Tuesday, 9 February 2021

TUESDAY, 9 FEBRUARY 2021

TUESDAY, 9 FEBRUARY 2021

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Members Sworn

Members Sworn

SPEAKER: I understand that the Hon Phil Twyford is present and wishes to make the Affirmation of Allegiance. Will he please come forward to the chair on my right.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I, Phil Stoner Twyford, solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her heirs and successors, according to law.

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Luke Chandler, requesting that the House ban the export of live animals from New Zealand

petition of Ryan Lourenco, requesting that the House grant a residence amnesty to 200,000 migrants on temporary working visas or partner working visas, currently in New Zealand

petition of Tincy Mary Philip, requesting that the House urge the Government to allow international students with valid visas, who have paid their study fees, to enter New Zealand to pursue their studies

petition of Shengjun Jin, requesting that the House amend the Veterinarians Act 2005 and regulate allied veterinary professionals

petition of Alan Thompson, requesting that the House urge the Government to commission a formal and independent inquiry into the response by emergency services to the Whakaari / White Island eruption

petition of Lisa Elizabeth Anne Er, requesting that the House urge the Government to place a moratorium on the use of 5G cellular networks until independent research has been completed on the effects of 5G on citizens in the environment

petition of Julie South, requesting that the House urge the Government to provide order exemptions to veterinarians of all disciplines to enter New Zealand as critical and essential workers

petition of Laurance Paterson, ONZM, requesting that the House urge the Government to review and amend the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Ministers have delivered over 100 papers.

CLERK:

Annual reports for 2020:

AgResearch Ltd

Callaghan Innovation

Ministry of Defence

Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Ltd

Landcare Research

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

New Zealand Defence Force

New Zealand Forest Research Institute Ltd

Television New Zealand Ltd

New Zealand Parole Board

New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Inland Revenue Department

te Tāhū o te Ture, Ministry of Justice

Maritime New Zealand

Tourism New Zealand

Transport Accident Investigation Commission

Ministry of Transport

Nursing Council of New Zealand

Serious Fraud Office

Financial Markets Authority

KiwiSaver

Fire and Emergency New Zealand

Winston Churchill Memorial Trust board

Health Quality and Safety Commission

Law Commission

Privacy Commissioner

New Zealand Trade and Enterprise

Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd

AsureQuality Ltd

Cordia Group Ltd

MetService

New Zealand Post Ltd

Quotable Value Ltd

Statistics New Zealand

Transpower New Zealand Ltd

Genesis Energy Ltd

Kiwi Group Holdings

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

New Zealand Railways Corporation

Oranga Tamariki

Ngārimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Board

Meridian Energy Ltd

New Zealand Infrastructure Commission

Civil Aviation Authority

Ministry of Health

Drug Free Sport New Zealand

Te Kawa Mataaho, Public Service Commission

New Zealand Walking Access Commission

New Zealand Film Commission

Electoral Commission

Radio New Zealand Ltd

Ministry for Pacific Peoples

Human Rights Commission

Lottery Grants Board

Social Workers Registration Board

Crown Infrastructure Partners

Ōtākaro Ltd

Climate Change Commission

Education New Zealand

Tertiary Education Commission

Capital and Coast District Health Board

Hutt Valley District Health Board

Department of Corrections, incorporating the Minister of Corrections’ report on non-departmental appropriations for the year ending 30 June 2020

Treasury, together with the Minister of Finance’s Vote Finance report on non-departmental appropriations 2019/20

Treasury, together with the Minister of Finance’s Vote Finance report on non-departmental appropriations 2019/20

integrated reports for 2020 from New Zealand Post, Landcorp, and KiwiRail Holdings Ltd

annual shareholder review and annual financial results for 2020 for Air New Zealand

financial statements for year ending 30 June 2020 for Electricity Corporation of New Zealand

report on non-departmental appropriations 2019/20 for Vote Health; Minister of Research, Science and Innovation, Vote Business Science and Innovation; Minister of Housing, Vote Housing and Urban Development

statement of performance expectations 2021 for Television New Zealand Ltd, Tourism New Zealand, Cordia Group Ltd, Drug Free Sport New Zealand, New Zealand Film Commission, Radio New Zealand Ltd, Electoral Commission, Social Workers Registration Board, Education New Zealand, Capital and Coast District Health Board, Hutt Valley District Health Board

statement of intent for the three years ending 30 June 2023: Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd, New Zealand Post Ltd, and MetService

statement of intent for 2020-24 for Television New Zealand Ltd

statement of intent for 2021 for Cordia Group Ltd

report of the Abortion Supervisory Committee for 2020

interim report on the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care

erratum to the Ministry of Education’s annual report 2020, Electricity Corporation of New Zealand 2020, the Treasury half-year economic fiscal update 2020, protocol to upgrade free-trade agreement between New Zealand and the People’s Republic of China, associated side letters and national interest analysis, Government response to the interim report of the Justice Committee inquiry into 2019 local elections and liquor licensing trust elections and recent energy trust elections,

report of the Attorney-General, under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, on the Oranga Tamariki (Youth Justice Demerit Points) Amendment Bill and Budget Policy Statement 2021.

SPEAKER: Not finished yet. I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled, Central government: Results of the 2019/20 audits.

I present the following reports of the Ombudsman:

the 2019/20 annual report;

the unannounced inspections at Auckland Prison and Matawhāiti Residence under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989

Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act compliance and practice in Buller District Council, Invercargill City Council, Porirua City Council, and Tauranga City Council.

Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand monetary policy statement and financial stability report, November 2020

reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the petition of Lewis Holden for New Zealand Republic, and on the report of the Attorney-General, under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, on the Local Government (Freedom of Access) Amendment Bill

report of the Health Committee on the petition of Orna McGinn

report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the petition of Grant Knuckey

report of the Primary Production Committee on the Food (Continuation of Dietary Supplements Regulations) Amendment Bill

reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the petition of Ankita Sharma, Craig Tonkin, and Karen Dow.

SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the report of the Attorney-General are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, introduction

Climate Change Response (Auction Price) Amendment Bill, introduction

Girl Guides Association (New Zealand Branch) Incorporation Amendment Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Speaker’s Rulings

Debating Chamber—Dress Code

SPEAKER: Members, I’ve noted that one member in particular has, notwithstanding the ruling that has been circulated to members, decided to enter the House without a tie. This matter was a subject of consultation with members. My own personal view has been expressed widely that I think ties are outdated, but that was not the view of the overwhelming majority of members who expressed their view to me. I’m therefore going to indicate to the leader of Te Paati Māori that I will not be calling him while he is not wearing a tie and he is not to enter the House again not wearing a tie.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In an email you sent to the members of this House you did advise that business attire—and what I’m wearing is Māori business attire and a Māori tie; I stand here before you today in that manner. The second part of your email also talked about how a 2017 review of the Standing Orders supported members dressing in formal wear of the cultures they identify with. So that’s why I stand here with this Standing Order at this particular time, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: OK, I’ve noted the member’s comments. He hasn’t convinced me.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Oceans and Fisheries

1. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Will the Government take action to protect 30 percent of Aotearoa New Zealand’s oceans by 2030, given that more than 50 other countries have committed to doing so, including, recently, the United States?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): The Government’s first priority regarding marine protection is to reform the marine protected areas Act. One of the most glaring issues to fix is that we don’t yet have marine protection legislation covering the exclusive economic zone. It is Government policy to seek protection of 30 percent of marine areas over time. A range of protection arrangements different to those in the Marine Reserves Act may be necessary. I also note for the member that the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) group of countries have not yet made a binding commitment to protect 30 percent of either the global oceans or their own space; rather, it’s a group of countries that are seeking to promote such an outcome from negotiations later this year.

Hon James Shaw: What advice, if any, has he requested from officials following his statement late last year that “We need to do better in respect of bottom trawling.”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: One of the areas of advice that I have sought is better information as to whether there are new areas being bottom trawled or it’s repetition of trawling over previously trawled areas.

Hon James Shaw: Why did the New Zealand delegation oppose measures at the recent South Pacific regional fisheries management meeting to strengthen the protection of deep-sea corals and other vulnerable marine ecosystems?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The—well, point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t see how that’s relevant to the question that’s been asked—the primary question.

SPEAKER: Well, I—no. No, I—[Interruption] I want to hear the response from James Shaw. I mean, I would have thought that corals could have been affected by bottom trawling, but I’m not an expert.

Hon James Shaw: Well, the primary question was about taking action to protect 30 percent of our oceans, and the HAC coalition that the Minister referred to—it talks about the oceans in their fulsomeness, not just fisheries, and, as you say, the coral reefs and so on are part of the ocean ecosystem.

SPEAKER: I’m—yeah, the Minister will answer the question.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m sure officials thought that they were properly reflecting Government policy. I don’t have the detailed information to hand to give the member a more fulsome answer.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Minister instruct officials to recognise and support the rāhui that Ngāti Paoa has recently placed on the waters around Waiheke Island to protect ao Hauraki from overfishing?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I am aware of the rāhui and local concerns about overfishing of various mainly shellfish species and rock lobster. I have sought advice from officials as to what the Crown response should be as to whether there ought to be action from the Government of a similar nature. No decision has yet been made.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Kia ora. Will the Government take action to protect Aotearoa oceans by legislating for a nationwide ban on seabed mining permits and revoke existing seabed mining permits that threaten the health of our moana?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That’s not currently Government policy, but it’s not to say that the issue may or may not be revisited in the future.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: I’m not clear: is that a yes or a no?

SPEAKER: That—[Interruption] No, well, that’s all right. That’s a supplementary question.

Hon DAVID PARKER: It was—the answer was that that’s not currently Government policy to have a ban on all seabed mining, but it doesn’t mean to say that the issue won’t be revisited in the future.

Tim van de Molen: Will the Minister at least commit to creating the Kermadec ocean sanctuary during this parliamentary term; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I can commit to using my best endeavours, but it isn’t good to land something, or to claim to land something, before you’ve caught it, which is what the prior Government did.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order. I seek leave of the House for the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill in my name to be set down as the first order of the day on the next members’ day.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? Yes, there is.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she believe that New Zealand should aim to get access to safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines as early as possible?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Judith Collins: Was it misleading for her Ministers to tell New Zealanders that we would be “at the front of the queue” for vaccines?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No.

Hon Judith Collins: When will New Zealand’s healthcare and border workers receive their COVID-19 vaccinations?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve indicated our expectation that the arrival of our first Pfizer vaccines will be in the first quarter and we expect within a two to three week period to be able to vaccinate our border workforce.

Hon Judith Collins: When will a detailed immunisation plan be released?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We have already provided our vaccine strategy. Given that we currently do not have community transmission in New Zealand, we have prioritised those who are at the greatest risk, and they happen to be those who work at our border. Unlike other countries who have had to prioritise—and rightly so—those most vulnerable, their elderly, their healthcare workers, New Zealand is in the very privileged position to be instead making sure that we are protecting our cleaners, our health workforce in our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), our customs and immigration workers, everyone who is part of our current testing regime is front of the queue for vaccines as soon as they arrive.

Hon Judith Collins: Is there a detailed plan or is there just a strategy?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Of course there is a plan. It is a significant logistical exercise. When you have a vaccine that requires cool chain supply at -70 degrees you have to have a plan for distribution across the country, but of course we have the advantage of already having these staff members on a weekly rota for testing and that will support our vaccination programme.

Hon Judith Collins: What advice has she received on a vaccine passport system similar to that of Australia, and will she release it?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Actually, much of the work in that area is being developed at an international level, and I have received copies of advice provided to the Minister of Transport around developments of that regime. As you can imagine, as an international community, we’re looking for a recognisable system that acknowledges, no matter which border you’re crossing, those vaccines that are considered to be sufficient to move and travel safely. So New Zealand is keeping in close touch with the international community on that.

David Seymour: Would the Prime Minister characterise documents signed between the Government and companies supplying the vaccines as contracts or agreements?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The official titles for them, not just in New Zealand but abroad, has been advance purchase agreements. Of course, we then go through our own process to make sure that we are giving regulatory approval for their use. So those are arrangements where we’re essentially committing to buy, they have to fulfil a number of obligations, we then have obligations on us as to if we accept how much is purchased and paid for etc. A very important point that I’ll make to both members in this line of questioning: for us to sufficiently protect New Zealand, we need good, high uptake of vaccines. We have to have the confidence of New Zealanders, and that means making sure that we go through our own regulatory process. Some countries that are rolling out rolled out before clinical trials were complete. That was because people were dying. That is not happening in New Zealand, we are balancing timeliness with security to New Zealanders—that they are safe.

Hon Judith Collins: In that case, then why did her Government tell New Zealanders last year that they were at the front of the queue?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because, in terms of our purchasing, we have been very quick to ensure that we have access to four vaccines. And I would suggest to the member that actually talking to New Zealanders about what they want to see in our vaccine strategy, which is an assurance that it is safe, is incredibly important, as is timeliness. The second thing that I would suggest the member look at is the profile of the vast majority of countries who are currently rolling out vaccines, often under emergency approval, and I correct the member—Australia is not rolling out their vaccine, they have not received it.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What are the priorities for Budget 2021?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Today, I had the pleasure of releasing the Budget Policy Statement for 2021. Budget 2021 will be guided by the Government’s overarching objectives for this term, which are: continuing to keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19, accelerating the recovery and the rebuild from the impacts of COVID-19, and laying the foundations for the future, including addressing issues such as our climate change response, housing affordability, and child poverty. We’ve set out five wellbeing objectives to guide this investment in Budget 2021. They are: securing a just transition to a low-emissions economy; lifting productivity and enabling all New Zealanders to benefit from the Future of Work; lifting Māori and Pacific incomes, skills, and opportunities; reducing child poverty and improving child wellbeing; supporting physical and mental wellbeing for all New Zealanders; and keeping COVID19 out of our communities.

Dr Duncan Webb: What are the projections for Government debt in the Budget Policy Statement?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: With the onset of the economic consequences of COVID-19, the Government took the necessary steps to support the economy and protect New Zealanders’ jobs. Doing so required us to take on substantial levels of debt to deal with this one-in-100-year shock. Projections at the time of the pre-election fiscal update in September showed net debt falling from a peak of about 56 percent of GDP in 2024 to 48 percent of GDP in 2034. New projections using the Treasury fiscal strategy model today show net debt now at 36.5 percent of GDP in 2034-35, representing about $60 billion less debt at the end of the projection period than was projected at the pre-election update.

Dr Duncan Webb: How will issues like housing be addressed through Budget 2021?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: A focus on housing will be a critical part of Budget 2021. Across the wellbeing objectives that I mentioned, it has a critical role to play. For example, Māori and Pacific households have disproportionately been affected by lower rates of homeownership and therefore have enjoyed fewer opportunities for safe, secure, and affordable places to live. Equally, child wellbeing is affected dramatically by housing, including issues of dampness in some of our lower-quality housing stock, and insecure tenancies. The housing crisis did not begin under this Government, but we are addressing it. Doing so will require tough decisions, and that is what New Zealanders will see, through a rolling series of measures that we will be announcing, beginning with demand-side measures, later this month.

Dr Duncan Webb: How much did this gorgeous photo on the cover of the Budget Policy Statement cost?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member’s raised it, this photo here on the Budget cost the taxpayer zero dollars, as the photographer was the modest Mr G Robertson.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her commitment to “foundational” change; if so, is this different from “transformational” change?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I stand by my comments. I was referring to a suite of policies like the introduction, for instance, of Matariki as a public holiday in New Zealand, the introduction of the learning of New Zealand history in schools, that will make a long-term difference to how we see ourselves as a nation. That in no way detracts from the work we’re doing on longstanding policy issues like, for instance, housing, child poverty, and climate change.

David Seymour: Is the fall in homeownership rates to a 70-year low under her Government an example of foundational or transformational change?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is making some kind of assumption that housing is no longer a priority—that is wrong, for the very reason that the member has quoted those statistics: they are not acceptable to us as a Government. It’s one of the reasons they remain an absolute focus, and you will have heard them feature in this question time already.

David Seymour: How is the addition of more than 2,000 new gang members to the national gang list under her Government an example of transformational change, or will foundational change make matters better?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member appears to have pored over words as if they are a trade-off. I’ve already rejected that premise. If you wish to debate the issue of gang-related crime in New Zealand, let’s have that discussion. We all know the origins of that track well back from well beyond the last three years. This has been consecutive years’ worth of issue, exacerbated, unfortunately, by some of the decisions made by Australia to export their gang problem to New Zealand.

David Seymour: Is the progress to date on Auckland light rail an example of the kind of foundational change that New Zealanders can look forward to in the next three years?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Shall I take that as the member based in Auckland’s support, then, for a significant infrastructure project that will make a huge difference for Aucklanders? And that’s why we’re going to make sure that in the long run, it’s something that has as wide support as possible, and I’d welcome his.

David Seymour: What sort of transformational or foundational effect will falling maths and science scores have for future generations?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, I share the member’s focus on ensuring that we have a lift in achievement. One of the concerns we had when we came in was that the focus on national standards was not the way to lift the achievement across literacy and numeracy. We are, at the moment, working alongside Minister Tinetti and making sure that through our curriculum work we have a very clear set of expectations around what the curriculum is in those early years in schools, giving much more direction to teachers, as well.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the falling literacy and numeracy standards that the member just mentioned reflect the first cohort of students who did the majority of their schooling under national standards?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I can, which, in my view, only further justifies our view that that policy was wrong. We are also of the view that we have to look at the totality of a child’s life to ensure that they are learning well. That is why, for instance, I don’t underestimate the long-term impact, alongside curriculum, of things like Food in Schools for making sure that children are learning in an environment where they are ready to learn.

David Seymour: Why should anybody believe the next three years of “foundational” change will be better than the last three years of “transformational” change, where nearly every measure the Prime Minister talks about went backwards?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I utterly reject the premise of that member’s question. Let’s take, for instance—of the nine child poverty indicators, seven of them improved, and we had only just begun. On this side of the House, we are very open about the decades-old problems that we have in this nation, but that does not reduce our ambition.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What plans for public housing has the Government announced?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I recently announced the Government’s Public Housing Plan 2021-2024, which outlines the intention of where 8,000 additional public and transitional housing places announced in last year’s Budget will be built. The plan confirms we are on track to deliver over 18,000 extra places by 2024 and gives local councils, iwi, community housing providers, and the construction sector more certainty about where those houses will be built and at what scale. We’re continuing to build public and transitional housing at rates not seen in two decades, and as a Government, we are proud to help more of our most vulnerable members of our communities move into warm, dry public housing.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How does this plan support regions with the highest demand for public housing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We know the public housing build in previous years has not kept pace with population growth leading to rent rises, housing shortages, and deprivation. While public housing will continue to be delivered across the country, there is a particular focus on Northland, Hamilton, Bay of Plenty, Gisborne, Napier, Hastings, Palmerston North, and Whanganui. These new houses will make a big difference in those communities that are seeing significant housing needs.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How does the public housing plan complement existing Government housing support programmes?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The public housing plan is one part of a range of housing initiatives to address the housing crisis. These include the Housing First programme for people experiencing chronic homelessness, Progressive Home Ownership to help families buy their own homes, support for first-home buyers, and our homelessness action plan. There is no silver bullet to fix the housing crisis that we face and we recognise there is much more to do. But each of these programmes are an important part of our work to ensure every New Zealander is able to live in a warm, dry, healthy home whether they own it or rent it.

Jan Logie: How many of these houses will be accessible, knowing that there are just a small handful of accessible rentals on the private market?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m pleased to inform the member that Kāinga Ora has recently put in place a policy to ensure that at least 15 percent of all new builds are built to accessible universal standards.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: What specific measures, if any, has the Minister taken since January 2020 to respond to warnings from the Reserve Bank that unconventional monetary policy could lead to house price inflation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): At the time of the January 2020 report the member is basing his question on, the Reserve Bank’s position was that there was not a case for using unconventional monetary policy in New Zealand in the near future. So the premise of the member’s question is actually based on a hypothetical scenario. Obviously, COVID-19 changed that. The global pandemic created the largest economic shock in a hundred years, and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand followed other central banks around the world by rolling out a series of measures to support the economy, including unconventional monetary policy. They also changed their views on what that would mean for house prices. In any event, the Government has continued to take a number of specific measures to address the housing market. These include the largest public house building programme since the 1970s, increasing investment in infrastructure to allow for greater housing supply, starting work on reforming the Resource Management Act (RMA), releasing the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and continuing to work with the Reserve Bank on the interactions between monetary policy and financial policy.

Andrew Bayly: Why has the Minister still not formally responded to the Reserve Bank’s letter of 9 December 2020 on measures to amend monetary policy, such as capital adequacy ratios or debt-to-income restrictions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are taking our time to respond to the very serious issues that have been raised in the debate about the housing market. It is important that we get these right—they are significant decisions. Cabinet is working its way through them, and we’ll be making announcements shortly.

Andrew Bayly: Does the Minister agree with the Reserve Bank Governor that measures to increase supply, such as increasing land availability or removing regulatory barriers, are the significant determinant in reducing house price inflation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I agree with the fact that supply issues are important as demand issues are important. It’s one of the reasons why we’re undertaking a programme to reform the RMA. It’s the reason why we released the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and it’s the reason why we understand that this is not a situation where there is a silver bullet; it will require sustained action across demand and supply, and that is what we’ll do.

Andrew Bayly: Why has he taken over a year since he first received the warning from the Reserve Bank to address house price inflation, during which time first-home buyers in New Zealand have seen the median house price increase by approximately $121,000?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Between January 2020 and now, an event occurred—it was COVID-19—and in May the Reserve Bank itself forecast that house prices would fall by 9 percent. That was the consensus of economists. It didn’t turn out; the opposite has happened. The Government is moving to address that now.

Andrew Bayly: Does he believe that it’s fair for first-home buyers, who’ve seen the median house price increase by about $11,000 per month and who are now seeing their dream of homeownership out of their reach?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I don’t think is fair is a Government that had nine years to actually get on with building affordable homes, with actually supporting New Zealanders into homeownership, and failed to do it.

Question No. 7—Education

7. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What progress is the Government making in ensuring that students in New Zealand schools are able to learn and understand our own histories?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): What Kiwi students learn about New Zealand’s history at school is now out for public discussion, and it’s great to see New Zealanders engaging in the debate already. Public engagement on the draft curriculum content for Aotearoa New Zealand’s histories that are going to be taught in our schools began last Wednesday and it will run through until the end of March. We want all New Zealanders to have the opportunity to have their say on the draft content and we’re hoping to hear from as many people as possible. I urge all New Zealanders who are interested in our history and our kura to provide feedback.

Tāmati Coffey: Will these changes mean that students have to learn exactly the same thing wherever they live?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There will be some parts of our national history that we want all children to learn about, but we also want young New Zealanders to be able to explore the stories that are unique and relevant to them. For example, if you’re in the Waikato you may learn about the invasion of the Waikato led by Governor George Grey. In Otago you might delve deeper into the region’s Māori and Chinese heritage. In Porirua you may explore the stories of Pacific migration to the area. Across the country we all have elements of history that are unique to our areas and we do want young New Zealanders to be learning about that.

Tāmati Coffey: How has the draft curriculum content been produced?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Over the last year, the Ministry of Education’s been working with teachers and school leaders, school sector representatives, academics, representatives from our communities—particularly our Māori, Pacific, migrant, and disabled communities—to develop the draft curriculum content. It was then tested with a small number of schools and kura in term 4 last year and it is the content that’s emerged from that the Ministry of Education is now out consulting with the public about.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s statement on 5 November 2020 that “we cannot rest on our laurels and we want to see more New Zealanders obtain work, which is why we are prioritising the roll-out of the flexi-wage scheme prior to Christmas”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister. We do want to see more New Zealanders obtain work. That is why it was good to see 27,000 people move off benefits into paid work in the December quarter. We are seeing the outcomes of our strong economic plan with recent data released by Statistics New Zealand showing record high for jobs in construction, while unemployment fell from 5.3 percent to 4.9 percent. We are doing better than our economic forecasts, which projected an unemployment rate of 6 percent. This is because of this Government’s decisive actions to date to keep people connected to their jobs and support businesses and households through the COVID-19 pandemic. We will continue this work through the expansion of Flexi-wage. We’ve taken some extra time to get this expansion right and we’ll be announcing those details on Thursday.

Hon Louise Upston: When the Prime Minister said about the Flexi-wage extension, “We want to be in a position to assist businesses to take on workers over the Christmas New Year period if they can, rather than waiting till after the holiday period.”, why did she not bother to tell the Prime Minister she couldn’t deliver it by Christmas?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We want to take the time to get the detail right. As I said, it is a relief that we saw the number of exits off benefit into work in the December quarter—27,000, which was actually up on the year before. We’ve got a number of initiatives in place that don’t necessarily just start with the expansion of Flexi-wage, but the expansion of Flexi-wage will be an important part of this Government’s suite of initiatives to address unemployment in this country and to keep New Zealanders in jobs.

Hon Louise Upston: How many of the 213,006 people without a job and on the jobseeker benefit would have had a job by now if she had delivered the Prime Minister’s promise to have the Flexi-wage extension in before Christmas?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: It’s important when you roll out any initiative that you do get the details right. We’ve taken the time to do that. The Flexi-wage expansion will be announced on Thursday, and, as I said, it is good to see that exits off benefit into employment in the last quarter were higher than the same quarter in the year previously.

Hon Louise Upston: Does the Government consider it a failure that over 68,000 people are now on jobseeker benefit compared to a year ago, and, if so, why did the Government not prioritise supporting those people into work and out of hardship?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have experienced an unprecedented event, and that is COVID-19. Internationally, countries are experiencing higher levels of unemployment. It was heartening to see that our unemployment rate had dropped to 4.9 percent despite predictions, and even the forecast numbers around the numbers of New Zealanders who would be on benefit at this time are lower than anticipated. We are doing everything that we can, and, as I said, we will continue to make sure that we support New Zealanders to stay in work.

Hon Louise Upston: Why, after six months since the Prime Minister first announced the extension to Flexi-wage, do New Zealanders still not know the details of the policy that Jacinda Ardern considered to be one of her top priorities to deliver before Christmas?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We will be announcing the detail of the expansion of Flexi-wage on Thursday.

Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment

9. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has she made about supporting businesses and employees in their response to COVID-19?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yesterday, along with Minister Wood, I announced a new Short-Term Absence Payment. This initiative means that from today, businesses whose workers need to stay at home while they await a COVID-19 test result can contact the Ministry of Social Development and apply for a one-off $350 payment to help pay that staff member if that are unable to work from home. Testing for COVID-19 remains a critical ongoing element in our elimination strategy. This payment is designed to reduce the financial pressure on businesses and encourage them to continue their valuable role in keeping COVID-19 in check.

Terisa Ngobi: Which workers does the payment apply to?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The Short-Term Absence Payment can be applied for by employers for workers who cannot work from home and are, in accordance with public health guidance or requirements, staying home while waiting for their COVID-19 test results, have a dependant who is staying at home while waiting for a test result, or are a household member or secondary contact of someone who is a close contact of a person with COVID-19 who has been advised by a doctor or a health official to stay at home while waiting for the close contact’s test result.

Terisa Ngobi: Why is this an important part of the Government’s COVID-19 response?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The aim of this payment is to better support business and workers to comply with public health advice by alleviating some of the barriers to getting a COVID-19 test. This payment will also take some of the financial pressure off businesses whose workers await the results of a COVID-19 test, which can usually take between 24 and 48 hours. This initiative builds on the back of the successful wage subsidy and leave support scheme. It is part of our ongoing commitment to softening the blow of COVID-19 to both employers and workers.

Question No. 10—COVID-19 Response

10. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: On what date will New Zealand receive its first shipment of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, and what reports, if any, has he seen on how many other countries have started COVID-19 vaccinations?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): The first shipment of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is expected to arrive in the first quarter of 2021. The Government will be making further announcements when we’re absolutely certain of when the vaccine will arrive. I receive a regular science briefing of international developments regarding the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines in other countries where emergency approvals have been used to quickly roll out vaccines, but I’ve not received a running list of those countries.

Chris Bishop: Why has he repeatedly stated that New Zealand is at the front of the queue for the COVID-19 vaccine, when at least 50 other countries have already started their vaccine roll-out and we haven’t?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The member clearly hasn’t been listening to what I’ve been saying over the last month or so. We’re not using emergency approvals to roll out our vaccine campaign in New Zealand. We do not have the public health grounds to do so.

Chris Bishop: Why has he applied to the COVAX vaccine facility for the Pfizer vaccine when that facility is designed for the equitable distribution to low and middle income countries—precisely the countries that he says need to be in the front of the queue ahead of us?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I reject the premise of the member’s question. He’s wrong in what the COVAX vaccine facility is designed to achieve.

Chris Bishop: Why did the Government not contract with Pfizer to deliver the vaccine before now, when countries like Singapore—which has also done a very good job in dealing with COVID—were clearly able to do so?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I indicated in my earlier question, Singapore is among the countries that are using an emergency vaccine approval process, which we have not used here in New Zealand.

Chris Bishop: Was the Government given the option of an earlier delivery time in exchange for paying more for the COVID-19 vaccine provided by Pfizer?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No.

Kieran McAnulty: Is the Minister aware of statements from Anne Harris, managing director for Australia and New Zealand at Pfizer, that New Zealand wasn’t slow at ordering the COVID-19 vaccine and that they will meet their contractual obligations?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I want to acknowledge the enormous international pressure that the vaccine manufacturers are under around the globe and the lengths that they are going to in order to satisfy the contractual arrangements that they have entered into.

Question No. 11—Building and Construction

11. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent reports has she seen regarding building consents?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): I have seen a report from Statistics New Zealand that shows a new record quarterly high in the number of building consents being granted. These figures show 11,291 new homes were consented in the December 2020 quarter—the highest quarterly number ever; beating the previous record from the December 1973 quarter, when 10,713 new homes were consented. For the year ended December 2020, the number of new homes consented was 39,420. The figures show that despite uncertainty caused by COVID-19, there is a lot of residential activity in the pipeline, especially for townhouses, flats, and units.

Paul Eagle: How is the Government supporting the building and construction sector to build on this growth in consents?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: As a Government, we are committed to supporting the sector through continued investment in trades training and apprenticeships, our building legislative reform programme, and improvement to our planning system by repealing and replacing the Resource Management Act. We want this strong and sustained growth in the building sector to continue and to deliver on this record high in the number of consents.

Paul Eagle: How is the building sector responding to this record number of consents?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We are already seeing the building and construction sector respond, as Statistics New Zealand data has shown strong growth in the sector despite COVID-19. The household labour force survey shows an annual increase of 21,000 people employed in the construction industry to meet this new demand. It’s also encouraging to note that 5,800 of this increase are women.

Question No. 12—Corrections

12. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he stand by his statement about the Waikeria Prison riot being a “prisoner disorder event”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister of Corrections): Yes. It involved prisoners, there was disorder, and an event—prisoner disorder event.

Simeon Brown: Why has the Department of Corrections operational review called the riot at Waikeria Prison a “major disorder event” and not a riot?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’m advised that the Department of Corrections has a framework for categorising prisoner-based incidents. This was categorised as a prisoner disorder event.

Simeon Brown: Can he describe to the House the difference between a riot and a disorder event, and why isn’t he being honest with New Zealanders in accurately describing the total takeover—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s just lost that supplementary.

Simeon Brown: Is it true that one of the demands of the rioters was that the destruction of the entire upper jail was not to be described as a riot, and is this the reason he has not described the destruction of the upper jail as a riot?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No.

Ginny Andersen: What advice, if any, has he received on the actions of corrections staff during the event at Waikeria?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Following the event, I visited the site and met with staff to express my full thanks for their professionalism and bravery in person. There was a lot of emotion from staff who had to evacuate hundreds of prisoners while fires burned around them and staff who safely brought the incident to an end. I have huge admiration for what they did in very difficult situations. I’m proud to be their Minister and of the bravery they showed throughout the event.

