, because the appropriation for child support payments has changed due to stronger-than-forecast labour market growth. It means that if you’ve got an improved labour market, then their non-custodial parents are receiving more money, and, quite appropriately, more of that money is being passed on to their families.

So that actually demonstrates, through looking behind the numbers, the increased strength in our labour market. Again, sitting in this Budget, in these appropriations, with respect to the family tax credit, as people’s incomes go up from their employers, then the amount they receive in family tax credits does go down. So if the amount being received via family tax credits is going down, it does indicate increased wages, increased workforce, a stronger labour market. So those numbers indicate something very, very important about our economy, and digging into them, what we see there is a greatly strengthened labour market under this Government.

Turning to some of the issues raised by the previous speaker, I really want to address some of the issues raised by Mr Ian McKelvie, who has a great deal of affection for his electorate, as we all do for our electorates. But he also has a huge affection for rural New Zealand. As someone who came from rural New Zealand myself as a child, I retain a great deal of affection for it too, and I understand the worries that rural communities have about the increased numbers of trees and what that might do to rural communities. The question for the Opposition, however, is do they wish to interfere in sales between willing buyers and willing sellers? I think that needs to be addressed. Now, we do need to think about what is going on in those rural communities, but there are more ramifications than just a wall of trees.

Of course, those trees are going to be critically important because of climate change, and I think that is one of the critical issues that this Government’s Budget has started to address. Again in the Supplementary Estimates, we see more money being allocated to advice around climate change, to actually ensuring that we do start to take action with respect to climate change. That is an action that we all ought to be concerned with and that this Government is attempting to do in a fair and just manner—none of the outrageously rapid changes of the 1980s; instead, a fair and just transition so that our children may live in a carbon-neutral world. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to start by commenting on a couple of the comments which were raised by the member who’s just sat down, Deborah Russell. She talked about these bills, the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill, as ticking all the boxes and making sure we get all the things right. So let’s talk about some of those boxes and actually whether this is getting it right.

I’d like to start by talking about some of the broken promises that this Government is actually making. Firstly, there was a promise, I think, of no new taxes. Well, I don’t think they tick that box, because, from what I can see, there have been seven new taxes so far to date—seven new taxes. Twenty cents per litre more is what people are paying in petrol tax every time they fill up their car in Pakuranga—

Tim van de Molen: How much?

SIMEON BROWN: Twenty cents, Mr van de Molen, and just wait till the Waikato brings in their regional fuel tax. That’s something to keep an eye on. Well, let’s talk about doctors visits, promised $10-cheaper doctor visits for all—not in this Budget. Promised $20 million for access to life-saving medicines—I can’t find that box being ticked. Promised an annual health and eye check for seniors—well, I can’t see that in this Budget, either. The list goes on, and I haven’t even got to KiwiBuild.

If we’re going to talk about KiwiBuild, let’s talk about the massive broken promise and the failure to deliver for New Zealanders in terms of what they said—10,000 houses per year, then it was 1,000 in the first year, and how many did they actually deliver? Well, 130. That is a tick box which was not ticked.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

SIMEON BROWN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to continue to speak to the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill, and, as I was saying, this is a Government which is failing to deliver on its promises to New Zealand. One of those promises, as I said, was that they promised there would be no new taxes, but there has been seven new taxes brought in by this Government: fuel taxes, regional fuel tax in Auckland, ring-fencing of losses, Amazon tax, GST on overseas goods and services, the brightline test, and the increased WorkSafe levies and cancelled tax relief. The list goes on, and I predict that this won’t be the end of this list of broken tax promises by this Government. There will be more taxes coming with this Government as it continues to try and find more ways to take money off hard-working New Zealanders and what they are trying to do—going about their lives, trying to make ends meet, but this Government will be continuing to try and find new ways to take money off them.

As I said, one of the biggest promises which has been broken by this Government has been the failure around KiwiBuild—an absolute failure, and now the Government won’t even mention its name. They won’t even mention the name of KiwiBuild because even they are embarrassed by it. But this party on this side of the House will continue to hold them accountable for the promises that they have made to New Zealanders.

Lastly, I’d like to talk about the fees-free reassignment in this imprest supply bill, where we see $49.5 million of underspend is being reallocated—$49.5 million of taxpayers’ money being reallocated. That says two things. One, this money is being reallocated because the fees-free policy has been a failure. It was designed to increase participation in our tertiary institutions but it has failed to increase the numbers. In fact, the numbers have gone backwards. There have been fewer students going to university, going to tertiary study, than were under previous years, and that is a failure on behalf of this Government. That money is being reassigned to the review of vocational education, and just last week we saw—

Andrew Bayly: Another review.

SIMEON BROWN: Just another review—300 and something reviews now, Mr Andrew Bayly, and we are seeing the review of vocational education taking place, which will further threaten our tertiary institutions as it seeks to amalgamate our institutions into a monolithic beast, one institution across the country. What we will see is we will see fewer students, we’ll see fewer people going to our polytechs and studying those important skills and trades that we need in our economy, and that will continue to put pressure on hard-working New Zealanders, on our economy. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): It’s an absolute delight to rise this evening to speak in this second reading of the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill. By passing these bills, we are starting to give effect to—it is very loud, and I apologise, but please turn it down—this Wellbeing Budget, this globally world-first Wellbeing Budget.

Before I turn to the substantive parts of my contribution this evening, I want to pay homage and applaud the leadership of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern and our Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, for delivering what New Zealanders have been seeking, and they have been seeking for the last nine years.

I’ll tell you what. Just yesterday it was, I was in Whakatāne, and I went for a little drive around with Housing New Zealand. Now, what those Housing New Zealand staff told me, they said that for the first time since the last Labour-led Government was in—for the first time—all around Whakatāne right now, we can see house upon house upon house going up, the first social housing that has been built in over nine years—

Andrew Bayly: Shh!

KIRITAPU ALLAN: —is being built right now, and we are excited. Mr Bayly, there is no reason to be quiet about what we are doing. You know why? Because for so long, under the previous Government, people had to yell, they had to shout to be heard, because they were not being heard.

Now, on this side of the House, after community hall after community hall after community hall, this side of the House has been tromping up and down the nationside, and what the people are saying to us is thank you to this Government. Thank you to this coalition Government, whether it be over in places like the Hawke’s Bay, where some of the members on that side of the House are—they all got to sit just last week in the first-ever trains from Napier to Wairoa. Those lines had been mothballed for 15 years. The people have been calling for those lines to be reopened, and this Government has turned its mind to and has invested $1 billion into the likes of KiwiRail, and that has been an exciting journey for our regions.

But this Wellbeing Budget—we all know across both sides of the House, and I don’t think that there’s any politics to be made of this, that there have been significant mental health challenges across the board. We know that there has been a significant underfunding, systemic for decade upon decade now. We had the mental health report come out, and there were a whole range of findings that that review that was undertaken came out with.

Now, what our Prime Minister said and what our Minister of Finance has agreed and what our Minister of Health, the Hon David Clark, and amongst our esteemed senior colleagues in the executive—what they did is they pooled together their heads and their resources, and they sat together and they said, “You know what? Right now, there is a call on this Government to deliver a plan to address the mental health challenges that our communities see.”, whether that be in the urban populations in the Aucklands, the Wellingtons, the Christchurch, or whether that be up in little towns like Ruatōria, Minginui, or Murupara. This Government put its heads together and made the most substantial investment into addressing the mental health challenges of this generation.

Now, I want to acknowledge that there is a whole multitude of ways that this Government is going about doing that, but the front-line services—

Brett Hudson: Really? Raising taxes, mainly.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: —that will be available, to that member’s family who just called from across the aisle, to our families, to every single family in this country—whether you wear a blue cap or a red cap, a black cap or a green cap. But right now, we know that mental health does not discriminate based on your class, your gender, your race. We know that there is a systemic and endemic issue that we are having to face as a nation, and that’s why I know that the Opposition might heckle here and there because they’re probably a little grieved that their side of the House never got around to making the substantial investments into this area that our communities have been calling for.

I want to pay homage as well to the hard-working women in the rural women’s support trust. They, to me, have been an absolute bastion in regions like mine up in the East Coast, but also my colleague Kieran McAnulty—he has a very strong group of women down there in Wairarapa. I look across the House to my colleague the Hon Stuart Nash down there in the Hawke’s Bay, my colleague in front of me, Mark Patterson from Lawrence. Look, I just want to acknowledge the women within our rural communities that have been an extremely loud voice calling for a fundamental investment in this area. We spend a lot of time with them—I mean, we all do over the course of time, but we just spent quite a bit of time with them over at Fieldays, and I made the point of making that address there, and I want to make it again. They have been absolutely incredible.

Now, the other significant thing—I mean, we’re doing a whole range of immeasurably wonderful things for our communities—is in the area of our schools. Our Prime Minister, when she came in—and I, like, I’m sure, many others in this House have, watched that maiden speech—we saw her undertaking her commitment to alleviate child poverty. It was a big part of her aspirations when she came into this House. One of the things that, I guess, I’ve been so impressed with, myself, with this Wellbeing Budget is the fact that eliminating child poverty has been one of the core drivers of what we’re trying to achieve here. There’s a whole range of ways that this Government has gone about doing that. I want to acknowledge the work of the Hon Tracey Martin alongside the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern in pulling together a package that delivers for our children.

But one of the things that, I guess, gets me, and has gotten me every single time that I go into any old school—yesterday, for example, I was in a little school in my hometown of Whakatāne, Allandale Primary School. The principal there, Drew Manning had invited me in to come and talk about Duffy school books. But he pulled me aside and he said, “Kiri, I just want you to understand the impact of the Government’s investment in terms of the school donations. I want you to understand what that’s going to mean for a school like ours, a decile 2 school like ours in a little town like Whakatāne, with a school roll of 344 students.” Our Government’s policy means that there will be an additional $51,000 in that school’s operational budget—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Wow, $51,000.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: —if they choose to take it up. That’s exactly right—$51,000. Now, for a school like the size of Drew’s school, Allandale Primary, that is going to have a monumental impact.

I cast my eyes up to Tolaga Bay. A little school, 237 students; they come from throughout the region. Now, it might not seem like huge sums to some others but to this school—an almost additional $40,000 in that school’s operational budget to be able to deliver, at the discretion of the principal, for those kids.

I turn my mind to one of our larger high schools, just down the road from me. You know, the kids that go to Trident High School come from a whole range of backgrounds. It’s a decile 4 school, just over a thousand kids at that school. But that’s $158,000 through the school donation programme if that school chooses not to ask for donations from those parents. That will make an immeasurable difference. I know my colleague here, Jan Tinetti, was a principal at a decile 1 school, and I’m sure she’s made a number of contributions in this House to attest to the fact of how monumental that Government contribution will be to all of these smaller under - decile 7 schools throughout our regions. So I want to acknowledge, of course, the Hon Chris Hipkins whilst I’m on my feet.

I guess, just in conclusion, I want to acknowledge as well that we know that there have been some fundamental disparities in the way that the neo-liberal policies have impacted a range of people, but in particular our Māori communities throughout the country. This Budget delivers over half a billion dollars of targeted funding for Māori communities up and down this country. That’s no mean feat. I want to say with my hand over heart, how proud I am of this Wellbeing Budget, and I commend it to the House.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s a pleasure to speak on the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill second reading. Really, what I want to start with saying is that this is really just the last example of a Government failing to deliver on many of its promises.

