Tuesday, 8 February 2022

TUESDAY, 8 FEBRUARY 2022

TUESDAY, 8 FEBRUARY 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

karakia/prayers

karakia/prayers

Hon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God—[Members talk among themselves]

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

SPEAKER: Happy New Year, members.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I move, That this House express its confidence in the Government and commend its programme for 2022 as set out in the Prime Minister’s Statement.

It is with confidence in our plan that I stand before you, resolute in the job that stands ahead of us. And that job is clear: to lead New Zealand through this pandemic, to take on the challenges that we already face as a nation, to strengthen our economy and emerge stronger than we were before.

This year represents the third year of the COVID pandemic, and we begin with a plan to keep us safe and to help keep the country moving forward. Our guiding principle for the last two years has been to protect lives and to protect livelihoods, and that is exactly what we have done. Our confirmed cases, hospitalisations, and deaths have been the lowest in the OECD for the past two years. We now have one of the most highly vaccinated populations in the world, with 94 percent of those aged 12 and over double-vaccinated. And 42 percent of our children have now had their first dose as well, and just in time for school.

One point six million New Zealanders have already received their COVID-19 booster vaccination as well. And the fact that we have collectively worked together to look after one another’s health—that’s also cushioned the blow to the economy. In fact, it’s done more than that. Unemployment is at record lows. Record numbers of New Zealanders have moved off the main benefit and into work, and growth remains strong, with record export prices for our dairy sector, and I acknowledge our primary producers and the role that they have played during this pandemic. So to the team of 5 million who have made all of that possible we say thank you. We also say let’s keep going, because we are not yet done.

Omicron is the next challenge that we face, and it is a new and difficult phase of the pandemic, as New Zealanders prepare to encounter COVID-19 in a way that we have not yet to date, and at a scale we are not used to seeing in this country.

But we do have the tools and a plan to get us through. Now, that includes the COVID-19 Protection Framework, which uses public health measures to slow down the spread of Omicron but still allows our businesses to open and to operate. It includes the vaccine campaign, with a big focus on boosters, which has already seen more than half of our eligible population boosted. And it includes a specific plan for each stage of the Omicron outbreak: on how we’ll manage contacts; increases in testing, including how we’ll use the 180 million rapid antigen tests we have ordered; and how we’ll support critical services to continue operating when their workers may have COVID in their household. No country is immune from Omicron’s disruption, but we are working hard to avoid the worst of it and we are better prepared than most.

I have a really important message, though, for all New Zealanders: boosters are our strongest weapon at this point. Every booster strengthens our immunity and it takes pressure, importantly, off our health system. So to every New Zealander: if you are eligible, please go and get boosted today. It is the most significant thing that you can do to protect your family; your friends; those hard-working nurses, doctors, paramedics and all of our dedicated health workers.

Māori and Pacific health and community providers also remain essential to our plan, as they have all the way through. Now, we’ve supported their work by investing over $250 million, including $120 million to support Māori communities to fast track vaccinations and prepare for COVID-19 in our community, and we’ll continue that work in partnership.

But advice from our experts tells us that Omicron will not be the last variant that we will face this year. It’s advice that, sadly, the Opposition, I notice, have chosen to ignore. They declared 1 December “Freedom Day”: the day that borders should open, even when the World Health Organization had declared Omicron a variant of concern and the booster campaign had only just begun. They claim that they are ready to manage the pandemic because they have declared it over. They were wrong then and they are wrong now. It is not over, but that does not mean that we cannot move forward and that we cannot keep making progress—and so we are.

This year begins our reconnection with the world, and you would have already heard me announce the phases of our reopening plan that will see those already eligible to come into our managed isolation facilities to now be able to self-isolate, beginning with the first step in less than three weeks’ time. Now, this is an important moment as we reconnect with family and with friends, and as business access the skilled labour that they need, and as exporters more easily connect with really important markets.