Rawiri Waititi: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, I’ve indicated to the member that I will not call him when he is not properly dressed. The member will resume his seat.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: A point of order, e te Māngai. Your memo made reference to those that have cultural attire. You have allowed other cultures to wear what’s right for them. Why are you denying Māori culture their attire, and his heitiki?

SPEAKER: The expression that is used in the Standing Orders is “business attire”. Business attire is something on which I have consulted. The members chose not to respond to the consultation. That is their choice. I have been guided and will continue to be guided in these matters by the views of members. I’m not absolutely required to do that, but I do want to make it clear that the significant majority of members who responded made it clear that ties were part of business attire. And we could have a long discussion on this, and I have had it in my office with a number of members, and, as I’ve indicated at least twice to the House, my own sympathies are with an abandonment of ties, but that is not the view of members who responded. Supplementary question—

Rawiri Waititi: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, the member cannot take a point of order. [Interruption] The member cannot take a point of order. I do not recognise the member. He will now leave the Chamber.

Rawiri Waititi withdrew from the Chamber.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Why did the Minister state that it was a prisoner disorder event when it was clearly a protest against Corrections’ negligence in addressing the recommendations of the Ombudsman’s report?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I disagree entirely with the member. There is no justification whatsoever for what those men did. It was totally unacceptable.

Hon David Bennett: It was a riot.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: They endangered the lives of over 180 other prisoners who were in their cells when those fires were lit.

Hon David Bennett: It destroyed the entire upper jail with fire.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: They have denied families—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m now going to ask the member to resume his seat. I’m going to ask David Bennett to stop interjecting. I think most members regard this as a serious matter and having that sort of snarling occurring is not appropriate.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Corrections also addressed the issues that the prisoners raised, such as the water being brown. That was bore water. The water is tested six days a week. It’s the same water that corrections officers drink. The issue around the bedding and the clothes—other former prisoners have come out and said that it is simply false. The Māori Party has fallen into the trap of believing the people who played up in the prison and are excusing their behaviour where there is no excuse.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: So is the Minister saying the Ombudsman’s report is wrong?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No, Mr Speaker. The Ombudsman’s report was written in October of 2019. It only came out towards the end of last year. Corrections accepted the findings of the Ombudsman’s report and they had taken steps to address those issues. We’ve also got to remember that the conditions at Waikeria Prison were there when the Māori Party and the National Party were in Government and the Māori Party had—[Interruption] This is important. This is important. The Māori Party had an Associate Minister of Corrections who did nothing to address those very issues that those people raised.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: So, I’m sorry—after all of that rhetoric, the Minister is saying the Ombudsman’s report is correct?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I’ve said that Corrections addressed the issues in the Ombudsman’s report, which was written a year before the event occurred.

Motions

No Confidence in Speaker—Leave Declined

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I seek leave to move a motion without notice of no confidence in the Speaker, which is in my name and on the Table.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaker’s ruling 18/7, made by Speaker Jack back in 1970 and endorsed by Assistant Speaker Tisch in 2015, states that the one and only proper form of attack against the Speaker, the presiding officer, is a notice of motion in the House. The member has not put a notice of motion on the Order Paper. Therefore, other members in the House cannot consider the merits of that, because it has not yet been published.

Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: No, I don’t need assistance on that particular point. The House is actually the master of its own business in this matter, as with some others, and if the House chooses, by giving leave, to proceed in the way that the member is requesting, it may. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed from 9 December 2020.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): It is a fantastic time to be a New Zealander and to be here in New Zealand. One only needs to turn on the TV news every night to understand just how fortunate we are to be here in Aotearoa, when around the world COVID-19 continues to wreak havoc on economies and societies and lives.

The good news continues for New Zealanders, and we saw that just this week, when employment rose by a further 17,000 people in work during the December quarter. That is a significant improvement in our employment statistics, at a time when all the forecasts had suggested we would be going backwards. Our unemployment rate fell from 5.3 percent to 4.9 percent. Compare that with Treasury’s Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, where they forecast the unemployment rate would grow to 6 percent. Of course, that in itself was lower than their projections at the height of our COVID-19 response, where they expected it to go significantly higher than that still.

New Zealand is doing very well. Consider the construction industry. Construction jobs rose by 21,000 annually, which included those people working as plumbers, electricians, and roofers, and that more than offset the impact of COVID-19 on our tourism-related industries. These results are the result of the Government’s decisive actions to keep New Zealanders in work and to make sure that we are supporting New Zealanders through the challenges caused by COVID-19. In the middle of a global pandemic, New Zealanders have put their trust in this Government. We recognise the big responsibility that comes with that, and we are absolutely committed to seeing this through.

We have three overarching objectives that are guiding our response: first, keep New Zealanders safe from COVID-19; second, accelerate our economic recovery; and, third, lay the foundations for a better future. The protections that we have put in place against COVID-19 have been amongst the most effective in the world: 105,000 New Zealanders have returned home through our border since we established our managed isolation facilities, and yet we have had fewer than a dozen incidences of people transferring COVID-19 to others during that time through our managed isolation facilities. That makes them among the most successful in the world—more successful than those in Australia and other countries. We can all be proud of that, and we should be proud of those working at our border, and we should thank them for their commitment.

In terms of accelerating our recovery, New Zealand is doing incredibly well. Our five-point economic plan to cushion the blow to the New Zealand economy is working. We are investing in our people. We are seeing people upskilling, we are seeing people taking on apprentices, we are seeing people enrol in tertiary education, and we are seeing people taking up training opportunities through the reinstatement of things like the training incentive allowance, which is assisting sole parents to get back into work through better training and better qualifications.

We are creating jobs through a big economic stimulus package, and we see that up and down the country in the infrastructure projects that are under way and that are developing, whether it be in transport, whether it be our schools, our hospitals—we are picking up the pieces after a decade of neglect of our infrastructure. This is the infrastructure Government.

We are preparing for the future by making sure that we’re increasing the amount of our electricity that comes from renewable energy, with a goal of getting to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2030. We are supporting our small businesses through things like the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme, and we are making sure that we are positioning ourselves globally in the wake of the pandemic.

We’re tackling the big challenges of the future: climate change, child poverty, and challenges like housing that have been too long neglected—a challenge that built up under the last Government. They did not rise to that challenge; they did not address that. This is a Government that has been relentlessly focused on the issues that matter to New Zealanders.

And that is a bit of a contrast to what we are seeing from the members opposite. What did they spend their summer holidays doing? Well, David Seymour spent his summer holiday taking out a two-page personal ad in the Woman’s Weekly. We then saw Dr Shane Reti so determined not to be distracted from the issues that matter that he got very quickly distracted by issues that didn’t matter, and thought that the liaison between a managed isolation worker and a returnee was a ploy by the Government to distract the National Party—just pass the tinfoil hats, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Or Madam Speaker.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Madam Speaker. Then we have the absolute pearler. We have David Bennett. David Bennett wants a road to Tauranga, a Waikato medical school, and apparently wants to pay for them by introducing “lover taxes”. I would quite like to know who’s going to have to pay these lover taxes. He must be committed to them because he took out an ad in the local paper to promote his new concept of lover taxes—something that either people of Hamilton clearly didn’t leap at, given that he lost his seat. I think it was the lover taxes that did him in, in the end. I want to know who has to pay and what the criteria for his lover taxes will be.

Poor old Simon Bridges continues to “count my chickens for granted”. I’m not entirely sure exactly what he was meaning there. And then, of course, we had Paul Goldsmith’s bizarre theory that we would stop teaching economics in our schools if we didn’t make it part of the history curriculum. I am sorry to disappoint the member who would be the member for Epsom, but whilst, of course, things like historical attitudes to racism will be covered as part of the New Zealand history curriculum when it’s taught in our schools, I wouldn’t be banking on a sudden surge of demand for his biographies of Don Brash and John Banks, Mr Speaker. I think he should stick to falling asleep during Judith Collins’ speeches, Mr Speaker; I think that’s going to serve him far better.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Or Madam Speaker.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Then, of course, we have Christopher Luxon, yet to make his debut here in Parliament, but in his first public debut as a member of Parliament, he fell down at the first opportunity, and, of course, today we have clearly learnt that he has recently graduated from the “Murray McCully school”—

Matt Doocey: Point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Point of order. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat.

Matt Doocey: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Sorry to interrupt that speaker, but he is a very experienced member of Parliament, and will clearly be aware this is not a general debate slot but a debate on the Speech from the Throne.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. The Minister will resume his speech. This is a very wide-ranging debate. Thank you—the Hon Chris Hipkins.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It is indeed. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Clearly, Mr Luxon has recently graduated from the “Murray McCully school of ethical diplomacy”, and I’m sure that we will hear more about that in the days and weeks to come.

Mr Speaker—Madam Speaker—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order!

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Sorry, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s force of habit, Madam Speaker. New Zealanders have given this Government a great responsibility—the responsibility to ensure that New Zealanders are kept safe, the responsibility to ensure that we bounce back from one of the greatest economic challenges that anyone in New Zealand will have seen in their lifetimes, and we are absolutely committed to making sure that we will do that. As the Minister for our COVID-19 response, I am absolutely committed to ensuring that we have a very safe and secure border, and we are seeing evidence of that on a daily basis, as thousands of New Zealanders return home on a weekly basis, and they do not bring COVID-19 into our community. Again, I want to acknowledge the work of tens of thousands of people up and down the country working at our borders to make sure that is happening. I want to thank the international airlines for their cooperation in that effort. They have been remarkably successful in working with us to keep COVID-19 out, and we appreciate that.

We are preparing for a vaccine roll-out, the largest vaccine roll-out New Zealand will have ever seen, and I think that that is something that we should all be taking very seriously. We should be looking very closely at the international evidence around vaccine efficacy, and that is the approach that this Government has taken. We have purchased four different vaccines so that we can make sure that New Zealanders get the right vaccine for them, the most effective vaccine for them, and the science on that is still being settled, which is why our approach of a balanced vaccine portfolio has absolutely been the right one.

There are huge constraints on vaccine manufacture and supply around the world. New Zealand is doing very well, and I think when people see the vaccine roll out around New Zealand, they will see that it has been very well planned for and prepared for. The one remaining thing to be determined is the exact date on which that campaign will start. I can tell you it will start within a couple of days of the vaccines arriving in New Zealand. They still have to be unpacked, and they still have to be prepared for the vaccination campaign to begin, but that work will start the hour that they land in the country—we’ll be working very quickly to get them out as quickly as we can. We do not have a specific date for the arrival, but we are prepared for it whenever it should arrive.

All New Zealanders can be proud of our COVID-19 response. We are a very, very fortunate country at the moment.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe, tēnā koutou e te Whare. It’s—I mean, I would genuinely say a pleasure to stand and speak in this House for the first time in 2021, but I will be completely honest and say that, in walking back into this place, it felt and smacked, immediately as we started the argy-bargy throughout question time, to be completely separated from the reality of the many New Zealanders that we represent.

Hon Scott Simpson: Who’s next on your list? You can go.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: So, Scott Simpson, what I’m here today to talk about—what I will use the Address in Reply debate to talk about—is the housing crisis. Members in this House may recall that throughout the election we had the Minister of Finance and the shadow Minister of Finance, the Hon Paul Goldsmith from the National Party at that point in time, playing a game of Monopoly. It was a charity game to fund-raise for a worthy cause, philanthropic, but, none the less, to me it smacked of quite a bit of irony. The reason for that is, for those who aren’t aware, the game of Monopoly has its origins in a game originally devised by a woman called Elizabeth Magie in 1904. At that point in time it was known as The Landlord’s Game. The Landlord’s Game was intended to be “a practical demonstration of the present system of land grabbing with all its usual outcomes and consequences”.

Now, I don’t at all intend to read too much into what these two members of Parliament were up to. Of course, this was for a charity match. But, none the less, what is represented in that game of Monopoly, formerly The Landlord’s Game, is not supposed to be an aspiration in this country. It’s supposed to be a warning that all of us in this House should heed, because when you do high school or undergrad economics, you’re taught about the supply and the demand curve, you’re taught about the way that the market is supposed to operate through exchange—free exchange—driven by self-interest. And that self-interest—that rather ahistorical theory and way of teaching economics—is supposed to provide the most optimal, the most effective, and the most efficient allocation of resources. But to any who’ve been paying attention to the way that housing and wealth are allocated in this country over the past 30 or 40 years—far longer, even, than I’ve been alive—it is pretty evident that it hasn’t been operating that way.

The question, I guess, is where is the housing crisis in this picture of the economy and economics, particularly as often lauded by particularly members of the Opposition? I’m sure that the so-called libertarians that sit next to me in this Chamber—haere mai—would say that the market just isn’t free enough. And I have engaged in debate with them a substantive number of times where they’ve said, “You simply have to remove the rural-urban boundary, because you’ve got to let the city sprawl.” No, not the slightest mention of how we’re to build the infrastructure that is, of course, to enable exactly that—you’ve also got to allow these massive apartment blocks to just be built and crop up, but not in our backyard.

Look, fundamentally, what we’re talking about here, if we are to realise some version of the so-called free market, is to realise that right now the market is entirely geared towards what the so-called rational man in this ahistorical economic theory would absolutely be gearing themselves towards, because you, effectively, have a State-guaranteed investment in the form of housing at present. What I mean by that, if we’re to run through all of these facts and figures—in fact, at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, which a number of members presently in the Chamber were present for, we had the Reserve Bank Governor in front of us, I attempted to—but unfortunately was cut off as a result of the time running out—have the Reserve Bank Governor agree or admit to exactly this, because the facts are this: two-thirds of wealth in this country is held in housing stock. Loan-to-value ratios have been so low for so long that many investors have leveraged themselves up to the hilt—many being enabled to do so as a result of the capital gains that have continued to accumulate on the properties that they have in their back pocket. As a result of all of those things, those potential defaults of those mortgages present a huge financial system liability.

This is a huge, huge ballooning problem, and it will not be satisfied by simply attempting to deal with it on the supply side. We have to deal with the fact that, again, these economic theories, of the rational man or otherwise, effectively, mean that all sensible people who were simply looking to increase their self-interest and realise greater gains out of the market would, of course, be investing in housing. It simply makes sense at the moment. So the question then becomes: why have we taken off the table and labelled as too much of a political hot potato one of the things that experts across the board are calling for, and that is a sensible conversation about taxation in this country?

I’ll refer to a column by Marc Daalder from Newsroom, who said, “The average house in Auckland, Tauranga, Wellington, [the] Kapiti Coast and Queenstown earned more in untaxed capital gains over the final three months of 2020 than the average New Zealander earned in pre-tax income over the entire year.” You may remember that our Minister of Finance wrote to the Reserve Bank asking them what to do with regard to the ballooning housing crisis and the housing unaffordability issues that came up in question time today, further and further escaping particularly first-home buyers. In both that response from the Reserve Bank and also other letters which have recently been uncovered by Stuff.co.nz’s Thomas Coughlan, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has advised that when it comes to unconventional monetary theory or application, as the case may be, such as quantitative easing, it is for the Government to take action to deal with the social consequences thereof. It is for the Government to figure out how to best implement policy—be they laws or regulations—to ensure that inequality does not take deeper root in this country.

All of these issues are fundamentally interconnected, and that’s something that I’m really proud that we in the Green Party of Aotearoa understand at a base level. You cannot begin to meaningfully engage with conversations like climate change and the terror that global warming can bring upon oneself when you really engage with the science on that if you are stressed on a day-to-day basis about survival. If you do not have a house that is a home, then the amount of transience, particularly as a renter, that may befall upon you and your whānau has flow-on effects into your ability to get a stable education. And speaking to those who are teaching in many different schools across this country, particularly in lower socio-economic areas, that is, indeed, a massive issue—our young people are moving from school to school to school as they move through the rental market, as their whānau does not have enough money to put food constantly on the table.

I guess my final question to this House today in this first speech on this first day that we’re back in 2021 is: do we have the guts to have these conversations, or are we just going to continue to throw accusations back and forward at each other? Are there going to continue to be escalating narratives and bogeymen about the idea of taxation? And God forbid that we tax wealth as we do work in this country, because right now there is a huge burden that is falling on people in this country who already do not have enough, and it continues to compound the more that we continue to enable and allow, by virtue of doing nothing, inequality to run rampant throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. I actually hesitate to suggest that all of us in here actually kind of know that. We kind of know that the tax system is quite fundamentally unfair in that respect. We all kind of know that we should be able to have this debate and discussion as, actually, a number of us do behind closed doors, but in this place in a more sensible and mature manner.

So if I can put one hope, if any, on the table for 2021, it’s that we’re finally able to debate, progress, and discuss and solidify meaningful, fair tax policy in Aotearoa New Zealand to address inequality—fundamentally the housing crisis. Kia ora.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Courts): E ngā mana, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā kārangaranga maha, tēnā koutou, kia ora koutou katoa.

[To all authorities, all people, all voices, all affiliations, my greetings to you all.]

I do that because I think there are certain occasions in this House where the first words ought to be Māori. There’s just something quite special about the beginning of a year, particularly when you’re in Government. I want to also say happy New Year to my colleagues on that side of the House. I do so because I felt a sense of the anguish or the despair that they felt. I couldn’t even get a smile out of Simon Bridges, I couldn’t get a smile out of Chris Luxon, and certainly Miss Judith Collins was not smiling at all. So I say happy New Year to my colleagues on that side of the House.

It’s been an awkward year, moving from last year where COVID-19 hit the nation and then suddenly we were in the Christmas period. Some of us travel overseas during the Christmas period, but, alas, this did not happen on this occasion and those of us who are Ministers of a Government—or privileged to be Ministers of a Government—found ourselves not quite sure whether to fully embrace the spirit of Christmas and the parties that go with it, mindful that we were still in the middle of a global pandemic.

So I want to acknowledge all of New Zealand for their patience, but also in particular for the trust that they have given to Jacinda Ardern and the Labour Government. I acknowledge that what New Zealanders have done in last year’s election was to vote for certainty and stability, and that’s quite humbling. And for me it’s equally a sense of gratitude, because not only is it a privilege but we now find ourselves with a responsibility, but more so the responsibility sits on the shoulders of Jacinda Ardern.

I want to acknowledge her leadership. I want to acknowledge the way that she conducts herself despite the bullets and the arrows and stones that are thrown because of the political arena that we operate in, and that she’s able to maintain her dignity and her mana and to keep that smile going. I also want to acknowledge Mr Chris Hipkins, in particular, because most of us might have had a day or so and enjoyed time with our families. I know that he—most of all because of his responsibility in keeping New Zealand safe—probably didn’t sleep well at all during the Christmas break.

So we are in the middle of this global pandemic and people have put their trust in us, and I want to say, as I have engaged across the country and mainly with our Pacific communities, I am uplifted with the confidence, with the trust that they give us, and I’m so grateful to them.

I want to say that in accordance with our experience and the context of last year and this year, this Government’s overarching objective in the next three years will be focused on keeping all New Zealanders safe from COVID-19. That’s first and foremost. The second thing is that we want to accelerate our economic recovery, and this is in particular important for Māori and Pacific and for vulnerable communities, women, and young people, in particular, because it has been our past experience that whenever there is an economic downturn it is the most vulnerable in our communities that are hit the hardest and often are slow to recover.

Our third objective as a Government for the next three years is to lay the foundations for a better future and to build back better—not build back to the same as how others wish it but to build back better. And the statement that was delivered this morning by the Hon Grant Robertson was about the focus of our wellbeing approach, re-emphasising again what I would call those transformational pillars which we introduced to the country in 2019 and that we will continue using as foundational pillars going forward—but it is going to be important that we continue to focus on our people.

It is like the whakataukī, “What’s the most important thing in this world? It is people, it is people, it is people.” We need to make sure that we’re looking after people throughout the next three years so that they are able to support their families, giving them confidence. That’s going to require leadership. Leadership at this particular time is a person that can stand up and provide a good positive vision for the rest of the country. Sure, you can be critical, but criticising for the sake of being critical doesn’t cut it in times where people require stability and certainty.

We will be focused on jobs. It’s about protecting existing jobs. It’s about creating new jobs. It’s about looking at the future and seeing what opportunities there are. And for Māori and for Pasifika, for many of our young people that are leaving high school, I’m going to be encouraging them to embrace the digital economy. We need to embrace it so that we’re creating a new generation of innovators, creators, who can fully own the digital economy. Small businesses for a long time have always been the lifeblood of economies, and we need to make sure that we’re providing that support and opportunities. Big business are big business and often they don’t think of anybody else but themselves, but we know in times of challenge it is small businesses that come to the fore, and certainly we want to focus on that.

Preparing for the future is also about tackling climate change, and putting a stake in the ground and moving towards those goals. And I think the climate change commissioners’ report sets us up nicely for what we have collectively to do as a nation going forward. And that’s also being mindful that we are a Pacific nation. We have a role and responsibility to the Pacific region. We are firmly anchored here. I’m so proud that we’re able to work closely with the Realm island countries, with the Polynesian sector, and we have a role and responsibility to bring the rest of the Pacific region so that we’re united in our focus for our shared aspirations, for prosperity, for security and peace.

I love the way that Nanaia Mahuta has delivered core and fundamental principles that will guide our engagement with the world and, in particular, with the Pacific region—the principle of whanaungatanga, the recognition of our kinship, the recognition of our genealogical connections; the principle of kotahitanga, the recognition that we have shared in a collective purpose to work for the benefit of all peoples; and, of course, the principle of kaitiakitanga, the recognition that we all have roles to play in being guardians of our planet and being stewards and being really responsible in reporting back.

For Pacific peoples, in the next three years, I’m going to be working hard across the board with my ministerial colleagues but across the board with of a lot of agencies to deliver the Pacific wellbeing approach that we started in the last three years, where languages and cultures are important and young people can be confident in their diversity of colours, diversity of parentage, diversity of the languages they can speak. The goal of economic prosperity for this generation coming through is no longer working on the factory floor. It’s about them being their own bosses, being their own authors of their own legacy, being able to design and implement the solutions that will make them safe and that will also ensure that they prosper and thrive.

The other goal is about wellness. I know we all point and say it’s about sickness. But it’s actually about wellness. I want to put a positive spin on that, because the challenges are huge and the needs are many, and these challenges we cannot solve overnight. It takes a bit of time and we’ve got to build those strong foundations of being able to access quality healthcare that recognises the mana and dignity of people. And, of course, the youth, the Pacific youth I proudly promote as the “Generation Six Bs”: people who are brown, beautiful, brainy, bilingual, bicultural, and bold. This is the generation—I describe it that way because that’s what I see. It’s beautiful, it’s diverse, and I see that that’s the future, and I’m very pleased to be part of the Government that’s trying to deliver on these things.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in this Address in Reply debate today, and to come after that former speaker, Aupito William Sio, who I always enjoy listening to. He’s got those calming, soothing tones of a storyteller, a bit like a parent who’s calming a young child to sleep with a lovely fairy tale. But, unfortunately, what we know at the end of the day is that that young person grows up to realise that fairy tales, in reality, are not real. It’s interesting. We’ve heard from a Minister and then another Minister and three or four Labour callers today who actually didn’t even refer to the Speech from the Throne that we are debating today, because they know that it is a fairy tale.

I will be pointing out some of the key issues that we on this side of the House think this Government is not delivering on that were outlined in the address from the throne, because, of course, this Government has a track record in failing to deliver. It was a failed socialist experiment that put up ideas and didn’t deliver them.

But what I want to do first off, in the first opportunity I’ve had in the House since the election, is to acknowledge the good people of Waimakariri—very humbling to be re-elected in my third term. I want to thank them for all their support, and I give them my commitment that I will be working hard for all in the Waimakariri to the best of my ability, because we do know that in the “Waimak”, “Waimak” people reward hard work. You can go back to Jim Gerard, Mike Moore, Clayton Cosgrove, and Kate Wilkinson. They know that if MPs go out and talk about the real issues, they will reward them, and, unfortunately, last term, what we had in Waimakariri was that the Prime Minister did not visit Waimakariri once. What was worse was we didn’t even have one Minister come into that electorate.

We have a small town in Waimakariri called Woodend. It’s a small rural town that’s got a State highway running through the middle of it. Mums and dads take their kids across that State highway to school every day. Car movements in the last three years have risen from 16,000 to 20,000 car movements a day, and why that three-year measurement is important is it was three years ago that the Labour Government came in and cancelled the Woodend bypass. No Prime Minister to come and explain, no Ministers, no transport Minister, and that community waits. They’re put at risk. Here we have the address from the throne and the fairy tale, but the reality is not real and true.

Can I also say, while I think of it, that this is a special day for me. My youngest son, James, starts school today at St Joseph’s primary school in Rangiora, so I want to wish him all the best. While we are talking about family, I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge the Rt Hon David Carter. Many will know that David is my uncle, and I want to acknowledge his knighthood in the Queen’s honours over new year. I wish him well, and well deserved.

What I want to talk about in my call today is mental health. Remember mental health? The Government made it a big issue in 2017—one of their top priorities. But—

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: It still is.

MATT DOOCEY: Oh, so we hear from a Government MP that it still is. So explain to me, then, if mental health is still a big issue, why in the address from the throne it commanded two sentences out of 13 pages? Two sentences, and it said, “It will roll out mental health support to all primary and intermediate school age students, and continue to roll out nurses in secondary schools.” Interesting—number one priority, or one of the top priorities, apparently, for this Government, but two sentences out of 13 pages.

Why not talk about the flagship, $455 million, new front-line mental health service that was trumpeted in Budget 2019? Flagship—that was going to change the way that we responded to mental health services. Well, I’ll tell you why you won’t find it in the address from the throne and you won’t find it being spoken about by any Government Minister or any Government MP: because that $455 million flagship front-line mental health service—so far, the Government’s spent $56 million of it. How many GP practices, currently, are now delivering this service in just under two years? Eleven percent.

Hon Scott Simpson: How many?

MATT DOOCEY: In two years, they have rolled it out to 11 percent of GP practices and have only spent $56 million of the funding. What’s even worse is that under written parliamentary questions, when we asked how many people are employed by this new front-line mental health service, in July, it was 232 full-time equivalents, and in October, it was 195. They had lost a quarter of their workforce.

People are leaving, the roll-out is stalled, and when I asked probably the most pertinent question of a new service—a flagship, front-line mental health service being rolled out. Going to change the face of mental health in New Zealand—that’s what New Zealand was promised in 2019. When I asked how many people had been seen by this new front-line mental health service—because let’s remember, it was promised it would be scaled up to see 345,000 people a year—the answer was, “We don’t know, because we’re not gathering the data.” When you set up something, would you not be interested to know how many customers you have? What we all know, and on this side of the House we know, is that that’s code for another Government failure. They’re embarrassed to tell us that they’re actually not seeing a fraction of those 345,000 people, and that’s disappointing, because that’s not the level of service promised to New Zealanders.

But let’s listen to some of the professionals. Irene Begg, who’s a trauma counsellor based in Whakatāne, with, of course, White Island. A new flagship, front-line mental health service—why would you not prioritise it for that region after that disaster? Why not prioritise it for Canterbury after March 15? There’s no plan to, and this professional says, “It’s all very vague. The Government says it’s going to roll out this and that, but we haven’t seen it in the provinces.” “This and that”, “very vague”, “we haven’t seen it”—what an embarrassment.

How about “Mental Health Foundation chief executive … said the ‘appalling’ lack of access to mental health services for children and youth across New Zealand had worsened since the Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction which reported to the Government in November 2018.”—over two years ago. This Government came in, spent $6.5 million, held hundreds of meetings, and encouraged thousands of people to make submissions, and what’s happened?

Hon Member: Nothing.

MATT DOOCEY: Nothing. In fact, they’re saying it’s got worse. They raised expectations and haven’t delivered.

Then we have the retiring Mental Health Commissioner, who retired yesterday, and in his final report—a scathing report—said that there is considerable and growing concern about the lack of transparent action plan to implement He Ara Oranga and provide a long-term plan to promote mental wellbeing. Basically, there’s no plan. The inquiry put out around 50 recommendations and there’s no plan for delivering them, and that’s a problem with a Labour Government. They’ll tell you what you want to hear to get into Government—“Put us in. We’ll change things. We’ll make a difference.”—and they get in and they fail, and they don’t have a plan.

What’s really disappointing is I supported a petition from a young girl to Parliament. She’s attempted suicide, tragically, a number of times, and when I spoke to the medical professionals working with her, they said, “We are yet to see evidence that the large amount of funding that’s been promised is flowing into the system.”

We were promised $1.9 billion into mental health. We were promised services at the front line. We were promised a Government that was going to get in and implement a plan, and they’ve failed to deliver.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): For a five-minute call, I call Rino Tirikatene.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou e ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata. I’m delighted to speak in this Address in Reply debate. I’m not sure, the member that’s just resumed his seat, Matt Doocey, what parallel universe he resides in, but it’s full of doom and gloom, and it’s really quite contrary to the actual reality that we have here in Aotearoa, and that’s the reality of a Labour Government with the biggest mandate that we have received from across the country. I’m proud to be a member, with all of our caucus members, of this Labour Government under the leadership of our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern.

I’m proud to be a member of the largest Māori caucus in the history of the New Zealand Parliament, and I’m also proud to be a Parliamentary Under-Secretary in the first majority Government in MMP history. This Government is making history, and, as has been outlined in the Speech from the Throne and in the speeches to date from our Prime Minister, we are addressing the three overarching objectives that our Government is focusing on—namely, keeping New Zealanders safe from COVID-19, accelerating our economic recovery, and laying the foundations for a better future.

We all know what devastation COVID is wreaking across the world. Every day, I’m thankful. I’m thankful for the leadership of our Government, of our Ministers, and of our Prime Minister that has kept our country and Kiwis safe from COVID-19. We’ve been committed to our elimination strategy, and it has worked. We have kept outbreaks at bay. We now have the strongest, most world-leading—we are admired worldwide for our border and our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) processes. I want to acknowledge all of those wonderful folks who are working on the front lines every day to ensure that they keep our borders secure and safe as we welcome back folks through our MIQ facilities.

So we are keeping New Zealanders safe from COVID-19. We acted fast. We gave the best economic response, which was through our health response. And what has that done? That has provided us the space to keep our engine going as an economy. We have not slowed down at all. In fact, our merchandise exports have increased from over a year ago. So we are doing well as a nation despite the impacts that COVID is having, in particular in specific sectors like tourism and overseas education, international education. We note that there are impacts there, but our economy as a whole is going very well indeed.

I’m proud—and one of the responsible areas that I have is in the trade area, which is very important for our overall wealth and wellbeing as a nation—to see the great work that we’re doing in international trade under our first wahine Māori Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, who looks after our foreign policy, and the Hon Damien O’Connor, who is looking after our trade and export growth. In spite of all of the difficulties that COVID is raising, we have been able to continue with our trade agreements that we have signed. We’ve just upgraded the free-trade agreement that we have with China. We have signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement, a massive agreement with over a third of the world’s population, and are making sure that New Zealand is right in the middle, where all the action is happening. We are right there. We are working on expanding our architecture with the UK and with the EU. So we are doing a lot of work as a country, and all of that not only benefits the total New Zealand economy; it benefits the Māori economy as well, which is particularly dear to me: all those suppliers of the lands and produce from the seas and from the bountiful lands that we have right across Aotearoa.