A previous speaker on our side—Mr Bayly, I think it was—referred to the fact that GDP and the New Zealand economy have dropped by about $3 billion in the last year—$3 billion. We were creating 10,000 jobs a month; we’re now losing 4,000 jobs a month. At the very same time, this House has been told this is a year of delivery of the Budget, but the amount of money appropriated for the job seeker benefit has gone up by $167 million. You see, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work out what is going on here. The New Zealand economy is slowing. A lot of our sectors have lost a lot of confidence. While we have incredible terms of trade at the moment, it doesn’t appear to be flowing back to those businesses and those people that need to make decisions; many of them have been frightened off.

That being said, I do wish to congratulate the Government on the Mycoplasma bovis amount, which is in these accounts—the $250 million is supported across this House. While it got off to a shaky start, I know of constituents in my community who are grateful for the way in which the Government has responded and assisted. It has been difficult for them. Heart-wrenching. Mentally tormenting for them. But in many cases they’re through the worst, and I remain optimistic as a rurally based MP that we can beat this problem.

I also wish to congratulate the Government on the money that’s being spent on mental health. I think it’s a need that the community has seen, the country has seen, and I wish to give credit where credit’s due.

I also acknowledge the $150 million that is put in the gun buy-back scheme; and I give credit for that, the Hon Stuart Nash. I do ask the question, though, when, on top of that, the Minister and the Government starts adding $40 million from ACC to fund future cost, does that not cause a precedent to be set? People could argue, Minister and members of the Government, that a future Government could go after and spend ACC money on traffic measures, as an example, on the basis that it would save lives. So I do think the Government may have been more honest if it had simply said it needed to put $200 million into the gun buy-back scheme, than actually pinching $40 million - odd out of ACC.

A lot has been talked about of rail. The previous speaker, Kiritapu Allan, commented on the Napier to Wairoa railway line having a train on it for the first time, I think she just said. Well, maybe it’s her age, but I remember when a rail car went from Gisborne to Wellington. It was called the Endeavour, and it did have—and you’ll know this, Madam Speaker; it was well-used and it went out of fashion and was unviable. What’s actually been reopened is the Napier to Wairoa link of that railway line, principally for forestry—principally for forestry. The billion dollars on rail is a complete sop to New Zealand First. That’s what it’s about. It is part of the coalition agreement. When you gave a billion dollars to rail, and you give $40 million—[Interruption]—no, no, hear me out. When you give $40 million to Pharmac over four years and a billion dollars to rail, you ask average New Zealanders what they think of that—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not me. Not me.

LAWRENCE YULE: Sorry. We should ask average New Zealanders what they think of that—and I have, and many of them aren’t happy.

I also look at this appropriation bill, and I look at some of the extra money that is going into housing. It would be remiss of me not to remind this Parliament that so far this Government has delivered next to nothing in my home town of Hastings, where there is a chronic need for more Housing New Zealand houses. Now, in Napier, where they have a Labour member, there has been a whole lot built, but in Hastings there has been none—none so far; none. The Hon Stuart Nash has managed to get 100 and something, but in Hastings in the last year, we’ve actually lost houses. That’s the total number of Housing New Zealand houses in Hastings has gone down. So I look in this bill, and I look at what’s being proposed, and in my own city there is very little that I can say, “I proudly support this.”, other than the money that is going into mental health.

I now wish to come to the district health board (DHB) deficits. The DHB deficits—and everybody says there’s never enough money—well, this appropriation increases the support to fund deficits by $95 million, and that says that the deficits are likely to be $234 million. DHBs around New Zealand are swamped in a sea of red ink. I see it in my own electorate. In the last week I have had five people come to me to talk about delayed elective surgery; some people have been on the waiting list for years. When I look at these budgets and I see the amount of money that these deficits are going up to, in other words the increase of the $95 million in this Supplementary Estimates bill and the $569 million allocated in the Budget is hardly even enough to break even, to keep the lights on. The Minister estimated to the Health Committee on 12 June that he cannot expect financial viability from the DHBs. That is a pretty stark admission, when this extra money’s been put in there in the year of delivery that actually they’re going to get on top of this. I don’t believe they will. Three DHBs—Waikato, Counties Manukau, and Canterbury—still haven’t even filed their annual plans to be approved for the year. In my view, that’s because they are stressed and don’t understand how they’re going to fund everything.

The other thing I’d like to say is—and it was sort of alluded to in the Prime Minister’s speech on the day of delivery of the Budget—this sort of concept that you can somehow buy the economy growth. So, in other words, the Government can spend money through the Provincial Growth Fund—$3 billion has been allocated over three years—and other investments can be made in infrastructure, and somehow you can make the boat go faster and the economy improve. I think that is really the fundamental difference between both sides of this Parliament. This side strongly promotes individual growth, freedoms, business confidence and support, and exports. The side to my opposite, they really talk about how they can manage things, stimulate things, and use taxpayers’ money in a different way.

While the Hon Christopher Hipkins is in the room, I am going to talk about the polytech sector and education. It’s been referred to by a previous speaker, by Ian McKelvie, because I cannot stand in this House without mentioning some of the stress that’s going on in the Hawke’s Bay community because of the changes that have been made to the polytech sector—the loss of identity, the potential loss of reserves, the loss of land that was gifted to our community, and the loss of control. In a year of delivery, I want to know what is that delivery? The delivery, according to Minister Hipkins, is this: you get all the cot-case polytechs in New Zealand and you put all the really good ones together and somehow you’ll fix everything. All you do in a community like mine, Madam Speaker, and your own actually, which is connected—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t bring me into it.

LAWRENCE YULE: Sorry, Madam Speaker. The Tairāwhiti Polytechnic—no, it’s not yours, and I apologise again, Madam Speaker. You make it more difficult—you make it more difficult.

I have given some plaudits here for things that have been done well. But in this Budget, for me, and the things that are brought up in this Supplementary Estimates bill, I would score this Budget a three out of 10. For a year of delivery, I think this Government is spectacularly failing to deliver on its promises. I think the way in which the release of the Budget and how it was handled was so low key, following the fact that we had most of the Budget before it was released, is testament to the fact that the Government has lost some confidence in this space. In closing, I’m happy to take a call on this; I’m not happy about what I read in this appropriation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Michael Wood. You have seven minutes.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): It is always a very tough act—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: 8.52.

MICHAEL WOOD: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll make every second count.

It’s always a very tough act to follow on from the honourable member Lawrence Yule. He is the most dangerous man in this Parliament. You know you’re in real trouble if he offers you a glass of water, so I’d be looking out, Andrew Bayly, over there.

I’ve been listening very closely to this debate and I was a little confused when I came into the Chamber because as far as I was aware we are, in this debate, set to be debating the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill but I actually heard very little from Opposition speakers about the Supplementary Estimates. I recall my time in Opposition, and one of the things that a diligent Opposition does is to actually do its homework and work its way through the Supplementary Estimates and actually find the areas that might cause some political mischief for the Government. Actually it’s not just a political issue, it is actually a constitutional issue in terms of how this place operates. This Parliament appropriates money to fund the business of Government. The Supplementary Estimates, which we are here to debate, are the additional appropriations required to meet Government expenditure that were not appropriated in the year before. And so it is actually a fundamental duty of the members of this House, and in particular the Opposition, to actually do the work of going through the Supplementary Estimates and hold the Government to account and actually say something about them, actually say something about the over and underspends that are detailed in the Supplementary Estimates produced by Treasury, heard by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and presented to this House. But that Opposition simply hasn’t put the work in and has had not a dicky-bird to actually say about those Supplementary Estimates.

As a member who does care about these things, I’m going to help them out by actually speaking about some of those Supplementary Estimates that they haven’t put the time into actually having a look at. One that I want to pick up on was, in fact, referenced by Mr Yule over the previous 10 minutes or so; it felt like longer. This relates to the fiscal situation of our district health boards (DHBs). Now, if Mr Yule had looked on page 15 of the Supplementary Estimates document produced by Treasury, he would have seen that, in fact, there has been an additional $95 million of equity funding put in to fund our district health boards. Of course, it begs the question, why is this? Why is it that the Government is having to put additional funding in to support our district health boards? What New Zealanders are aware of is that it’s because of nine years of neglect. Nine years in which our public services were run down by that previous Government. Nine years in which fundamental public services, such as our DHBs, weren’t given enough to do the basics on. That is what this Government is cleaning up. These Supplementary Estimates reveal we had to put an additional $95 million into those district health boards to ensure that they could keep the doors open and do the job that they have to do. On this side of the House, we’re proud of the fact that we are willing to make those investments, but we’re not happy about the fact that we have to do so through this process because of the neglect of that previous Government.

I might note that up until pretty recently, in general terms, the people who have been overseeing the governance of those district health boards have been appointees of the previous Government, so there’s no call to say that they haven’t been governed well. The simple fact is that those entities are underfunded, and this Government has a plan to deal with it.

I might note that as much as the Opposition might try and make a point out of this—and over this very week of the Budget debate we have had those members complaining about that additional investment needed into the health system to plug the deficit—at the same time, those members have been arguing for tax cuts; at the same time, those members have been arguing that debt should be paid down at a faster rate. So they want it all. They want taxes cut. They want lower debt. They want increased expenditure. It simply doesn’t add up. Those Opposition members have no fiscal credibility. The figures don’t add up. The evidence on the basis of this debate is that they don’t even engage in the most basic elements of the work that an Opposition should to understand what is going on in the Government finances and hold the Government to account. It’s just the same boring old line about tax cuts. That party can simply not get over the fact—they simply cannot get over the fact—that there is more to life and more to running a good Government than cutting taxes.

Carrying on in the Supplementary Estimates, I want to acknowledge the fact that in the Supplementary Estimates there is additional funding here by way of capital injections into the Defence Force, carrying through on the good work of our Minister of Defence, the Hon Ron Mark. He is, in fact, picking up on some of the work that was carried out under the previous Government, in terms of the defence white paper, making sure that our defence services have the equipment that they need to protect and preserve New Zealand’s interests, particularly in the Pacific and in the southern seas. I want to acknowledge that and put that on the table, some of those additional capital injections into defence that are in the Supplementary Estimates.

We’re also debating the imprest supply bill, an important piece of legislation that ensures that the business of Government goes on until the Budget process is complete. I’m very pleased that we’re able to support this bill, because what it does is make sure that some of the important initiatives that this Government funded through its Wellbeing Budget are able to get under way. I’m very proud of this Budget and I don’t think there is an area that I’m more proud of than the investment into mental health.

This is a Government that is finally taking mental health seriously. For too long our society, and, let’s face it, successive Governments, haven’t dealt adequately with this issue. I remember when the Minister of Health in the previous Government dismissed New Zealanders who came to this Parliament putting forward the people’s mental health inquiry as politically motivated and mischief-makers and basically turned them away at the door. This is a Government which has brought together people from the sector and said that we will prioritise the mental health of New Zealanders, because that is what a Government that is concerned with the wellbeing of its citizens does. This is a $1.9 billion package that comes through in the Budget that we are supporting through this piece of legislation in getting that investment under way. It will ensure that New Zealanders have access to community-level mental health services. It ensures the beginning of a $40 million investment into reducing suicide in our country. Isn’t it absolutely appalling that the single biggest cause of death of our young men under the age of 25 in this country is suicide? No member in this Chamber would believe that that is acceptable; no member of this Chamber would want to see that carry on as it is. This Government is doing something about it.