New Zealand is in demand, and this year we meet that head on. So everything we step into this year requires planning and preparation, and here is where we’ll take the very best of our COVID response to address our other challenges. Now, the Ministry of Health and district health boards are working already to reduce the impact of seasonal illnesses that we know will have an impact on our health system, particularly as New Zealand reconnects with the world. Seasonal influenza will likely re-emerge. We need to prepare, and here’s how we’ll do that. First, we’ll deliver an influenza immunisation programme to maximise uptake for at-risk New Zealanders. Using the expertise and the infrastructure that we’ve already generated from the COVID-19 vaccination programme, we’ll work hard to deliver high rates of vaccination for our elderly, our immunocompromised, and anyone else at risk.

But that’s not all we can do. We know the importance of staying home when you’re sick, and we’ve made that easier with workers now eligible for 10 days’ sick leave to reduce illness in the workplace. We know the importance of keeping our kids in schools and early learning centres, so we’re working hard to make that as safe as possible by offering vaccines to 5- to 11-year-olds, maximising natural ventilation, and investing in filtration machines. But it’s the place we spend most of our time that requires the most investment. We need healthier homes, warmer homes, drier homes, homes that don’t make our tamariki sick. That’s why our Warmer Kiwi Homes programme has already delivered 80,000 insulation and heating installs in low-income households since 2018—and by the end of this financial year, we’ll accelerate the roll-out of insulation and heating installs, delivering 30,000 more warm, dry homes. And this is work we are pleased to continue with the Green Party.

We’re also going to roll out the Healthy Homes Initiative to an additional nine new regions, which means more insulation, curtains, beds, bedding, minor repairs, floor coverings, ventilation, heating sources—all of the things that decrease hospitalisations and the incidence of things like rheumatic fever in this country. On top of this, we’ll get on with building more housing and continuing to overcome the housing crisis we inherited. Kāinga Ora and community housing providers will deliver over 2,000 additional public housing places—that’s adding to the 8,700 delivered since November 2017. And while I note some members on the front bench of the Opposition may laugh, these are numbers that far outstrip anything that Government ever managed to build while they were in Government, when their focus was on selling down public housing stock rather than building the homes that we need. Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga and the Māori Infrastructure Fund will also see the delivery of approximately 1,000 new homes, repairs to 700 homes, and 2,700 additional infrastructure-enabled sites. Now, together, these represent the greatest investment ever in Māori housing.

But housing represents—and we know this in this House—just one of the many challenges we faced as a nation before COVID. Our health system was also in desperate need of reform. It’s not right that the care that you get in our health system in this country can vary so much depending on where you live. One of our top priorities this year is the abolition of district health boards, and the establishment of Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority to deliver a genuinely national health service for all New Zealanders.

We want all New Zealanders to live longer and healthier lives, which is why the Māori Health Authority is absolutely key. We all know the dire statistics; they are undeniable. Māori die at twice the rate as non-Māori from cardiovascular disease. Māori tamariki have a mortality rate 1½ times the rate found in non-Māori children. Māori die, on average, seven years earlier than non-Māori. We must turn these stats around. Doing the same old things won’t cut it anymore. Now, some have called our plan “separatist”, when, in fact, the opposite is true: this is about reaching the equality we currently do not have in this country. We are also going to establish a new public health agency to ensure we’re better equipped to fight any future pandemics that we may face as a nation.

We will also better support the estimated 1.1 million disabled people in New Zealand through the new Ministry for Disabled People; stand-alone accessibility legislation that identifies, prevents, and removes barriers to participation; and the national roll-out of Enabling Good Lives, which puts the voice of disabled people and their families at the heart of decision making. This is work that’s time is overdue.

If there is another challenge that COVID has highlighted in this country—that already existed—it is mental health. I was speaking to a medical practitioner recently who conveyed to me the additional appointments that they’d seen in their practice as a result of the pandemic—increased or exacerbated depression and anxiety in particular. This is all the more reason to continue with the roll-out of primary mental health services and addiction services across New Zealand. We have established new primary and community mental health and addiction services in general practice, as well as kaupapa Māori-, Pacific-, and youth-specific practices. Together, these services have now delivered over 280,000 sessions since the programme began in July 2019 and provided support to over 27,000 people in between July and September of 2021. By the end of this year, 2.7 million enrolled New Zealanders will have access to integrated primary mental health and addiction care through general practice. That is a step change in how New Zealanders access mental health services and brings the delivery of mental health into the place where people get support for their health needs already.