So in the spirit of the last remaining time, I want to acknowledge the spirit of Waitangi and the positive vibes that were emanating from Waitangi as we celebrate 180 years of our Treaty partnership, no more evidenced than by the presence of our Prime Minister right throughout the duration of those celebrations. Those positive vibes have been felt right across Aotearoa, right through where I was, right down there in Bluff, at the bottom of Te Waipounamu. Our country is on a great track. We are keeping out COVID-19. We have sound leadership with our Government and our Prime Minister, and I’m very proud to be a part of it, and we’ll be taking great strides in the term ahead. Kia ora tātou.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Dr Deborah Russell—five minutes.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, members of this House, I ask you to cast your minds back to a year ago. A year ago, when we returned to this House after the summer break and after the celebrations at Waitangi, and at that time the first rumours, the first knowledge of a new coronavirus was making its way to New Zealand. We were looking at the stories coming out of other countries and starting to realise that this could be very serious. At that time the virus had not even been named, it was still the novel coronavirus. It was only, I think, towards the end of February that it acquired the name COVID-19. How much our world has changed since then, how much it has changed, and how much our response to COVID19 has had to shape what the previous Government did, the Government in the 52nd Parliament, and what this Government in the 53rd Parliament will be doing, and I’m proud to be part of that Government.

We have three overarching objectives set out in the Speech from the Throne. We will be keeping New Zealand safe from COVID-19, we will be accelerating our economic recovery, we will be laying the foundations for a better future. Those are the overarching objectives of this Government. Our work to keep us safe is ongoing. It’s in the border controls, it’s in the increased testing at the border, it’s in the requirements for pre-departure testing, it is in our contact tracing if ever a case of this virus makes it out of the border, as indeed it does from time to time as it is a tricky virus, and that’s where we all have a part to play with scanning—we’re recording where we’re going, through Bluetooth tracing and so on. So that ongoing work carries on. That’s what we’re doing to keep New Zealand safe and so far it is working.

We are accelerating our economic recovery. We started with the wage subsidy, right at the start, to keep people in jobs and to keep businesses going. We carried on with training and free apprenticeships, we had no- and low-cost loans for businesses, all designed to keep business and jobs going. It has turned out to be an excellent response. The latest employment data from Stats NZ shows that our unemployment rate is down to 4.9 percent. Of course we’d like it to fall further, of course we are very worried about employment of women and of Māori and Pasifika where that unemployment rate is higher for those particular groups. Nevertheless, this is a good outcome compared to Australia at its 6.8 percent, 8.7 percent in Canada, and the OECD average of 6.9 percent. We are doing well on employment, and that will accelerate our recovery.

And we are laying the foundations for a better future, particularly where we work on climate change and on child poverty, and where I want to focus on housing. There was an impassioned speech from a previous speaker about what is going on in the housing market. To that speaker and others, I say the market is doing as markets will do—it is responding to signals. I perhaps prefer not to think of it as market failure but as a market delivery that does not deliver the social outcomes we want, and the social outcomes we want are warm, dry, secure, affordable homes for New Zealanders. If ever there is a case for Government intervention it is in the housing market, and that is precisely what we are doing with our focus on new social housing. So instead of selling off social houses, we are building them and increasing dwellings to ensure that there will be many more places in social housing. We have social housing places going in all around the country, and especially in Auckland.

I want to talk of the 300 or so new dwellings that have been built or are being built in my electorate right now. Just a few months ago, with Minister Megan Woods, I visited the Thom Street development—80 new dwellings, 80 families with warm, dry, secure homes. Close to public transport, close to shops, close to schools, homes where people can build a life, where they can develop, where they can be secure, where they can be part of a community, where they can hold down a job, because they have a warm, dry, secure home provided through Kāinga Ora. It is this focus on social housing that will be critically important to solving at least part of the housing problem, and I am very proud to be part of a Government that is looking after our people and making a better New Zealand.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I stand today to reply to the 2020 Speech from the Throne. Before I get into my talk, I’d just like to take up a point that was made by the member who’s just resumed her seat, Dr Deborah Russell. Much has been made over the last few days, and especially in the media, around the 4.9 percent unemployment rate and how celebratory it has been that we have achieved that—or the Government has achieved that. But what it does not take into account, and it was referred to by that member, is the number of women who have been made unemployed. But what we are not seeing in those statistics are the number of women who are second income earners in families, who do not factor into the unemployment stats. So what that has virtually done is carved a huge amount out of the income of households and so those women—a lot who worked in the hospitality sector and have lost their jobs—don’t feature in those statistics of 4.9 percent.

Also what doesn’t feature are those who were employed and whose hours are reduced as a consequence of the downturn in the economy. So again what we are not seeing in the statistics is the downturn in income from reduced hours. So there are families across this country, very much acknowledged, who are struggling at the moment because of the situation we are in. It would be wrong for the Government to rest on its laurels and celebrate a 4.9 percent unemployment rate when hidden behind that are a huge amount of other statistics that we need to be very, very concerned about as a country.

Now, one of the opening lines in the Speech from the Throne told us that New Zealand had voted for stability and certainty at the election. I know from my own patch down in West Coast - Tasman that a lot of farmers actually did vote for certainty, and the thing they wanted to be certain about was that the Greens would not have a place in the halls of power. What happened immediately following the election was that the Greens were found a ministerial place and you can be certain—the one thing that there is certainty about—is that their influence will be felt as we move forward.

Now, I would like to draw some attention to an event that now forms part of New Zealand’s history and that event took place on 9 December 2019 and that was at White Island. At that time and over the days following and the weeks following, 22 people’s lives were lost and 25 further people were seriously injured and suffered extensive burns. So that’s 47 families that were tragically impacted by the events of that day. Yet this Government fails to want to initiate a royal commission of inquiry into that event. I don’t understand the rationale for not wanting to do that, because in most other major events such as that a royal commission is called for and that helps us understand all of the events that happened in the lead-up to that, all of the signals that may have been missed, and the procedures that may not have been perfect, and that’s how we learn from the mistakes that have been made, and that’s how we are a lot more certain that those mistakes are not repeated. It’s a deep dive into the issues surrounding the whole event. So I do challenge the Government to reconsider and undertake a royal commission of inquiry into that event.

As spokesperson for emergency management, it is of particular interest to me to make sure that we learn from all of those experiences. So in my role as spokesperson for emergency management one of the things that I did earlier this year was to submit some written questions to the incoming Minister. What I was trying to do was to flesh out some of the priorities that the new Minister had and so I asked, “What are the priorities in your role that you have written to the Prime Minister about?” I was referred to the Speech from the Throne, so I went back to the Speech from the Throne to see exactly what was said about emergency management, because there are some areas in this country that are very vulnerable and will require some special attention in terms of the preparedness for emergencies. For instance, we know that a lot of people in this country now are concerned about flooding, sea-level rise, but also there are people who live in the South Island who live near to a fault line. So there is a lot of work done over time and will be in the future about preparedness for those events. So when I went back and had a look at the Speech from the Throne, there was actually no mention of it, so I ended up in this circular debate about what the priorities are. “Refer to the Speech from the Throne.”, I was told, but the Speech from the Throne actually didn’t mention it.

So the next one that was of concern to me in my other role—the community and voluntary sector. I had the same process for the new, incoming Minister there and asked for some feedback on what the priorities were and was again referred to the Speech from the Throne, and again there was no mention of it in there. So I have to wonder: is there actually a plan, are there priorities for the Government, and does it extend beyond the two areas that I was inquiring about and roll into a whole lot of others?

We’ve heard today—and Minister Hipkins referred to it earlier on—about the three priority areas that the Government has, and over the last three years we saw it relentlessly pursuing press releases and making statements and making announcements. But there was no delivery and I just have to ask if people remember what the year of 2019 was tagged as by the Government: the year of delivery—the year of delivery. So where is that delivery? Oops, nowhere to be seen. In fact, all three areas that the Government prioritised in the Speech from the Throne, all of those areas, have actually gotten worse; not just a little bit worse, but a whole lot worse.

The Labour Government proclaimed in their Speech from the Throne that they’d have three overarching objectives. We heard about COVID. I mean, we hear a lot about COVID, and rightly so, and we’ve heard a lot about vaccines in the last few days. But the one point of weakness that we have is in our border and our border control. Yet the Government continues to let infected people get on planes and come to New Zealand and into our managed isolation facilities. Now, Judith Collins and Dr Shane Reti have been calling since August last year for pre-flight testing, but that has failed to be implemented.

The other issue that was raised in the Speech from the Throne was to accelerate economic recovery. And what we’ve seen too is, again, a whole lot of money being allocated—billions of dollars, in fact—but promising money and making an announcement is not the same thing as planning and delivery. And, again, we end up in the same argument, in the same debate where delivery is actually a stranger to this Government.

I would like to talk about one particular project that was allocated $24 million, and that was in Franz Josef, an area of the West Coast, one of the most stunning places on the planet, I believe. Twenty-four million dollars—that money will be circulated around the community and it will invest in some really important protection work for that community. So it was announced last July and then what happens? It’s decided that it needs to be reassessed; reassessed to make sure it’s value for money.

Barbara Kuriger: Another broken promise.

MAUREEN PUGH: Another broken promise and a lack of delivery. But then it brings to mind what the other projects are that are going to be reassessed and whether they will deliver value for money and how many other projects around the country are at risk of having the same scrutiny put over them.

One of the other issues that it would be remiss of me not to mention is tourism. The third objective is to lay the foundations for a better future. We have a $16 billion GDP contribution coming directly from tourism and a further $11.3 billion from indirect contribution. That industry is hugely under stress at the moment. We have had ad hoc contributions from the Government, unfair processes. I welcome the Auditor-General’s review of the Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme funding because I think it’s going to highlight—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s time has expired. I call Mark Cameron for his maiden statement.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and the gathered members. “Employ your time in improving yourself by other men’s writings so that you shall come easily by what others have labored hard for.”—Sir Winston Churchill. On 10 a.m., December 12, 1944, Stuart Franklin, Geoff Bale, and five others flew on that day aboard Juliet-Echo-Echo NG-351. They flew stoic in their silence, brave in their intent, and petrified in their stare, and, yet, they flew on. Help arrived. Enemy aircraft strafing, munitions ever constant, ever threatening, only to appear, then disappear just as quickly. Altitude was evaporating. Controlled mayhem erupted. Their plane smashed into the ground—no landing gear, little hydraulics, and a 4,000 pound “cookie” bomb on board. Unbelievably, all survived.

Geoff Bale was just 21 years old, a sheep farmer from Masterton. Within weeks, these men were back in circulation. My grandfather among them, Stuart Franklin, was a man of few words, boundless wisdom, and I loved him beyond measure. What so many young New Zealand men who served would have done to be back home like Geoff Bale, back on the farm. It is for this sake, I believe I owe them a debt I will struggle to ever repay. To have risked so much—the loss to family, potential not realised, dreams never met—and yet all those brave souls flew on. Thousands upon thousands flew on for the freedom of democracy and prosperity, to embrace all things heartfelt, and, for Geoff and Stu, all things home, all things Kiwi.

Churchill also said, “We shape our dwellings, and afterwards our dwellings shape us.” My speech here today is for all the men and women farmers, the fishing folks, and all of New Zealand blue-collar workers, like all those who risked to dream beyond the war, that allowed the rest of us, in time, to do the same. People like Geoff Bale, the sheep farmer who became a living metaphor for all of those that desired to farm, would go to any lengths to hold on to what was dear. He was one of so many who chose to risk everything to preserve a life I now choose to enjoy, a life of freedoms that, sadly, evermore seem to be taken for granted.

This embodiment of a desired better tomorrow goes back to our earliest settlers, those men and women, and the love of the land against all the challenges that it might bring—that true pioneering spirit, a journey in and of itself being one with the land. This was the nature of farmers and labourers throughout New Zealand’s history, going to such extraordinary lengths to live on the land and enjoy the toil they’re in. The farm I now own in Northland has a long and colourful history. It is a canvas of 150 years of farming in New Zealand steeped in pride, passion, and zeal. This is unparalleled in so many other countries. In 1869, Ann Rogers left Auckland with her 10 children. By some accounts, it is believed she set sail from Helensville, up the Kaipara Harbour, following the tide. This journey would have taken weeks, making landfall when nature allowed, following the tide north. Many weeks later, they arrived in Rēhia, Northland, on the farm I now own. Joseph, her husband, a printing press operator in Auckland, was destined to follow the year later. Within 12 months of Joseph’s arrival, their farming dreams laid out in front of them, Joseph was to lose his life to a terrible fever. Farming in the wilds of Northland in the 1860s was fraught with danger and disease. His loss sadly left behind Ann and her 10 children in these untamed lands of Northland.

Yet, Ann’s dreams of making good in this journey remained undaunted. Ever the farmer’s way, ever determined, she remained steadfast and unwavering. Although her challenges were vast, her willingness was ever greater, and she stuck at it. The generations that followed must have such immense pride. Men like Bob Berridge, following in her footsteps, some 50 years later, on the same farm. He carried the baton forward. He also dared to dream. As a teenager, Bob, in the 1910s, would clear scrub all day to create farmland, giving him just enough pasture for a few cows, which he would milk by hand when he could, in fact, catch them. To supplement his meagre income, he would ride his horse six or seven hours to supply salted meat to the shepherds miles away, often returning after midnight, his journey lit by the moon.

These are but some of the people that preceded my career on the farm I now own. Many decades on, I beam with pride and respect at their exploits. Though the challenges have changed and the difficulties are still frequent, that desired passion of New Zealand farmers to work the land, to be one with nature, and to embrace the farming ideal remains strong—for now, at least. I think every farmer has it, like those Albertlanders who settled on the shores of the Kaipara Harbour and their aspirations, or the Geoff Bale of this world. We now see this belief locked in so many farmers—three, four, or five generations whence. It is that something special that our farmers, our fishing folk, and our rural people feel. It’s just something in our bones. But evermore, unfortunately for many, that feeling is slowly dying. I think most farmers and rural people would reluctantly agree.

My old friend Winston Churchill again: “The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” I am afraid our farmers are finding that image ever increasingly more difficult to discern. All our farmers and growers identify with who they are by what they do; ever increasingly, that identity is being taken from them.

As a young boy of five and six, this saw me growing up on a dairy farm in Northland. Small town, rural New Zealand is where my life journey began. Every day was an adventure, a learning experience, the rigours of daily farming, life ever present, and a community in which everyone knew everyone—and I loved it. Although I spent my teenage years at Auckland Grammar School, the pull towards the countryside and rural New Zealand was always strong. The land, the animals, farm machines, all were powerful magnets for a young boy. It was because I felt part of something, something bigger than myself, and like so many of us who feel it, it was tremendous.

My life on the farm has been a journey shared with my wonderful family. My darling Jodie—my partner—my mother Julie and sister, and my uncle Brian are here today. They shared in my dreams to see me succeed in one of the best industries in New Zealand and amongst the best farmers in the world. I have now been farming for 30 years non-stop and in that time I’ve seen all sides of rural New Zealand: the trials and the tribulations of those in my community and those that have stood beside me in their rural journey. I have worked with livestock for decades, whether goading dairy cows or being chased by wild bulls, the latter of which resulted in breaking both collarbones and eight ribs on several different occasions, or being on farm with pneumonia in a perpetual wet winter that caught so many farmers out. Also, living with the pangs of depression for three or four years in my early thirties. This has been my life in farming. These won’t be unfamiliar anecdotes to most farmers, many of whom now know colleagues and friends who found the going too tough, sold up, moved on, or, in too many cases, took their own lives.

Yet, despite an environment of increasing uncertainty, we farmers are still here. We are hanging on, always working. After all, the world needs feeding and clothing and it’s our job to do it. But what has remained, till now at least, has been the farming communities and an occasional politician who might choose to listen. “But are they listening really?”, many would ask. There is a sadly ever-widening divide between urban and rural New Zealand. It is a divide which I and the ACT Party have promised to come here and address. It was heartening to see COVID-19 briefly bringing New Zealand farming communities front and centre again, a temporary shift in perception which was so wonderful to experience and seemed by the wider public to be gratefully received. Farmers rightly asked, though, why did it take something like COVID-19 for so many people to realise how important farmers are to this country and how good we are at what we do?

I joined the ACT Party long before anyone had heard of COVID-19 because I saw a need for real change. My mission was to return a sense of pride to rural New Zealand, and I thought the ACT Party would help me provide that opportunity. I want all farmers again to feel that sense of fairness, which for too long has been missing. We farmers are tired and weary of being political fodder for some New Zealanders’ guilty conscience about their own environment, or being pandered to during an election campaign to then only be ignored when the votes have been cast. Ever more, the political class speaks less to the provincial communities it once embraced so vigorously. Those communities now feel more distant from their urban cousins, more at odds with the way they see their own backyard.

For the good of New Zealand’s collective wellbeing it must not be this way. That is why I have come to the ACT Party to balance the conversation. We can no longer accept cynical soundbites like “dirty dairying” and suggestions animals are destroying the planet or that industry perpetually pollutes. Rural New Zealand deserves better than being told to desist and diversify by people with so little experience on how farming and industry actually works, especially when so much has already been done to improve our environmental footprint and the country’s collective farming operations.

I intend to help change this narrative so more people recognise the good works of all New Zealanders, not the chosen few. We have always been a country that embraces technology, and our Kiwi farmers are the best in the world at doing it. We should see our future as one that builds on the foundations that have been made and support techniques that allow industry to be on equal footing with that of the environment, not its whipping boy. As the ACT Party rural spokesperson, I will bring this advocacy. I will extol of all good things in rural New Zealand, including the protection of the environment and equally, ACT’s fundamental principle of the protection of private property rights.

I will advocate for sensible-based environmental policies for all New Zealanders, which are attainable and pragmatic. I ask all politicians here in this Parliament to bring honesty, integrity, and practicality to the process of regulating the operations of all New Zealand communities, not virtue signalling and catch phrases that cannot be applied to real farming and those that do it. Farmers remain so bloody important, such strong threads in the fabric of this country and New Zealand society. My goal here is to restore that understanding, so that once again, self-belief will be farmers’ and growers’ and rural folks’ greatest asset.

That is why I am here, to pay off this debt to my constituents: the farmers, the rural communities and all those beyond, to the descendants of farmers like Geoff Bale and the Albertlanders and those that followed them. But most of all, I owe my debt to those brave souls who flew on that day in 1944 and served their country in its darkest hours so that we might all enjoy our lives across this great land, so our farmers and our town folk alike can once again rejoice with shared pride and that we all here can embrace this highest altar of our democracy and, in doing so, bridge that ever-widening urban divide. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Applause]

SPEAKER: I call on Dr James McDowall to make his maiden statement.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is an honour and privilege to be sent here by the 219,031 people—New Zealanders—who agreed with our principles and lent us their votes at the 2020 general election. All members owe this privilege to the people of New Zealand, and it is for them who we work.

To those who chose not to vote for ACT but perhaps considered it, our caucus will be working hard for you in Opposition, and we hope to earn your support during this parliamentary term. New Zealand needs a strong and enduring classical liberal party, and growing from one to 10 MPs is just the start of that journey. We stand for economic and social liberty, and the rule of law.

I pay tribute to my talented, diverse, and united caucus, and also to our candidates who didn’t quite make it into Parliament last year. Please stick around, for our best days lie ahead of us.

As I stand here today I would be remiss if I didn’t mention Stuart Pedersen, an ACT stalwart and former candidate who tragically passed away at sea in 2019. Stuart was a cheerful, intelligent, and generous man, respected by his political allies and opponents alike. He was planning to give the 2020 campaign his all, and he really should be sitting with us here in this House. My thoughts are with his family and friends.

My core team in the Waikato played a major role in the success of our party in that region. I acknowledge the hard work and perseverance of Myah, Roger, Bruce, Les, Garry, Harry, Mo, and Steve and Rom and their wonderful children, Olive and Elle. I, a libertarian, vegetarian, firearms enthusiast, wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for all of you. You kept the faith and stayed loyal, and you have the party’s eternal gratitude.

I was born on 6 January 1988 during the reign of David Lange here in New Zealand, Ronald Reagan in the United States, Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom, and Gorbachev in the Soviet Union—what a time to be alive! A month after my birth, the gradual collapse of the Soviet Union began. The dissolution actually took about three years, but good things take time. Just over half of my life ago, I got into politics, having attended an ACT function in Auckland. I got to meet the likes of Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, Rodney Hide, who had just won Epsom, a younger David Seymour, and many others who are still involved in the party today. I found them all to be straight-shooting people who say it like it is and talk a lot of economic sense. I never thought I would go on to eventually represent the party in Parliament, but here we are—life is full of unexpected twists and turns.

I thank my family and friends, many of whom are here in the gallery today, for their enduring love and support. I have my parents to thank for my perseverance, resilience, optimism, and even my musical upbringing. Thank you all for taking on the burden of time and expense in travelling to our nation’s capital to support me from the gallery. Thank you so much.

I also think of family members such as my grandfathers, Lou and Laurie, who I wish were still around to see me being elected as a member. I’m sure all members think about whānau who have passed in recent years, especially when they never got to see their election to this House.

I acknowledge my wife, Sushan, who has given me her full support for my political endeavours, despite the many negative stories about the toll that being a member can have on families. I also thank my daughter, Sofia, though she’s only three years old and doesn’t really know what’s going on, for not kicking up a fuss, which is unusual, and for enabling an easy job transition. She loves to tell her friends at day care that her daddy works at the Beehive, which is not quite true, but you never know what the future may hold. I do find it quite entertaining when she tells me to be careful of the bees at work—I actually think she’s wise beyond her years. As an aside, my daughter is a half-Chinese seventh generation New Zealander, and I certainly hope that she doesn’t experience the horrendous racism that my wife has experienced and continues to experience in this country.

I’m actually not the first person in my family to work within these halls, though it has been a while. My great-great-grandfather, Samuel Marsden Baker, fluent in most dialects of te reo Māori, was the chief interpreter in the House of Representatives and was a close friend of the Rt Hon Richard Seddon. This cohort of my family actually spoke te reo Māori at home, which must have been very unusual for a Pākehā family at the time. My great-great-great-grandfather, the Rev. Charles Baker, first arrived in the Bay of Islands in 1828, and because of his association with James Busby, he was present at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, and he is depicted in the famous painting by Leonard Mitchell. I’m proud to have this ancestral link to the Treaty, and it was a privilege attending the commemorations in Waitangi last week.

From my schooling background, I’d like to thank two teachers in particular—I didn’t have a great deal of success until I met these two people—Mr Singh, my economics teacher, who introduced me to the Austrian and Chicago schools, and Ms Anderson, my business studies teacher, who is, funnily enough, related to our former deputy leader, Beth Houlbrooke, who is in the gallery today. In addition to the practical lessons learnt, they taught me to put trust in my own abilities and to take ownership of my learning. Frankly, many of my prior teachers were nothing but cruel—sorry to say that. I’ll never forget my teacher in intermediate telling my classmates that I was the most useless student in the class, which set me up for years of verbal and physical bullying while the school turned a blind eye. But enough about that.

The visits that I made to partnership schools had a profound impact on me—students have a place that they can call home; they’re much more than just schools. I wish I went to one, and I wish we had more of these across New Zealand, but unfortunately these community-driven initiatives were torpedoed and future students will be left to fend for themselves in the same State education system that failed them in the first place.

We live in a country that grants its citizens constitutional freedoms, including freedom of expression, that many around the world do not enjoy. That is why so many risk everything to set up their lives here. This House must maintain those freedoms, at the very least, and I will steadfastly use my time here as a member to enhance them. We must promote the rule of law and respect the separation of powers. This Parliament is merely a cog in the constitutional wheels of our nation; we share the power that is given to us by the people.

Seemingly contrary to popular belief, New Zealanders also look after our environment, mostly, not only because it is the right thing to do but because we are directly incentivised to do so. To act against the environment can be economically disastrous. I contrast this with scenes that I witnessed firsthand while visiting several towns and villages in Asia a few years ago. Residents were dumping all of their household waste, including heavy metals, directly into the tributaries of a major river. The banks were absolutely littered with rubbish that hadn’t made it all the way down. That river flows into the South China Sea—this happens all over the world. So when I see images on TV of the floating rubbish islands in the Pacific Ocean, I know exactly where that stuff came from. Here in New Zealand, we obviously don’t tolerate that sort of behaviour, and I also don’t think that we give ourselves enough credit for the positive work that we do.

In New Zealand we have unacceptable levels of material hardship, poverty, homelessness, and significant over-representation of tangata whenua in our prisons and in our courts, among many other issues. No one in this House wants to see this. The Government has three years of seemingly limitless power to tackle these issues, and I hope for all our sakes that they are successful. Take care, though, the more laws that are written, the more criminals that are produced.

I also hope that the Government looks at supply side economics in the housing market, and makes it easier to build quality homes throughout the country. Our out-of-control housing market is debilitating for my generation, and even more so for those that come after.

I mentioned migrants before. An efficient, high quality, and respectful immigration system is an essential part of any country’s machinery. I hope that one day we will have such a system. The bar needs to be raised significantly at Immigration New Zealand, or it needs to be replaced altogether. Whether it’s the appalling delays in processing visas, the lack of transparency, the inhumanity, the inability to work remotely, or immigration officers who get their own policies wrong time and again, it’s simply not good enough. Migrants make huge sacrifices to call New Zealand home, and more often than not they show the rest of us what hard work really means. They have moved to a foreign land far away and flourished, just like our own ancestors. Christopher Columbus once wrote, “You can never cross the ocean unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore.”

I think of my in-laws, who I’m very close to. Decades ago, they left communist-controlled lands and made their way to New Zealand. My father-in-law was a refugee who escaped Pol Pot in Cambodia, a Marxist dictator who murdered at least 2 million of his own people, including my father-in-law’s father and sisters. My mother-in-law left behind a nation still grappling with the after-effects of the Cultural Revolution and years of famine. Say what you like about Muldoon at the time, but I think I know where I’d rather live. My in-laws set up successful businesses and worked hard in physically demanding jobs that they themselves created from nothing. Since arriving in New Zealand the only day they have taken off each year is Christmas Day, and work every other day. I’d like to say that this is exception but actually, for many migrants, it’s not, it’s quite normal, and I pay tribute to each and every new New Zealander.

I want to acknowledge, briefly, the many work and student visa holders who have been stranded overseas since March 2020 through no fault of their own, with their jobs, homes, possessions and, in some cases, family members, left behind here in New Zealand. I know that you’re in a huge amount of distress. It is unacceptable that you have been shut out and given no certainty about your futures in New Zealand. If New Zealand is to maintain its image as a world-leading destination for work and study the Government has to work on its kindness and come up with a fair solution.

My political ideology is simply that our morals and ambitions are our own and that they should not be forced upon anyone else, not least of all by the Government of the day. Everything else just flows from that idea. The enforcement of immoral laws restricting the rights of citizens to make them morally upright is unjust for it violates a person’s right to individual autonomy. As Rand said, “A Government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a monopoly on the use of legal force against its citizens.” By extension, we should act as global citizens and not be afraid to call out Governments around the world that not only abuse individual and human rights but also venture into our own backyard with nefarious motives and ideals. We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. The wolves are getting closer to our doorstep.

I thank the many thousands of people who contacted me in support of using Cantonese in this House during my oath, it was a pleasure to share this side of my family with you.

I conclude by thanking the ACT Party board and caucus for investing their time and confidence in me. We’re all working for a more productive, thoughtful, intelligent, and fearless New Zealand, where people seek and achieve a better quality of life. We are the masters of our own fate, to also quote Churchill. Learn to value yourself, which means fight for your happiness. I want my daughter to grow up in a New Zealand that is filled with ambition, innovativeness, and envied productivity. I honour the heritage of this nation, its unique constitution, and its Treaty. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Applause]

SPEAKER: I call on Karen Chhour for her maiden statement.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. We often don’t have the hard conversations that are needed for many reasons. They are too hard to hear or we don’t want to face the truth that things are not as they should be. I’ve come into this role, knowing that I’m going to have to have some of these hard conversations about the care of our children in this country. In an ideal world, we would not need someone like me to stand here and say New Zealand deserves better; unfortunately, that’s what I’m having to do. I’ve watched over the years as Governments, past and present, tiptoe around issues that are so important to the average New Zealander. I’ve waited for a Government that had the courage to stand up and start saying what needed to be said; unfortunately, this never seems to happen. For years I’ve never really told my story, as I was ashamed of it. As I got older, I realised, unless we are honest with ourselves about our past, we cannot move forward. So here it goes.

I myself was born in Australia and brought to New Zealand by my mother when I was around a year old. I was taken to live with my grandparents in Kaeō. Life was simple, power and running water was not a thing, and, unfortunately, neither was indoor plumbing. But I was in a loving environment, which was the most important thing. I was moved to Auckland to live with my mother when it was time for me to start school. This is when my life changed. My mother had just got married and was starting a new life, and now they were taking on a child they didn’t really know at all. To the outside world, we looked like the perfect family, but, unfortunately, nothing could have been further from the truth. Life got so bad that, by the age of nine, I didn’t think I was going to survive to the age of 10. It was around this time that I ran away from home and cried out for help. Unfortunately, my cries for help went unheard and I was sent back into the same situation that I had run away from. Around this time, my mother’s marriage was ending and, eventually, she ended up on the DPB.

What was going on at home was affecting me in my day-to-day life in many ways. I was quiet and reserved and easily upset. This made me a target for bullies. The bullying got so bad in intermediate that it was decided it was best for me to leave, rather than dealing with the problem. How often have we heard that? I felt alone, with nowhere to turn, in a system that had let me down in so many ways. So I kept to myself and tried hard to simply stay unnoticed. By this stage in my life, my mental health was in the toilet and I was at the point where I didn’t know if I wanted to wake up the next day. The simple truth is I was at rock bottom.

This is when a lady by the name of Dona noticed something was not right. She came to me and asked me one simple question: “Are you OK?” Dona offered me a lifeline that day—one I knew I had to choose. One night I ran and ended up on her doorstep, with just the shirt on my back, and she took me in, no questions asked. Now, this is was my second experience with the system. They organised family group conferences and tried to find members of my family that would take me in. My mental health did not seem to be of a concern to them. I was made to feel like a burden. Their questions made me feel like I was to blame, and I was being labelled a trouble-maker.

Time went by and, even though I loved living at Dona and Clarke’s, I knew I couldn’t stay there for ever, so I started to ask questions. This is when a social worker told me, “I’m sorry, none of your family wants you.” I asked whether I could go back to my grandmother and was told, “Your grandmother can’t take you again—it’s too hard for her.” I spent years resenting my grandmother for this, and it was only when I got older that I found out she had begged social services to have me, only to be told she was too old. Can you imagine being a child and hearing from a social worker that nobody—not even your family—wants you? I have lived with these words my whole life.

The system needs to learn that children are not just a number or a problem to be got rid of. They have minds and hearts of their own, and our words can break them. Eventually, I was placed with a family member that did their best, but I always knew that I was forced on them and I never felt welcome. I was a teen moving around from relatives’ houses to friends’ couches, and back with my mother when I had nowhere else to go. I was bounced from pillar to post, and, by the time I was 14, I had moved schools seven times. I could not keep up, so I did what so many have done before, and I simply dropped out. I got a job and I saved what I could, and eventually I moved into a flat and became completely independent. I worked graveyard shifts at McDonald’s while I tried to continue my education by day, doing a course. I drank a bit, I cried a lot, but I was doing OK.

One night I promised myself that, if I ever had a family of my own, I would never allow them to go through what I went through. Yes, I made mistakes—I was young—but it was then that I decided to take on every opportunity I could to try and better myself. I have worked hard over the years to make something of my life that my children can be proud of. It has not always been easy. I’m grateful to my husband, Meng, who has stood by me through all the tough times. We started our family earlier than expected: having our first child at 18. Meng found a job as a compressor mechanic and supported me while I searched for work. Once the baby was born, I worked nights at any job I could find. Eventually, Meng managed to find an apprenticeship in telecommunications. That apprenticeship has led to so many opportunities for us. I won’t pretend it was easy. The hours were long and the income was low, but he is now a project manager in his field.

Marriage came and then a second child. Then a year later we had saved enough to buy our first home. It wasn’t much, but it was ours, and it was so much more than just a house. It was the happy home that I had never had. Two more children followed, and we ended up living there for 15 years until we could finally afford the house we’re in now.