I am very proud of those investments. I’m proud of the investments in here, as well, that we are supporting through this legislation which are going to lift between 50,000 and 70,000 of our children out of poverty. No society that values the wellbeing of its people, that values the notion that our children should be able to achieve their very fullest potential and flourish in their lives could or would accept the level of child poverty that we have in this country. This Budget and the legislation that we are supporting has been shown to lift between 50,000 and 70,000 of our kids out of child poverty. The Children’s Commissioner, Andrew Becroft, last year told us that the single biggest thing that we could do to help our kids who were in poverty was to index benefit rates to wages. That is done in this Budget, and that will make an absolutely enormous difference.

This is also a Budget which invests in the public services that are so important to New Zealanders. I just want to touch briefly on health. Over each of the next two years, $850 million dollars of capital expenditure is going into health to make sure that we don’t have the shameful spectacle of sewage running down the walls of Middlemore Hospital again. That was preceded last year, in the 2017 Budget, by a $750 million capital investment. Under National the year before that, it was $100 million; the year before that, it was zip. This is a Government which is investing in the wellbeing of its people. Whether it’s pulling our kids out of poverty, whether it’s giving our people access to the mental health services that they need, whether it’s investing in the public health system for our people, that is what this Budget delivers.

This is a Government which is here for the many, not just the few. I’m immensely proud of this Budget and pleased to support these pieces of legislation in the House tonight. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bills read a second time.

Bills

Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

Third Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Appropriation (2018/19 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill

Third Reading

Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill be now read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Imprest Supply (First for 2019/20) Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 20 June.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. It was only last Thursday this bill was first introduced and, as stated at that time, the National Party will be supporting this bill but with some serious qualifications. I’ve got to say that my near-namesake, Michael Wood—if I can revert back to the previous speaker on the last bill—has, I think, a future in stand-up comedy, because he was the guy that said that we in Opposition aren’t doing the work. Well, if there’s any illustration of a Government that isn’t doing the work in Government it’s in this bill, the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. I remember my last words last Thursday were that I was going to speak on the merits of this bill and I can’t find any, to be honest. We are supporting this, but this is a seriously lazy piece of policy work that needs some significant panel beating.

Let me go through why. This was the Government that was going to act with urgency on banning smoking in cars, and the legislation doesn’t become effective for 18 months after the law is passed. Now, probably at the very best, with the Christmas break and a few other things going on next year, we are probably going to see the bill passed into law this time next year, and then it’s going to have an 18-month hiatus. So we are going to go into 2021, the end of 2021, before this has any effect whatsoever. That will only have effect if, indeed, the people that are charged with enforcing it and upholding it—that is, our proud men and women of the New Zealand Police—actually divert resources away from preventing, detecting, and prosecuting crime, and check out whether adults are smoking in their cars.

Now, I talked about the difficulty that I have with this from a philosophical perspective. Where does the long arm of the State end and the sovereignty of the family begin, including the sovereignty for parents to make bad decisions? It’s actually against my, sort of, philosophical leanings that I support this bill. But what’s the point of having the bill if it’s not going to be effective? What we know from any legislative process which involves a sanctions regime is that people’s compliance with it is commensurate with the likelihood that they’re going to be caught and the consequences of getting caught. The answer is that there’s very low likelihood that they’re going to get caught and it’s a wet bus ticket if they do. Frankly, I hope the New Zealand Police don’t give more than a passing nod to this—perhaps when they’re doing, I don’t know, drink-driving checks, or hopefully, in the future, drug-driving checks, but there shouldn’t be an iota of resource diverted away from Crimes Act issues and into smoking in cars.

Then, of course, there is the ridiculous situation we have where one is committing offence by smoking in a car with a child unless the car is a dwelling. Well, now, that says two things to me—the Government have absolutely given up on solving the homelessness problem, which has got worse on their watch, not better. They’re now saying not only will there be people living in cars but they’re allowed to continue to smoke with their children.

Now we had the conversation, Mr Eagle and I. We were talking about our particular childhood experiences—the Pall Mall filters and the Holden Special station wagon, with the window down and the cigarette going out the window, the smoke being blown back into the back of the station wagon, and the children coughing and spluttering. I think I survived it, although, as I said, my growth was stunted a little more than Mr Eagle’s was. But the issue is this: that seems to be illegal now unless you’re actually living in the car, and the smoke won’t blow out the window then, but that’s OK. That’s actually allowed under this.

Now, the Minister introducing the bill said that that wasn’t the intention; it was about holiday homes. Well, hang on, this is the laziness of the policy work that’s been done. That’s not what the bill says—

Andrew Bayly: Oh, hang on, hang on. Mr Wood said we were lazy.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —that’s right—and yet they can’t even tell the difference between a car and a holiday home, and as a consequence, a car now is a dwelling, one where the adult can smoke around their kids. So that has to be fixed. These are things that the select committee will be working on.

The other issue is, of course, it’s unlawful to purchase cigarettes if you’re under the age of 18, but it’s not unlawful to smoke them in your car—that’s fine. That actually sends a real signal to our youth—youth whose prevalence of smoking under the previous Government, by the way, dropped from 15 percent to 3 percent. Only 3 percent of 15- to 17-year-olds now smoke one cigarette or more a day, and the House should be aware that that progress—that significant progress in an important group who shouldn’t even start—was made with strategies other than legislation.

How many times did the National Party in Government hear from the Opposition that education was the answer, not legislation, and that punitive measures were always subordinate to good education and prevention strategies, yet here we are. My colleague the Hon Nicky Wagner described it in her first reading speech as a big bunch of virtue signalling. I could not agree more.

This could be argued to be a complete waste of this House’s time and a busy Health Committee’s time, but I have confidence and I have some optimism that, actually, this can be sharpened up. This can actually be a bit better than it is—a lot better than it is. Frankly, it couldn’t be much worse.

So that will be the task of the Health Committee. I look forward to the submissions. I have no doubt that clauses around allowing children to smoke in cars if they’re under 18, and allowing cars to be used as houses and allowing that to be OK to smoke in front of children is going to eliminated from this bill. It would be quite difficult, actually, to support it in subsequent readings if those improvements were not made, but, in the meantime, we will hold our noses and we will support this interference into the sovereignty of the family for the sake of the children. But in order to be able to do that, it has to be effective and it has to be made better.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this piece of legislation.

I’d like to begin as a couple of the previous members have done, by acknowledging the vehicles they were in as children. In the 1970s, there was a similarity between myself and Michael Woodhouse, the member who’s just resumed his seat, around a Holden Special station wagon, and I think ours might have been panel-beater grey. Not only that, but it was the norm back in those days to have parents smoking in the car while the kids were in the back.

In fact, we had a little Mini. My dad had a Mini. It was a black Mini—EC108—and I have fond memories of the Mini. We would pile into the car on a Sunday morning, with Dad driving and Mum in the front, nursing the baby. My three siblings would be sitting in the back seat, with our other sibling on our knees—jam-packed with seven of us in that Mini, and no one wearing a seatbelt. It was the norm then, but we’ve changed. We realised how dangerous that was, and as a society we moved and we made it click—suddenly, we were all wearing seatbelts. This is a little bit like that. The social norm to smoke in the car with children—that’ll be a thing of the past very soon, as this legislation is passed through.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—we, absolutely, as a Government understand our responsibility for protecting our children’s health and wellbeing, so I’m very pleased to support this piece of legislation. It’s a really sensible measure. It’s all about ensuring that we are protecting, particularly, our vulnerable children—our tamariki, our rangatahi. You see, they have no choice in the matter when they’re stuck in a car and there’s someone else smoking, and we know that more than 100 New Zealanders die every year from the effects of second-hand smoke. This change will bring us into line with other countries like Australia, the UK, Canada, and South Africa as well. This is all about getting clean air for kids, and when we have that focus, we will ensure that our children will be in a better state of health as a result.

There was a great campaign by my former colleague Duncan Garner, who had a little bit of a campaign on the telly about this. When he spoke to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, he said that the “common sense strain of the government” strongly supports the ban. We think we’ve taken a really common-sense, practical approach here, and Mr Peters said that, actually, “children haven’t got a choice”, and that’s really the long and the short of it. A husband has a choice and a wife has a choice in the vehicle, so really, it should be banned because children don’t have that choice.

So I’m acknowledging also the Māori Affairs Committee, which I was a member of last year. We held a joint hearing with the Health Committee, and we were looking at Smokefree Aotearoa 2025. It was really interesting to combine the two select committees, and we were reminded that smoking is New Zealand’s biggest killer. In fact, 5,000 people every year are killed because of smoking and smoking-related illnesses. We heard from Hāpai Te Hauora, and really, I’m hoping that they may come and present to the select committee, because they brought some really interesting statistics, particularly around Māori and the slight smoking decline in, particularly, those vulnerable groups. So it will be interesting to hear from them.

One of the focuses during that joint committee was on looking at smoking in cars, and the submitters were very clear to us that smoking in cars carrying children should actually be banned immediately. The Health Committee under the previous Government, in fact, recommended that the Government ban smoking in cars carrying children under the age of 18 years. However, the National Government declined to do that, so we are picking up the challenge and we are moving ahead and taking this legislation all the way through.

Overseas, we know that this has been passed, particularly in Australia, in various jurisdictions over there. In Queensland, smoking while under-16-year-olds are in cars has been banned, and there is a $200 fine there. In South Australia, also under the age of 16, it’s been banned, and in Victoria, it’s under the age of 18. So there’s a little bit of change and discrepancy between various jurisdictions in terms of their ages. Canada has had a ban for children under the age of 16, but in Nova Scotia, though, they’ve picked the age of 19. Around the world, in Mauritius smoking is prohibited in a car carrying passengers—any passengers, actually. In the United Kingdom, and particularly in England and Wales, smoking in cars has been banned there recently for cars carrying under-18s—just since 2015. There are a number of countries that don’t yet have a smoking ban in cars carrying children, but they are planning to look at that legislation and it’s in the pipeline for them. Finland, Greece, Ireland, and the Netherlands have their bans in the planning stages.

I’d just like to make note, in conclusion, that this Government actually doesn’t want anyone in cars with children to be smoking, and we also don’t want anyone to be forced to live in their cars. You know, we are making record investments in terms of emergency, transitional, and State housing to ensure that all New Zealanders have somewhere absolutely decent to live. This bill will amend the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990, which has never included private dwellings. Now, maybe if the National Party is interested in banning smoking in people’s homes—well, I’m sure that would be a significant shift in their position.

There are a couple of clauses that we would like the select committee to take a much closer look at. These are these exemption clauses which are in this legislation. We would like a focus to be shone on that, and so, definitely, New Zealand First will be listening to the experts. We will be taking good consideration of the submissions and the evidence that will come in through the select committee process around those couple of clauses as it goes through the select committee stage. So, in conclusion, I am pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to this Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill, that I—and that we—will be supporting. I want to thank the last speaker, Jenny Marcroft, for her traverse of the international scenarios. I thought that was particularly good. I wanted to initially cover just very briefly Part 1 and Part 1A, and then talk to a part of this that particularly interests me.

I recall in 2016-17 being lobbied by one of the Northland schools who eventually brought a petition down here, and I’ll come back to that shortly. But Part 1 clearly just says, “Look, with our other pieces of legislation, workplaces, employee and passenger vehicles—this bill applies to children in those environments as well.”

It’s Part 1A that’s kind of interesting, what I’ll call the application criteria. First, we note it’s relevant to children under 18. Secondly, the vehicle needs to be moving or stationary. And, thirdly, it needs to be on a road, which got me looking through, this afternoon, thinking, “Crikey, what is the definition of a road?” Well, it turns out it actually picks up car parks, beaches, wharves, river beds, bridges. So I think most of the definitions of a road—there is some difference between a driveway and a road where driveway meets a road, but maybe that comes into the part that my colleague was talking about, about where we start to encroach on the sovereignty of the home and the sovereignty of the individual. The Hon Mike Woodhouse also commented on the odd parts to this bill, the clauses that talk about a lack of application to those under 18 and the only occupant in a car, and where a vehicle is used as a dwelling. I think my colleague covered that off. This bill doesn’t take the opportunity to comment on vaping and the opportunities that might present. I think it could and might have, and maybe this select committee will reflect on that also.