But that is not enough for us. This year we will also expand the successful Mana Ake scheme that provides mental health and resilience support for New Zealand children in years 1 to 8 to 24,000 of our most vulnerable children, expanding into Northland, Counties Manukau, Bay of Plenty, Lakes DHB, and the West Coast region.

But alongside the known vulnerability of our children and our young people, we also know there are two communities that have particularly high rates of burnout and stress, and they are our small-business owners, and we’re increasingly seeing the impacts of mental health issues in our rural communities. COVID-19 has exacerbated this with ongoing uncertainty and isolation. Rural communities also face the challenge of accessing mental health services. We’re committed to working with small-business groups and the rural sector to ensure better support and access to mental health.

In the face of two years of pandemic and disruption, New Zealand businesses and workers have proven to be resilient, they’ve proven to be adaptable, and they’ve proven to be innovative. We have weathered the storm of COVID better than many of our key trading partners. New Zealand’s economy grew 4.9 percent over the last year, outperforming much of the OECD. Our primary sector obtained record export prices. We have a construction boom underpinned by our infrastructure programme and strong support for new housing. But that is not the limit of our ambition, because, as I said last week, in our COVID recovery, we must not return to business as usual, because we are better than that.

In fact, we were elected to address the challenges that have held too many back for too long. That’s why our economic plan is to build a high-wage, low-carbon economy that provides economic security in good times and in bad. It is focused on increasing the value of our exports and developing new markets; investing in skills and new technology; modernising infrastructure; research and innovation to drive productivity; reducing emissions; and, of course, increasing wages.

Let’s break some of those elements down. As the border opens, New Zealand’s exporters will be able to reconnect face to face. We’ll build on that with a proactive programme of re-engaging with high priority international markets. New Zealand will sign a free-trade agreement with the United Kingdom. We’ll continue to work towards concluding a free-trade agreement with the European Union, and I will lead trade delegations, and trade-supporting visits to key markets in Europe, the United States, Australia, and Asia this year.

As a Labour Government, building skills and training opportunities is key and at the heart of our agenda. It not only links into our wider plans on infrastructure, it also underpins and enables a productive, high-wage economy. We have already started the work to develop and grow our talent here. We already have the reform of vocational training in this country with six new industry-governed workforce development councils. You can see the impact we’re having in the numbers. Our investment in fees-free apprenticeships and targeted training has seen more than 175,000 people take up these learning opportunities since July 2020. That includes 80,000 apprentices. We’ve seen Mana in Mahi, a programme that supports young people to obtain trade qualifications and enter into lasting employment, go from strength to strength, with 4,446 placements. All of this means that we’re better placed to roll out the crucial plank of our plan, and that is building infrastructure.

Historical under-investment has been a handbrake on our economy. It’s why we’re planning for the next 30 years instead of electoral cycles. It’s why we’re investing $57.3 billion in infrastructure over the next five years alone. It’s why we’re modernising our schools. It’s why we continue to rebuild our health system with 24 construction projects. It’s why we’re enabling more housing, providing New Zealanders with greater choices in tackling congestion in the transport system, rolling out telecommunications and energy infrastructure, preparing the economy for the future. It’s also why we’ll fix the issue of persistent under-investment in our water services.

I have said this before: when we look back on this period in our country’s history, I don’t want us just to reflect on how we weathered the storm of a pandemic, but what we built after. Our economy cannot afford to return to business as usual, because the status quo is unsustainable, and that’s why tackling climate change will be a core part of our economic strategy.

Climate change must not overwhelm us. In fact, it is our greatest opportunity for new jobs and higher wages. For a country already earning a premium from our clean, green, and innovative image, there is an opportunity to use that natural advantage to create new jobs in new industries. It will also reduce New Zealand’s reliance on global energy prices. Other countries are moving to compete and seize the opportunities, and New Zealand cannot afford to be left behind; not economically, and not morally either. Not when the future of our exports will be built on a credible plan to bend our emissions curve and meet our targets. That’s why this year our first emission reduction plan will put innovation and clean technology at the heart of our economic transition. We’ll continue to support businesses reduce their energy costs through the Government Investment in Decarbonising Industry Fund, which already has reduced lifetime emissions by 6.6 million tonnes. We’ll continue to transition our transport fleet, and already the clean car discount, which came into effect, has seen the number of new electric vehicles being bought each month triple. Alongside the clean car discount, and clean car standards, the low emission transport fund will begin supporting business to pilot new emission transport technology.