I worked many jobs over the years to help where I could, but all I wanted was to be home for my kids. So I stopped working and started helping my mother-in-law with her business. I sourced work and helped prepare clothes for deliveries. In return, she taught me how to sew. This was amazing as it allowed me the time to do things I wanted with my children, while learning a new skill. I’ve spent the last seven years volunteering with the St John Youth programme, holding the position of assistant divisional manager for five of those years. Over the years I’ve been that mother in the classroom, helping with reading groups, school trips, and anywhere else I was needed. And when we moved into our bigger home, I took the skills my mother-in-law taught me and became self-employed in the New Zealand - made clothing industry.

This brings me to today. Over the years, I’ve watched and listened to people in my community telling me their stories. It became clear to me that the system has not got any better than when I experienced it. In fact, it’s getting worse. My heart would break because I could relate so much to what they were saying, but I felt there was nothing I could do to help them. I’ve watched so many promises being made to improve the system, but it seemed that every time a promise was made, they changed the name but not much else. Whether it be Child, Youth and Family, Ministry for Vulnerable Children, or now Oranga Tamariki, it’s the same system with a new letterhead. This simply isn’t good enough.

I am one of the lucky ones. I had people that helped me believe in myself just enough that I could see my way out. It’s because of them I am able to stand here today and say enough is enough. We can’t keep doing what we’re doing. Society needs to take a stand and decide what is acceptable and what is not. I had the privilege of giving a similar speech to an audience during the election campaign and I’m going to say the same thing I said to them. It is high time the Government stopped the lip service and did something that actually helps the people that need it the most. Governments past and present have spent years avoiding making any real meaningful decisions, but at least we can now say we’ve had an inquiry into abuse in State care.

The royal commission report is a good thing. It brings some closure to the victims and I am grateful that these people have been given the opportunity to speak up and finally have a voice. But does this report really tell us anything we did not already know? Now we need more than just words. Apologies only go so far and cannot be taken seriously when what we apologise for is still happening.

I stand here today not only as a survivor of abuse as a child but a survivor of our system’s abuse. It is time we said what needs to be said: enough is enough and we won’t tolerate it any more. We must focus on our most vulnerable, our children. Parents are grownups. They can make their own choices and decisions. Our children don’t have the ability to make big choices yet, and they shouldn’t need to. They deserve our guidance and protection.

ACT thinks this can’t really take place while there’s such a focus on race and culture in an organisation delivering that protection. As I recently said, when Grainne Moss stood down as Oranga Tamariki chief executive, ethnicity and culture should not be how we decide what’s in the best interest of our children. Oranga Tamariki should be colour-blind and open to whatever will ensure a child’s wellbeing and safety. It is not a one-size-fits-all thing, and having legislation that tries to make it that way doesn’t work for our children.

If that means placing a vulnerable child into a home of a family who desperately want to love and care for them, rather than doing everything possible to place their child back into a family that made them vulnerable in the first place, then that should be the solution. As someone who has experienced three elements of placement—non-family who wanted me, family who didn’t, and extended family who did—I can tell you, as a young person you’ll take love, compassion, stability wherever you can find it. That’s why ACT believes Oranga Tamariki needs reform, just not in the way the reform looks likely to be done under this Government. But who knows? They might listen to me.

We actually need to set up a better system of support for people in this country, proper care for survivors so they can move forward with the hope of a better life. I’m really concerned, if we don’t do something fast, our next generation is going to suffer in ways we can’t comprehend. For years, I’ve been frustrated watching the numbers for homelessness, child poverty, and mental health rise. There seemed to be no party that was willing to have an open and honest discussion around these issues. I want to have these conversations and work to find a solution that is more than just throwing money at the problem.

We need to set up targeted help and put that money where it is needed the most. I think we spend far too much time on the -isms in this country: racism, sexism, and classism. I firmly believe that they can be used as weapons to distract us from the important issues instead of focusing on what needs to be done in these areas. The consequence of constantly putting labels on things seems to be that we’ve created an environment where expectations are lowered and personal responsibility is no longer a requirement. I want to focus on people being the best they can be and celebrate their successes in these areas instead of constantly focusing on the negatives that give these people the platform they desire.

Oh, please don’t misunderstand me when I say this; I know these things happen. I, myself, have been on the receiving end of bullying for some of these very reasons. I was judged when I was younger, sometimes very openly, about just being another Māori dropout that would never get anywhere in life. I soon learnt that it did not matter how hard I worked to improve myself. If someone wants to, they will always find a reason to try and drag you down. We cannot just accept that this is OK, but we also can’t let this distract us from reaching our goals. We cannot afford to get this stuff wrong any more. Our next generation is relying on us to learn from the past and get better.

That’s why I’m proud to be standing here as a member of the ACT Party team. They are willing to look at issues from an understanding of what’s good for the country and not just what’s good for the party. I would like to thank everyone who voted to support us and look forward to serving you and all New Zealanders in the years to come. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Applause]

SPEAKER: I call on Toni Severin for her maiden statement.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am humbled to be standing here as one of ACT’s new list members for the 53rd Parliament. First of all, I would like to thank the public of New Zealand who voted party vote ACT. If it was not for them, I would not be standing here today. Next, I would like to thank our ACT leader, David Seymour, for what he has achieved in the last six years as the lone voice of ACT in this Parliament. Finally, thank you to all the ACT candidates and helpers for all their hard work this last year.

As the youngest of six, I grew up in Invercargill in a family that had its problems. Some days, I didn’t want to be there. But I have to thank my parents, who instilled in me the values of hard work and self-responsibility. I have carried them throughout my life to achieve the things that I have.

It was not easy for me growing up. I had struggles in school with my reading and spelling, but I did make it to the seventh form—year 13, for you young people. It was not until I joined the serology unit at Canterbury Health Labs that a lovely lady, Sheryl Young, suggested that I get tested for learning disabilities, as she noticed I was struggling. At the age of 21, I went to Seabrook McKenzie Centre in Christchurch to be tested, and found that I had a learning disability, a form of dyslexia. They were shocked that I made it to the seventh form. With this knowledge and understanding, I still achieved to become a qualified technical assistant in immunology. Later, I studied part time for three years and worked full time to finish a diploma in marketing at Christchurch Polytechnic, now known as Ara. During my years at Canterbury Health Labs, I was a Public Service Association delegate, team manager, and team member for the Canterbury health dragon boat team.

For the last 25 years, I have been a part owner of a successful small business with my husband, Richard. Now I’m a member of Parliament. Going through all this, I have a message for you all: do not be afraid to ask for help. Most of all, do not give up. Ask for help and keep asking for help until you get it. Richard has been a great partner in life and in business. It’s because of Richard that I’m standing here today. Richard volunteered me to Sir Roger Douglas as a candidate in the 2008 election, and, as they say, the rest is history.

One wish I would make is that my parents were still with us to see what I have achieved, and have my dad tease me that he voted for Winston Peters, which may not have been true, as he liked to bait people into disagreements. I thank my dad for his service in the Royal New Zealand Air Force, No. 14 Squadron, J-force. Mum, thank you for making the best home that you could.

With the values of self-responsibility, freedom of choice, freedom of speech, less Government intervention, ACT is the only party I have supported, since the beginning of MMP. I am humbled to be here in Parliament to further these values.

As a small-business owner, the red tape and the taxes consistently piled upon us add costs that many of us cannot afford. Two years ago, I read a statistic in the Air New Zealand magazine, which has stuck with me: 97 percent of businesses in New Zealand are small businesses, of up to 20 employees. That’s a total of just over 515,000 businesses, generating 28 percent of GDP, and employing around 631,200 people. I am happy to be the voice, with my ACT caucus here in Parliament, to ask questions on behalf of these business people. One thing I would ask this Government to do is please listen to what New Zealand business people have to say. They know best what needs to be done to help them to make New Zealand prosperous in this COVID time.

Over the years as a small-business owner, my main role was making enough money to be able to pay our staff, bills, and taxes. It has not been easy. There were times where Richard and I would have no money, as there was not enough in our bank accounts for us, our staff, to be paid. We always made sure they were paid first. We had to negotiate flexibility paying suppliers, sometimes over a few months, because we had a tax payment due. Most small businesses don’t always have spare money sitting in their bank accounts, and if they do, there’s always something that will happen to take that spare money away.

When small-business people need a bank loan for their business, they are most likely to borrow this against their home—if they have a home. So not only do they risk their business but they also risk their family home. Then, once you have a successful business, people say things like “How lucky you are! You must be successful, because you own all this.” But what they forget is all the hard work we had to put into our business. Long hours, personal money, one partner working another job or two, no holidays—just some of the sacrifices we have made because we believe in our business.

I quote for you from the Roman philosopher Seneca: “Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” That pretty much describes the grind that goes into creating a successful business. But just when you think it’s all working out, more red tape, taxes, compliance costs arrive. We work hard to keep our business running, our employees employed, but year after year it gets harder. So why do we do it? We do it because we have invested so much time and money into a business that employs staff and services clients. I am proud to be a small-business owner. Our hard work is starting to pay off, but there are so many small businesses out there that are having a hard time. I know this because it could have been us. All it takes is customers not paying due to an event like COVID. Finally on business: we don’t want hand-outs, that’s not sustainable. We want an environment that supports small businesses to be able to grow through hard work to succeed.

My second request of this Government is: please listen to our children. Our children understand more than what us adults think they do. We need to ensure our children have access to the best education we can give them. I am sad to say we are failing too many of our children in education. Too many are not receiving the help they need in our schools. One-size-fits-all schools do not work. We all have different needs and abilities. Please put the choice of education into the hands of our children and their parents. They understand their needs better than someone in Wellington. I compare one-size-fits-all schools to a pair of socks that says “one size fits all”—in my experience, they don’t. If you have an average sized foot, you’re fine, but if you don’t, you’re out of luck. Just don’t let our children down.

We are the House of Representatives. We need to listen to all groups who come to us. We may not agree with all that they say, but we will behave conciliatorily. We can always find middle ground and find solutions that can help as many people as possible. We have to keep an open mind. What I think I know today might be proven wrong tomorrow, and just the view that I’m right and you’re wrong does not help deliver practical solutions. If we, as people, can look at differences as opportunities, rather than threats, we can do so much more for one-another. So often it’s environmentalists versus farmers, teachers versus student learning, victims versus prisoners. We have to find a balance and make sure all these groups are helped. We are letting too many people down on both sides of the fence. Let’s remove the fence and have solid, practical solutions and great guidelines to make the best public policies we here as MPs can.

I would like to leave you with some quotes that say a lot about what shapes my political thinking: “Free marketing and deregulation are not right wing policy stances. They are the policies of those who believe in individual liberty and the availability of choice in a competitive environment.” That was Aubrey Begg, Labour MP for Awarua from 1972 to 1975. “The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is … Government spends too much.” The great Ronald Reagan reminding us all that we must question every dollar governments spend on our behalf. Thank you.

[Applause]

SPEAKER: I call on Dr Emily Henderson to make her maiden statement. [Interruption] Order! Order! This is Emily’s time.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Mr Speaker, tū ake tēnei. Tēnā koutou Te Āti Awa, e ngā mana whenua o Te Ūpoko o te Ika. Tēnā koutou ngā hapū, ngā whānau o te rohe o Whangārei, me kī, ngā kaitiaki, ngā kaimanaaki. He mihi ki a koutou ngā hapū, he mihi ki a koutou tohu o nehe. Ngā maunga whakahī, ngā awa, ngā moana. Tēnei te mihi o te mana o te Whare Pāremata ki ngā kaiārahi me ngā kaimahi o ngā wawata o te iwi. He karere tēnei mō ngā iwi o Whangārei, hei mihi ki a koutou.

[Mr Speaker, I now take my stand. Greetings Te Āti Awa, the authority of this land of Te Ūpoko o te Ika. Greetings also to the subtribes and families of the Whangārei district, that is to the caretakers and carers of the land. I greet all the subtribes and all your ancient landmarks; the ancestral mountains, the rivers and the oceans. This tribute is from the authority of Parliament to the leaders and fulfillers of the aspirations of the people. I am but a messenger for the people of Whangārei. Greetings to you all.]

He mihi kia koutou ma to my family and my friends and my Labour team, who have travelled all the way down to support me, and to those at home I know are watching too. Huri noa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Ka huri ōku whakaaro ki te tini me te mano kua mate. E te matua Rudy Taylor kua oti nei tō mahi rangatira, moe mai rā. Rātou ki a rātou, tātou ki a tātou. Me ū tātou ki te kaupapa kua takotohia.

[Let me reflect upon the myriads that have passed on. Sir Rudy Taylor, you have completed your chiefly tasks, rest in peace. Them to them, we to us. Let us turn to the agenda that is before us.]

I am a sixth generation Pākehā. He tangata tiriti ahau. By birth, I’m a Wellingtonian, and the fourth generation to feel Ko Kāpiti te motu, ko Pukerua te takutai, engari i ēnei rā nō Whangārei ahau [Kāpiti is the island, Pukerua is the beach, but I now call Whangārei home].

In fact, the day I made my first stump speech last May was nearly 40 years, exactly, to the day that my mum and dad drove us into Whangārei, seven-year-old me in the back seat with the first four of what would become six siblings. Mai i te ūpoko o te ika tae noa ki te hiku kua hoki mai au ki konei.

[From the head of the fish all the way to its tail, I have returned here.]

We went from the head to the tail of the fish and now I am back full circle, to my great honour, as the Labour MP for Whangārei, and also as a proud member of team Tai Tokerau alongside Minister Davis and Willow-Jean Prime for Northland. They were so generous in taking me under their wings, but always behind us all was the wide, wide wings of the late, great Rudy Taylor, lifting us all to where we are now, in a position to make good on the Te Tai Tokerau saying, “It’s the tail that powers the fish”. But in what direction? Throughout last year’s campaign, the words of another big man, Norman Kirk before his election to Prime Minister, were a touchstone for the Labour Party. “New Zealanders”, he said, “don’t ask for much. Someone to love, somewhere to live, somewhere to work, and something to hope for.” But it’s the words he said afterwards that echo in my head. On the night of his election he said, “And now comes the job of making dreams come true.”

We, each of us, come here with the hopes and dreams of thousands of people on our shoulders—in my case, the hopes and dreams of the 98,300 people of Whangārei—and for all of us now comes the job of making dreams come true. New Zealanders don’t ask for much, but in Whangārei, over the last 40 years, we got it less than most. I am not old enough to remember Kirk, but I remember the Whangārei I grew up in. It isn’t the Whangārei in which my kids grow up. Like the rest of Te Tai Tokerau, Whangārei has never been wealthy, but over the past 40 years we have got progressively poorer until, in fact, we bump along the bottom of the bad end of just about every set of statistics going. Now, some of us do OK, but as a Family Court lawyer and as a criminal lawyer, I have seen what happens to the others. Violence, drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, and neglect handed down from generation to generation, over-crowded, run-down houses filled with hungry, sick kids and worn-out parents. After 40 years of neoliberalism and trickle-down economics, that’s what trickles down in Whangārei. That kind of poverty causes more than material deprivation, it squeezes out that fourth Kirk necessity—room for hope, room to dream. It creates what my mum, after 30-plus years of running a crisis agency, calls poverty of hope, and nowhere more than for our young people.

Yet Whangārei has massive potential. The same young people who sometimes feel they have no future are stunningly talented, and we have amazing resources with which they could be building a great future. A stunning marine and coastal environment, innovative home-grown industries, and a nascent tech community set to explode. Not to mention the deepest, best-located port with the easiest access for our overseas trading partners. But in order to realise that potential, we need support. Only in the last three years under the Labour-led Government we start to see some real investment. Now we need to follow through and restore a level playing field in the North.

The Labour Party of Kirk believed creating a level playing field was the State’s first responsibility and the basic measure of a decent society. In the years since, we’ve been shamed into thinking that ideal is in some way naive or even presumptuous, that equity and justice are dreams we can’t afford, that a level playing field is just too much uphill work. Whangārei is over feeling ashamed. Because we are not naive. It is not naive to think a country can be run on the basis of equal opportunity and fairness. It is not naive to think it is worth shouldering responsibility for uplifting the vulnerable. It is not naive to expect that the interests of the people should be at the heart of their Government. And the truth of that was amply demonstrated by the last Labour-led Government, which spent 2020 proving over and over that putting its people first is the best and smartest way to protect a country. It is the ethos that helped build this country. It is what has sustained us through the last dark months. It is the kaupapa that can see us thrive into the future. That is the dream I am here to help secure. That is the job I am here to help get done. With help, Whangārei can achieve our dreams. And, what’s more, we know achieving them will help this country achieve its goals, including, for example, an improved coastal shipping and rail network utilising the best and deepest port in New Zealand.

Now, I know now is not the easiest time to have these dreams. As a country, we’re all aware of how precarious is our tiny lifeboat balanced on the edge of this global storm. We know that the safety of all our people has to be the economic priority, but it’s my job to raise them anyway as the representative of the 98,300 people of Whangārei. Not just because I represent Whangārei, but also because if leadership is about ensuring people’s survival it’s also about articulating the dreams that will see them thrive. However big the seas you have to cross first, it is about articulating the dreams that show us where on those seas we are aiming.

Even so, and looking at the world outside and the scale of the problems inside, it is hard not to be pessimistic about my chances, but it’s Whangārei itself that gives me hope because it’s there I’ve seen change happen. As a courtroom lawyer, working in a system under strain is not new to me, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale, and nor is working to turn around a system whose practice has come adrift of its ideals. Both the Family Court and the Criminal Court are under immense strain and there are times when neither does the job they set out to do. Nowhere in the Criminal Court are the cracks more evident than in the plight of vulnerable defendants and vulnerable witnesses: children, rape complainants, those with issues that impact their ability to communicate in and understand trials.

Now, it may be shocking to hear, but I know as a lawyer and as the daughter of a lawyer and as an academic who studies lawyers that lawyers are in this job to protect people, not harm them. Yet we do harm not only to individuals, but also to the search for truth. And we do that harm through some of our most time-honoured, centuries-old practices. It’s hard to turn a ship that thinks it’s going in the right direction, but six years ago, in Whangārei, we did just that. We designed a pilot that became the District Court sexual violence court and the basis of a national training programme for judges and lawyers. It wasn’t easy, but now more and more lawyers agree that if a defendant or a witness is going to struggle to communicate or understand standard trial process, we change the process. Some still see that change as a threat, but the rest of us know that if the way you’re acting is endangering the very thing you’re trying to achieve, change is good.

There is still much more to do in the Criminal Court and a lot more to do in the Family Court, and some of that we can discuss when we debate the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill, much of which was also piloted in Whangārei—I told you, this tail moves the fish. As a nation there is so much more we have to move, but if a bunch of crusty lawyers can abandon centuries of tradition because it’s not fit for purpose, there’s hope for us all, and there isn’t really any other moral choice but to try. We have to give those kids in Whangārei, in Levin, in Moerewa, and in Kawerau—we have to give our kids back Kirk’s room to dream, room to hope. We cannot lose another generation’s promise. And on the environmental plane, science is telling us very clearly there’s absolutely no time for delay.

It’s for these reasons I stood. But as a parent I can say, hand on heart, one of the worst moments of parenting is when you realise the buck stops with you. Most especially, we cannot pass this buck to our kids and expect their activism to somehow do the trick while we get on with business as usual. No one is more scared of leaving the job to us than our children. In declaring a climate emergency, Prime Minister, you said that our children feel this crisis in a truly visceral way. You were right. They are anguished. They are angry. They doubt our preparedness to do the job. And I know this up close and personal because up there in the gallery four of them are mine. But just as our lawyer colleagues want justice and change tack to get it, as parents, as grandparents, as aunties and uncles, there’s not a one of us who doesn’t want what’s best for our kids, wouldn’t give everything for our kids.

That being so, the country that dreamt up the eight-hour day, whose mothers first fought for and won the right to vote, whose every citizen one way or another descends from voyagers and visionaries, is a person who risked everything for the dream of a better life for their children, this country can face up to the challenges, rise up to the challenges. It can create new dreams and become something even greater.

Just last week at my first Waitangi, I watched our Government face up to the challenge of restoring our partnership in Te Tiriti, just as days earlier it faced up to the challenge of the first Climate Commission, and the few days before that, it began the challenge of rebuilding Oranga Tamariki, all for the sake of that dream of a better future for our children, because ours is the job of making dreams come true. And to those four kids in the gallery and all the others, should you ever doubt that commitment because it’s taking too long or we hit hurdles, the little song that our family chose today is the song that my grandma chose to have sung at her funeral as a message to her children—that generation, today, my parents, my aunts and uncles have come here to sing it to me. I sing it for you.

If I have words to make a day with you

If I had words to make a day for you

I’d sing you a morning golden and new

I would make this day last for all time

And give you a night deep in moon shine.

If I had words to make a day for you

I’d sing you a morning golden and new

I would make this day last for all time

And give you a night deep in moon shine.

[Applause]

SPEAKER: I call on Dr Gaurav Sharma to make his maiden statement. Sorry, just hold that up. Because there was an interruption, I thought all the people were in who needed to come in. I’ll call the member in a minute, but could I just get some indication from security as to why all these seats aren’t full already? [Pause in proceedings] Can I just ask the messengers upstairs to open both doors there so we don’t have people coming through one at a time, thank you. I call on Dr Gaurav Sharma to make his maiden statement.

Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): Mr Speaker. He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata. What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people. Today, I stand in the House of People as a representative of Hamilton, which has been recently named as the most beautiful large city in Aotearoa New Zealand. While I only form one-third of Labour’s team from Hamilton with the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and Jamie Strange being the other two, I strongly believe that when it comes to Hamilton, West is the best. But don’t just take my word for it.

Many years ago, another handsome man from Hamilton West stood right here in this House to give his maiden speech. In fact, he didn’t look much different from you, maybe a tad bit younger and with a bit more hair on his head. His name, too, was Trevor—Trevor Mallard, in fact. I follow today in the footsteps of young Trevor Mallard and eight other members who have had the honour of representing the great people of Hamilton West. Only three out of the previous eight MPs in Hamilton West have been from the Labour Party and I want to acknowledge today in the House former Labour MP Martin Gallagher, who, along with you, Mr Speaker, and one Dorothy Jelicich round up a strong history in the electorate.

As you know, Hamilton is a very special seat. As the bell-wether seat of the country. Hamilton West is a diverse electorate with a very heterogeneous mix. While on one hand we have the CBD, million-dollar houses around Lake Rotorua, and are the economic hub of the Waikato, on the other hand we have some of the most economically deprived areas where families are struggling to make ends meet. While on one hand we have one of the largest hospitals in the name of Waikato DHB and a fine polytech like the Waikato Institute of Technology, on the other hand, we have people struggling to get access to doctors and some of the lowest decile schools in the country. On one hand we have international rugby and cricket stadiums, while on the other we have people working three jobs who have neither the luxury nor the time to afford to watch a game on TV. The stark contrasts of Hamilton West make it an electorate with a lot of challenges, challenges that I’ve seen not only after becoming an MP or as a candidate in the last two elections, but also as a local doctor in the community.

Until October last year, I worked in a large medical practice with 12,000 patients, many of them with high needs. I saw firsthand in my community the effects of domestic violence and abuse, where a young woman was raped and beaten by her partner for many days before she could escape to seek help. I saw our rangatahi stuck in vicious cycles of methamphetamine addiction. I saw parents who lost their kids to Oranga Tamariki. In more than one way, my personal experiences from the past have helped me to relate to my patients and will continue to do so with my constituents.

I was born in the Himalayas in India, and first came to New Zealand when I was 12 years old. My father migrated to New Zealand a few years before me and my mother with $250 in his pocket and a dream for a better life. It took him over six years to find a job in his field of work in engineering. But he did not give up. He slept at night on benches in Auckland Domain, eating meals at Hare Krishna and Auckland City Mission, working as a labourer putting tarmac on the road and packing food in cold storage units, selling vacuum cleaners door-to-door, and driving a taxi so that I could have access to the best education in the world. My mother worked as a caregiver in a retirement home. Both my parents have been heavily involved in volunteer work in local communities in New Zealand. My dad volunteered for the St John Ambulance in Kaikohe and my mother volunteered in an NGO for many years.

I started my schooling in New Zealand in form 5M at Auckland Grammar under the stewardship of former headmaster John Morris, who is present in the gallery here today. Grammar gave me a good education and inspired me to learn more, dream more, do more, and become more. It also taught me resilience. I was bullied at school, but Mr Hawkes and Mr Schmidt taught me to stand up against bullies.

In my three years at Grammar, I went from 5M to form 7N, graduating as the proxime accessit. While at Grammar, we were encouraged to take up extracurricular activities, and I decided to volunteer in a retirement home. This chance decision changed the course of my life for ever and led me to working as a caregiver in rest homes for a further four years on a part-time basis.

As I was finishing my last year at school, my father was diagnosed with a bile duct tumour. At this point, I met Professor John Windsor, a world-renowned hepato-biliary surgeon who performed an 11-hour surgery on my father. Not only did he save my dad, Professor Windsor was also the first person to hand me a stethoscope, at the tender age of 17. Inspired by my mother’s and my own experience of working in a retirement home and looking up to Prof Windsor, I went on to study medicine at the University of Auckland.

At university, aside from surgery, I developed an interest in public health issues and policy making and was the elected representative for over 3,000 medical students. This is where I got the first taste of broader issues that affect our healthcare delivery. In my fifth year of medical school, I was involved in presenting a paper that examined climate change as a population health issue, the global impact on threatened food supplies, re-emerging infectious diseases, poor water quality, extreme weather events, loss of livelihoods, and forced climate-related migration within the Pacific. My group won a public health prize at the University of Auckland for this presentation and based on this I was encouraged to apply for and accepted for an internship at the World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva. At WHO I was able to broaden my public health experience by working with the non-communicable disease cluster on research findings in developing countries, many of which suffer from extreme poverty and poor health outcomes. The coffee table discussions at WHO with my peers on how to question the current status on public health led by Antonio and I to launch a public health festival in Spain.

Following my European adventures I returned home and joined the board of the Auckland Refugee Council to fight for the doubling of our refugee quota. Simultaneously, I worked at hospitals around the country, wanting to follow in the footsteps of my mentor, John Windsor. Somewhere along the way, I also had the pleasure of working in Mongolian hospitals, travelling over 2,500 kilometres in the Gobi Desert from one clinic to another. The great bond that I established with the people of Mongolia led me to seek ways to help increase access to medicine and surgery for the locals, but this was easier said than done. I realised that as a doctor I did not possess enough technical skills to launch, fund, and run a large-scale organisation. I was only able to care for my patients one-to-one but in order to make a system-wide change I had gaps in my knowledge that I needed to bridge. This is what led me to take a break from medicine and go to business school at the George Washington University. I was lucky to receive a Fulbright scholarship for my MBA and even luckier to spend two years in Washington DC.

The MBA helped fill a lot of gaps in my knowledge about finance, human resources, business strategy, and planning. It also opened me to study mergers and acquisitions in France, to learn about emerging markets in Mexico City, and to work on a Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement on agriculture products in Vietnam. But living in DC also made me realise the difference that good and bad politicians can make. Not long after I arrived in Washington for my MBA, the first of the TV debates on politics started. What seemed like a big joke then has turned out to be a bitter reality for America and the rest of the world. A lot has changed in world politics since, and most of it has been for the worse. The constant attack on media, the populist and nationalist rhetoric, the fake attack ads on openness, the utter disregard for facts and science: a post-truth world that in hindsight had all the hallmarks of its making, but at that time still could not be imagined in our worst nightmare. This is why a collective global effort is required to get rid of fake news and misinformation created in this new world order, and our politicians need to step up engagement with our grassroots citizens.

Four years ago, while living in DC, concerned about climate change, environments, healthcare, and women’s rights, I marched on Washington with men and women, young and old, theist and atheist, straight and queer, of all colours against erosion of society’s moral fabric and the rhetoric of device and unscientific conspiracy theories that are at the cusp of being normalised in this post-truth world. This is what made me run for Parliament in 2017 in my last semester of my MBA as I shuttled every few weeks between Washington and New Zealand, doing my assignments at the San Francisco airport in transit. The question that everyone asked me, though, is why the Labour Party? Well, my family’s journey in New Zealand, starting from my father’s homelessness to receiving my Fulbright scholarship, has been full of perseverance and is a true example of Labour’s motto of providing opportunity to all Kiwis.

My whānau and I have always been thankful to the Labour Party’s policies and social security measures, as well as education and health reforms, and this is what inspired me to join Labour, firstly as a party member, secondly as a grassroots volunteer for Phil Goff in 2014, and subsequently as a candidate in 2017. But being a candidate is never a smooth journey. In 2017, I found some people who refused to shake my hand, not because they did not believe in my political ideology or that of my party’s policies but because my skin tone did not match that of theirs.

As people in the streets of Hamilton said to my good Pākehā friend and campaign volunteer, “Could you not find a candidate who looks like a New Zealander?” It shocked me. In the most recent election, I woke up one morning to find one lovely Hamiltonian was harassed and verbally abused by two sets of people for having signs supporting “a curry candidate”. Racial discrimination is not new to me, neither in politics nor in other spheres of life. When I was at the university, a prominent paediatric surgeon bullied me for months and said, “You people come to our country, I will kill you and ruin your career.”

While these incidents do not represent the majority of people in Aotearoa who have embraced me with open arms and whom I now represent, it is important that we acknowledge racism is still alive in Hamilton and in Aotearoa. As I said in 2019 after the Christchurch mosque attacks, how we deal with racism as a community and as a country will not be decided by how many bouquets of flowers or cards we leave at the mosques and how many social media messages we write but by how we stand up for others when next time another adopted Kiwi is being racially targeted. Speak up not for one religion or one community but for our collective identity as a peaceful and diverse country, a country that may not be perfect but is definitely our home, my home.

We are lucky still to be in a country where we have the right to take part in choosing our elected representatives. We are lucky that despite a global pandemic we were able to go into polling stations without wearing masks. While in many countries politics and campaigning has become more formalised with paid roles, we are lucky that most of our campaigning is done by passionate grassroots volunteers who put the time and effort behind a cause, not for personal gains or money but for something they truly believe in.

It was humbling for me to find out that I was the first ever MP of Indian origin to win an electorate seat, until I was joined by my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan after the special votes were counted in. But this has been a long journey, and today I stand on the shoulders of many giants who have gone before me, giants like former Governor-General Sir Anand Satyanand, and the first person of South Asian descent to be a list MP, Dr Ashraf Choudhary, both of whom are present in the Chamber today. I also want to acknowledge former Labour list MP Dr Rajen Prasad, as well as Mr Kanwaljit Bakshi and Dr Parmjeet Parmar from the other side of the aisle, along with Mahesh Bindra, whose side of the aisle depended much on what Mr Winston Peters decided on the day.

To the voters of Hamilton West, thank you from the bottom of my heart. I am so humbled that you have chosen me to represent our community. I have big boots to fill, following Tim Macindoe’s footsteps, but I’m going to put my all into it and rise up to the challenge. To Tim Macindoe, I have thoroughly enjoyed our debates and conversations over the last three years, thank you for always being kind and gracious. We have often not agreed on policy, but our mutual respect for each other will for ever continue.

To my colleagues in this House, as I said in my first caucus introduction, I couldn’t help but feel in awe of people in the room who I had grown up with as my heroes. From the amazing Nanaia Mahuta, who I first heard speak at the Mahatma Gandhi Centre in Auckland many years ago at a husting, and Grant Robertson, who kindly took me out for a coffee in Ponsonby when as a twentysomething-year-old I had an idea I wanted to share with him. To stalwarts like David Parker, Andrew Little, and Phil Twyford, and of course, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who I voted for on more than one occasion as a medical student living in the Auckland Central electorate. To be sitting in the same room as all of you incredible Kiwis who have given years of your life to public service was, and is, very humbling. While the feeling hasn’t sunk in yet, I know that I’m surrounded by people with a lot of mana in their communities and mahi behind them.