The regulatory impact statement clearly identified the health benefits: decreased hospital admissions, decreased asthma, and decreased glue ear—otitis media with effusion. We know that there’s a relationship between smoking and the glue ear that children get, which prevents them from hearing. The regulatory impact statement also talks about the evidence, which they call “medium”, and I’m aware there’s some level of controversy around whether this is really strong or whether it’s anecdotal almost, but it’s referred to here as “medium”, which in my view is probably a good summary. I was particularly interested in page 8, where they talk about the degree of harm. They comment here that smoking in a vehicle, even when the vehicle has the air conditioning on or where the window is halfway down, still has a significant amount of contaminants in it, and they reference a New Zealand Medical Journal article saying that where the smoking has occurred in a car it’s similar to being in a smoky pub.

I think what interested me was some of their references, because a situation that particularly sticks in my mind from the school children in Northland in 2016—they were coming from a Blue Light enterprise with the Relay for Life, and, as part of that, their mission was to get signatures and survey views from the audience in Relay for Life around second-hand smoking in cars for children. They presented that to me, and, in fact, I brought that here to the Prime Minister of the day, as I recall. The part that really stuck in my mind, that they pointed out to me, was third-hand smoking or residues. The regulatory impact statement refers to that and refers to a 2008 paper, which I think is particularly interesting, because what this paper did was look at vehicles that smokers had been in and smokers hadn’t been in—second-hand vehicles—and they did surface wipes, they did an assessment of the dust and air samples, and clearly found a difference in all of those in vehicles where there’d been smokers and non-smokers.

If they looked at where a vehicle had been a smoking vehicle and the person had banned smoking, not smoked in it for a number of years, they didn’t get the air contaminants but there were still significant residual nicotine and other contaminants on the surface wipe and in the dust. This is the third-hand smoking, if you like, or the residual contaminants, making the case that when you smoke in a car it permeates the leather, it permeates the seats, it permeates the seals round the windows, and you may stop smoking in that car but those contaminants will continue to leach. I think this is a really, really important area of second-hand smoking in cars. Clearly, the primary firsthand effect and the second-hand effect we’re aware of, and this is referred to as the third-hand effect.

So those are some of the things that we’ll explore in select committee. Again, I want to acknowledge the petition from the Northland school that came towards the House of Parliament in 2016, was received here in 2017, and I look forward to this going to select committee for further exploration and, hopefully, our support. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It is simply not good enough. I think all of us here in this House agree that it’s simply not good enough for children, who don’t make the choice or the decision, to be exposed to second-hand smoke while in a vehicle. So the Greens stand to support in this House the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill.

The part of the bill at the core of what we are debating tonight is new section 20D in Part 1A, inserted by clause 9, where it says very clearly, and this goes to the brief but clear intentions of the bill, “Smoking prohibited in motor vehicle carrying child. (1) A person must not smoke in a motor vehicle, whether moving or stationary, that is on a road and has a child occupant.” Of course, there are definitions spelt out around “child occupant … a person under the age of 18 years who is in a motor vehicle” and so on and so forth. But I think at the heart of everything we are trying to acknowledge here is the problem of children being exposed to second-hand smoke.

Now, the Greens support this bill as part of our smoke-free Aotearoa by 2025 vision. We agree with, because it is in keeping with the Green kaupapa, and we’ll support this approach. We’ve had conversations, and it has been talked about here in the House tonight, about the methods of how we change behaviour. I’m pleased to see a focus in this bill on changing behaviour as opposed to a punitive action. There is a fine. There is a fine of $50 or a fine imposed by the court not exceeding $100. What we will hope to see, and it is mentioned in the bill somewhat, is a direction, a good clear direction for police, to be able to make referrals to health support, to cessation support, to be able to refer on to support organisations and smoking cessation organisations as well.

That, we believe, and know from evidence, is the way to be able to support a change in behaviour—and to be able to hear from the Minister herself that this is what this bill is essentially about; it is encouraging a change of behaviour. We have seen compliance and positive behavioural change happen, particularly around smoking laws before. Actually, there’s been a bit of a theme of the smoky Holden. I mean, I too, as a child of the 1970s and 1980s, remember exactly that. Particularly for me, Māori women have a disproportionately higher rate of smoking still, but especially back then in the 1980s. So that’s very much a memory for myself, and it is unpleasant.

But how do we want to be able to support enduring behavioural change? We did see some good compliance has happened. The 2000 law change was successful in compliance in workplaces. Gosh, I remember not having to come home from a nightclub with hair that smelt like a smoky hedge on top of my head.

Angie Warren-Clark: Ha, ha!

MARAMA DAVIDSON: You remember, I know. Sorry, not you, Madam Speaker.

Matt Doocey: It never happened to me.

MARAMA DAVIDSON: Ha, ha! Now, there’s a bit of denial going on here in this House tonight. But we all know clearly how unpleasant that was, especially as a child. So what we’re going to be interested in is some data—and I understand that this will kick into place, 18 months following royal cessat—assent; ha, ha, royal cessation!—so that we can get the public education and awareness campaign out there. And that’s critical actually. It’s really critical that we don’t just go straight into a punitive approach but that we get the public information awareness campaign out there so that we can also encourage people to change their behaviours and let people know. Actually, Dr Shane Reti picked up on some of the actual health impacts. I’m sure other speakers that I missed did as well, which is the point—which is the whole point.

The Greens will want to see how this law stacks up some time further down the road once it’s put in place. We’ll want to see a bit of a breakdown as to how many fines we actually end up putting out there, how many referrals to smoking cessation support, who ends up being fined and punished by this law, whether there is an imbalance in terms of what families end up being impacted on by this law. So we’ll be very clear that, you know, we want to support the intentions of the bill and we’ll be clear about following up and monitoring some data as to how it actually plays out.

The final point in my short call tonight that I think I’ll pick up from, and others have talked about it, is I’m looking forward to the benefits for Māori children, for all children including Māori children, given that they are 2.6 times more likely to be exposed than other children. And so I look forward for the benefits for all children and assisting Māori communities and Māori families in a way that is enduring to be able to change behaviours and set a different direction for the understanding of what our tamariki should be able to breathe when they are in all of our cars.

So with that, we look forward to hearing back from the Health Committee and further changes that might help this to be a really good piece of law. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to talk to the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill at its first reading.

We support this bill. It makes sense. It makes common sense. It’s a shame sometimes you have to make laws around common sense, but you have to. I was really quite surprised when the Action on Smoking and Health survey, which came out in 2016, said just how many children had been in cars in the previous week: 12 percent of Pākehā fourth-formers reported being in a car where people were smoking the previous week and 29 percent of Māori fourth-form students reported being in a car where smoking was going on.

As the previous speaker, Marama Davidson, has indicated, with a Holden—we had a Humber Hawk. My old man was like Andy Capp—you know, those roll-your-owns, and the cigarette was in the bottom of his mouth and you’d think it couldn’t possibly ignite. He’d puff away and away it would go again, and the place was full of smoke. He said they were much less dangerous, incidentally, roll-your-owns, because they didn’t have those added toxins and cobalt in it, or something to make it slow down or saltpetre or something. Anyway, lung cancer got him in the end—may he rest in peace. But over all of those years where he refused to not smoke in the vehicle, I don’t know anything that might have really changed his mind. A heavy fine and imprisonment might have got him there, but a piece of legislation like this is still necessary, because there are still people who are addicted and who don’t think it’s a problem “because it’s always been that way and why would we want to change it?”

But the police need the extra powers. They need to be able to, if they see something like that occurring—and it may not just be tobacco. If cannabis is legalised and there’s reefers being smoked in the confines of a car, that would be obviously extremely undesirable for young people or second- or third-hand smoking, and Dr Reti introduced us to a whole new horror of these toxins, and what have you, still being present in a vehicle for a long period of time.

I think there were a couple of misses around this bill; you know, vaping. Why leave that out? It’s been examined on every level. You can’t vape in a plane, you can’t vape in a lot of public places, so why in a closed place? I noticed that vapers have a ridiculous amount of smoke around them. It’s the kind of thing that’s alarming when you see it down the street. It’s as if they have combusted. But no, it’s just the vape. But imagine it filling up a car. It could be a hazard to driving—who knows. But that is one of the things, no doubt, that will come out at the select committee.

I guess the other contradiction which did strike me as being a bit peculiar is to allow smoking in a vehicle that is a dwelling, like a camper van. As long as it’s stationary you can smoke in it, and I don’t think that that’s worthy of an exemption. I think, again, it sends odd mixed messages. You might as well go the whole hog on this one. I guess at the select committee this will be teased out, and if people are living in their cars and they don’t move very often, what does that actually mean? But I think exempting people who are under 18 by allowing them to smoke in a vehicle as long as they are the only person under 18 in a vehicle, to me, does seem rather counter to the spirit of this bill and a bit contradictory.

So there are a number of things that we support, and we will support the bill at least till it goes through to select committee. I believe that changing behaviour can be the carrot and the stick approach, and also the fear factor. If you fear that you are going to give your children secondary smoke that might cause cancer in later years, those are the kinds of things that might just kick in and make people think a couple of times extra, but to have this backing it up and to have the police able to make sure that people are aware of the safety and the health aspects and, “Oh, by the way, if that doesn’t work, you’ll get a fine.”—I don’t know whether that is going to be determined at the select committee.

I think there are a number of really good aspects to this bill, and I won’t take up further time in the House this evening by going into them in more detail. I’m sure there’ll be other opportunities to talk about it. So, with that said, I commend this bill to the House.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a real pleasure to rise and speak to—and I’m going to read it out also, because it’s so very long—the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. It is a real pleasure to rise as a member of the Health Committee and to recognise the Hon Jenny Salesa for putting in place some changes—changes that the Opposition failed to do when they looked at this issue. Nevertheless, I take and accept that the members across the House are happy to support it at this stage.

Now, this bill is what I would consider a small but significant change. As we say, ahakoa he iti, he pounamu—it is small but precious—just like our little people.

Kieran McAnulty: Like me!

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Ha, ha! And like Kieran McAnulty. So this bill seeks, very simply, to remove smoking from cars when children are present, and children are defined as “18 and under”. I am like everyone here, and I have my own story as well. I grew up in a smoke-free car, but the smoke-free car that I grew up in had no seatbelts. We had a Triumph Mk II with overdrive, and it was a pretty racy car. It would zoom around. We’d go up and—

Jonathan Young: Racy?

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Well, it was racy. It was fire-engine red, too. And one of the things was that we kids would be in the backseat completely—there were no seatbelts at all. And, of course, that has changed now, and I think the member Jenny Marcroft said this as well: it was perfectly normal, back when I was a young nipper, not to have a seatbelt on—absolutely normal. And that is what I particularly like about this bill. This bill seeks to change the norm—the norm that it’s OK to smoke in a car when you have children—and it is not seeking to instantly change that norm. There will be an 18-month period of media campaigning, etc., which will support this change. So it’s about letting people know the harm that is done, and it is important to do that, because, as the members across the House have said, a $50 fine may not be significant enough to change, but it is part of the picture of that change.

Now, why is this important? Why is it important to ban smoking in cars? I did write this down. So these are some of the health effects, and the member Shane Reti has mentioned them. It increases serious infections affecting breathing to our children. It increases croup, bronchitis, pneumonia, and it increases the likelihood of catching colds, coughs, and wheezes. It dramatically increases the risk of cot death for infants—dramatically increases the risk of cot death for infants. It increases glue ear and middle ear infections, and one that was very surprising to me: the instances of meningococcal disease. And I think that that is something that the Opposition would be very interested to know. And there are about 15,000 asthma attacks in children under the age of 16 years per year that are attributed to smoking in cars. So these are some of the things that people may not realise or understand.

The other thing that I particularly like about this bill is that, with this transition period, those officers will also have the option to give people smoking cessation as opposed to an infringement. This will not be a criminal conviction, and the person who is smoking will get the infringement, not the person who is driving. I think that that it is really important and quite sensible, because sometimes we do not have the option, or we are unable to ask people to not smoke in our cars, and those people will be the ones that will be fined for that. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. I’d just like to start by pausing and reflecting on the poor, old smoker! It’s not much fun for them these days. I consider myself a former smoker—that means I haven’t had one today. The poor smokers get a bit of a kicking these days, and you can probably understand that, yes, in this situation that we’re debating tonight, it makes a lot of sense—vulnerable children in cars. Really, we shouldn’t have adults smoking in cars. So I think this is a logical next step. When you think about it, we used to smoke in buses, planes, and pubs. Now, there are towns in my part of the world, in North Canterbury, like Hanmer, which are going smoke-free as a town. So it’s all a logical next step.

But I would like to point out—and I was sort of trying to gear myself up to speak tonight—that it’s all a bit underwhelming, really, isn’t it? The whole bill is just a bit—well, underwhelming. I mean, this Government came in to be one of the most transformational Governments we have seen. We’re 18 months in, we’re six months into the “year of delivery”, and what are we debating tonight? A bit of a nice to have, a bit of a stocking filler, really—that’s what I’d call it; a bit of a filler. If it was really transformational, they would have embraced the technology that has developed, even since the last Government, and now that they’re in charge, they should’ve taken on the technologies of vaping and really made a difference. Why are we tinkering around the edges, saying, “Oh, we’ll pass a piece of legislation. It’ll take 18 months to come in, and even the regulatory impact statement says, in fact, legislation is probably not going to make a difference. But, hey, we’ll do an education plan in parallel, and we’re not actually expecting those who are going to be the ones we are targeting to actually take any notice anyway.”?

And I come back to that point: transformational Government—or so they espouse—18 months in, six months into the year of delivery, and we have this stocking-filler bill that is tinkering around the edges, when what they could have done is embrace the latest technology—vaping. What does this bill say about vaping? Silent. Because, if we’re really honestly aiming for 2025, we’ve got to do a lot better than this, surely? A lot better than this. Why are we not bringing a bill into the House that focuses on 2025, resources all the latest technology on vaping, getting people off cigarettes and into vaping? I mean, are we going to say that you can vape in cars, because the bill doesn’t say anything? Are we going to say that, once the referendum comes in, you can smoke cannabis in cars? I mean, it really is short-sighted, and for a Government that came in and said that they were going to be transformational, I think people tonight listening and watching will be—well, like me—quite underwhelmed.

I’m on the Health Committee, and I’d like to say—I’ll take a bit of a sweepstake tonight—I think we’ll get about three submissions. Two of them will be because people made a wrong submission to the wrong select committee, and we’ll probably get about one. And we’ll change nothing to the bill, and then we’ll bring it in—

Michael Wood: Put something up! Will the member put his money where his mouth is?

MATT DOOCEY: Well, how about you? You told us you were going to be a transformational Government. You’re the Government. Why don’t you put a bill in that will be transformational, that’ll really make New Zealand go smoke-free by 2025? All we’re doing is tinkering around the edges—underwhelming. I’m betting—and I’m not going to bet a pack of cigarettes but I’m betting—that we’ll get three submissions. Nothing in this bill will change. We’ll come back out of select committee for the second reading and we’ll say all the same words—“Children are our future. We need to protect them.”—and then we’ll get to the second and third readings, we’ll pass the bill, and 18 months down the track we’ll say, “Hey, legislation didn’t make much difference, but we ran a good educational campaign.”

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired. Can I remind members again that, if you use the pronoun “you”, you are bringing the Speaker into the debate. So we have 1 hour 15 minutes to go. Let’s not have to do that again.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, usually, that’s a hard act to follow, but in this case, let’s do something a bit more upbeat.

Thinking about last Saturday, last Saturday was the shortest day of the year, and down South, last Saturday was marked by a number of midwinter swims by people in very strange swimming togs. And also associated with it is chipping that ice off the car every morning. But the problem we’ve got is also that midwinter is associated with our emergency departments being absolutely packed full of wheezing and coughing kids. I remember going on post-admission ward rounds and just seeing whole rooms full of kids hooked up to nebuliser, oxygen, kids getting intravenous antibiotics because they had pneumonia. What this bill will do is make a big difference in that space, because what the research shows is that if kids are exposed to second-hand cigarette smoke they’re much more likely to get respiratory tract infections, they’re much more likely to get otitis media middle ear infections, and they’re much more likely to get asthma attacks. So it has a huge impact on children’s health.

I remember talking to quite a few parents of kids coming into hospital, and they used to say, “Well, we always smoke outside. We don’t smoke in our homes.” But I don’t actually ever remember having a conversation about smoking in cars. And yet, what the research shows is that if you smoke in cars you can get much more intense concentrations of that cigarette smoke pollution, because research shows that, even after one cigarette, you can get really high levels. It can be incredibly high if you’re in a stationary car with all the windows wound up, but even if somebody is sitting there with a cigarette just by the open window, you can actually get quite high levels of that toxic cigarette smoke. The problem we’ve got is that babies and little children can’t actually speak up and say, “Can you please stop smoking in my car?” So what this bill will do is allow us to do that on their behalf.

What this bill does is it says that we’re going to amend the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 to prohibit smoking in motor vehicles with children and young people under the age of 18 years. And it will be the person who is actually smoking who will be held liable for that breach. And so what we do say is that if somebody is by themselves in the car and they are under 18, that prohibition doesn’t apply, or if they are smoking in a car where everybody else is over that age but they’re not. But, basically, what this bill does is it allows the police to issue an infringement notice, which is $50. And then, if that’s not paid and it does end up in the courts, the maximum fine is $100. What we still will have is that the police can have discretion. So they can issue warnings, they can provide information, or they can refer to stop-smoking services, because the point of this legislation is not to issue lots and lots and lots of fines; it is actually to create a culture change so that it’s not a norm for people to smoke with cars with children.

So what the real focus is on is shifting that public perception. I remember when I was younger going to pubs and, basically, you used to come home that night and your clothes and your hair absolutely reeked of cigarette smoke. We managed to change that. We managed to get smoke-free bars, we managed to get smoke-free restaurants, and if we can do it in that space, we can do it for kids in cars.

Talking about the timing, the bill comes into force 18 months after it receives Royal assent. The issue that the Hon Michael Woodhouse was talking about—he was worried that the whole world would fall into a hiatus in that 18 months. But, actually, during that 18 months we’re going to be incredibly busy, because what we’re going to be doing is putting in place that whole regime, making sure that the police can make changes to their processing systems, and also making sure that they’ve got staff training in that area. It also allows us to run a really decent public-health education and social-marketing campaign.

What we’re aiming to do, as I’ve said, is we’re actually aiming to change the norm about smoking in cars with kids, and so during that time the police will be active. What they’ll be doing is they’ll be going out, they’ll be issuing warnings, and they’ll be talking to people about smoking in cars and the impact that has on children. So that will be quite a huge time to be able to think about how we how we shift that public perception.

But I think there’s already—talking about public perception—a lot of support in the community for this bill. Back in 2015, the Health Committee actually received a petition that was asking them to look at smoking in cars. Back then, what the select committee recommended was that we introduce legislation, or other measures, to ban smoking in cars carrying children under 18 years. So this very bill was recommended under the previous Government. But they, basically, declined to do so, so we’re picking up that ball and running with it right now.

I think the other thing is that surveys have consistently said that there’s a lot of support. In general, over about 90 percent of people are supportive of prohibiting smoking in vehicles with children. A lot of other countries have just gone on and done it. In places like Australia, England, Scotland, Ireland, and South Africa, they’ve already got legislation or measures in place because of smoking in cars with kids.

So this is a really good bill, and it’s going to protect a lot of children from second-hand cigarette smoke; in particular, those babies and children that can’t themselves say, “Look, can you please stop smoking in my car.” This is the bill that will do that for them. It’s a really important bill that creates that shift in the thinking that it’s actually OK to smoke in cars with kids, and so therefore I commend this bill to the House.

PAULO GARCIA (National): Good evening, Mr Speaker. I’m happy to be able to take a call on the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. The bill supports New Zealand’s responsibilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It seeks to protect children and young people from the risks and harm caused by second-hand smoke. It’s all very good. As New Zealand journeys to Smokefree Aotearoa 2025, anything that that can be done to achieve this target should be helped. We strongly recommend, however, that a few little issues be dealt with at the select committee.

The purpose of the bill is very commendable. It is to prohibit smoking inside an enclosed space where there are young people. Mostly, those who will be doing this would either be family members or parents, so we have another main reason for this problem, which is irresponsible parenthood, which is another discussion altogether.

We have heard members talk about their own younger experiences in cars where parents had smoked. I had that myself. My father was a heavy smoker. We had a bigger vehicle. It was a Kombi, a Volkswagen—a big van—and so we had a little bit more space. But he stopped. He stopped smoking in the car, and it wasn’t really because a law was passed where he was afraid that a policeman would spot him and fine him. The change that occurred with him happened because he had learned of the consequences of what he was doing. He had figured it out, and he became responsible and decided to stop.

Smoking in cars has been a persistent problem, but the Ministry of Health itself found that the decline of smoking in cars was directly related to the decline of smoking in general. That seems to indicate that the root cause is the smoking in itself. In fact, we would probably all be aware that many, many smokers would not be smoking with their own children in the car most of the time. Essentially, I was just thinking that despite that finding of the ministry and despite their having confirmed that the possibility of a high number of people stopping smoking because of this change cannot be predictable, maybe the solution should be something more related to a health-based approach, an approach where a strategy could be focused on the stopping of smoking. This is why my colleagues have mentioned vaping, which actually would reduce the amount of smoking in itself.

So I would like to propose and strongly recommend that the select committee take a closer look and check out whether, really, the bill’s purpose can be achieved when even the ministry has already said what they have said—that it is smoking that needs to be cut down in numbers. Apart from that, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. As the chair of the Health Committee, I’m very much looking forward to the deliberations on this, the Smoke-free Environments (Prohibiting Smoking in Motor Vehicles Carrying Children) Amendment Bill. The history of this legislation actually goes back to 2004, when doctors globally, and medical professionals, highlighted the issue. Essentially, they said that no level of ventilation will eliminate the harmful effects of second-hand smoke in cars.

The discussion here in Aotearoa on the relevance of that research actually happened in 2010-11, under the auspices of the Māori Affairs Committee in their inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and the consequences of tobacco use for Māori. So I want to acknowledge the members of that Māori Affairs Committee for bringing this kaupapa to the House, because, in fact, one of their 42 recommendations was to look at our smoke-free environments legislation. In certain areas that they said that we should be looking at, the prohibition of smoking in vehicles carrying children was in fact one of those contexts. That was reinforced last year by the Health Committee and the Māori Affairs Committee, who wrote a joint report which was about achieving our smoke-free 2025 goal for Aotearoa New Zealand. And, again, a recommendation of that process was that we should look at vehicles carrying children.