To my patients, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for everything you’ve taught me about medicine and life. I am here today for you because of you. To the 150 or so people in the gallery today, and many who are watching from home, thank you for being part of my journey. The gallery today includes people I went to high school and medical school with, my high school professors and medical school professors, my nursing and GP colleagues, as well as many Labour supporters, candidates, volunteers, and New Zealand council members. There is my 89-year-old grandpa, my mother, who has been my biggest strength and supporter, as well as our campaign manager, Emma Pike, who despite having two jobs led an exceptional team. There is Max Kristofferson who despite a shoulder injury put up 200 hoardings. There is Simon Jenkins who helped us doorknock thousands of houses while wearing a moon boot on his fractured foot. There is Mike Tribe, our Labour Electorate Committee chair, and Jaspreet Saluja, our phone coordinator. There is Bill Barwood and Sandy Kristofferson who coordinated the delivery of 56,000 pamphlets.

There are so many of you. All of you form a part of me, and without each of your parts I would never be whole. We went from losing by 7,731 votes in the 2017 election to winning by 6,267 votes, a change of 13,999 votes and the first time a candidate has ever received 20,000-plus votes in Hamilton. To my entire volunteer team sitting in the public gallery, thank you once again for putting your faith in me. It’s been a long road, and there have been many challenges. The 2017 election, the revival and rejuvenation of local Labour branches, the candidate selection for 2020, and the general election. You have walked with me every step of the way, and I am for ever grateful. But our work has only just started. The challenge now is to make sure we prove to the people of Hamilton that we are worthy of the opportunity that has been given to us to make a change. And once again, I look to you, my volunteers, supporters, friends, and mentors, as we work together across party lines to make our beautiful city one of the most livable in the world. We must not stop until every New Zealander can afford a roof over their head, food on the table, free education, access to timely primary hospital and dental healthcare, as well as the guarantee that our mokopuna will have a clean, green planet.

I asked at the start of my speech, what is the most important thing in the world? Yes, it is people, it is people, it is people, and the true measure of our society is how we treat our most vulnerable people. The path ahead is still challenging, but I know that under the leadership of Jacinda Ardern and the watchful eyes of many New Zealanders who have put their hopes and faith in us, we will be able to stand up to our next set of challenges with the same determination, focus, and empathy that we did through this global pandemic.

Hoake tonu tātou, let’s keep moving.

[Applause]

SPEAKER: Can I now ask those people in the gallery who have been here to support that speech to make room for the people who are here to support the next. Thank you.

Waiata

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Ahumairangi maunga, Te Āti Awa tangata, ngā tāngata whenua o te motu whānui, tēnā koutou. Tātou ngā mema Pāremata, te Tiriti o Waitangi, nāna te motu nei i whakapou. Māku koe e hāpai. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings to Ahumairangi mountain, to Te Āti Awa people and to all indigenous people throughout the country. To the members of Parliament, and to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the document that underpins this country, I will uphold your values. Greetings one and all.]

I begin my speech as I have begun every part of my personal journey here in Aotearoa New Zealand: in te reo Māori. You might recall that I took my affirmation in this place as a member of Parliament in te reo. Several years ago, I also took my affirmation of citizenship in te reo. It’s important to me to acknowledge Māori as tangata whenua of this land and to mark my personal commitment to upholding Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Mr Speaker, may I also add my voice to those before me who have congratulated you on your re-election to your role. I fully support the heartfelt words of my colleagues, but, on a more personal note, thank you for being one of the first senior MPs to offer support and a kind word to this rookie candidate.

In my previous role as a midwife, I became used to dealing with unexpected arrivals. However, perhaps one of the most unexpected arrivals of my career was myself in this place. It will come as no surprise that this happy delivery could not have taken place without an amazing team, but my very first thankyou must go to the people of Ilam, who have put their trust in me and given me this opportunity. That trust is no small thing. To them: I promise that I will serve you to the best of my ability and always work hard for you all. I also acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee for his time spent representing the electorate since it was created in 1996. Mr Brownlee, you spoke in your maiden speech of the pride and humility that you felt upon being elected to this place for the first time. I echo those sentiments. I’m sure that in future, we will disagree on many matters, but at this particular time I extend my genuine and grateful thanks to you for your 24 years of service to Ilam.

No campaign is ever successful without the efforts of a wide group of people working toward a goal they believe in, and so my heartfelt thanks go to my incredible Ilam campaign team. What the team lacked in size it made up for in energy and enthusiasm, and I’m proud and honoured to have had you all working by my side. John Sullivan, Anthony Rimell, Alex Seren-Grace, Merav Benaia, and my campaign manager Matt Seren-Grace, you all rock. To everyone who agreed to have a hoarding on their fence or waved a sign by the side of the road, made a phone call, delivered a leaflet, baked a muffin, staffed a table, donated a dollar, held a home meeting, or tooted their car horn in support of our team, I thank you. Huge thanks too to our amazing Labour campaign team and the team at Fraser House, and, of course, our wonderful president Claire Szabó, and women’s vice president Fleur Fitzsimons.

On a more personal note, Dad, watching, I know it was a shock initially to find that I was on the red team, but thank you for your unconditional support and love. I love you. My two daughters, Alex and Bea—strong, fearless, relentlessly intelligent, and loving—never forget who stands behind and beside you. You fill me with such pride and love every single day. Gloria Clegg, also watching, you have loved me and my daughters like a mother. I love you and miss you, darling. Megan and Amy, my extra daughters, I am so blessed to have you in my family. Andy, my best friend, my biggest cheerleader, my partner in everything, thank you for being exactly who you are, the man that I love and can’t wait to be married to—and thanks for asking, by the way. You often have more faith in me than I have in myself, and I know that you always have my back, as I do yours. I’m a better person in every way because you’re by my side.

If you’ve ever visited the University of Canterbury—moving on—seen the lions and giraffes at Orana Wildlife Park, or flown into Christchurch Airport, then you’ve visited Ilam. Ilam is also home to Kate Sheppard House, Te Whare Waiutuutu. Standing in the garden of her home in September 1893, she read the telegram announcing that women had achieved the right to vote. In December last year, when Te Whare Waiutuutu was opened to the public, I was proud to stand in that same garden as the first woman MP for Ilam. Standing there, I felt what I feel now: not the thrill of power but the weight of responsibility to the people I serve. I welcome that responsibility.

I’m well aware that I am here because of the inspirational women leaders who have gone before, women leaders who have climbed the career ladder and then tied it off firmly for those who were coming up behind them, rather than kicking it down. I would like to acknowledge the Rt Hon Helen Clark, Hon Lianne Dalziel, Hon Dame Ann Hercus, and Hon Ruth Dyson, in particular, for being truly extraordinary examples of this style of leadership. And I stand here because of the inspirational women around me: the Canterbury Labour women’s branch, a group of exceptional women who will do and are doing great things to support women; the amazing women I see in this place—too many to mention, but I want to acknowledge my Canterbury colleagues Hon Dr Megan Woods, Hon Poto Williams, Jo Luxton, and Dr Tracey McLellan. I’ll also sneak in a mention for Dr Duncan Webb—clearly not as a woman but as a feminist ally—and, of course, our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. Prime Minister, in a short time you have changed the conversation about what it is to be a genuine leader and had the courage to bring compassion and kindness back into leadership. I am often frustrated by how kindness is conflated with weakness, when rather to lead with kindness takes enormous courage. In the best possible way, Prime Minister, you have set the bar higher for us all.

I stand here too because of two particular women in my family. The first of these women is my great-grandmother. She all but ran away from home to serve as a nurse in the Boer War, much to the horror of her family, who had raised her to be largely decorative rather than useful. I was told that she resisted orders and used her designated rest time to treat soldiers who she was forbidden to help in her official duty time. In at least one case, her actions saved a young man’s life. She was disciplined at the time, but her actions were later recognised by Queen Victoria. She was a woman of courage and strong belief in helping others, no matter the personal cost to herself. The other is my mum.

I was born in Jersey, in the Channel Islands. Jersey is nearly 19,000 kilometres away, and only has a population now of 100,000. As I grew up, my mum was a nurse and midwife working permanent nights so that she could see me before and after school. My dad was a shop manager. We didn’t have much money, but I always had a roof over my head, and I never knew what it was to go hungry.

Earlier in her life, Mum had been a midwife who rode around the East End of London on a bicycle, catching the babies of women who were living in the extremes of poverty. The stark realities of life for people living in those conditions were made clear to me in the stories she told. So while I had a privileged upbringing in many ways, my mum was always quick to remind me that the purpose of privilege and, later, of power is to advocate for, elevate, and support those who have less.

My dad’s stories were of his childhood lived under Nazi occupation in the Second World War, of the bravery of his father in acts of rebellion that would have resulted in his removal to a labour camp at best, had he been caught. But Dad’s childhood wasn’t a simple story of good versus evil, but one of good people that were just following orders; of people not standing up against fascism when they had the chance and before the opportunity was lost. It was another important lesson for me that good intentions have to be backed up by actions, or they are meaningless.

When I was 21, my mum died of breast cancer. She was just 53—the same age I am today. She was first diagnosed when I was eight, and later on the symptoms of what I now know were metastatic bone cancer were written off as just being in her mind. For years, she was referred to a psychiatrist instead of an oncologist. Suffice to say that it’s left me with strong feelings about how women’s pain is commonly dismissed.

Following Mum’s death, I moved to England, got married, and had my two amazing daughters. When they were very young, I ran my own small business—a cloth nappy laundry service—endeavouring to balance employee welfare, the financial bottom line, and whole-of-life environmental costs and benefits.

My then husband and I made plans to emigrate to New Zealand in 2003. However, this was not to happen as we’d hoped as I was diagnosed with breast cancer myself, aged just 36. But I was one of the lucky ones. The cancer was caught early. Prompt diagnosis and State-funded treatment undoubtedly saved my life, yet cost me nothing. Personal experience should not be necessary to understand the benefits of universal healthcare, but it does tend to focus the mind when you are facing the possibility of leaving two small children motherless.

A few months after my successful treatment, we completed our move to this beautiful country and made Ōtautahi—Christchurch—our home. With hindsight, it’s somewhat ironic that we chose Christchurch because we felt that the earthquake risk here in Wellington was too great—good one!

We settled quickly, although there were a few hiccups along the way. On one memorable occasion, in true Kiwi tradition, I was asked to bring a plate to a party. Ever helpful, I literally took along not just one but a dozen empty plates. If one plate was needed, surely 12 plates would be better, but apparently not.

I also had to teach my daughters that Goldilocks did not, in fact, have three “beers”—that is far too many beers for a small child. It took me a while to get used to Kiwi vowels.

Soon after, I decided to take a new career path and joined the amazing women and men who are able, after years of study, to call themselves midwives. As a midwife, I’ve been blessed with the trust of women and their whānau through the best of times and the worst of times. I’ve seen life at its most beautiful and ugly. I’ve seen the unmitigated joy on the faces of new parents, perhaps after years of infertility. And then I’ve seen young people pregnant and traumatised by years of abuse, the empty cupboards that greet a new family returning home, the bruises that a mum can’t hide, the pain of addiction across the spectrum of rich and poor, the kids that I sneaked into the hospital to get their first hot shower for months—their parents couldn’t afford to turn the water heater on, ever—and the baby being admitted to hospital with a preventable respiratory infection caused by the mould and damp in their home. Moving home was not an affordable option. These are all things that are not too far away from the stories that my mother told me of her experiences as a midwife 60 years ago.

Many of these experiences involve women and systemic inequities. They resonate through many aspects of women’s lives and in to the lives of everyone around them. They resonate across generations, and when they are eliminated, we all benefit.

According to family legend, my first word was “No”. This will not come as a surprise to those who know me best. It does seem to be a trait in the family. My great-grandmother said no to orders, and treated injured soldiers; my dad’s family said no to accepting Nazi occupation, and resisted; and my mum said no to poverty and deprivation, and spent her life trying to help others. Just like them, saying no is, for me, not enough without taking action and trying to make a difference, which is why I stand here now.

I will bring my ethic of hard work and, hopefully, some of my mum’s boundless strength, fearsome determination, and relentless compassion to say no to policies and values that keep people in poverty, no to systemic injustices, and no to systems and processes that leave many at a disadvantage through no fault of their own. And I will say yes to the values that this Labour Government brings, yes to achieving gender equity, yes to warm, dry, affordable houses, and yes to a robust health system that cares for us all. I’m here to work hard to make the greatest possible positive change for the largest number of people, and to advocate for, elevate, and support those whose voice is smaller.

I am honoured that the people of Ilam have elected me to be a part of this Government of strength and kindness, one that sees, cares, wants to make changes, and is now getting on with it, and I will back up my promises to them with action in this place.

In closing, I’d like to share some advice that was given to me by a very good friend—wise advice to guide me through my time in this House. “Be yourself,” they said, “and don’t be a deck.”—I’ve got a lot better at those Kiwi vowels.

Huri noa i tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Applause]

SPEAKER: Could I ask the people who were here to support Sarah to now move out so the next crew can come in, please? Thank you.

Waiata

SPEAKER: Before I call the member—because I can see some movement up there—I’ll just indicate, if possible, that at the end of the speech a couple of things will happen. The first is, if there is to be a waiata, it should start at a point fairly soon after the end of the speech rather than catch everyone by surprise. The second thing is that the House will be suspended at the end of the speech until 7 o’clock, so we don’t need to do that stuff afterwards.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth):

Whakataka te hau ki te uru

Whakataka te hau ki te tonga

Kia mākinakina ki uta

Kia mātaratara ki tai

Kia hī ake ana te atākura

He tio he huka he hauhū

Tīhei Mauri Ora

[Cease the winds from the west

Cease the winds from the south

Let the breeze blow over the land

Let the breeze blow over the ocean

Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air

A touch of frost, a promise of a glorious day

I know begin]

Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Ki te atua, tēnā koe. Ki a Papatūānuku, tēnā koe. Ki te Pāremata, tēnā koe. Ki te hunga mate, ki te hunga ora, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings one and all. Abundant greetings to all. Greetings to the Lord. Greetings to the Earth Mother. Greetings to all in Parliament. Greetings also to the deceased and the living, greetings one and all.]

My life’s work has been all about serving people and serving our community. However, I am an unlikely politician. I’ve always stood for people’s rights. I’ve been a voice for those who have had no voice. But power and titles, they mean very little to me. Sometimes I’ve seen them in such a bad way—that power and title oppress instead of liberating.

I always said “No, no, no.” to the idea of running for Parliament, but that no was eventually massaged by many people in this room, including the Prime Minister’s own auntie and local New Plymouth identity Marie Ardern. So here I am.

My approach to life is best summed up by the Aboriginal artist and activist Lilla Watson, who said, “If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time, but if you have come here because your liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” I’ve followed this mantra in my life and in my work, not by fixing everything for everybody and doing everything but by walking alongside them, working together for our liberation.

Now, I say that I wasn’t into politics and here I am, but, let’s be honest, 1984 was quite a big year for me. I was nine years old and David Lange was this larger than life character. His passion, his oratory, his humour, it captured this nine-year-old school boy from Dominion Road School in Mount Roskill.

The year 1984 was also the year that I wrote in my school journal—don’t look too closely at the crosses. It said this: “When I grow up, I want to be like my dad. My dad’s a Salvation Army officer. My dad helps people. When I grow up, I want to help people.”

My parents’ Salvation Army work was rather hectic. Take aside the timbrels and the tubas, the Red Shield Appeals, knocking on doors, and moving every few years, as mum and dad gave themselves to the work; there were also the unique experiences that my parents gave me: the drunk who spent a few nights sleeping in our garage sobering up, the family from overseas who had experienced trauma and were staying with us, and the skinhead having Sunday lunch with us for his birthday, as well as the countless prison girls that came and went from our home.

The year 1984 was also the year that I have a vivid memory that’s changed me—the person that I am today. My mum was the chaplain at Mount Eden women’s prison. Times were different back then, Kelvin, and we used to get easy access down the corridors of the prison, into the cells, and into the common areas. It was quite regular after school for mum to swing by home, pick us up, and take us to the prison to visit some of these girls, or to visit some of those who’d recently been released.

This one afternoon, mum swung by home, and I was just there by myself, and off we went to visit one of the girls who’d just got out of prison, and her baby. Now, this was nothing different or unusual—and then we arrived at the old Onehunga rubbish dump. I was confused—we were visiting a mum and her daughter. We drove through the dump to a working shed out the back. We hopped out of the car, and I can still smell the smell of that dump and remember the confusion, thinking “What are we doing here in this dump?” We knocked on the door, and this mother and her child answered it. We went inside. We sat on the edge of the bed in the shed in the back of the dump, and it was immaculate. What little she had, she took great care of. Mum had the conversation. We left and went home.

Now, I don’t remember the conversation that mum and I had in the car that day, but I do remember thinking that something is wrong that a women and her baby, in New Zealand, are living in a shed at the back of the dump. That experience changed me, and it’s never left me. I now also think it will shape my work here in Parliament.

My life’s call to serve people has led me to being a foster parent over the past 20 years. I want to acknowledge some of those tamariki who are here and those who aren’t here. Kōwhai, Tainui, Nigel, Dennis, George, Kevin, and Blaide, to you, and to your whānau, I love you. I’ve committed my life to you, which means that it’s a sacred honour for me to be here serving you in this place and for me now, at this beautiful young age of 45, to be koro Glen. But I stand here because of you. Every day that I walk into this House, I think of you and of the chances that you never had, of the trauma that is your unwelcome friend, of a system that wasn’t responsive to your needs or your culture.

I think also of the children today who are going through similar things. I stood for Parliament to make a difference on a larger scale than just my community work. I want to see a transformed society where my mokopuna will have more opportunities, face less prejudice, and be part of a country that loves and looks after our most vulnerable.

This place is a place of power where decisions are made to change people’s lives; I’m a living example of that here in Parliament today. Because this place, as I said, has the power to oppress but it also has the power to liberate. Today I feel liberated standing here wearing this korowai, due to the courage of this House that yesterday I was able to marry the man that I love and cloak myself in his whakapapa, represented in this korowai. Man, my nine-year-old self in 1984 would’ve been pretty happy, but pretty confused about this whole experience. I actually still am, to be honest, but I feel liberated in this place. This place of power has liberated me. So thank you to all those who work for liberation.

I know what it’s like to be on the margins, to be mocked. Sadly, I know that there are still some in this country who struggle with their bigotry and old thinking. John and I have been called “faggots” over the fence of our own home. When on the campaign trail I was challenged for my perversions, one person wanted to make sure that everyone knew that I was gay because then no one would vote for me; that didn’t work. This man denied my Christianity and tried to wield the Bible against me that day. That day, Minister Andrew Little stepped in and he said to this man “This is not about your religion. This is about your prejudice.” Our society has come a long way, but we have a long way to go. Thank you, Andrew.

Louisa Wall, thank you for your fight for us, that we can be married here, and those who go before you, before us.

Today, I’m proud to stand here as the member of Parliament for New Plymouth. I also want to acknowledge that it was 34 years ago that the last MP for New Plymouth gave a maiden speech in this House—Harry Duynhoven, thank you for being here. I’m humbled that the constituents of New Plymouth have placed their trust in me to champion their causes, their needs, especially the needs of our most vulnerable.

There’s a few thankyous, which is a risk, I know, but none the less—

Hon Member: Good luck!

GLEN BENNETT: Yeah, luckily this isn’t being recorded. Our campaign team, Grant Hassall, Bali Haque, Lorraifne Webber, Colleen Hammonds, Esme Eastment, Gordon Gower, Antony Rhodes, Colin Bell, thank you so much. To Bruce Gatwood-Cook, Virginia Winder, Shelley Baldwin, Mike Baldwin, Brendan Lister—this is where I go rogue and name a few people, I probably am going to muck it up now but anyway—Lesley Olley, Marie Ardern, Troy Ryan, Eileen Kiffin: gold star volunteers. But you all are gold star volunteers because here we are and here I am standing in front of you. To the New Plymouth LSC, to members and supporters, we got there. To Andrew Little, again, thank you for putting your trust in me, and for you, Prime Minister, thank you so much for allowing me, having faith in me, and probably getting some texts from your aunt every so often to tell her what things I’ve been doing wrong.

I also want to thank to Tu Tama Wahine o Taranaki, who have been on my journey with me. To Community Taranaki who have helped me, empowered me to be here as your representative and as representative of our people. To Incedo, my faith community, who always keep me grounded, thank you.

And to my family, to Mum and Dad, to Drew and Delwyn, Jackson, Montana, Leo, Charlie, to Mark and Nikki, to Ezra, to Micah, to Judah—I think I got them all. Lucky we’re a Pākehā family! And to Jon, my rock, my world, I wouldn’t have run if it wasn’t for you walking alongside me. Thank you—I love you, husband.

Most of all, I want to thank the people of New Plymouth, of Waitara, of Ōākura, of Ōpunake, and everywhere in between for putting your trust in me. Our electorate is blessed with natural beauty, resources, and talented, hard-working, down-to-earth people. To my constituents, as your member of Parliament I will work for you all. I will be an MP for you, even if you voted for me or did not vote for me, and I am brimming with ideas and how we can bring the possibilities of our community together; my door is always open. My vision for New Plymouth is a city that leads New Zealand’s green energy future, that we ensure that it is a just transition. I will continue to ensure that everyone has a place to call home, that we have a world-class medical-care system for our people in our region, and that our communities rediscover and reimagine the connectedness between neighbours and communities. I want to serve our region and our country, where it’s not about just talking about issues and problems but it’s talking about possibilities and the assets of the people within our communities.

I spoke earlier about a woman and child living by the dump, and today we have a housing crisis in New Zealand. I strongly believe in this Government’s vision that everyone has a warm, dry place to go home, a vision of houses that shelter them from the wind and the rain, and one where the young people of Taranaki can afford a house to raise the whānau.

I stand here proudly as a Labour Party MP and see the wonderful challenges and excitement we have: the fact that we are going to be teaching our own history in schools, that we have our own public holiday that represents this nation, and that tonight in this House, legislation begins to deal with Māori wards and allowing councils to have a better representation. Many of you in this room have fought for that, so thank you.

I close and to speak to this korowai, and to this te raukura that I wear. I especially want to thank Māori women in my life who have guided me. They give to me this raukura, the three feathers of Parihaka, and so it is with this taonga front and present with me today that will guide me as I serve this House. The raukura connects me to our creator, and grounds me to love and the service of the people of Aotearoa, honour and glory to God, to our creator, peace on Earth, and goodwill to all people.

He hōnore he korōria ki te atua, he maungārongo ki te whenua, he whakaaro pai ki ngā tāngata katoa. Kia ora.

[Honour and glory to God, peace on Earth, and goodwill to all mankind. Thank you.

Kia ora.]

[Applause]

Waiata

Sitting suspended from 6.14 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ā, kāti rā, tēnā rā tātou katoa. The House is resumed. I understand the Government will move an adjournment to the Address in Reply debate.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This debate is adjourned and set down for resumption next sitting day.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I move, That urgency be accorded the first reading and referral to select committee of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill and to the Climate Change Response (Auction Price) Amendment Bill.

Both bills were introduced on Friday morning, so they’ve been public for four days, but technically they’d have to sit longer on the floor of the House before being read a first time, but for the move to urgency. The urgency is needed to bring them above the line on the Order Paper so that they can be considered now and sent to select committee earlier than would otherwise occur. I’ll summarise the reason as to why we believe urgency’s justified, but both bills have to be passed by a certain date, as the Ministers will explain in more detail.

The Māori wards legislation, from the Government’s perspective, needs to be passed by 22 February, and the Climate Change Response (Auction Price) Amendment Bill by mid-March, and we think it’s desirable that both of these pieces of legislation go to select committee, albeit for a truncated period. Urgency, if it’s agreed, won’t continue until tomorrow morning so that select committees running tomorrow won’t be interfered with. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Mr Speaker. If I could just ask, the Minister said that the bills need to be passed by a certain date. I understand that an urgency motion should give some reasons why it is necessary for the bill to be passed early. The Minister’s given the date by which he’d like it to be passed, but he hasn’t explained why that is.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I’m happy to elucidate a little bit more. In respect of Māori wards, if Māori wards are to be in place in a date and time for the local government elections next year, that creates effectively a cascade of dates backwards, and in respect of the climate change auction prices, that’s necessary so that by the time the first auction under the revised emissions trading rules takes place, there is a reserve price able to be put in place. At the moment, the legislation doesn’t allow an auction reserve and this legislation is necessary to put that in place before the first auction.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 41

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I present a legislative statement on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I move, That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 15 February 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during an 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, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

Last week, many of us were at Waitangi, celebrating the 181st anniversary of the signing of our founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That document signalled that New Zealand’s constitutional basis was going to be informed by our bicultural origins.

I want to turn to this bill, and it is an idea whose time has come. You will hear in this House tonight many people over there say that there is not enough time in select committee. But I can remember in 2002, under the Local Government Act, when the 5 percent poll provision was put into legislation, how challenging it was to get unanimity across the House to remove a discriminatory law. But here’s the thing: some years later, when we became Government last term, I got a letter from Local Government New Zealand, and, in fact, it was one of the major priorities that they brought to my attention. I had to trawl back through my records and find that letter.

On 22 March 2018, the then president of Local Government New Zealand, David Cull, wrote to the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and the Hon James Shaw, as the respective leaders of the coalition confidence-and-supply Government, asking that the poll for Māori wards and constituencies be removed. I note this particular comment in his letter: “As noted, these poll provisions apply only to the establishment of Māori wards and constituencies. That they do not apply to other wards and constituencies marks the provision as discriminatory to Māori and inconsistent with the principle of equal treatment enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi. Either the poll provisions should apply to all wards or they should apply to none. The discriminatory nature of these polls is not acceptable.” Tonight, we are rectifying that by ensuring that we can put through the House—yes, under urgency, but, again, it’s an idea whose time has come—the move to remove this discriminatory poll.

So, as this matter will go to the Māori Affairs Committee, we anticipate that there is already a broad knowledge amongst our society about how inhibitive that poll has been to introduce Māori wards into many districts. In fact, we only need look to New Plymouth District Council in the six-year journey that they undertook under the then Mayor of New Plymouth, Andrew Judd, who took it upon himself to educate many New Zealanders about why this poll was discriminatory. Since that period of time, a number of communities within a number of council districts have argued for the removal of this discriminatory poll, and the reason why is simply because time has moved on.

We only need look at the natural disasters that have occurred when civil defence has been invoked, when we think about the western fires, when we think about the Kaikōura earthquake, and when we think about the Christchurch earthquake and how iwi Māori mobilised to support local government in order to respond—they were quick to put their hand up. When we think about the COVID-19 response, Māori and iwi organisations were quick to put their hand up with local government to say, “We can help our community; we are long-term contributors to the wellbeing of our community.”

When we think about leveraging and the opportunity that Treaty settlements provide for regions to really rethink what regional growth and opportunity looks like in an integrated way, there is ample opportunity to ensure that Māori participation in local government decision making and in partnering can support the broader outcomes of regions and communities and districts. That’s why we’re pushing through this particular bill.

This hasn’t been an easy issue, so I don’t want to sugar-coat anything, because the debate that has occurred over the last six years has told us that there are some really strong views in some parts of our community, who do not want to see Māori wards and constituencies in their area. But I hazard a guess that it’s a small part of those communities, because there is much more openness to ensuring greater inclusion and participation in local democracy than ever before. I wouldn’t be swayed by many of the fearful comments that are coming from the other side of the House.

When we moved to develop this approach, I foreshadowed, certainly in the last term, that were we to be in a position to enable these changes to go through, we would make that happen. I reaffirmed that again once I took on the role as the Minister of Local Government in this term.

I’m proud to say that no longer, over an 18-year period, will it be difficult for councils to establish Māori wards and constituencies—24 have tried; three have succeeded: one by resolution, that’s my own council, Waikato Regional Council; one through special legislation which was sponsored by the Hon Mita Ririnui, and that was very toxic debate in this House. But they have evolved into a place where there is far more cooperation and partnering in the Bay of Plenty than they could have ever imagined when the debate to have Māori seats was had, and now, recently, the Wairoa District Council. There are several councils who are awaiting the decision that we will make as a Parliament.

Now, the question was asked: “Why are we pushing this through urgency?” Quite simply, it’s to ensure that those nine councils who are currently due to hold a poll will not have to bear the costs of holding a poll once this legislation is confirmed. So let me just note in the House who they are: the Kaipara District Council, Gisborne District Council, New Plymouth District Council, Northland Regional Council, Ruapehu District Council, South Taranaki District Council, Taupō District Council, Tauranga City Council, and the Whangarei District Council.

By enacting this particular measure within the time frame that I’m promoting, it will then remove the onerous costs on councils to have to hold a poll, and the decision at council will stand. Now, we all elect our local representatives based on our judgment of their ability to think of the common good as councillors sitting around the table. None of that will change—none of that will change. In fact, those councils who are working really well have dynamic and important conversations for the greater interests of their communities and their region. Having Māori wards and constituencies will not change that particular outcome; in fact, I believe it will enhance it.

I point to the letter that I received, in particular, from the Mayor of Nelson City Council, Rachel Reese, who said—I quote—“We need all members of our community to see themselves represented by those who hold positions of leadership.” Major challenges currently facing local authorities include climate change and the impact of COVID-19 on our communities’ health, social, and economic wellbeing. Local authorities can draw upon the principles and values of Te Ao Māori and how we respond to these challenges. Having Māori representation around council chambers is an important way to strengthen our ability to do this.

I have many, many more letters here in front of me—for example, from the Race Relations Commissioner, who said that the provision is discriminatory; from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council; from the Northland Regional Council; and there are several more who are standing in line, saying the time has come.

We are not thwarting any democratic process. This is a debate that has been around for a very long time. What we’re enabling is for councillors who are elected to represent the interests of their electorate to not be thwarted through a discriminatory 5 percent poll provision that could overturn their resolution at the council table. It’s an idea whose time has come. I’m proud that we’re taking these steps to push through a change that has been long awaited. Do you know what? I’m more proud of the many mayors and councillors who have lobbied me over the last four years to say, “Let’s just get on with it, there’s too much to do to dilly-dally.” Let’s get on with it. Thank you.

So can I commend the bill to the Māori Affairs Committee and trust that they will hold robust discussions with submitters. I commit the bill to the House.

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

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): We oppose this Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill because, frankly, it undermines local democracy and direct democracy. We oppose it because this is a decision for local people and local communities about their local government, not for central government. We oppose it because it’s about local government and Māori owning and building and deepening their own relationship with each other. Frankly, it’s a shameful and undemocratic process with no consultation, if we’re really honest with ourselves. That’s what’s happening here tonight. It doesn’t align to the treatment of general wards and constituencies. There, frankly, are a lot more important local government issues to address, given the crises that local government’s having. On this side of the House we, like most New Zealanders, frankly, do think it is a decision for local people and local communities to make decisions about their local government. It’s not for Government, central government, to come crashing in over the top, unilaterally imposing a law top-down on local people who are being denied their opportunity to actually talk and to have a say on this matter.

Now, we know there are diverse and different communities all across New Zealand, and some may well choose to have Māori wards and constituencies and others may not. But that should be their decision. They should make their decision, not us sitting here. The second thing is, if you’re really worried about representation—and there are over 78 councils with 1,600 elected members—they are already obliged under legislation to work on having a continually improving relationship and a deepening relationship with Māori and iwi and ensure that there is proper involvement in decision making. My observation is that they take those responsibilities incredibly seriously, whether it’s the council or whether it’s Māori or iwi, and they work incredibly hard to make sure that they’re doing that. I think local government and Māori should be able to work through the mechanisms by which they do that and achieve that outcome rather than central government imposing a means on how they may go about doing it.