I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge Associate Minister Salesa and also our coalition partners, New Zealand First and the Greens, for actually bringing this piece of legislation to the House. It for us is about putting children at the centre of legislative reform, so if people want to question why we’ve done this, and belittle it, actually what they’re doing is belittling the fact that we’re prioritising children.

In terms of an international context, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended the implementation of comprehensive smoke-free legislation in 2005, when they established the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. We are one of 180 countries to ratify that convention. What they did was highlight that we had to protect our citizens from exposure to second-hand smoke by introducing comprehensive smoke-free legislation. And why? Why did they want us to do that? Because, essentially, 600,000 deaths per year and 11 million disability-adjusted life years per year are a consequence of second-hand smoke. It means 166,000 child deaths each year, and in Aotearoa New Zealand, that’s 350 deaths per year. So if anyone wants to belittle the relevance of this piece of legislation, I seriously think they should look at the rationale and the international imperative for countries like ours to join the UK, to join Canada, to join South Africa, to join Australia, to join Puerto Rico, to join states like Ontario and Nova Scotia in Canada, and to join Maine, California, Arkansas, and Louisiana. So this initiative is a global initiative that helps all of us reduce the impact of second-hand smoke.

What I want to highlight is that this piece of legislation isn’t looking at criminalising people. The reality of a $50 fine is that we don’t want to criminalise people. So I want to acknowledge that the police are going to be arbiters of that process. They are our enforcement agency. So what we are asking them to do is be part of a conversation that we want to have with New Zealanders about how important it is to protect our children within a context that now we know causes serious harm. That harm leads to cancer; it leads to asthma, as my colleague Dr Liz Craig highlighted; children who develop respiratory tract infections; emphysema for those later in life. But the reality is children have smaller lungs, they have higher respiratory rates, they have immature immune systems, and people who smoke in contexts where there is no ventilation are actually killing our children.

So we’re here collectively as a Parliament to ensure we do everything to prevent what is the most preventable death and illness in the world. Smokefree, actually, is a concept that I think as a Parliament we bought into. I want to take the opportunity to also, as my colleague Shane Reti did, acknowledge the people of Northland, because it was the people of Northland in 2015 who signed a petition—over 2,000 Northlanders. They were mobilised to do so because they undertook a piece of research by the Northland District Health Board that found that 26.72 percent of Northland’s year 10 students were travelling to school in cars where someone was smoking. So this is community action. You know, this is what we should respond to as a Parliament—not only the voice of those academics, and the World Health Organization, and the fact that we signed this international framework convention, but also real people living in real communities, and, for this particular piece of legislation, the people of Northland.

The person who collected that petition, and I want to acknowledge her, was Marama Fox, who travelled to Kaitāia to do so. I know our colleague Shane Reti was involved when they brought that actual petition to the House. But what I also want to acknowledge, actually, is the leadership of Māori: the Māori Affairs Committee initially, as I highlighted, who undertook that inquiry; the Māori Affairs Committee with the Health Committee who, again, chose to undertake an assessment about where we are in terms of Smokefree 2025; and the Māori members of the Northland community, and the greater community. This isn’t just a Māori issue, but, actually, the Māori in that community were motivated to bring the kaupapa to the House.

I’ve heard that there are issues that some people have about some of the sections and clauses in the bill, and, you know, what I know about our Health Committee—and I have to acknowledge my colleagues in the House who are on that committee, particularly from the Opposition, the Hon Michael Woodhouse and Matt Doocey. I do want to acknowledge that we are incredibly collaborative and we will work diligently to make sure that we produce a piece of legislation that I hope the National Party will actually support at the third reading. That’s the goal. I know that there will be more than three people who submit, Matt, because there are communities that are incredibly passionate about making sure that the legacy of smoking—which, actually, if you know a little bit about Māori history, is a continuation of colonisation. We didn’t smoke—it was introduced to this country—but we seem to be the most disproportionately affected by it.

So I guess this is an opportunity, and I’ll put it out there. You know, we want to hear from communities about how relevant this is. We want to hear from communities about how important it is that this Parliament prioritises children. We want to hear from young people themselves. I know Children’s Commissioner Becroft has spoken about the relevance of this bill. He said it affects over 100,000 Kiwi kids. So Mr Becroft, let’s put the message out there, and let’s provide this context and this opportunity for young people themselves to tell us as politicians how relevant and how important this piece of legislation is to them. I think, actually, the select committee have to be really serious about how we advertise the bill. I’m also recommending that we use channels that young people are engaged in and try and encourage as many of them as possible—at intermediates, at secondary school, and, actually, maybe at primary school—to take the opportunity to participate in this piece of legislation, because the reality is we’re doing this to put children at the centre of policy. Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Bills

Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): I move, That the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 29 October 2019, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and to meet outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 181, 193, 194(1)(b) and (c).

This bill seeks to clarify and strengthen requirements on owners of offshore oil and gas installations to support increased levels of insurance or other financial assurance for their liabilities in the event of pollution resulting from an oil spill. Although the likelihood of a major marine spill is low, the environmental, financial, and cultural impacts of such an incident would be significant. Protecting our environment is hugely important for our nation and safeguards our economy and our future. As a nation, we’ve built our economy and reputation on our natural capital; tourism and agriculture are two of our biggest export earners as a result. New Zealand’s natural capital is of enormous value—immeasurable, I would argue. Our forests, our fresh water, our soil, our birdlife, our enormous marine area, our fish stocks, our atmosphere, and our biodiversity—these are taonga which have underpinned our way of life and our standard of living. However, these taonga cannot be taken for granted and must be protected for generations to come.

The level of financial assurance required for owners of offshore oil and gas installations needs to better reflect the real-world cost of implementing clean-up measures in the event of an oil spill in our waters. To enable this, the bill amends the Maritime Transport Act 1994. Amongst other things, its purpose is to clarify the requirements on owners of offshore oil and gas installations to hold insurance or other financial security in relation to their liability for clean-up and compensation resulting from an oil spill. The Maritime Transport Act implements a “polluter pays” regime, under which owners have unlimited liability for the cost of pollution damage resulting from a spill at their facilities in New Zealand waters. This means that anyone affected by oil damage from an offshore installation is entitled to make a claim against the owner. The owner’s liability includes the cost of measures to prevent or reduce pollution damage, the cost of reasonable measures to reinstate the environment, and the loss of profit from impairment to the environment.

The bill I’m speaking to today does not change the owner’s liability. Instead, it strengthens and clarifies the requirement for insurance and other financial security that owners must hold. The Act provides for owners to hold insurance or other financial security in respect of their liability. The insurance or other financial security is intended to mitigate the financial risk to the Crown and other parties, should the owner be unable to meet their liabilities in the event of a significant oil spill. Detailed requirements for the insurance or other financial security are specified in marine protection rules made under the Act. The bill amends the Act to provide certainty in relation to the liability of insurers or, in the case of financial security, to the persons providing financial security to the Crown and to other third parties who are affected by the pollution. The bill also clarifies that rules may specify the types of liability that will need to be insured against, and may provide for the insurance or other financial security to cover the cost of well control measures and other costs of implementing marine oil spill contingency plans.

The amendments to the Act will be supported by amendments to the relevant rules, which will specify the detailed requirements relating to the insurance or financial security. The rules will include a scaled framework for specifying the amount of cover required, based on the modelling of a credible worst-case scenario event from that particular installation. Maritime New Zealand will also issue guidance for applicants to help them to navigate the regime. I have publicly released working drafts of the guidance and marine protection rules that are proposed to be put in place following the passage of the bill. I have done this so that the public and stakeholders are able to understand how the new regime will work as a package. It will also ensure that the new regime is able to be implemented as soon as practicable if the bill is passed into law.

These changes are intended to enable owners of regulated offshore installations to meet the Act’s requirement using insurance policies that are consistent with internationally available best-practice policy wording and are available on the international market. These policies will be required to cover the key risks and costs of clean-up and pollution damage associated with the owner’s installation.

I’d just like to thank all of the officials who’ve been working behind the scenes for quite some time to bring this bill and the associated rules before the House. I commend this bill to the House.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, sir. I’m pleased to stand in support of this bill. This bill was prepared—and I’m pleased the Minister has continued on with that work—by the Hon Simon Bridges in his role in the transport portfolio. We see it as sensible and necessary, and we certainly do support not only world’s best practice in terms of any exploration that happens offshore but also ensuring that those companies who have the privilege to operate within our jurisdiction also carry the financial ability to put right anything that does occur. We’re very happy, in that regard, to add our support to this.

We do note that the Minister has doubled the upper limit cap of the regime that was put forward by the previous Government, but looking at the scaled framework that is in the notes, we see that, essentially, the Minister has added three further areas. In her press release, she is saying that the proposed upper limit has been set at $1.2 billion, instead of $600 million, to futureproof the regime in the event that a future installation proceeds at a higher-risk deep-water location. We do understand that there are different elements of risk according to the hydrocarbon that is being explored for or produced, and also there are different elements of risk regarding which side of New Zealand that you are exploring from because of prevailing weather. So our pre-election Cabinet paper recommended a scaled framework of a maximum of $600 million, but I’m sure as the bill goes through the select committee process, the members of the committee will be able to investigate and hear the rationale behind what the Minister has proposed.

Certainly, I think that as long as there is the ability for companies, as the Minister has just said, to be able to access the insurance product—the policies that are consistent with internationally available best-practice policy wording, a very precise and concise set of documents that is available on the international market—and as long as that is available and we do not see any limitations around this upper limit regarding those, I believe that this will be a way forward. We would be keen to hear from the Minister at some point in time; just her rationale.

When we look at the scaled framework and see what components make up that higher level, it’s interesting that it’s based on whether it’s gas, dry gas, or whether it’s any other type of hydrocarbon, whether that’s crude or condensate. It’s also based on the volume of what that liquid may be that reaches the shore. The limit that we had put in the previous bill, or the workings of it, was up to a maximum of 200,000, and she has taken it over 200,000; she’s taken it to over 280,000. Also, the total length of shoreline that may be affected by any sort of incident being 1,200 kilometres or more—that in itself has the highest number of points. So there’s a very simple scaled framework which people can download on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website and investigate that and see where they would sit.

We do note that particularly in Taranaki, where all the offshore installations currently are, there is a range of insurance cover already in place, from $170 million right through to about $390 million. So this is a practice that is already put in place, but what the Minister is doing now is lifting that upper limit for those sorts of occurrences that may occur.

We believe that oil spill contingency plans are already part of the plans and the permitting regime that operators have to comply with and satisfy New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals, and that the party responsible for the stopping of the release of oil must demonstrate they have prepared for all spill scenarios and have access to equipment and have financial means to contain a spill at its source. All of that is put in place before the permit is even granted. So what this bill is essentially doing is now putting in place the financial assurance that if those aspects are ever needed to be put in place, the financial ability for that to occur is present.

Like other members of the House, we believe that we have very good operators here in New Zealand. All exploration and production does carry a degree of risk. However, oil spills are extremely rare. New Zealand has never experienced a significant oil spill from an offshore installation. The largest was a 23 tonne spill from the Umuroa floating process ship off the Taranaki coast back in 2007, when an offtake ship, a vessel, was offloading and the umbilical pipeline became unattached for a short period of time. From that, a 13 kilometre stretch of beach off the Taranaki coast was temporarily affected by this spill. That’s the only account in 60 years of offshore operations. So we are thankful that we have world’s best practice. We have companies that pursue world’s very best in terms of health and safety not only for their own people who work on these installations but also for our environment—the environment which we appreciate as being pristine and must be cared for.