But I think the most important thing is that this is an incredibly shameful way that this change is being jammed and rammed through with urgency and with a truncated select committee process. Let’s be honest, we’re not going to see any meaningful or any real engagement with the public or local government stakeholders over the next week that we have this out in select committee. I think the Government needs to explain several things. If you felt the issue was so important, why didn’t you do it last term? If you felt the issue was so important, why didn’t you go to the election campaign with it and campaign on it? If you felt it was so important, why didn’t you go and hold a referendum on this instead of other things? So the big question is: whatever happened to the big, open, transparent, democratic Government that we were promised? There is nothing democratic about this. There’s nothing open about this. There’s nothing transparent about that. And you guys know that.

The most worrying thing is that you look at the Labour manifesto from the last election and under “Local government and communities”, this is what it says. Let me say it: “Labour will uphold local decision making in the democratic institutions of local government.” Then it goes on to say, “Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population from the outset.” And let’s be really honest. You’re talking about a major decision here around local government, yet there’s no local participation of the local population and there’s certainly none happening from the outset of this bill. So it’s a real basic one. We believe that people affected by this decision should have a say in it. But this is an arrogant decision by this Government who is running roughshod over a basic democratic principle.

Frankly, I don’t think this is what the people who voted for you at the last election actually expected or would want from you. And most damningly, it’s not just us saying this. It’s your own regulatory impact assessment, which is saying—let me quote this: “The short timeframe for developing the policy options and undertaking the impact analysis means there has been minimal consultation on the specific Stage 1 proposals.” and “[That] meant that consultation on the proposed Stage 1 legislative changes with the general public, local authorities, and with iwi/hapū, was not possible.” So when your own departmental disclosure statement states that the policy details have not been tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill’s provisions are workable and complete, it’s not just a principle that’s being contravened, it’s not just us arguing and defending that; it’s your own advice internally telling you that.

The other point is that the bill doesn’t fundamentally do what it said it was about, which was really about addressing and aligning the treatment of Māori wards and constituencies to that of general wards and constituencies. That’s apparently to come later on in this parliamentary term in an unknown second part of this legislation to be introduced. This bill, frankly, is just repealing the mechanisms for a binding poll on Māori wards and constituencies. But if you are really serious about aligning general and Māori wards and constituencies, why wouldn’t you adopt the same treatment that we have for Māori wards for the general wards and constituencies today? Why are we passing that law right here, right now? Why aren’t we saying that if there’s councillors that want to make changes to their electoral arrangements, that that should be all pushed back to the public for consultation and for a poll, because that would be about more engagement, more democracy. When faced with that choice, this Government has said, “No, we don’t want more democracy, we don’t want more engagement. We actually want a lot less engagement. We want a lot less democracy.” And you’ve chosen the lower path as a result.

The other thing I’d say is, frankly, this is not the most pressing or serious local government issue that we could be facing. This sector is under the most stress it’s probably seen in 30 years, and if we’re really honest, take a step back, local government is struggling big time. It is struggling on several fronts. It’s struggling on infrastructure, maintenance, and funding to enable growth. It’s struggling around the three waters reforms. It’s struggling on resource management reform. It’s got glacial consenting processes. We’ve got mitigation and adaptation of climate change, and we should really be talking about those impacts and actually having a plan, not just a declaration. We’ve got dysfunctional council dynamics and governance. We’ve got abysmally poor strategic planning. We’ve got low capacity capability and skills across the sector. We’ve got atrocious customer experiences for the average resident dealing with councils, and we’ve got erosion of public trust happening, as evidenced by really low voter turnout. We’ve got some really pressing challenges in the sector.

So just take Auckland Council, for an example, a world-class city from New Zealand, right? But what’s happened here? We have an accident on the bridge and you can’t get to work for two weeks. The next day we have some railway lines that need urgent maintenance, so your commuters are stopped from getting in and out of the city. We’ve got water restrictions because we can’t plan for water infrastructure. We’ve got a port that’s actually not operating at full capacity. We’ve got a CBD in gridlock because of endless construction projects that don’t join up. We’ve got rising congestion and we’ve got unswimmable beaches again this summer due to poor sewerage infrastructure. So if you were really serious about doing some things on local government, you’d actually get to the crux of the issue, which is: what’s the funding model going forward between central and local government, and what are we going to do about that? Because we’re just band-aiding and number eight wiring a 1970s system when we’re trying to build a country for the 2040s. We’re getting more of the three waters reforms. A way you’d get that done faster and better—you’d need to deal properly with the housing crisis and reform the Resource Management Act. We’ve got 78 councils that, frankly, can’t deliver the basics brilliantly today. It’s an atrocious experience for the average punter dealing with the council. Local government’s operating under a hundred different statutes of this place and so that’s—you know, why don’t we rewrite the Local Government Act and actually clean it up seriously?

So I think it’s very clear. We oppose this bill because we do support local people and local communities making decisions about their local government and not having Government come crashing in over the top and imposing unilaterally law on top of it. We’re not opposed to communities establishing Māori wards, but they should make that decision. We should also let councils, 78 of them, actually work out their obligations in practice with Māori and iwi and deepen and strengthen them themselves without us dictating how they might go about doing it. We’re not sure why this change is critical at all and the most pressing priority right now, given everything else that we’ve got going on. As we all, frankly, know, this is a shameful, it is an arrogant, it is an undemocratic approach and process with no meaningful consultation. And the fact we’ve got to put it in a truncated steering committee with one week’s consultation—who’s showing up over this week, which members of the public are coming in, which members of local government stakeholders are coming in to actually talk about this? So, without—

Hon Simon Bridges: It’ll be a select few they invite.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yeah, it’ll be a select few for sure. They’ll be stacked. But for us, we strongly, strongly oppose this bill—we strongly oppose it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call Tāmati Coffey can I ask Louisa Wall and Simon Bridges—cut it out now.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s my pleasure, actually, as the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, to stand and to contribute to this, the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. As I do this, I know that there are thousands of people out there watching and listening right now to the contributions being made in this House, because this has been a long time coming. It’s been 20 years in the making. It has been 20 years in the making and a whole lot of frustration, because Māori representation on local council has been dismal. In fact, because of the small provision, which enables 5 percent of the local voting constituency to be able to overturn what’s essentially, as the Race Relations Commissioner said, a racist piece of policy, a discriminatory piece of policy, actually because of that reason we have a lack of Māori being able to represent Māori at the decision-making table.

Now, I want to take a moment just to commend all of those councils out there that have wanted this. Back home in the Bay of Plenty, I can remember two conversations that I had with two of our local mayors, Mayor Tony Bonne from Whakatāne District Council and also Mayor Garry Webber from the Western Bay of Plenty District Council. Both of them looked me in the eye, as both Pākehā men, and they said to me, “We want this to happen. We absolutely want this to happen.” The member for Tauranga is sitting over there having a good old chuckle, but, actually, he wasn’t in the debating chamber that day that the Māori wards were voted on by the councillors that were there. Nobody thought it was going to happen, but a couple of people made some really powerful submissions, and as a result that was a decision that the Tauranga City Council made.

There are councils all around the country that want this. They don’t want the hassle of having to go out and try and fabricate some other way to engage Māori in local government decision-making processes. They want this. Tony Bonne wanted this. Garry Webber wanted this. Tenby Powell, when he was the mayor, wanted this as well. We have a series of mayors who want this, and today we are delivering that for them.

I want to congratulate ActionStation and Toni Boynton and her crew, who came to the steps of Parliament at the end of last year to present a petition on behalf of the people of New Zealand to remove this provision which is not democratic. It’s actually racist in its element, and that’s why we’re having this decision today.

You see, to be able to establish a general ward, as a local council you’re able to do that. To establish a Māori ward, actually the game changes. Suddenly, because it says “Māori ward” in there, it goes straight to the ability for the local community, 5 percent of them—that’s not a huge lot. You can generally drum up 5 percent, but 5 percent of the local population can overturn that decision, and it’s not good enough. It’s not good enough, and we’re here today passionately saying from our side that we have a commitment to Te Tiriti.

Actually, that’s something that I wonder if the other side actually have. They’ve made announcements recently about wanting to stand in the upcoming elections in the Māori wards—essentially, the Māori seats are Māori wards in constituencies. They’ve made that comment over there, and today they’re standing there and they’re telling people that this is wrong. So I’m looking back at them, in the eye, and I’m saying that this will happen and you will look back on this as being on the wrong side of history. Everybody in this House who opposes this will be on the wrong side of history.

Let me talk about what the amendments will do. What we’re looking to do is we’re looking to honour our Treaty commitments by repealing the provisions in the Local Electoral Act 2001 that relate to polls on the establishment of Māori wards and Māori constituencies. Now, for those people that don’t understand I’ll make the comment: Māori wards, local council; Māori constituencies, regional councils. Of the 24 councils around the country that have tried to implement Māori wards in the last 20 years, three have been successful. One was the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, but that was actually done through legislation, through its own set of legislation. So if you look at it, not a good hit rate, right? Māori people trying to get their representation at local council, not being able to get it because of this provision.

So we stand here today saying that we are going to change things. To the people back home that are wondering how this sits with us, Taupō District Council and Tauranga City Council resolved to establish Māori wards for the 2022 election. Ōpōtiki District Council resolved to hold a poll alongside the 2022 elections. Western Bay of Plenty District Council and Whakatāne District Council up to this point have been prohibited from making another resolution around Māori wards in 2020 because of a six-year binding poll in 2018 that failed.

We’re here today. We’re changing things up because we believe in our Te Tiriti partnership. We believe that Crown-Māori relations between the Government, between Māori out there, need to be a whole lot better than it has been over the last 20 years. Our Māori people are crying out for representation.

I’m really stoked that the previous speaker got up and talked about the Labour Party manifesto. It’s a good one, and actually I’m glad that he took the time over his holidays to really drill down into some of the finer points of our manifesto. What he missed, though, was the bit in there where we talked about Labour’s commitment to Te Tiriti. He missed that little bit in there that talked about Labour wanting to be a better Treaty partner to Māori. Until he understands just what that means, they will continue to be hypocrites, to stand there on that side—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

TĀMATI COFFEY: I withdraw and apologise. The other side will stand there and they will continue to tell New Zealand that this is a bad piece of legislation. This is what we need. If we’re to mature as a country, then legislation changes like this are exactly what we need.

I’m part of a really passionate group of people on the Māori Affairs Committee that are going to be moving this through. We will be moving this through. It will be fast as well. Let there be no mistake about that. We do things urgently because they are urgent. That’s why we use urgency and that’s why we’re going to be invoking it. But it will be a short submission time. So I say this to all of those people that are listening out there that are thinking about submitting into our committee: the window will be open for a very short period of time and I encourage people to come forward with their submissions and actually come before our committee. Put your case. Tell us how passionate about it you are, whichever side you sit on. Let the people listen to your submission. Let the media listen to your submission. Let everybody that’s sitting around that committee table analyse why you’re so passionate one way or the other. But I say it will be a very short time frame because this is long overdue. It’s long overdue and we need change. We need support from the community to be able to come forward during this urgency, during this bill as it moves through over the next week, and actually submit to it. It’s a good piece of legislation. It’s long overdue and it’s time we moved quickly. Kia ora.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): You know, in this House, often times MPs get up, and they say it’s good to speak on this bill. I don’t think it’s good to speak on this bill. I think it’s highly regrettable that we’re here right now doing this under urgency.

I could use all kinds of hyperbole. I remember the Hon Chris Hipkins, when we were in Government for nine wonderful years of progress in New Zealand, would come down the House on the rare occasions—and I’ll make it quite clear: it was rare—that we passed bills in urgency, and he’d be frothing at the mouth. He’d be making clear what a constitutional outrage this was, even though they agreed entirely with the bill, and even though, often times, it was simply to fix a very discrete technical matter. I’m not going to use the hyperbole, but it is regrettable that we are doing this in urgency right now, not on some technical fix on a bill, on some issue—I remember one in the last Government around speed and licensing needing to be fixed. I think it was the last one; it might have been the one before that. The whole House came together and we did it.

We’re in urgency today on a local democracy bill making fundamental change. Am I the only one who sees the ridiculous irony of that? There’s an anti-democratic local democracy bill. That’s literally what we’ve got here, because the other side is putting this through—it’s ramming it through—in urgency.

The member last said we should be grateful, because they’re going to do it for a week in committee. You can come along, but, by the way, we’re not going to listen to anything you say if you disagree with us. That is literally, fundamentally what he said. Well, I say it’s an anti-democratic democracy bill.

Labour Party, “h” is for hippo, it’s for Hippocratic oath, and it’s for some other words beginning with “h” as well, frankly. Maybe over this term of Parliament, when Chris Hipkins thinks about urgency, he should take those remarks into account.

It’s also very arrogant, and we heard it coming through very clearly from the last member. It’s a “We won. You lost. Eat that! We’ll pass this in urgency because we can. We don’t even need to be right.” That’s, bluntly, frankly, the kind of thing we heard from the last member.

I’d make a couple of other process points before we get into the substance of this bill, and the first is this. It’s a point Christopher Luxon made well, as well. I’ve looked through this. [Holds up Labour Party 2020 Māori Manifesto] It’s got some nice glossies. Nanaia Mahuta looks good in it—she’s on every second page. But, as I go through page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, I don’t see a single reference to passing this bill to, effectively, entrench Māori wards in New Zealand. There’s not a single reference in this bill to that. There are some things we can’t say in this House, but they didn’t have, let’s say, the “fortitude” of their convictions in this area. They weren’t prepared to go to the general electorate, to New Zealanders of every colour, creed, and ethnicity, and to say, “You know what: this is something we believe in.” So to hear them crowing right now is just a bit rich.

I want to say, frankly, let’s be clear why they did that. They didn’t want to give their coalition partner—that old crocodile Winston Peters—the chance to get back into this place. Let’s be honest about that: that’s why they did it. [Interruption] What, cynical? That’s what it is: it’s cynical. Now they’re sitting over there because they weren’t prepared to be clear with the electorate about what they were going to do in this House right now, right here, which they’re doing.

One final process point: this bill is retrospective. By the way, that is egregious when it’s what we do in relation to criminal matters, but it’s still pretty bad in instances like this. Frankly, things shouldn’t be retrospective. I’m not going to take the time, but there are very good reasons why, actually, going backwards, when people thought things were going to be a certain way for a certain time into the future, is bad law. This is bad law because it’s done in urgency, because it’s done retrospectively, and because, as they do it in urgency now, in the first months of their new full majority term, they didn’t even have the decency to be clear and campaign on this.

I also want to say I disagree with this bill in substance. In relation to the wards themselves, personally, I find it hard when we come to special separate representation for Māori. As a Māori man, it says I’m not good enough, because of my whakapapa, because of the colour of my skin.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: They laugh over there. They laugh when I give my experience. This bill, to me, says that I’m not good enough to win a vote of a non-Māori. Well, I am good enough. I am good enough.

By the way, Louisa Wall has been good enough. Paula Bennett has been good enough. Shanan Halbert has been good enough for Northcote, a seat which—and I haven’t done the demographic study—I am sure doesn’t have as many Māori per head of population as many other parts of New Zealand. He is good enough in that seat. He doesn’t need special treatment in this law to win his seat in modern New Zealand in the 21st century.

Let’s be really clear about the problem—or, actually, the lack of a real problem—we are fixing in this bill. I accept—as, frankly, the 11th member of Parliament of Māori descent to win a general seat—and now we’ve gone dih-dih-dah-du [Member gestures to indicate an increase], and it’s much higher than that. I accept there have been problems in the past, but right now, in this Parliament, and in the last Parliament, there were more Māori in this Parliament than in New Zealand per head of population. That may be a bit crass, but, on the numbers in this Parliament, we’re winning.

By the way, at local government, in local democracy, the same wasn’t true. But if you look at the numbers right now, it, basically, is. We are catching up in local government all around New Zealand. You give it five years and it would be happening anyway. But this Government comes in. I say what it says is they don’t have faith in Māori to do it for ourselves. I think that’s a crying shame in 2021.

In addition to saying that Labour doesn’t trust Māoridom, actually, what they’re also saying in this bill—the other side of that coin—is that they don’t trust New Zealanders. That’s what they’re saying here. They don’t trust New Zealanders to elect Māori, when, in fact, in Tauranga, in Northcote, and in a bunch of other seats—I’m not actually sure what Louisa’s is—in the various seats out there, they have done that, and they will do that.

Kieran McAnulty: Oh, you nailed that one.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: They also don’t trust—this is what we get from this smarmy guy over this side.

Hon David Bennett: Yeah, he’s a dickhead anyway.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: He’s a very smarmy new member of Parliament.

Kieran McAnulty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t mind being called smarmy—there might be an element of truth to that. However, I do believe that being called a “dickhead” by the honourable Mr Bennett is unparliamentarily, and he should be made to withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I didn’t hear it myself. Is that correct, Mr Bennett?

Hon David Bennett: I withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, I should think so.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Labour don’t trust New Zealanders to elect Māori, and they also don’t trust New Zealanders on referenda process like set out in this law. I say that’s a real shame. You know, I accept, actually, if you look at the referendum and the 5 percent issue, it’s problematic. Actually, it needs reform, because the reality of doing that in relation to Māori wards but not in relation to other wards needs a fix, but the answer there, as Christopher Luxon set out very well, is real, genuine, thought through local government reform, not coming to the House with a bill that’s anti-democratic, that’s passed in urgency, that’s done retrospectively, and that’s done without a skerrick of a campaign promise anywhere for the utmost of cynical reasons by the New Zealand Labour Party. This is a bill that I say, as a Māori man, actually—you know what—says to Māori around the country, “You’re not good enough to do it in a general ward. You’re not good enough to do it in a general seat.” Actually, I was. Plenty others have been. I find that personally insulting for Māori who come after me. I say this is bad process, it’s a bad law, and I, for one, am very glad that National today is opposing it.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Before I begin my speech, I’d just like to acknowledge the fact that I am wearing sunglasses in the House, and that is due to recovery from eye surgery. I have permission from the Speaker for that, but if any of you are wondering why, that is the answer.

It’s a real pleasure to stand here in this House to speak on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. It is a great honour, actually. I noted on the Order Paper that I’m the only Pākehā from this side of the House that is speaking on this issue. Therefore, I think it’s important to acknowledge the privilege that I’ve been given on this issue, but also the fact that our great leader, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, spoke to us at Waitangi about the bridge, and Māori crossing the bridge: every day that happens, and for us as Pākehā, we need to cross that bridge at times as well. So for me, this is a great honour to speak to this.

It’s also with some sadness that we’re here in 2021, talking about an issue which is fundamental to our democracy and partnership under the Treaty of Waitangi. For me it is a real shame. In my community of Tauranga Moana—and I am a list MP in the Bay of Plenty electorate, which is the horseshoe that wraps around the centre of Tauranga City.

Hon Simon Bridges: Strangles it!

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Ha, ha! We’re a vibrant—very vibrant—part of this city. The issue for our city has been the Māori wards very lately. It’s been very divisive and heartbreaking. As the mother of Māori children and the wife of a Māori man, I find it really difficult, but it is important that we have these conversations, and that those of us here that are Pākehā remain to be allies in this issue.

Māori wards are the only opportunity that people have to say, “No, we won’t do this.” That 5 percent vote—do you know in Kaikōura, that’s 100 people that will stop the democracy of having Māori people represented—100 people. In my city, that’s 5,000 people, and those 5,000 people are not representative of the majority of us. They just have to put their signature. They are told that it’s anti-democracy, it’s anti-democratic. It is not anti-democratic to have representation from one Treaty partner. It cannot be anti-democratic to have people represented at the table, not just being consulted on but actually helping to make the decisions. It is important that we remember that tangata whenua were here first, that tangata whenua have a different view from myself, perhaps—it’s a unique view and it’s an important view.

In my city, it has been 28 years since we had a Māori member on our city council. Twenty-eight years does not tell me—well, actually, 29 now that we’re in 2021. Twenty-nine years does not tell me that it’s about an equal playing field; it tells me that there is something else going on in our city. It tells me that racism is alive and well in our city. Certainly for me and my experience as a Pākehā woman who nobody can tell has Māori children or a Māori husband, I experience the racism on a daily basis, and I hear it from the people of our community. It breaks my heart, but my job as a Pākehā woman is to speak back to that, and that’s what I am doing. It is incredibly important to me that we have representation from our Treaty partners. If we don’t have that, if we do not wind this back, we will never, ever cross that bridge.

Finally, in closing, be gentle with each other in this conversation. It is hurtful—it is hurtful for people to hear these conversations, and we must be respectful. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora koutou. The Greens have long supported this kaupapa, and it’s reflected in policies across our Māori, democracy, and Te Tiriti o Waitangi policies. We aim to promote and support guaranteed tangata whenua participation in local governance through the establishment of Māori wards and to remove barriers to the establishment of Māori wards. In fact, this bill is very similar to a Green member’s bill in Marama Davidson’s name that was pulled from the ballot in May 2017. It failed its first reading the following month because the combined Greens, Labour, and Māori Party seats at that time only totalled 48. It is, of course, a very different story now.

Green members have also been actively involved in the movement for Māori representation on local bodies. Our new MP Teanau Tuiono fronted the Together: Kia Kotahi Mai campaign supporting Māori wards in the Palmerston North City Council and the Manawatū District Council.

I can confirm that the Greens did campaign on this. It is in writing and it does speak to two of our six Māori priorities for this term that whānau, hapū, and iwi have a say in the decisions that affect them, and being on councils certainly helps them to better assume kaitiakitanga of their whenua, awa, and moana. We note that the bill “repeals the provisions in the Local Electoral Act 2001 that relate to polls in the establishment of Māori wards and Māori constituencies; and prohibits binding council-initiated polls on whether to establish Māori wards or Māori constituencies (while retaining the right of councils to initiate non-binding polls to gauge public sentiment); and establishes a transition period ending on 21 May 2021 in which any local council may, regardless of any previous decisions or previous poll outcomes, resolve to establish Māori wards or Māori constituencies for the 2022 local elections.”

I’m a list MP based in Gisborne, and our district council recently approved the establishment of Māori wards. It was emotional, sitting in that council room when that unanimous decision was announced. I was dismayed, but not surprised, when a well-funded organisation from outside our rohe immediately swamped the flasher areas of town with fliers starting the poll process—not where I live, though, in Kaiti. These polls have proved to be an almost insurmountable barrier to improving Māori representation in local government and, in some cases, a deterrent to local authorities considering establishing Māori wards or Māori constituencies. I look forward to councils being able to rip up those racist polls as not worth the paper they were written on.

One issue the Greens would like to raise for consideration in the second stage of this work is whether only those who are on the Māori roll can vote on the Māori wards. The political decisions we make going into a general election are very different to how we might want to operate at a local level. It has been also a longstanding position of the Greens that Māori should be able to change between the general roll and the Māori roll at will, and not once every five years. This is also part of an improving democracy Green member’s bill, in Golriz Ghahraman’s name, that is still in the ballot.

Finally, the Greens consider this bill will help strengthen the Māori Crown relationship at a local level by removing barriers to Māori participation in local elections. It is likely that more councils will establish Māori wards once this bill is passed, giving Māori greater representation and voice around the council table following the 2022 local elections and into the future.

We commend this bill. Kia ora.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill, but first I would like to honour and express solidarity with those hundreds of people who have been on the parliamentary forecourt today protesting against a military coup that has deposed a democratically elected Government in Myanmar. We want to say in this House—and I’m sure few, if any, will disagree with me—that they are on the side of right, and the coupsters who have deposed democracy in their country are wrong.

But I couldn’t help but feel a little irony that now we are in the House, the Labour Party has brought forward legislation to take away democratic voting rights. Why? Because the people of New Zealand cannot be relied upon to vote the right way. You might think I’m making this up—I wish that I was—but that is what this piece of legislation says. That is what the Minister of Local Government, introducing the bill, said. That is what other speakers from the Green Party and from the Labour Party have said: “Look, these polls are an insurmountable obstacle to getting more Māori representation.”

Well, actually, that’s wrong on two counts. First of all, we never in a democracy say that the will of the people is an insurmountable obstacle. Actually, the people are right in a democracy. But, second of all—and here’s the great irony—if this Government was committed to doing the legislative process correctly, if it was committed to doing its due diligence correctly, it might’ve asked, “What problem do we seek to solve?” It might’ve asked, “Is it true that there is an insurmountable obstacle to Māori representation in the councils of Aotearoa New Zealand?” If it asked that question, if it took the time to do the research, it would simply ask: how many people elected to councils claim Māori descent, identify as Māori? What percentage of the councillors—does anyone on the Labour side know the answer to that? Does the Minister know? No? Silence. They don’t know. They probably haven’t asked the question, because these rushed lawmakers in our Government don’t even ask the right questions before they make a law. Shanan Halbert knows—he’s looking. He’s thinking, “I know, but I don’t want to say.”, because he knows that the answer is 14 percent.

Now, here’s another question: what percentage of New Zealanders identify as Māori? Does anyone from the Labour Party want to try this time? Does anybody know? Silence. They don’t know—they know, but they don’t want to say. The percentage of New Zealanders that are Māori is—wait for it—14 percent, the same as the percentage of Māori on councils. So they are wrong when they say that there’s an insurmountable barrier to Māori being elected to councils. Māori are doing a great job of being elected to councils, thank you very much.

So why is the Government bringing forward this bill? Well, it’s difficult to know. After all, it’s a Labour Party bill. It is part of the Local Electoral Act 2001, when the Government was—wait for it—Labour, and this legislation that allows recalls on Māori wards was introduced in 2002 when the Government was still Labour. So this Labour Party has had six years in Government, from 2002 to 2008, and then they were in Government from 2017 to 2020. That’s nine long years, as we often hear the refrain, that this Government, or the party that is now in Government, Labour, was actually quite happy to have recalls on Māori wards.

So why the urgency now? Well, the simple truth is they’re doing it because previously they didn’t have the numbers in the House, and now they do. Some people think, well, maybe that’s just how democracy works. Well, actually, this is how democracy works: democracy is about people being heard. Democracy is about people being able to have a voice and express their opinions. In this House, we introduce legislation and then we debate it three times, and in the middle of that, there is a six-month period where poor little members of the public—you know, the people that have been voting the wrong way—are able to come along and actually have their say and be heard—not in one week, as Tamati Coffey glibly suggested they might be able to be heard; actually, come along over six months and have their say. Then it’s debated again, it’s reported in the media, people can think about the legislation, and then there’s another committee stage where we can make changes to it. Then there’s another debate where people can make up their mind if they really want to support the legislation.

That process does three important things. Number one, it means that we get the benefit of all people’s ideas. Sometimes a submitter, somebody, can tell us something that, heaven forbid, parliamentarians might not know. That’s why we listen to people. The second thing it does is it increases trust in a particular law. There are a lot of laws this Parliament’s made I don’t really agree with—it’s one of the reasons I stood for Parliament, to come and try and change some of them—but I follow them and respect them because I know that for the most part, the laws here are made well by a process that listens to people. Finally, when Parliament makes laws in an inclusive way, it improves the harmony and unity of our whole community. When this Government rushes through legislation without listening, with none of the usual process, it erodes faith in the law, it erodes faith in the community, and it also means we get worse laws, because we haven’t asked people for their perspective and benefited from their advice and wisdom.

But then you come to the question of: what is the real, underlying philosophy of this legislation? It’s very simple. It’s two things. It is that collectives are more important than individual people. Which group you belong to is more important than the dignity inherent in every individual person. There should be different laws for you, and you should be treated differently, based upon who your ancestors were. That’s the second principle underlying this legislation. It is that who you are is more important than what you do and how you act. These values are anathema to a society that wishes to become prosperous, kind, and valuing of each of its members. This legislation really says that we should take one group of people, based on who their ancestors were, and give them a different set of laws and a different political system from this House, simply because we think it’s more important who you are and which group you’re part of than what you do and how you act in your life.

Now, if this Government truly believed in equity, if this Government really wanted to make every person alike in dignity, what they would do is allow binding referenda on all electoral arrangements. That would be a helpful thing to have. It would be helpful to actually let the people who are the electors, who own the council, be able to say to the people trying to get re-elected, “We don’t like your arrangement.” That’s what would be helpful, but that’s not what this Government is doing. This Government is deliberately engineering the law, as they’ve stated, in order that some people will get elected or be more likely to get elected based on who their great-grandparents were—not on what they do but who they are, not on the value and the dignity inherent in every individual person but on membership of a collective. Those values are completely the wrong values for creating a society that is kind, prosperous, and inclusive.

I am proud that ACT is opposing this piece of legislation. We cannot afford to continue dividing ourselves along superficial lines. We must celebrate the common humanity that unites all people and stop seeking ways to divide us with group rights and collective identity. I’m proud to oppose this bill, and I can’t wait for the debate on the short select committee either. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. I guess the question before us tonight is what rights do our tangata whenua, Māori, have in local government decision-making, and what status do Māori have as the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa? Lest we forget, we’re a colonised country. Lest we forget that, actually, Māori have undergone racist and incredibly detrimental actions by the Crown in our country for us to be able to stand proudly as New Zealand’s indigenous people. When we look at the issue of indigenous representation, yes, we should look at our New Zealand Parliament. We created the Māori seats and we continue to have the Māori seats because, for our democracy, we believe that specific Māori representation and specific Māori voices in this Parliament are fundamental to how our democracy will function, because of the status we have as the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand.

The reality within local government is that we do not have the same mechanism. If we look back to 2001 when the Local Electoral Act 2001 was enacted, section 4 requires local government to provide for fair and effective Māori representation. The problem that we have is they don’t have enough tools to ensure that Māori have a say around the decision-making table of local government. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Nanaia Mahuta—her leadership in bringing this to the House after a conversation that was started in 2018. As she articulated, Local Government New Zealand came to her. They said, “Please do this, we need it, we need your leadership.” And, yes, we’ll be frank, the coalition Government in the last Parliament would not agree to this legislative reform. So was it explicitly in Labour’s manifesto? No. Was it explicitly in the Minister of Local Government’s manifesto and agenda for change? Absolutely. Was it in the manifesto and change for local government? Do our local government leaders want this? Absolutely they do.

So we are responding to the leaders that have been voted for by electors and all these councils. When you look at the different councils who have wanted to do this, I particularly want to focus on New Plymouth. It’s an opportunity to acknowledge Andrew Judd when he was the mayor, who tried to get this through and has spent six years travelling around Aotearoa. He’s had over 350 consultations with people in Aotearoa about the importance of ensuring that tangata whenua have a say in local government decision-making.

I want to acknowledge Taupō District Council, who, in 2017, actually had a vote. And guess what? They didn’t vote for Māori wards, but what they did commit to is working with their iwi, with their tangata whenua to find a mechanism for them to work together, because they wanted to give effect to the Local Electoral Act, they wanted to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi, to their Treaty partnership. Then in 2020, they actually had another vote, and they as a council decided that they wanted the Māori wards. I want to commend David Trewavas and the people of Taupō, where I whakapapa to, so that’s where my passion comes from. Have they been talking? They have talked, they have consulted, and one of the people said to them that they wanted to talk about partnership. They talked about the partnership between the council and iwi. They all noted that fundamental change was required, that they needed, as Treaty partners, to work together on issues like taking care of our taiao, our environment. They wanted a solution that they sought from the Minister of Local Government.

Because the reality is we never had to have a vote and a poll in each of our constituencies if you’re a specific Māori member of Parliament. This Parliament made a law and said, “We are creating Māori seats to ensure that Māori have a say in the decision making of Parliament.” In fact, that’s what we’re doing for local government now. We’re giving local government the tools to ensure that they can create a specific Māori voice within their local government decision-making so they can give effect to the Treaty, just like we do.