So we very much support the intent of this bill. As I said, there’ll be some questions we ask at select committee, and I’m sure that we can find those answers from officials. There’ll be others, no doubt, who will submit and seek answers as well. I do commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand here and make a contribution on the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill, first reading, and support the work of my colleague Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter in bringing this bill to the House. This is a Government that is committed to tackling the difficult, long-term challenges that New Zealand faces. Last year, the Government announced an end to new offshore oil and gas permits while allowing existing permits to run their course and for those operators to continue operating. We took that action as a way of confronting climate change and managing a just transition to a low-carbon economy, and this bill is part of our very deliberate, planned, and managed transition that we are making to ensure that the risks of a spill from oil and gas operations are well managed and properly mitigated.

We know, and I think this House agrees, going by the comments from the previous speaker, Jonathan Young, that the current requirement for operators to hold insurance of just $27 million is way too low. It’s a piece of regulation from another age, and the modelling shows that the cost of an oil spill in New Zealand could be, in the worst-case scenario, in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s not so long since we saw the grounding of the Rena and the spilling of oil into the Bay of Plenty. We saw the very real effects of an oil spill offshore on our treasured marine ecosystem, and the thing that left such a bad taste, I think, in the mouths of the communities that were affected by the Rena spill was that taxpayers and local communities were utterly exposed in that instance and left to foot the bill for the clean-up—

Jonathan Young: But that’s not the same as an oil installation. It’s not the same. Ships are not the same as oil installations.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: —a completely unsatisfactory situation. That experience is raw in the memory. Whether it’s a ship or whether it’s an offshore installation, Mr Young, the effect is potentially the same on the ecosystem and the biodiversity and the lives of so many New Zealanders who live on, and daily rely, on our coastlines.

It’s only fair—and this is the principle that underlines this bill—that those who profit from oil and gas exploration are able to cover the clean-up costs of an oil spill in the event of that happening, and particularly in the event of a worst-case scenario.

The bill aims to strike a fair deal both for New Zealanders and the oil and gas industry. It requires operators to hold insurance scaled to the risk that their installations pose. This bill and the accompanying rules will ensure that the major costs of a worst-case scenario oil spill, the clean-up and the well control measures, are properly insured against.

Now, I said that it aims to strike a balance, and the reason it has to strike a balance is that, obviously, you want to protect communities and the taxpayer against having to pick up the costs of a spill from an offshore installation, but it’s also important to ensure that this regime is insurable on the international market. We are right now experiencing the difficulties of an international reinsurance market that, in the wake of various seismic events in this country in recent years, sees this country as challenging, in that respect.

The bill also addresses concerns raised by industry about the insurability of the regime that was first developed under the previous National Government. It clarifies that operators rather than the insurers hold unlimited liability for the cost of the clean-up and pollution damage associated with an oil spill. So it’s the operators who are responsible for that unlimited liability. It also clarifies that marine protection rules may specify the types of liability that will need to be insured against, and allow for insurance to cover the cost of well control measures in the event of a well blowout.

People will also remember the blowout in an oil well in the Gulf of Mexico, one of the worst marine disasters associated with the international offshore drilling industry. People saw the massive ecological damage and the immense difficulty of capping that well and limiting the damage. I think that the former Government, in the rules that it drafted prior to the last election, basically, looked at setting the limit—the proposed upper limit in the rules that they were considering was $600 million. The advice from the officials that led to that upper limit being doubled was that the $600 million upper limit simply would not have futureproofed this regulatory regime against the risk posed of a large deep-sea installation operating in New Zealand waters. Now, currently there aren’t any, but it’s quite possible that they will be, and so this regime—

Jonathan Young: How is that going to happen?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Because there are current permits that are allowed to run their course for the next, what, 25 years. So that’s what this change is insuring against. Anyone who watched the unfolding of the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico will know that a $600 million limit is simply not enough to deal with the effects of a spill at scale on an offshore installation.

So there is risk modelling for all of the existing operations, and I think that the modelling that’s been provided indicates that the upper limit for the current installations in Taranaki would be between $170 million and $360 million for the existing operations in Taranaki. So you can see that’s the scale of it.

The bill also, as well as providing the basis for regulations to be set by Order in Council, changes the—it’s not just a regulatory change; it also changes the Maritime Transport Act of 1994, and that’s necessary in order to bring in the new rules that provide the new settings.

So that’s it. I look forward to seeing what the select committee comes up with. I’m sure the risk modelling for the different kinds of installations will be worked through in detail, and there’ll be plenty of time to question and scrutinise those. Thank you.

Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a wonderful opportunity to take a call in the first reading of this Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill. The National Party stands in favour of this bill. It’s taken a wee while to get here, and it’s all about, basically, an insurance premium for these companies to have to hold, which makes good, logical sense, and lifting that upper level.

Reading the bill, I was thinking back to the Rena shipwreck that occurred on 5 October in 2011. While that isn’t an offshore installation, certainly what played out meant that a lot of that very heavy machine oil ended up on the coast and had a big impact on the Bay of Plenty. In fact, I was the associate transport Minister at the time and Steven Joyce was the Minister, so I was dispatched on a regular basis to go up and check in on how the recovery was going on the Rena. Nick Smith, the Minister at the time—he described it as the worst maritime environment disaster in our recollection of this fine country of ours. Certainly, it was a massive event, and the clean-up took a long period of time.

I happened to be a duty Minister in the summer that followed. For those on the other side of the Treasury benches that have been Ministers over the summer break, they will probably run a similar scenario to what we did, so that everyone could have a break. So I happened to be the duty Minister, would you believe, when the Rena broke in two. That created quite a bit of a frenzy, that occurred on the 9th of the 1st 2012. The reason I tell you that story is that it’s always important, when legislation goes through this place, to talk about life experiences—and that was a live experience for New Zealanders, particularly for the Bay of Plenty, to have to deal with the aftermath of the Rena, something that impacted in the vicinity of about 20,000 seabirds—and, in fact, 2,000 seabirds were estimated to have been killed. I went and visited the great work that Massey University were doing cleaning up these seabirds that had been rescued that had, effectively, been caught up in this terrible waste oil.

So this bill that we are debating, this evening, that the National Party supports, is very important. It basically says that owners should hold the necessary insurance. Those people listening, out there on a Tuesday night at 9.30, will think that this is a good, pragmatic bill. The National Party supports it.

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister of Transport): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to follow, in a collegial fashion, the shadow spokesman for agriculture, Nathan Guy, and that little journey down memory lane about Mōtītī Island and the surrounding environs.

Naturally, we support this bill. We support this bill because we think it’s a reasonable impost that should be placed upon a global industry that from time to time will come to New Zealand either as carriers of oil or, in my case, as fellow enthusiasts for the extraction of oil, to the extent that we have accessible oilfields in New Zealand.

Often, there is a debate as to where do you draw the line between what is rightfully the private responsibility of people who hope to profit from extracting resources out of our environment, and that which remains the residual responsibility of the State. The reason I raise that distinction is to ensure that we do what is right and proper by our people, but that we also don’t close the door to those with access to foreign capital who either provide us with essential services—i.e., the continual access to the oil that we require—or who want to develop, with New Zealanders, the natural resources of our country.

I also recall where I was when Nathan Guy, during that balmy summer, was checking his cows for bloat—

Hon Nathan Guy: Normally the spring.

Hon SHANE JONES: He milks all the way round the year; he’s got so many farms, although they may decrease if the four-lane highway continues along—oh no, Mr Twyford is here, there’ll be no more four-lane highways in that direction for the foreseeable future; maybe a token improved highway south of Whangarei. Of course, our attention is dedicated to rail but that’s all going to be electrical, so I’ll come back to the topic at hand.

So I do recall where I was. But I also recall the utter confusion as to how did it happen, who was responsible, the quite lurid stories as to what would have possessed the Filipino captain, as I recall, to be celebrating a birthday and who was actually with him when he celebrated their birthday—of course, that led to all sorts of lurid explanations from the fishing industry that don’t deserve to be shared in this particular segment of the evening or in the House. But I do recall also, it being an absolute shock to the people from Mōtītī Island. They were engulfed in it. It was bigger than Ben-Hur. Sadly, it didn’t end well for a lot of those people, partly because they felt dislocated in terms of what the State was doing and partly because they felt that the insurers standing behind, if I’m not mistaken, the Greek owners, in that particular episode, played hardball. But whilst the litigation and the politics got more and more robust, the environment suffered. I didn’t have the pleasure to actually go and visit the patient souls saving the seabirds, but I actually went out on a fishing-boat and had a good look around in that particular area.

So it’s right and proper that we sheet home the responsibilities where they belong, but do it in such a way that people realise that we’re still open for business. That’s not to compromise the standards that the public expect us to adhere to in relation to environmental management; it’s just assuring people that come to New Zealand that we’re not some frontier where they can take advantage of us. We’re a sophisticated, modern economy and our people have very modern expectations as to who should be held responsible.

Therefore, we support, and I echo, some of the sentiments by Mr Guy and the speech shared initially by Mr Twyford. So we look forward to the entire process, and we identify the need to have balance, but also to compromise not one inch should we continue to suffer the sad lessons of Rena and our environment suffers. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Isn’t it a lovely night when we can all agree, on this Tuesday evening? I too rise in support of this Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill in its first reading. I would like to echo the sentiment that our marine environment is incredibly special, that our ecosystems here are some of the most precious in the world, and that our indigenous marine species are some of the rarest. The other thing is that New Zealanders have a very innate connection with our marine environment—and certainly, with respect to the contributions already given, that is highlighted by the devastation caused, and the public outcry, with respect to the Rena disaster. We want to make sure that that sort of oil spill never occurs again. So this bill certainly goes toward that—strengthening the requirements of owners of offshore oil and gas installations to hold appropriate financial securities and raising the framework in the upper limit to $1.2 billion.

Look, I do note—and of course the National Party don’t have monopolies on good ideas—that this bill sprung out of a Cabinet paper that was designed while the National Party was leading the Government. So it is this new Government, the Labour-led and New Zealand First-led Government, that has taken this National Party bill, reframed it, and introduced it to the House now two years after that review was complete.

As my colleague Mr Jonathan Young has said, originally the framework was up to $600 million, and has been raised, without detail, to $1.2 billion. So questions will have to be asked in the select committee with respect to the raising of that limit. But regardless, this side of the House stands in unity that we believe that our marine ecosystem does require protection. It does require a framework that if there is an oil spill and a disaster, the company should take that liability and clean up that work.

But in conclusion, it’s not all about evil profiteering of oil and gas installations and providers. They are in partnership with the Crown. It should be mentioned that they are responsible operators as well. I understand from Mr Young that Todd Energy sponsor many community events in the Taranaki region, including looking after and funding the New Plymouth aquatic centre. So, look, it’s not all about dirty corporates; it’s about a partnership. It’s about putting a framework in place that does protect our marine ecosystem, and being responsible all round with respect to our environment and energy, moving forward. For that reason, I support this bill.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this, the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill. Can I acknowledge the transport Minister, Phil Twyford and the associate Minister who was here, Julie Anne Genter, for leading this work.

It’s been good to hear the memories that people have of the incident of the MV Rena back in 2011. I have similar memories of just seeing what has been termed the worst maritime disaster, and for me it was really seeing the volunteers who were helping to clean up, the local people of Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty region who really dropped everything that they were doing and got themselves down to the beach, literally, to see what had happened.

But very soon, we saw the outcome of the incident, the accident where I’m told that over 300 tonnes of oil spilled. Then we started seeing the impacts on the local environmental conditions, the marine life. For me, it was an education lesson looking at the TV screens from Wellington, 700 kilometres away, and to see this 38,000 tonne ship that was beached, literally, but also the impacts that came off from that: first, the oil, then the containers, and then—I guess—the inquiry into who was responsible, how it happened, what the impact was, and really the ramifications from there.

I sit on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I’m looking forward to taking this piece of work through that process and hearing from those who never ever want this to ever—ever—happen again. Interestingly, you only need to do a small bit of research to see that this is really nothing if you compared it to the accident that would await us if there was a deep-sea drilling issue. So it’s good that this is being looked at now, and some of those costs associated with deep-sea drilling would have a clean-up far higher than the $500 million to $600 million that was linked to the Rena. So it is timely, and I am looking forward to working through the process here.

So as we’ve heard, look, it really amends the maritime protection rules, and that will see the increase of the required level assurance up to a maximum of $1.2 billion. I think when you look back at the costs and the implications on those wanting to do this activity, that’s a good amount. It’s far in excess of the $27 million that operators currently have to hold at the moment. It’s such a big gap that I think, “Wow. Why hasn’t this been looked at earlier? How come it’s taken an accident to ensure that costs are covered if such an incident takes place?” We’ve waited for the accident to take place and now we’re scrambling around. But in this case, we’ve been proactive in terms of making sure that there’s a change in legislation to ensure that those costs don’t come back to the poor old taxpayer but they are apportioned to the operator, who, as the Hon Shane Jones has said, if they’re taking resources then they’re certainly paying for any issues that come with that activity.

I want to acknowledge, though, and it has been said, that the previous Government initiated this work. Good on you. But this Government has chosen to consult on a higher limit, that $1.2 billion limit, and that’s been modelled to ensure that those costs are covered. So I’m hoping that the select committee process will provide us feedback that that is the right way to go. I know and am confident, from people I’ve talked to, that it feels that it’s about right and we’ll get a positive outcome from the process.

I am excited by what this brings. Some people may be excited by another one of these disasters. I certainly don’t want one to happen, and I know that this will provide the necessary legislation to ensure it never ever happens again. I commend this to the House.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to rise and take a late evening call on such an exciting piece of legislation going through the House. The first reading of the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill—this is fantastic. It’s great to see another fine piece of legislation, drafted under the previous Government, finally coming to fruition now under this Government. I’m sure they’re grateful of the constant pipeline of work we had lined up for them that they are able to roll out. We hear constantly about how there’s more and more work in the pipeline, but they’re doing a great job of hiding it from us. It’s great to see this one coming through.

I would just like to echo the comments from a previous member on our side, Sarah Dowie, when she made reference to the special nature of our marine environment. I think that’s something all New Zealanders can relate to; it is, indeed, special. That’s certainly why, under the previous Government, we set up 11 new marine reserves—more than any other Government.

Agnes Loheni: How many?

TIM VAN DE MOLEN: 11 new marine reserves under the previous Government; a fine thing indeed, to protect what is such an important part of our environment here in New Zealand. I’m sure the current Government would like to continue doing work in that space, and I’d like to suggest perhaps they start with the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary. Perhaps Mr Shaw might like to give some thought on that.

So here we are with this particular piece of legislation, looking to put some controls and measures in place around minimising the likelihood of an oil spill or an incident and then the subsequent impact of that. It’s about getting the balance, though, between the risk of that impact occurring and what that impact would be, as well as then the cost to mitigate that potential impact and the implications that cost would have on business.

Now, this Government has never shied away from the opportunity to charge much more than is needed of any business or any individual. Obviously, we’ve seen that here when previous recommendations have suggested a cap of $600 million is an appropriate level of assurance required under this legislation, and the Government’s doubled it. Hey, if they can charge more, why not?—seems to be the general theme. Of course, we want to minimise any risks, and the Rena example has been bought up several times. Actually, I’d just like to acknowledge not only the volunteers that helped out with that but also the Defence Force, that played a significant role in that clean-up exercise as well. These sorts of things are very passionately supported by Kiwis because of that passion I mentioned earlier about the environment, and the marine environment in particular.

So we need to get that level of protection in place, but, at the same time, we need to be ensuring that we’re not unduly impacting or imposing significantly higher costs that are unwarranted, in terms of the risk versus the cost to offset that risk on businesses who are participating in this industry. Of course, we know the Government’s looking to ban—or has banned—all future oil and gas exploration. Indeed, it seems they’d rather the industry didn’t exist at all and, perhaps, this is a surreptitious way to try and influence that ongoing change in that space. But we certainly support having some rules in place, and we feel the original $600 million amount was an appropriate level. So it’ll be interesting to see that canvassed at select committee, in terms of the reasoning around a potential change and whether, indeed, that is necessary.

So, look, we certainly support progressing this through—as I mentioned, drafted under the previous Government—and look forward to seeing the developments through select committee and beyond. So I commend it to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Priyanca Radhakrishnan—five minutes.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s with pleasure that I rise to take a short call on the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill. Now, a couple of members before me have reminisced about the Rena oil spill and, funnily enough, when I was considering this bill, that’s the oil spill that I thought about as well—1,700 tonnes of heavy oil, 200 tonnes of diesel, and we all remember the amount of time that it took to clear up that oil spill, the amount of sand that it was going to take, and the environmental impact as well: spotted dotterels, and there were 25 other native birds that were quite badly affected. Actually, there were about 2,000 seabirds that died and 20,000 others that were affected, and there were little jumpers and sweaters that locals made to keep some of those birds safe from the oil spill, as well.

Of course, the cost of the clean-up of the oil spills has been modelled, and the modelling shows us that the cost of an oil spill in New Zealand could actually be in the hundreds of millions, or even billions, in the worst-case scenario. That’s why this bill amends the Maritime Transport Act 1994—really, to clarify and strengthen the requirements on owners of offshore oil and gas installations to have the insurance or other financial security in relation to their liability for clean-up and compensation resulting from an oil spill. So it also clarifies that the onus lies with operators, rather than with insurers, to hold unlimited liability for the cost of clean-up.

Actually, I thought I’d just refer to a point made by Tim van de Molen, the member who has just resumed his seat, who talked about something about this Government and its surreptitious way to ensure that the industry doesn’t exist at all—or something to that effect—about oil and gas, which is absolutely untrue. This is part of the Government’s plan to confront climate change and manage a just transition to a low-carbon economy. It’s actually part of that deliberate, planned, and managed transition to a low-carbon economy that this Government is making sure that the risks of spills from oil and gas operations are mitigated in a way that is sustainable as well.

Just to go back to the bill, as I mentioned, it clarifies. It also aims to strike the right balance between creating a regime that insulates taxpayers and communities against the majority of oil spill - related costs and ensuring on the other hand that we have a regime that is insurable on the international market. This is a bill that goes a little bit further to ensure that those potentially high costs of an oil spill can be mitigated. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Alastair Scott—five minutes.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Maritime Transport (Offshore Installations) Amendment Bill. We’ve heard that it amends the 1994 Act—quite a long time ago, so I’m sure this is not the first amendment to that Act, but it is good that the Act is continuing to evolve and improve. Of course, the initiative that we’re talking about today is on the back of a National Government. The work was done in the last Government. It’s good to see the current Government continuing with the good work kicked off by Simon Bridges as Minister of Transport at the time.

A lot of people have been talking about the Rena and oil spills, and I was thinking of the Mikhail Lermontov breaking into the Marlborough Sounds as another example of a shipping disaster that could have been a bigger environmental issue than it was. It’s actually turned out to be quite a boon because it’s turned into a diving and recreational attraction. People from all around the country and all around the world, I imagine, go there to dive at this particular site. Not that we’d want to have more of these sites—not that we’d want to have more of these sites. We don’t want to have ships crashing into rocks just so that people can dive and explore.

In fact, while there’s a whole lot of issues around the safety and the ability and the competence of the captains at the time of both the Rena and the Mikhail Lermontov, this bill—believe it or not, having heard all the speeches and discussions so far—is not about ships. It has nothing to do with ships or the liability of ships crashing into a rock. This has to do with oil exploration and the spills of an offshore installation.

So ships have a different liability regime, but it’s interesting that we’ve been talking for the last little while about the Rena particularly. Now, this deals with oil exploration and the exploration and the installations that are involved in that, and the liability of those entities is unlimited. Today, it is unlimited, and after this bill amends the Act, they will continue to be in an unlimited liability situation, but it does clarify the type of insurance that the agent must carry out, and there’s going to be some modelling.

Minister Twyford mentioned the discussion that he will find interesting, and I will too, around that type of modelling and the aspects of risk that a type of installation will have. That will depend on, for example, whether it’s on the West Coast of the South Island compared to the calm waters of the Bay of Plenty. Those types of things, I’m sure, will be discussed, and that will change the risk, change the premium, and change the obligation of the oil exploration, oil installation entity. At the end of the day, the bill will clarify some of those things so that that the agents or the entities are not paying too much for insurance, so that it’s very clear to them what they’re paying for because, as it’s been mentioned before, we don’t want to put investors off, we don’t want to put explorers off from coming to New Zealand, because it is important that we continue to carry out that work.

It is a good bill—as I say, It’s kicked off from the previous Government. It seems to me to be quite a technical bill in the ways that the modelling particularly might result in some good discussions, and I am looking forward to those discussions, depending particularly if Minister Twyford—I don’t know; he might even turn up and discuss it if he’s interested. So I look forward to those discussions and I commend the bill to the House.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): The previous speaker on this bill, Alastair Scott, said that it was really quite a technical bill. Let me see if I can bring this bill alive a little for the people who are watching at home.

The way to think about this bill is that it is a seatbelt bill—it’s a seatbelt bill. So let me explain what I mean by that. As we all know, most of us most of the time when we get into cars don’t end up in accident situations. Most of us don’t run into trouble. Most of us complete our journeys most of the time without ending up in an accident. Nevertheless, most of us most of the time, when we get into a car, put our seatbelts on. We put our seatbelts on because that minimises the risks that we’re going to bear in the, actually, somewhat unlikely event of an accident. So that’s what a seatbelt does. It minimises a quite unlikely risk, but it’s a risk that if it occurred would be disastrous, could be lethal, could certainly end up in real trouble for us. So a seatbelt bill is a very simple measure—well, a measure that if you take it, guards against an unlikely risk, and this is exactly what this bill does. It guards against an unlikely risk, but a risk that if it occurred would be very problematic and difficult.

Coming as I do, originally, from Taranaki, I understand what the waters are like there. Some days it is calm and peaceful, some days, actually, there is usually quite a breeze, and some days the storms rage in from the Tasman.

Barbara Kuriger: Not often.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Not often, but they do happen. In those situations, an oil spill will be extraordinarily difficult to clean up. The pollution would be spread far and wide. The sort of disaster that could occur were there an oil spill—well, it’s hard to contemplate, actually, just how much it might cost to clean up that oil spill. So even though the operators of oil rigs these days do take safety very, very seriously, even though the operators of oil rigs these days do take the idea that there might be an oil spill very, very seriously indeed and do guard against it, if there was an oil spill it would be disastrous. What this bill does is provide protection in the case of that unlikely accident. It’s a seatbelt bill and I commend it to the House.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): It’s a great privilege to rise briefly for this call. This event occurred on 9 October 2011, which was obviously round the Rugby World Cup tournament. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Mr Speaker, kia ora—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it’s come time for me to leave the Chair. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.