I just want to finish. One of the conclusions of Taupō District Council’s Māori wards—they said, “It is not if wards should be introduced, but rather a question of when”, and bullet point 3 on page 1 says they’re actively advocating with Local Government New Zealand and central government for changes to legislation to better provide for Māori having a voice in decision making. Our councils want them. The people who voted for them—if they don’t want them in the next election, that’s up to the people. But they’ve voted for leaders in their local communities who have brought this issue to Parliament, and we are going to do everything we can to support our local leaders to implement legislation that enables them to have better relationships with tangata whenua and our Māori people. Kia ora.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Barbara Kuriger—five minutes.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. So yes, this is a problem that needs to be solved, but the way the Government is going around this is not the way to solve the issue. You don’t change a bad process by using bad process.

So what the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill actually says is to align the treatment of Māori wards and Māori constituencies with the treatment of general wards and general constituencies as much as possible. Now, no one’s disagreeing with that. There is a problem that we need to solve here. The last speaker talked about the fact that this Government is giving local government the tools to do this. So why does stage two of the impact summary then say—which we’re not doing tonight and we’re not into yet; this is somewhere down the track to follow—“establish a new process for decisions on whether to establish Māori wards that [are] better aligned with the current process for establishing general wards and constituencies”? So what we’re saying is we’re going to do this and then, after we do this, we’re going to work out what is the best process to do this. Now, if anyone’s ever heard about putting the horse before the cart, here it is.

It’s quite concerning, really, to read through this when we hear about what the select committee process is going to be. I’ve seen some pretty shocking select committee processes in the last Parliament—processes where the public were open for submissions for a week, in some cases 12,000 submissions, and 20 people got to the table for one day to be able to give their say. Why is this Government so scared of letting the public have their say on this issue? We often learn something, and we must trust the public to help us make decisions. We as politicians don’t have all the answers, and someone may just come in with a good idea. So the one-week consultation on this process is an absolute farce. It would be far better to run this process properly and have any changes come into force in 2025. That’s the problem that we have, that, actually, this is being rushed through. It’s changing something, and we don’t know that we’ve actually got the best process to run this going forward.

Legislative guidelines actually state that legislation should have prospective, not retrospective, effect. If retrospectivity is intended, this must be stated in the legislation and capable of justification. I don’t actually see anything that is stated in this legislation that justifies why it’s retrospective, other than the time frames: “We have to do it in a hurry—we have to do it in a hurry.” If it was needing to be done in such a hurry, why didn’t the Labour Party talk about it on their way into Government? Why didn’t we give it to the public to use their voice? What are we scared of—what are we scared of? Why should we not be letting the public—isn’t that what we’re here for? I mean, even the departmental disclosure statement states the policy details have not been “tested or assessed in any way to [assure] the bill’s provisions are workable and complete”. So I’ll repeat that: has not been “tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill’s provisions are workable and complete”.

So I would encourage any speaker on the other side to get up and tell us on this side of the House how they think the bill’s provisions are workable and complete. If they haven’t been tested and assessed, I want to know what their assessment is: how the Government’s members have actually assessed this to know that it’s workable, because, actually, I just think that you’re using a very short-sighted, very quick, very rushed process to solve an issue that could be solved in a far better way if we just took the time to listen to the public, work through, and make sure all the provisions are aligned. But no, unfortunately, this Government does not trust our local people to make local decisions, and it’s another case of “Government knows best” once again. Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Debbie Ngarewa-Packer—five minutes.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kia ora. You know, when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality starts to feel like oppression and it starts to feel undemocratic. The truth is we live in a nation that has actively chosen to violate Te Tiriti over and over again. It is timely to unravel the racism that we have a democratic system that has been put into power without any valuable input from Māori. It’s 2021. We shouldn’t be debating this, and a party who wants to, quite honestly, stand Māori seats should know better.

The Māori Party is stoked that we finally will be getting rid of this racist provision in our electoral laws. This is something that Te Paati Māori have long campaigned for. I would like to commend Minister Mahuta for bringing this legislation back into the House under urgency. I’m sure a week will be enough time for the racists to speak. This is a huge win for Māori and for those who have stood up against racism and fought for mana whenua representation in local government.

The Local Electoral Act, as it stands, is racist and discriminatory. If a local council wishes to establish Māori wards, it can be voted with a referendum if 5 percent of the local electors petition for it. This provision does not allow the same to happen for general wards. Māori wards or not, councils should still have long-lasting relationships with Te Tiriti partners.

So this announcement is long overdue. Successive Governments have failed to act and have enabled this racist law that oppresses tangata whenua and our right to have a say in decisions that affect us. Furthermore, it is absolutely archaic to believe that Te Tiriti is proportionate. In fact, the question should be asked, for those that are ignorant: why are we only at 14 percent population?

This law has been used by racist organisations like Hobson’s Pledge to undermine our rights and prevent Māori from having a say in local government decisions. While we do have guaranteed political rights at a national level, this has not translated into local government. The United Nations has even highlighted Aotearoa’s extremely poor indigenous representation in local government.

I would like to acknowledge local politicians and allies like Andrew Judd, who for two years and 262 days reminded us all daily of this, and, of course, the grassroots and tangata whenua leaders who have carried this kaupapa for Māori wards—the Punas, the Dinis, the Hepas, the Elijahs. Local governments are willing and ready to take leadership in giving Māori a guaranteed voice in their rohe. We have already seen dedicated Māori wards being adopted by councils around the country to great success.

This amendment is a good first step today towards embodying Te Tiriti o Waitangi at a local level and returning the balance of power to mana whenua. However, it does not guarantee Māori representation or necessarily restore any mana whenua rights. So it must be seen as a first step only in returning power to tangata whenua to their rohe, or crossing that bridge. It should be compulsory on councils—or, at least, compulsory to have mana whenua reps.

Finally, we would like to say that we’re not even sure why this would be going to select committee; it should just go through. Therefore, Te Paati Māori commend this bill to the House. Kia ora rā.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. I’m delighted to speak on this landmark bill. This is a landmark piece of legislation that we are putting through its first reading. I want to acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, a great leader, a great Minister who will go down in history as one of the greats—one of the greats—for doing things that are advancing the causes of Māori. So I want to acknowledge her, her fight in bringing this bill to the House, and all the support that she has from around the motu, up and down the whole country, from councils and communities who yearn for their own Māori representation. That’s what this bill does. It allows Māori representation to now be able to give expression to that in councils up and down the country. So I’m absolutely delighted in this bill.

In the last Parliament I brought two bills to this House to fight for Māori protection of our rights in Parliament and also for local representation in Ngāi Tahu. It all comes back to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Mr Seymour spoke about what is the underlying philosophy. It’s simple, Mr Seymour: Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is the underlying philosophy which we on this side of the House are giving expression to through the passage of this bill. Māori representation is a must because to give true expression and to uphold the promises of Te Tiriti, Māori need to be represented at all levels of Government in this country, here in Parliament and in local government. So we are, through the passage of this bill, able to give effect to that. It’s long been overdue. I’m proud as a Māori electorate member myself to be able to support this bill along with our vast Māori caucus—first XV—and our members and this Government. We’re very proud to be able to bring this landmark legislation to the House.

Finally, this bill is not only good for Māori; it’s good for our country. It’s good to have our local government areas reflecting the communities that they represent, and really I think the undertones that have come through tonight from the other side are quite telling—quite telling in terms of just not being where Aotearoa is in 2021. That’s why I’m so proud on this side of the House that we can advance real and meaningful legislation that will make a difference not only now but for the generations to come as we evolve and grow as a nation of Aotearoa, upholding the promises of Te Tiriti. We’re not perfect. We’re not going to get all the way there in a hurry, but we are making good progress. This is one great step in that direction and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): This is bad law. It is law that’s being advanced by bad process, and it is based on bad principles. It’s bad law because it underminingly says, “We don’t trust New Zealanders. We’re going to take away your right to have a say about how your community is governed.” It is appalling process. The idea that you can bring a bill into Parliament affecting our electoral law and that we’re going to give New Zealanders a week to make a submission to a select committee—a bill that is going to be the law of the land before the end of the month—is a disgrace to this Parliament and a disgrace for those memorials on the walls of this Parliament that recognise those that died for the true principles of democracy.

I want to talk about bad principle, because, in my view, the concept of democracy is not something that’s a European idea or a Māori idea or a Pacific idea—and I’ve just been on Parliament steps protesting the removal of the democratically elected Parliament in the country of Burma, and those on the steps of Parliament cherish democracy as much as those of whatever ethnicity or religion that we are. The principle that’s wrong is that somehow by dividing up our democracy along the lines of ethnic representation makes us stronger—is flawed.

I challenge members opposite: tell me a country in the world that is more successful, that has better race relations, as a consequence of having ethnically separated representation. I can tell members opposite that I have been to dozens of countries where there is ethnic representation and it drives divisions and not unity in those communities. I also say to this Parliament that I’ve seen it with representatives.

I’ve been privileged to be the MP for Nelson, and in that time, I took the view that it didn’t matter whether the constituent was Māori or anything else. It was my duty to represent them. I don’t think our democracy is helped when I’ve heard members saying “Well, you’re of a different ethnicity. I have no responsibility for you.”

I want to challenge the Minister about a number of statements that she’s made. She said very strongly in promoting this bill that the law, as it stands, is racist.

Hon Willie Jackson: That’s right.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member Willie Jackson says “That’s right.” So who wrote that racist law?

Hon Willie Jackson: You and your mates.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, no, Mr Willie Jackson. Let’s check the parliamentary Hansard. The law that puts in place the referendum on Māori wards was passed in 2002 by a Labour Government. Nanaia Mahuta spoke in the third reading, strongly supporting the law that she today says is racist. So I say to the Minister: how can a member in one breath, in one speech to the House, say this is great law and then come round a number of years later and say it’s racist law? I say that member is misleading. I say that if it is a racist law, she should have the courage of her convictions, stand up in this Parliament, and apologise for the previous Labour Government, of which she was a part, for passing it.

I then come to Labour’s manifesto. I’m a bit old-fashioned. My old-fashioned approach to politics is you develop a manifesto, you go to the public, and you say, “Vote for me and I will do these things.” Then you come to the Parliament and you put those things into law. So I read Labour’s local government policy from the 2020 election, where I concede they got a very strong mandate. Well, here was their local government mandate: “Labour will uphold local decision-making in the democratic institutions of local government.” They will uphold local decision-making. The first local government bill we get removes the referendum of local decision-making.

Let’s go further. Labour said this: “Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy will involve full public participation of the community affected.” Is that what we’re doing with this bill? Is there a single member in this House who can put their hand on heart and say we’re doing exactly as we pledged to the people when they received their mandate?

Then I come to the practical and real provisions of principle. I’m not one that either at local or central government level believes that every decision should be made by referendum. I’m not one of those. I didn’t personally believe, as much as there are strongly held opinions in this Parliament on tough questions like euthanasia, like abortion, like cannabis. My honest view is that Parliament should have the courage of its convictions and make decisions, and I do think it’s a bit of a cop-out for local government when they go for referendum. But I say there is a very important distinction when we are dealing with electoral law matters.

I’m sorry; whether you are around the council table or whether you are in this Parliament, when it comes to the rules about how we elect this Parliament or we come to the decisions about how a council is elected, the electoral system belongs to the public at large. If it’s a decision about whether we’re going to change our electoral system from MMP to single transferable vote, whether we’re going to change the term of Parliament, whether we’re going to have separate Māori representation, they are decisions that belong with the public, and that is why those referendum provisions are there, and that is why it is so wrong for the Government to be wanting to remove them.

The flawed select committee process also compounds the problem of actually working out some of the important detail on this bill. I’ve heard from Māori who say, “When it comes to council, I might like to be on the general roll, but when it comes to parliamentary elections, I’d prefer to be on the Māori roll.” What’s the Government’s answer to that? They can’t, actually. The way the bill is drafted, you can only be on the Māori roll, and all those people who chose to be on the Māori roll after the last census are automatically placed on the Māori roll for those purposes.

It’s also very interesting that the Government is going to shut down the select committee process when there are significant Māori who do not support this provision.

Hon Willie Jackson: No, there isn’t.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the member Willie Jackson says, “No, there isn’t.” Can I refer to the report in the Christchurch Press where Ngāi Tahu—quite a big iwi, actually; they are the biggest geographic area of New Zealand—have said they do not support separate Māori seats on the Christchurch City Council because, actually, while the majority of Māori in Christchurch are not Ngāi Tahu, the Treaty obligation is actually with the Treaty partner and Ngāi Tahu in that particular area of our country.

So I challenge members opposite as to why, with such a significant change that goes to the heart of how democracy functions, they are so keen to rush this through. The truth is that it’s just plain, cynical politics. Labour thinks that by having separate Māori seats, just in the same ways that they’ve been able in different periods to dominate the separate Māori seats in this Parliament, they will be able to get their foothold more strongly and control local government. It’s about vested interest and control, not issues of principle.

I said at the beginning that it’s bad law. It is. I’ve said that it’s bad process. It is. I’ve said that it’s based on bad principles. It is. This Parliament should not have part of the shenanigans that Labour is imposing on us with this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call. I call the Hon Willie Jackson—five minutes.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Now we can see why the member lost his seat. What a disgraceful performance from a member, along with Simon Bridges, who just last week told us they were going to stand in the Māori seats. Simon Bridges is an advocate for the Māori seats now, along with Nick Smith. Talk about hypocrisy. The National Party—a shocking exhibition last week in terms of what’s happening in terms of the Māori seats—

David Seymour: Madam Speaker, point of order.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Can I say, Mr Speaker, 20 years of—

David Seymour: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh, sit down, Seymour, you mug.

David Seymour: Madam Speaker, point of order please. I appreciate you being able to take a point of order. Look, earlier in the debates, Adrian Rurawhe was in the Chair and pulled up a member for accusing another member of hypocrisy. You appeared to be deep in contemplation or conversation and missed Willie Jackson saying exactly the same thing, and I wonder if you could uphold the same standards as the previous presiding officer?

Hon Damien O’Connor: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Speaking to the point of order, it is not inappropriate to speak of hypocrisy; it is inappropriate to accuse anyone of it, and this member did not accuse anyone of that—using the “h” word—but he did speak of hypocrisy, which, in my view, is in keeping with the Standing Orders of the House.

Hon Simon Bridges: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I clearly heard the Minister say the Hon Dr Nick Smith and I were hypocrites. I can’t speak for Dr Nick Smith, but I’m no hypocrite.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yeah, Madam Speaker, I did say they were hypocrites, so I apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Willie Jackson, would you please withdraw and apologise.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I withdraw and apologise for calling them hypocrites.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Thank you. You may continue. Minister.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Kia ora. Can I say that we have a National Party committed to the Māori seats now, but hello, one week later, they’ve forgotten all about it and it’s back to where they were in 2001. What a disgrace Simon Bridges and Nick Smith are. Simon Bridges, who tries to advocate a Māori position, who should not be the MP for Tauranga; Jan Tinetti should be. He only squeezed home because he forgot about his Māori side yet again during the Tauranga campaign—a shocking performance from Simon Bridges.

I want to say, I stood and spoke on this bill 20 years ago, and nothing has changed from the National Party—nothing has changed. It’s still the same right-wing rhetoric that we get from Nick Smith—shocking really. I want to mihi to my tuāhine Nanaia Mahuta who, 20 years ago, was supporting the kaupapa—supporting the kaupapa—but it was a tough time, and she’s been misrepresented today yet again by the National Party, but she has been a champion in terms of this kaupapa, and I want to mihi to her.

We are on the way to justice for our people—justice for our people. I want to ask the National Party, who last week supported Māori seats, because Judith said, and this week have forgotten about the Māori seats, and have gone back to their old rhetoric: who was the last mayor of Auckland who was Māori? Anyone know? Who was the last mayor of Wellington who was Māori? Anyone know? Who was the last mayor of Christchurch who was Māori? Anybody know? Dunedin, Tauranga, you can go everywhere. Guess what? We’ve never had one—we’ve never had one, and that’s the essence of this claim. We know this. You can’t get through if you take a pro-Māori view. You have to take a Pākehā perspective, like Simon Bridges, who’s embarrassed Ngāti Maniapoto and disgraced the Māori nation over the last—[Interruption]—no, it’s a fact. Simon knows this—I’ve told him this many times. The reality is he advocates a Pākehā perspective to get his Pākehā votes, because he knows that if he puts a Māori view up, he will lose his position.

I’m so proud of this bill. We’re on track now for justice. We are hoping for Māori mayors and Māori councillors one day, and we are hoping that Tauranga and Jan Tinetti can bring it home for us down there, that we can change the political situation, and National will be dead in the water yet again come the next election. They were down to 25 percent, so that’s why they decided to stand in the Māori seats, but this is something that our Māori kāhui is very proud of—our Māori caucus, our Minister—we’re on the way to justice. Kia ora anō tātou katoa. Kia ora.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe, otirā tēnā tātou katoa. E te Minita, te māreikura, tēnā koe Nanaia, nāu i ārahi tēnei ture ki roto, tēnei pire ki roto i tēnei whare i tēnei pō, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe.

[Greetings to the Speaker, and to everyone here. To the distinguished Minister, Nanaia, who introduced this law, this bill into this House this evening, I salute you.]

I want to acknowledge the three councils in my electorate who have recently passed a resolution to establish Māori wards and constituencies: that’s the Kaipara District Council, Whāngarei District Council, and the Northland Regional Council. The Far North District Council vote was tied and therefore lost.

I am really pleased that we are introducing this bill, which will remove the provision which only applies to the establishment of Māori wards, therefore levelling the playing field. I want to quote Pita Tīpene of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Hine where he said, many, many years ago, the status quo is unacceptable. I have been studying this topic of local government and Māori for the last seven years. For 20 years, it has been almost impossible to establish Māori wards and constituencies throughout the 78 councils around the country. Why is that? The tyranny of the majority. We have Local Government New Zealand calling for this. We have the Human Rights Commission pointing to the fact that Māori are severely under-represented and this is one of the mechanisms in which we could achieve fairer participation and achievement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We have the United Nations special rapporteur and two reports also pointing to it, the Waitangi Tribunal, petitions to Parliament, numerous evidence. I want to congratulate the Minister of Local Government for having the courage to bring this legislation 20 years after we have tried and tested this in our communities where councils for the first several years were too afraid to make the decision. But—bold leadership—now those decisions are being made and, as has been said here tonight, if the voters are unhappy with that, the chance to make it right is in three years, is at the election. So I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10;Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 41

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Ayes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10;Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 41

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Instruction to the Māori Affairs Committee

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): I move, That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 15 February 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during an 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, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

I acknowledge that it is unusual to make a change of this nature in such haste. However, the bill must proceed quickly so that the changes affecting councils can apply for the 2022 local body elections. Councils and communities with Māori ward processes already under way will have certainty about what will happen, expensive poll processes will soon become redundant and they do not need to be started, and—to be clear—for those councils who want to reconsider whether they have Māori wards at the 2022 local elections, if they decide to, every council has until 21 May 2021 to create Māori wards for their communities. After that, councils that have resolved to establish Māori wards will need to undertake the representation review process to make sure that their overall representation arrangements are fair and effective.

The bill will address a discriminatory provision where a poll of 5 percent of electors can overturn a resolution to create Māori wards and constituencies. This provision does not apply to general wards and constituencies. That’s why we are making the changes contained in the bill.

Despite the urgency of the bill, the Government values hearing from all New Zealanders about law reform and we encourage people to make submissions. This is why we are proposing that the select committee process does take place and in haste, and I respectfully ask the Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill thoroughly and report back to the House by 15 February. Giving the committee additional authority to meet outside the usual hours will support it to meet the time frames that I invite the House to support in this motion.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National): It is an absolute farce that the Minister is giving five days for the select committee to call for public submissions, for those public submissions to be heard—remember—from councils, and for it to receive advice from officials, hear those submissions, and report the bill back to the House. I cannot believe that the Minister was able to say with a straight face that this would result in a thorough process. Every other member of the House could see it for the cynicism. I’ve heard that member give speeches in this House saying that when you’re dealing with local government matters, you need to make sure there’s time for a council meeting so that the council can discuss its submission. How many councils are going to be able to have a meeting in the next five days to consider this significant change in their electoral law? It is indeed a complete joke.

Let’s just test the reasons that the Minister of Local Government has given for this five-day select committee process. The first is that because the provisions would result in a poll of 5 percent of people, it would take up that democratic provision, but that Minister was involved in putting in the law. Remember the law that she is wanting to repeal—that she today called racist—is a law that she, in the Helen Clark Government, put on our law books, and she even spoke at its third reading with high praise.

Now, the member now says that we need to do this in a rush because it’s retrospective. Here’s my point for the Minister: councils that have begun the process under the existing law have voted for it on the basis that there was the check of a referendum. I’ve heard from councillors who said, “I voted for Māori seats in my area on the basis that there was a protection in the law and a referendum for the citizens of my community to have a say.”, and now that is being taken out of the process. What’s the Minister’s answer for that councillor and those councils—[Interruption] Well, no, let’s be frank: councils that have made the decision that they would like a Māori ward did so in the knowledge that there was a referendum provision put in place by the Labour Government in 2002. Yes, they did—that’s exactly what they did—and that is being taken away.

How many members of this House believe that the reason the Minister of Local Government is doing this is to save money for the ratepayers? Oh, come on—pull the other one. This is a Government that has spent tens of millions, hundreds of millions, billions, and the amount that’s involved in the expenditure on a few referenda to give the public a say is diddly-squat in the big picture. There is not a member of this House, Minister, who believes you’re taking away this referendum procedure because of the cost.

Now, I want to commend my colleague Chris Luxon on the amendment that he has moved that says a date of 15 May. That would at least give New Zealanders some opportunity to have a say. Why is it that members opposite will not give New Zealanders the opportunity to have a say on this bill? This is a bill in which they are taking away New Zealanders’ right to have a say and to have it resolved in a referendum. This is not a provision that they can justify.

I heard Willie Jackson give a speech, and he said, “Well, this is what we’ve got a mandate to do.” Well, the problem is that your mandate from your local government policy was to “uphold local decision making” in democratic institutions of local government. Your policy was to “ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve the full participation of the local population”. Can a member opposite—one of those Labour new members—explain to me how giving five days for a select committee process—

Hon Michael Wood: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The referral today is supposed to refer to matters relating to the referral to select committee, not the substance of the debate and the Labour Party policy on this issue.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That is correct. Thank you, the Hon Michael Wood. Continue, the Hon Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I say to the Chair and to the member that when Labour says in its manifesto that it’s going to “ensure … major decisions about local democracy will involve full participation of the local population”, can a member please explain about having a five-day select committee process—Mr Michael Wood, how does a five-day select committee process live up to the promise you gave to the electorate of major decisions about local democracy involving full participation? Would Mr Wood please answer me: how many days will submitters have? How many days will there be? We know the select committee’s got five days. How many days will there be for any council in New Zealand or any ratepayer or voter that wants to have a say?

Would any member opposite please tell me? Five days for the select committee—how many days will New Zealanders, councils, iwi, members of the public have to make a submission on this bill? The silence is deafening. Not a member of the Government who campaigned on a policy of ensuring full public participation in decisions on local government will answer a very basic question: how many days are they going to give the New Zealand public to have a say on this bill?

We know they’re giving the committee five days, so it’ll have to be less than that. Actually, I don’t think anybody will be making a submission between now and midnight, so by the time you take the remaining days of this week, we’re really talking about—if they’re lucky, they might get a day and a half. Is there any member of this House who would put hand on heart and say that full public participation is met by giving electors less than a couple of days? [Hon Willie Jackson holds up two fingers] Well, at least I have an answer—I give Willie a credit. He’s going to give two days. Two days, Willie, is the amount of time that New Zealanders will have to make submissions on this bill. Could one of those Labour members opposite tell me whether they think that giving two days for submissions meets your manifesto commitment of enabling full public participation in the decision making on the very core of our democracy and how their local council is elected?

It’s a joke. It is farcical. It is cynical. I don’t think there is a single member of this House that believes the Minister’s motion matches up to the very policy that she campaigned on at the 2020 election. I fear for our democracy when the Minister of Local Government says that two days for making a submission lives up to the Government’s policy of ensuring basic and important decisions about local democracy involve a full participation.

I have a simple challenge for the House: let’s vote for Labour’s manifesto, because Labour’s manifesto, I’m sorry, is best represented by the amendment moved by Chris Luxon. That would enable the select committee to have until 15 May. My challenge to members opposite is to have the courage of your convictions, vote for the manifesto commitment that you made—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The Hon Nick Smith, we’re not voting on the manifesto.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —show that you are true to your word, and support the amendment that there be a reasonable time for the select committee to consider this bill.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT in opposition to this motion. The reason I oppose it, and the reason ACT opposes it, is because the benefits of this rushed select committee process do not outweigh the costs.

The benefit, actually, it turns out, is not even a benefit. The result of bringing forward the select committee report-back time to a time only five days away, two working days away, for submitters—the effect of it is just to make sure that this law is retrospective. So even the benefit of this motion is actually a cost.

If we’re bringing forward this select committee report back and we’re taking away the opportunity for people to submit in order that this law can apply to elections that people have already participated in or decisions people have already made, that is retrospectivity. We talk a lot about retrospectivity in this House and why it’s wrong for us to make laws that affect things that people did in the past, and I think it’s a very important principle that is actually worth dwelling on and keeping alive in our community. It is absolutely critical in a free society that people are able to understand what the laws are and how they can follow them and, if they choose to break the laws, what the consequences might be. It allows people to plan their futures without concern for arbitrary coercion by another or others. That’s a really important value.

When this House makes retrospective law, what we’re saying is “You can make a decision today to behave or act in a certain way, but the rules can change on you tomorrow.” When we say that to the New Zealand public, we’re saying, “You can’t freely plan your future.”, and we’re actually, in a very real way, taking away people’s freedom.

That is something that I think a lot of people on the other side of the House—because I come to the maiden statements of as many members as I can to hear what really is on people’s minds and how they really think. I know that people like Shanan Halbert and Michael Wood, and I would say Willie Jackson, but I’m not so sure. But, you know, let’s go to the guy from Christchurch Central, Duncan Webb. I know they didn’t come to this House to make retrospective laws. I know that they’re fundamentally good people who came along to this House to try and uphold good principles and make New Zealand a better and freer place to live—possibly even Willie Jackson, deep, deep, deep down—and I think they should be asking themselves, “Am I supporting this motion to make retrospective law? Why? Did I raise it in caucus? Was I heard? And if I didn’t feel I could raise it, what am I here for?” That’s the question I think people actually should ask themselves. Really, it’s a very important question.

That is the retrospectivity element. The effect of this rushed process is actually just to make this law retrospective—that’s why we’re rushing it—and if that’s the benefit, then, actually, it’s a cost.

But the real problem here is what we lose. We lose the opportunity for any kind of sincere consultation of the New Zealand people to make a law. If you want a working example of how this happens, I go back to the arms amendment Act in April 2019. That legislation was passed with a nine-day select committee—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Relevance, David Seymour—come back to the bill.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Madam Speaker, this is actually not about the bill. It’s about the motion to refer, or for the select committee to come back more quickly. I’m addressing that, and I’m addressing what happens when we rush select committee processes, and if you’re telling me—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Mr Seymour, it is relevance, though, but can you please refer it to the motion of this bill. It’s not about the arms legislation.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Madam Speaker, I’m very much referring to the motion about when we report back from select committee on this bill, and if you’re telling me that we’re not allowed to use examples from this House—from the real world—to make our points, then I don’t know how people are supposed to debate. I mean, I think using examples is a reasonable way for people to debate. Wouldn’t you agree, Madam Speaker? OK, thank you.

So the example I’d like to use is that this House has actually had recent experience of rushing a select committee process. It was the arms amendment legislation back in 2019. The outcomes are outcomes that I predict will come true for this legislation as well, and there are really three.

If we don’t give people the opportunity to properly be heard, then what happens is, number one, we actually miss out on the wisdom of those submitters, because I know it’s probably difficult for some people to believe, but every now and then, not all the wisdom in New Zealand is contained within 120 parliamentarians. Sometimes there are people out there in the public who actually know things that we don’t, and that’s why a lot of politics in representative democracy is about listening. We’re not going to have the opportunity to listen with this motion because, if we’re supposed to report back by 15 February—well, let’s think about it. Today’s 9 February, you’ve got 10, 11, 12, which is Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, and then you’ve got a weekend on 13 to 14—you know, some of us hope to be busy on 14 February. Who knows? Then, on 15 February, the select committee has to report back. So, in practice, there are going to be two days that the select committee can actually hear submissions from the public.

So the select committee is not going to get to listen to the public in any practical sense. That they’re going to call for submissions, receive them, read them, and hear people’s views in two days—it’s not going to happen. The people are not going to be heard, and no new information is going to be brought along.

But the second thing that we can learn from the arms amendment bill back in 2019 that’s important is that, actually, when people are heard, they have more respect for the law. There are a lot of laws that I don’t particularly agree with in this Parliament’s past. One of the reasons I stood for Parliament and got elected was to try and change some of them, funnily enough. But I respect them, and I follow the laws of New Zealand because at least I believe that they’ve been well made in a process that treats people with dignity, hears people’s views, and is inclusive. The problem with making laws that don’t do that—that don’t hear people—is that people are less likely to follow them, and that may be why the Government banned 300,000 centrefire semi-automatic rifles and somehow only collected 60,000 in. That’s a classic example of what happens if a law is not made well—people don’t seem to respect it.

The final thing that proper lawmaking does is it actually builds cohesion and inclusiveness and unity in a community, because people feel that, actually, the law is being made in a community that includes them. Now, we heard—and I think, potentially, it should have been pulled up for bringing the House into disrepute—a member here saying that the people who submit will be racist. I don’t think it helps for us, as members of Parliament, to actually attack people who want to come and submit and share their views with us. I don’t think that’s going to help race relations in New Zealand for anybody.

But even putting aside those very regrettable comments from the Māori Party, I think that it is unhelpful to, effectively, say to New Zealanders, “We are not interested in hearing your views.” I think that is a terrible thing to say to New Zealanders. It reduces the inclusivity of this community. We saw it with the arms amendment Act in 2019. We had person after person who came to a subsequent select committee, when there was another bill that did have a full submission process, who said they felt they had been marginalised and excluded from our society by the way that they were treated.

So I’d put it to the members opposite, some of those that are sitting here thinking, “Is it really worth it to rush a law through, to say to the community that ‘We don’t want to hear from you.’, to miss out on the wisdom of people out there who might have helpful suggestions, and to make our society just that little bit more divisive, just a little bit more exclusive?”—is it really worth it in order to make a retrospective law, because that is what’s on the table? The costs and the benefits—in this case, even the benefits are actually a cost. For that reason, thoughtful members on the other side, I know, are thinking this is the wrong thing to do. To bring something forward by three years—one electoral cycle—when we’ve had 20 years to do it, and to erode New Zealand’s democratic traditions like that is absolutely not worth it and is something that, frankly, I think they’ll be a little embarrassed about when they look back on their careers in years to come. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (National—Botany): I move, That the motion be amended by replacing “15 February 2021” with “15 May 2021”.

The reason, as you’ve heard this evening, is very obvious, and you’ve heard it from the previous speakers. We oppose this legislation because, frankly, it’s undermining local democracy and direct democracy. Let’s be clear: it is a shameful process with no consultation. It is being jammed and it’s being rammed through with a truncated select committee process. It’s not going to see any meaningful process. We can debate five days or two days, but it’s just not going to happen that we’re going to have proper engagement with local government stakeholders or with the public. Frankly, it’s an arrogant decision by a Government with a majority. It’s not democratic, and I think a lot of members shouldn’t be proud about the way we’re going about it.

It’s not just us that’s opposing it; it’s experts advising the Government. The regulatory impact statement, I remind you, says, “The short timeframe for developing the policy options and undertaking the impact analysis means there has been minimal consultation on the specific Stage 1 proposals.”, and that “meant that consultation on the proposed Stage 1 legislative changes with the general public, local authorities, and iwi/hapū, was not possible.” The departmental disclosure statement also brings that same issue. It says that it hasn’t been tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill’s provisions are workable and complete.

So that’s the reason for why we should take the time to care about our democracy and to expand it from five days to maybe 90 days—through to 15 May—and to take the time to hear from our people who want to commit and talk about this subject with us, to tap into their expertise and their perspectives, and to actually make a decision that’s a good one for all of us.

Our democracy is precious, and we’ve seen that in liberal democracies all around the world. We shouldn’t take our institutions for granted. We’re doing that here with this rapid passing of the bill. I really ask that we take a lot more time to give it due consideration. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I want to speak against the substantive motion and for the amendment that Christopher Luxon has put up, changing the dates from 15 February to 15 May—from some five days to 90 days. Really, the issue here is time, and five days—as we’ve made clear, I think, on this side of the House—just isn’t good enough. I like what David Seymour was saying, which was that it’s actually a disbenefit in many ways, and I’ll come back to that.

But, you know, we know you can’t achieve anything in five days. Michael Wood, like myself, is a churchgoer and he knows that the Good Lord, on the first day, created dark and light. On the second day, there was water and fish. On the third day—help me out, Michael—there were animals and various other things, and on the seventh day, he rested. Even he needed more than five days to create the earth, and here we are—we are rushing this through in just five days.

The point’s been made, I think, very well that, actually, it’s not even five days when you’re talking about the actual time for submissions, for people to come along who may just have wisdom and experience and knowledge, and, actually, for expertise from local government that we do not have in this House of Representatives. They are actually getting under two days to make those submissions, and I said at the—

Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I’m loath to draw too much attention to Mr Bridges, but we’ve heard this three or four times now and we don’t need to be told how many days there are for submissions yet again.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call the Hon Simon Bridges.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Oh, that’s good. Thank you for that, Madam Speaker. I disagree with what David Bennett said about your speakership. I think you’re doing a great job, and I just want to put that on record.

Five days, two days, or under two days, for actual submissions, and the wisdom, the experience that people will bring to those submissions, even where there is actually a sense that, because we know—and I agree with David Seymour that it’s regrettable when people in this House attribute bad faith to others when they haven’t even made a submission—we might just hear from a bunch of racists. Well, actually, there will be people—possibly thousands, actually—that would like to come along and make their submission against this bill for what some on the other side of the House might say are racist reasons. But we know from long experience in this House that by being given that opportunity—I was going to say “privilege”, but it’s not a privilege, actually. It should really be their right to come along on a fundamental bill like this about local democracy, given that even if the outcome—because, let’s be honest, we know that the outcome is going to go against them. We know there’s a preconceived view on the other side of the House, even though they didn’t put it in the manifesto—

Hon Willie Jackson: How do you know?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —to deal with this. Well, you said so, Willie Jackson. You told us so. Even though that’s so, we know that if they’ve come along, they’ve been heard, and they’ve received some degree of decorum and politeness from the select committee, they will be more willing to see it as a bona fide, good-faith, decent law that they have before them.

David Seymour talked about—well, he didn’t actually say “disbenefit”, but he said, effectively, that in a cost-benefit analysis, the costs of this outweigh the benefits—the five days. I would say, frankly, that there is a—if you want to keep with the economic language—disbenefit from doing it in five days. And I don’t want this, by the way, but you’d almost be better to have the—dare I say it—integrity to just not have a select committee process. If you’ve determined what you’re going to do and you know you’re going to do it, you should have done it tonight—make the whole thing—because we know that that’s the charade that’s going on here. You’re doing it in urgency, you’re doing it retrospectively, you didn’t put it in the campaign manifesto—well, as I said, just do it. I don’t want that, but, in a sense, that’s better. It has more integrity than a five-day charade that, dare I say it, is barely in good faith.

But there’s something even better than that, and that is because I know that as a senior Minister, as Minister of Foreign Affairs now and as Minister of Local Government, it is in the power and the ability of Nanaia Mahuta. She’ll remember the tweet I did when she first became Minister of Foreign Affairs—see, she smiled—when I said how good she would be and how fantastic we would be, and when she leads international delegations when they finally open up, I’m ready and willing to come—[Interruption] No, no, no. She has it—[Interruption]—I’ve got a serious point—within her ability today to change from 15 February to 15 May.

The reality of that is that it won’t change anything much. We still know that the Government will, in the end, pass this law, but it would have been an infinitely better process—still shorter than the six months that’s usually there, but an infinitely better process—where for not five days but for much longer, people would have been heard. People from all around New Zealand, with their experiences, wisdom, and expertise, will have had that ability. They will have washed away, dare I say it, the tarnish that those members put on this bill right now with the urgency.

That would go some way to dealing with the fact that they are wanting to do this bill and make this law retrospective, and it’s particularly important in this case for the sole fact that I talked about and other members talked about in our speeches in the first reading, which is that this process is happening when it wasn’t campaigned upon. It wasn’t in any manifesto document. In fact, I hadn’t realised when I had spoken that—worse than that—in the local government manifesto, the Labour Party had said the opposite.

So for all those reasons, you’ll be clear that I oppose the motion and I support the amendment, and I say to Nanaia Mahuta that she’s a good person. She’s a senior person. She got it wrong in Tauranga—no, we won’t go there. She got it wrong, but she can do the right thing here. I hope there will be support across this House to increase the period of time during which this is at select committee so that people have that right that they have to be heard on this bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call Duncan Garner—Duncan Webb. Dr Duncan Webb—my apologies.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): That’s fine, Jenny. I move, That the question be now put.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand in support of Christopher Luxon’s amendment. The reason I do so is because when we talked about the timing of this bill and we talked about stage two, which is supposedly going to establish a new process for decisions on whether to establish Māori wards that’s better aligned with the current process for establishing general wards and constituencies, this current process is putting the horse before the cart.

I would ask any member of the Government who’s over the other side to tell us tonight whether they can come back here in five days—and we’ve got members that are over there clearly getting a bit testy and nervous about the whole five days and objecting to it. But I would challenge any of those members over there to stand up and tell us that in five days they will have tested or assessed in any way to ensure the bill’s provisions are workable and complete, because at this stage the departmental disclosure statement says that they haven’t. So I’m challenging any member over there to stand up and tell us that they can have that completed within five days—that would be wonderful. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I move, That the question be now put.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The ACT Party supports good lawmaking and following the democratic process, because that process is important. That’s how we find the flaws and kinks in proposed laws, and that process takes time. I know it takes time, because I spent three years working at Auckland Council and I’m proud of many of the projects that were delivered while I was there. But it does take time to engage with the communities who are affected by major changes in the democratic process, and five days is not enough, because communities need to have confidence that the laws that are made in this Parliament will have a wide as possible level of support and will endure.

Local government has a complex and challenging role to deliver services, to manage assets, and to create coherent and connected communities. Their job is already extremely difficult, and around New Zealand they are failing in a number of ways that are of great concern. We’ve seen falling participation in local government elections and a loss of trust and confidence in local government from this Minister of Local Government and from their communities. I’ve seen reports that trust in local government is as low as 60 percent in some communities, or as high as 60 percent in Auckland. Turnouts of 30-odd percent at local government elections would give people little confidence that a proposal like this, given five days’ consultation, will increase confidence in local government.

What Parliament should do, and what this Government should do, is set out the case for change and let local government and their communities bring their views to select committee. They need time to engage as communities and to come back to this House. This Government might find there are better ways to achieve their goals and get more paddlers in the waka. That is what the select committee process is for.

ACT asks this Government to listen to our communities, because you might be surprised. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 41

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 8.

Motion agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 75, Noes 43.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended by replacing “15 February 2021” with “15 May 2021”.

Ayes 41

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 8.

Noes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 15 February 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during an 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, despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c).

Ayes 75

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Noes 41

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 8.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Climate Change Response (Auction Price) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I present a legislative statement on the Climate Change Response (Auction Price) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon JAMES SHAW: I move, That the Climate Change Response (Auction Price) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Environment Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 4 March 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196(1)(b) and (c).

E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. This bill amends the Climate Change Response Act 2002 and the Climate Change (Auctions, Limits, and Price Controls for Units) Regulations 2020. Its purpose is to ensure that when the emissions trading scheme (ETS) units are auctioned for the first time next month, that they are sold at a price that reflects activity in the secondary market. It is a technical but necessary amendment that will help to create a more reliable carbon price signal and help ETS participants to make long-term investment decisions.

To reduce greenhouse gases in the most cost-effective way, there needs to be a sufficient and a predictable price on emissions. To that end, you will recall that legislation to reform the New Zealand emissions trading scheme passed through this House last year. Of the changes made, one of the most important was the introduction of a cap on the total emissions allowed within the scheme. Prior to this, Aotearoa New Zealand, somewhat absurdly, had a cap-and-trade scheme without a cap, meaning that the emissions permitted under the scheme were, effectively, unlimited. Because of this anomaly coupled with open access to a glut of cheap international units, many of which had little or no environmental integrity, the New Zealand ETS had failed to deliver on its primary purpose, namely to bring down emissions. By putting in place an emissions cap and amending the principal Act to align with New Zealand’s contribution to meeting the goal of limiting average global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we have now changed that.

We’ve also changed the way that some ETS units will be allocated, by introducing a set of rules for auctioning, which is what brings me to the purpose of the bill that we’re here to debate today. Over the course of 2021, we expect that a total of 19 million New Zealand units (NZUs) will be auctioned through the emissions trading scheme. The availability of these units will be spread evenly across four scheduled auctions, the first of which will take place next month on 17 March. If these auctions are to create a long-term, well-defined, and transparent framework for the efficient allocation of units, which is what we intend, especially as the pre-allocations of units is phased out, and if auctions are to encourage investment in low-emissions technologies, which the Climate Change Commission made clear last week are urgently needed, then these auctions will need to operate within certain parameters. That is why the $25 fixed-price auction, which was always meant to be temporary but has ended up as an artificially low ceiling on the cost of emissions, has been replaced with both a price floor and a cost containment reserve.

Working in tandem, these mechanisms will help to stop the price of emissions getting either too low or too high. They’ll work like this: if, when an auction takes place, the clearing price for units is higher than $50, the cost containment reserve will be triggered. At this point, an additional number of NZUs will be made available to help moderate the price. The price floor complements this by ensuring that unit prices at auction do not drop below $20 in 2021. This will help to manage the risk of emissions prices falling for the wrong reasons, thereby undermining investment. It is between the price floor and the cost containment reserve, between the lowest price an emissions unit can drop to and the highest it can reach before it triggers the cost containment reserve, where the ETS auctions will now operate.

Of course, the mechanisms that we legislated for last year support price stability in the auction itself, which would be known as the primary market. But one of the features of the ETS is the creation of a secondary market where already issued units can be traded between various buyers and sellers. Put simply, the primary market is where a unit changes hands for the first time; whereas the secondary market comprises all subsequent transactions. These secondary markets are crucial to the functioning of the emissions trading scheme, not least because they provide a means for participants to sell surplus units, which creates a powerful incentive to reduce emissions. But for that incentive to exist over the long term, which is a prerequisite for any organisation looking to make low-carbon investments, the secondary market needs to remain stable. And that’s what this bill is for.

It introduces a mechanism for New Zealand units to be held back from sale if, at the end of the auction, the clearing price for a unit is lower than what is known as “a confidential reserve price”. The principle is simple: ahead of each auction, a confidential reserve price would be set relative to the secondary market price of New Zealand units; if, once the auction has been completed, the clearing price has dropped below this reserve price, no units will be sold. This will help to maintain a minimum carbon price and strengthen the incentives for major long-term investments in low-emissions technologies, which, in turn, will stabilise the secondary market should prices collapse if an auction does not go to plan. A reserve price will also mitigate the risk of exposing the Crown to a fiscal cost if units are sold for less than the prevailing secondary market price.

As you know, Madam Speaker, the changes that we made to the emissions trading scheme last year were the result of five years’ work that was carefully signposted and consulted upon every step of the way. Following the passage of the subsequent reform bill, there was agreement from both sides of the House that a confidential reserve price was necessary to the functioning of auctions under the ETS.

The orderly passage of this bill ahead of the first of those auctions, on 17 March, is crucial for building trust in the integrity of the process, as well as signalling to business that this House can provide the long-term policy certainty that they are calling for, particularly in the wake of the Climate Change Commission’s draft advice. It is in no one’s interest to undermine the auctioning process and to allow the secondary markets to be undercut, not least because the greater stability that this bill provides for will encourage investment which will lead to increased productivity and employment opportunities, as well as lower pollution levels. I therefore commend this bill to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker and it’s a pleasure to speak on the Climate Change Response (Auction Price) Amendment Bill. I met James Shaw prior to Christmas where he asked me whether we would support this change in this bill because of the anomaly in the Act that we had passed last year. And I said, well, yes, but depending on what was in the bill and I’d like to see that. Unfortunately, I didn’t find out it was coming up until this morning, even though it was published late on Friday. I think that’s quite poor and I thought James is better than that, actually.

I also note that, James, during your time in Opposition, you railed against urgency unless there was almost a near-death emergency on our way. This is not the case with this bill. This could have been brought to the House before Christmas, giving us plenty of time for a select committee process and people to put in submissions. That would have been quite—it’s not as though the legislative calendar was that full last year, as it was they were scraping for legislation. So I think it’s appalling. We’ve gone through this whole debate about truncated processes in the previous bill, but I won’t go across all of that country again.

But this is a highly technical bill and a highly technical—or particularly the markets and how they operate are highly technical. We need expert advice on this as to whether it’s the right thing to do in the way this bill was drafted. We support getting this right. We absolutely support that.

We want this to work efficiently and effectively. But is this the right mechanism? We simply don’t know, and I’m sure that the Government doesn’t know either. So to have what is a three week-and-a-bit select committee process, I don’t think is long enough to get that expert advice. We know that the traders in the market, commodity markets are—and this is effectively what this is, it’s a commodity market—massive and they’re very complicated in the way that they work, and I’ll talk about how the system might be gamed a little later. So it’s important we get those people in, and to give their submissions. I’d like to hear from Fonterra, actually, they run a very good auction system. I’d like to know what their view is on this. But we want to ensure, of course, as the Minister said, that the secondary market remains intact and keeps its integrity, and I support that.

And I note, in the whole process—and this is the rules for auctioning in the New Zealand emissions trading scheme (ETS)—what the Minister didn’t quite explain is that each bidder puts in a bid stating their price and the quantity of the New Zealand units that they want to acquire, they are then ranked from highest to lowest. Then, each successful bidder receives a quantity bid at prices at, or above, the clearing price. That uniform price means that all bidders pay the same clearing price and that price is the lowest successful bid. So effectively what the concern is here is that people in the market could get together, come to an agreement, a side agreement—which would probably be illegal—and then ensure that the low bid was very low, acquire those units at that very low price, then sell them on the secondary market later, or, in fact, wait for the price to go up. So I think we understand why you’d want to do that, and we do need to get this to function properly, and we want confidence in the market, but the other—in terms of fiscal risk, at $25, it’s just over $2 billion, just over $2 billion, up to $20, $25. Actually, that’s at $25, it’s more likely to be $3 billion. So there is a significant fiscal risk for the Crown, and I think that’s great that we get this sorted.

I note, also, that the cost containment reserve, where the Government will put back into the market other units to ensure that the price stays within that containment reserve, I think that’s also a very important point that we need to understand, and I want to hear a lot more about that through this process. Carbon budgets and the ETS, or the carbon budgets with the sinking lid that we will effectively have on our emissions through the ETS, is the best way for us to manage our emissions. It’s far better than utilising a policy approach which is a top-down approach, which I note that the Government seems to be quite keen on. The Climate Change Commission talks at great length about policies. They also talk about us walking more and cycling more and put a number on that, so I’m not quite sure how they think they’re going to manage that.

But we can see how that doesn’t work when we look at the power market in Germany and the UK. In Germany, they utilised high subsidies to encourage wind and solar power production. They now have the highest power prices in Europe, and also a very small reduction in their emissions. In contrast, the UK, which utilises an ETS, had a very successful rate at lowering their emissions quite significantly, and that was when power producers who had coal power supply stations changed over to gas. Gas has half the emissions of coal, and they’ve significantly reduced their emissions, and also have kept their power prices much lower than in Germany. So the ETS is the right mechanism for us to lower our emissions. So the National Party supports that.

We also think the carbon budgets and the sinking lid, as I said before, are really important, and we can see that the ETS is working here in New Zealand. There’s quite a debate about the number of farms or the hectares going into forestry, particularly on the East Coast of the North Island, and that is as a result of the high carbon price in New Zealand—at $38 it’s trading at at the moment. That is encouraging the market to plant more trees. We also see it working in the transport sector. The Climate Change Commission—I’m somewhat surprised—don’t believe that the ETS is working that well, but, actually, we can see that if you hop into a taxi at any time, more than likely it’s a hybrid, and it’s a hybrid because the taxi drivers are very sensitive to price of their operating expenditure, which is fuel, and hybrids are much cheaper. So they’re making a rational market decision, and that’s what the ETS does. We should have more trust in that. But, of course, it does depend on having a market that’s going to be effective and efficient, and one that participants will have a lot of confidence in.

Is the Minister the right person to set up the mechanism and the reserve price? I’m unsure whether that’s the right way to go about it. As I said earlier, I’d like to hear from Fonterra and other commodity traders. I’d like to hear from the banks and so on. They have a very short period of time to put their submissions together. Like the rest of us, they’ll have only found out that this has come out, probably, today. By the time they get their submissions together, the select committee gets its head around it, I think it’s a fairly short process. I worry that the select committee won’t get the best opportunity to go through those submissions to get our heads around it. I’m very much looking forward to hearing from these people, because we need to know if this is the right way to go about it.

In fact, there’s even a debate to say that if, indeed, people went about this—certainly not illegally, but if the price fell lower than the secondary market, there would an argument to suggest that’s not a bad thing. We’d be finding the lowest cost option to lower emissions, and that would be a good thing from New Zealand’s perspective. The ETS—the way it works is it will not necessarily go up at the same rate all the time linearly, because it’ll react as the economy slows down, the increasing price of New Zealand units will likely slow down along with that. As the economy becomes more successful, if you like, or as our economic activity goes up, the New Zealand units will probably go up along with that—that’ll follow that along. So I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

So, in short, we support this through to the select committee. We think that this is a slow process, which we think is quite regretful—sorry, should be a much slower process. We think it’s regretful that the Government have put us in this position, and we would really like to hear from the Government side as to all the reasons why they didn’t deal with this in a much more timely manner and ensure that we got a far better process and a better outcome as a result of that. So with that, I commend it.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call in favour of the Climate Change Response (Auction Price) Amendment Bill. As the statement that has been tabled by the Minister, James Shaw, has said, this is necessary to rectify a mistake in the regulatory underpinnings of the auction process. There was always intended to be the ability to set a reserve price. That did not make it into the drafting, and therefore there’s a lacuna in the legislation.

For member’s benefit, I’m sure other members will have been approached by some of the facilitators of carbon trading in New Zealand during the election period. They pointed out that there was a real danger that without a reserve price, given the relatively small number of large participants in the emissions trading scheme that there could be collusion amongst them and the price of carbon could be collapsed. That would be undesirable.

I think we do want to have a relative period of stability in the price of carbon, and it is appropriate that there be a reserve price. I think just about anyone who ever sells another valuable asset by way of a tender or auction reserves the right to reject unduly low offers that don’t reflect the vendor’s view as to what the minimum should be. When you auction a house you have a reserve, when you auction the house you don’t tell the people that are coming up to the auction what the reserve is. They find that out by whether the auction is passed in or not, because the reserve is kept confidential to the vendor and the vendor’s agent. So that’s essentially what is being proposed here.

David Seymour: If it was that obvious, why wasn’t it done before?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is obvious, as the member says, and it was meant to have been done before. That’s clearly set out in the statement that’s already been tabled by the Minister for Climate Change. The bill rectifies the issue which was meant to include the possibility of a confidential reserve price. It didn’t, through error, and this amendment fixes that so that we can proceed with auctions.

Todd Muller: Can we blame Winston?

Hon DAVID PARKER: That would be unfair.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, before I call the next member, the result of the vote on the closure motion for the instruction to the select committee on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill was reported as Ayes 75, Noes 43. The correct result was Ayes 75 and Noes 41. The record will be corrected.

Bills

Climate Change Response (Auction Price) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. The analogy for this bill to be likened somehow to the sale and purchase of a house at auction is not a bad place to start. But it doesn’t really reflect the complexity or the importance of this piece of legislation, or, indeed, the mistake that has been made and overlooked by Minister Hon James Shaw who usually is better than he has been on this bill. Because what we’re going to find out in a minute or two is that there has been a long, protracted, tangled web of incompetence around this particular piece of legislation that dates back now well over 12 months.

Minister Parker is correct in a way; no property owner taking a valuable asset, like a house, to auction would in their right mind, I think, not set a reserve that was confidential to them and, indeed, the auctioneer, and that’s fair and reasonable. So what we have here is a Government that failed to pick up on a mistake during the passing of the original and primary legislation, the principal legislation, and actually missed it. Or did they—or did they? Actually they knew. They knew all along about this potential error, this potential mistake, and there was dithering. There was dithering on behalf of the Minister, who for a period of time said “Oh no, no, no, actually, we don’t need to worry about it. The risk is low. Let’s not do anything.” Then there was a range of activity that said, oh, actually no, the fiscal risk to the Crown accounts is actually very significant, it runs into hundreds of millions of dollars, is the potential risk to the Crown accounts.

I’m grateful to the editor of none other than a very good publication called Carbon News, Adelia Hallett, who wrote back in October of last year—in October of last year she wrote—that “The Government’s surprising decision, reported by Carbon News earlier this month, to press ahead with the auctioning of carbon credits without a technical reserve in place to stop units being sold at below-market-prices opens the door for that very thing to happen.” So there was commentary amongst the media that follows carbon issues, they were aware of it, and so too was the Minister.

Then Adelia Hallett goes on to write in her article dated October of last year, “And the price tag for taxpayers could be in the multi-millions-of-dollars. The new system, which starts in March [2021], was supposed to include a technical reserve to stop units being sold [at] substantially below the prevailing price on the secondary market.” So Adelia Hallett knew that it was supposed to be included, and yet listening to the Minister tonight, it would be just a question of hearing “Nothing to see here. Everything’s calm. Everything’s smooth. Everything’s right.” We’ve got the first auction on 17 March, suddenly we have to pass this piece of amending legislation under urgency.

“The technical reserve”—the article goes on to say—“would have been the lowest price the Government was willing to take for units in any given auction.”, and that’s exactly as the Minister used almost 10 minutes to describe in very, very technical terms designed, I think, to probably confuse anybody that’s listening at this time of the night about the process of this piece of legislation.

So what we do is we go back to Cabinet papers, and there were a number of them, setting out the options, the risks, and making Cabinet aware of this loophole and the hole and the potential risk to the Crown accounts. Cabinet agreed with its economic development committee in a decision in March last year, nearly 12 months ago—in March last year—that a technical reserve price must be set for each auction relative to the market price of New Zealand units (NZUs) using a prescribed methodology that is kept confidential. That was a Cabinet committee decision made in March last year. Can’t say, Minister, that you didn’t know, that you weren’t aware, that you didn’t bring it to the attention of colleagues—it’s all there in the Cabinet papers.

But then there was a more recent paper to the Business Committee in which Minister Shaw said that the auctions will begin without a technical reserve in place, and the second paragraph of that Cabinet paper says—and remember, this is March 2020 last year—that a technical reserve price to stop NZUs being sold at a price significantly below the prevailing secondary market would help ensure that the primary auction does not significantly influence prices in the secondary market.

So Cabinet knew, Cabinet was advised, and what happened? The Minister said in that very document, in the next paragraph—he said, before going on to say that auctioning would start without one, “However, I recommend the proposed regulations be set without providing … a technical reserve price at this time.”

Now, that’s not the impression that was given by the Minister in his speech to this House this evening. The speech that the Minister gave to this House this evening implied that everything was smooth, calm, and this was just a technical bill that just needed some kind of change to tighten it up. Actually, the Minister knew 12 months ago, and, what’s more, he was advising his colleagues around the Cabinet table 12 months ago of this loophole. He gave advice to his colleagues then that no reserve would be needed.

So the questions that my colleague Stuart Smith asks are absolutely right: why the change? Why the change in demeanour, why the need now? Why did Minister Shaw change his mind, and what were the factors that led him to change his mind? Back in October last year, the price was about $35 that NZUs were being traded at, and that meant that there could have been a potential risk to the Crown accounts back then of something like $71 million per auction, or a total of $285 million a year. That’s why the Minister is bringing this legislation to the House under urgency, because finally, at long last, some sense was prevailed upon him to bring it to the House now under urgency.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): How good is it to be part of a Government and part of a country that is grasping the nettle of climate change. Over the last year, this House has actually worked together very collaboratively to set New Zealand on a path to tackle the most significant challenge of our times. Under the leadership of the Minister, James Shaw, who I acknowledge, we’ve reformed the emissions trading scheme (ETS) to make sure that it does have a cap that helps us to leverage down carbon emissions.

We’ve set up a world-leading independent climate commission, which put forward its interim report—its draft report—at the beginning of this year that encompasses all sectors and gives New Zealand a road map to reduce our emissions to net zero by 2050.

If I can be sector specific for just a moment, we’ve had major reforms announced to reduce our transport emissions over the last month by bringing New Zealanders a clean car standard to clean up our fleet, biofuels into the fleet, and making sure that we electrify our public buses so that we bring down emissions in that sector, the second most polluting sector in our country at the moment.

In early March, we will have the first ETS auctions stemming out of that reform work that happened last year. What I think everyone across the sector—and, actually, it would appear so far everyone across the House—agrees is that having a confidential reserve price is an essential part of ensuring the robustness and integrity of that system. The previous speaker, the Hon Scott Simpson, tried to construct something of a conspiracy theory about how we’ve got to where we’ve gotten, but the reality is that everyone agrees that we need this change to make sure that that auction system works appropriately and the ETS system works appropriately.

What we say in this House is that in the face of a climate emergency, it’s time to get on with the job. Let’s pass this piece of legislation and carry on with this important work to reduce our emissions and meet our obligations to future generations. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you very much, and a great analysis from the Minister of Transport on the huge strides being made in climate change. So far, from the other side of the House, all we’ve heard is that this is a great bill and perhaps it would have been nice to capture it the first time around. Well, I sat on that select committee, and it was one of the most complex pieces of legislation that I’ve had the pleasure of going through. And whilst we didn’t catch it first time, there is absolutely no excuse to not tidy up now so that we have an auction system which is robust and has integrity, isn’t open to manipulation, and that the coffers of the Government are properly looked after. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you so much, Madam Speaker, for your patience tonight. ACT opposes this bill, but, unlike my colleagues here, we are not pleased to be here debating this arcane and complex piece of legislation, under urgency no less. ACT opposes this bill for the same reason we opposed the 2020 regulations: because it prohibits purchasing credits on an open market, which is how markets in the real world actually work, and it’s a needless complication to an already complicated system, devised by the climate Minister and the Government. We heard how complicated it was. It sounded pretty complicated.

That Minister’s explanation confused most market analysts, and maybe that is what is intended, but it won’t help New Zealand reach a target of net zero emissions by 2050, either, which is what New Zealand signed up to in Paris. It will create uncertainty and discourage New Zealand businesses to innovate. That’s the fastest way to solve the problem about how to mitigate our emissions.

ACT’s position is this: New Zealand business should have the ability to purchase high-quality credits from any willing seller, and New Zealand business should not be subject to the invisible hand of a Government Minister who will have the power to set a confidential reserve price at an auction, especially from a Government led by a Prime Minister who once declared that she would lead the most open and transparent Government ever.

This bill entrenches a damaging culture, a culture that pervades this Government’s lawmaking—this culture of urgency and once-over-lightly and “She’ll be right”. Well, it’s not right. This bill continues to politicise the New Zealand business environment at a time when business needs certainty and a steady environment from which to grow out of COVID and all of the economic and social issues that that has caused.

Now, the Minister already controls the supply of carbon credits to this closed market that the Government created and, therefore, has the power to influence emissions up or down. So why doesn’t the Minister simply reduce the supply of credits rather than hiding behind the veil of a rigged market? Well, that’s because this Government has shown a willingness to race far ahead of our trading partners by setting unrealistic time frames for New Zealand to reduce its absolute emissions.

The Minister even said recently that those unrealistic targets set at Paris are not enough to satisfy the Government’s agenda and that New Zealand businesses should expect their assets to be stranded—I repeat, “their assets to be stranded”—and jobs to be lost in order to meet the Minister’s targets. You can imagine what those targets will do to communities up and down New Zealand—like South Auckland and the thousands of workers at the Glenbrook steel mill and all of those supporting industries, and the communities that they live in.

In the central North Island in the Bay of Plenty, where pulp and paper are made and from there exported to the world, those communities where those high-paying jobs are essential for the health and wellbeing of the people who live there. In Northland, cement manufacturing at Golden Bay will be put at risk, and in Taranaki, already suffering from this Government’s flawed policy agenda, where fertiliser and other raw materials are made—that’s where we will see the impact of this kind of flawed policy rushed through under urgency. Now, all of these materials can be imported from countries which have no intention of matching New Zealand’s unrealistic time frames, and based on this Government’s trajectory it looks like the loss of those industries will come sooner rather than later.

So the Minister must believe that the market system won’t be enough, and that’s why we need these extra controls allowed for in the bill—this rigged market proposed by the Minister. Now, we’ve seen other examples about how markets work all the time. We’ve seen the housing market. There’s an awful lack of land supply; therefore, the price of land has gone up far beyond what we could imagine. So we know a market price encourages changes in behaviour. We’ve seen those changes in behaviour. We’ve seen intensity; we’ve seen high-rises going up; we’ve seen new dwellings being built which don’t even have car parks. They don’t need car parks because we know that—

David Seymour: The beauty of the market.

SIMON COURT: Oh! There’s behaviour changes coming from price signals from the market. So we understand that the Government’s climate change interventions are designed to change behaviours.

Now, ACT’s opposition to the original bill and to this amendment were well founded. These regulations that the bill seeks to amend were flawed in the first place, and this amendment only complicates things. ACT opposed Government’s meddling in markets and creating more uncertainty for business at this time, when business needs certainty more than ever as we slowly recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on our economy and society.

We support an ETS, an emissions trading scheme, which gives New Zealand business options—options to mitigate the effects of carbon dioxide emissions on the climate at the lowest possible cost to their businesses and to society as a whole. This regulation does not do that. ACT supports an ETS which allows for trade-offs between businesses which emit carbon dioxide as part of their process, like a steel mill or a power station, and a willing seller, those which take up carbon dioxide as part of their business activity, like growing trees or some other capture and storage technology, because ACT trusts New Zealand scientists and engineers to work out how to mitigate carbon dioxide.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is interrupted. The Government has indicated to me that it does not wish to continue in urgency.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Point of order, Madam Speaker. You may not be aware, but the Standing Orders Committee has changed the Standing Orders so that a debate can either end five minutes early or continue for an additional five minutes, so that a member does not have his speech interrupted as you’ve just interrupted this member’s speech.

The Speaker said at the end of last year that it would be helpful for all members to read the Standing Orders Committee report, and I think it’s really helpful if we can actually let the member finish his speech. I ask that you allow that to happen.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): Speaking to the point of order, if the member had have read the Standing Orders Committee’s report he would have understood that those provisions do apply but they are at the discretion of the Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That was actually the point I was about to make, David Seymour, that the decision is at the Speaker’s discretion. So, if I may, the Government has indicated to me that it does not wish to continue in urgency. Therefore this debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10.01 p.m.