You’ll know we’ll continue with the green investment fund, which has quadrupled the amount of investment in low carbon technologies. We’ll continue the work of He Waka Eke Noa and in our partnership supporting more farmers to adopt existing measures and technologies to reduce on-farm emissions.

The Opposition claim they share our climate ambition. Why, then, have they opposed almost every initiative that would bring our emissions profile down? Climate change is a challenge we cannot postpone, just like child poverty, just like housing, just like mental health.

New Zealand has entrusted the Government with the responsibility of bringing this country through our current crisis, but all of those challenges as well, and we will continue to do that. But we will do more than that. We’ll provide stability, a united team, and a singular focus on a recovery that, even after a crisis, leaves New Zealand better than we found it.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye—

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move that all the words after “That” be deleted and they be replaced with “this House has no confidence in this Government that returns to Wellington”—

Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I regret to advise the House that, once the Speaker has put the vote, there’s no further debate on it.

SPEAKER: I hadn’t completed putting it.

CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That all the words after “That” be deleted and are replaced with “this House has no confidence in this Government that returns to Wellington at the start of each year with more promises it has no intention of keeping and fails to deliver.”

Mr Speaker, before I begin, can I just wish you and all my colleagues here a happy New Year. I trust you’ve all had a good break. It’s good that everyone is back raring to go—I can tell you the National Party is ready.

Kiwis are tired. They’re tired of this Government that’s addicted to spending, and they’re consistently failing to get things done, and after four years—four years of stagnation and failure—they’re tired of being let down by a Government that has turned out to be what? All spin and no delivery.

This Government has never met a problem it didn’t think it could solve with just a little bit more Government, a little bit more Wellington, a little bit more centralisation, a comms plan, more bureaucracy, and less input from affected communities. They’re tired of a Government that’s clearly out of ideas; out of energy; out of steam; and in less than two years, frankly, will be out of office.

Because I can tell you, the people of New Zealand can see what an absolute mess this Labour Government is making of things. They see through it. They can see that Labour has doubled our country’s debt, and they’ve set Government spending on a completely unsustainable long-term path. They can see that all that spending, all that borrowing, isn’t actually getting results, and it’s not delivering the long-term solutions to our challenges or improving people’s daily lives, and it’s actually not getting things done. This Government confuses activity with achievement. This Government confuses words with action, and they are two very, very different concepts. And now here we are, with an overheated economy, and they can see it’s clearly making things worse. It’s pushing up prices, it’s pushing out the private sector, and it’s squeezing everyday New Zealanders.

Now, Kiwis’ ability to be able to get ahead and to enjoy a higher quality of life depends on the size of our economic engine, and it needs some serious upgrading if we’re to go forward together well. We’re suffering in this country from what is a productivity disease. The average Kiwi is working for an hour to earn what the average Australian earns in 44 minutes. Now, Grant Robertson, when he was in Opposition, used to talk endlessly about productivity per capita metrics. He doesn’t do it anymore. He doesn’t do it anymore because he fundamentally doesn’t care about small-business people. The only economic tool he’s been able to use is to spend more of Kiwis’ money, with Government spending now up a staggering 68 percent since they came to power. And that spending is driving a massive increase into the cost of living, which is now running at a 30-year high of almost 6 percent.

We have a cost of living crisis in this country. And I’m hearing it when we go around the country; I’m sure many of the MPs in this House are hearing it as well. It doesn’t matter whether there’s frustration around a block of cheese costing $15 to $16 or unsustainable levels of rent that are becoming so unaffordable to everyday Kiwis. They are feeling the pain of this Government’s economic mismanagement.

You’ve got to ask yourself just one question: are you better off under this Government than you were 12 months ago? Are you better off than you were four years ago? I can tell you right now, the answer is an absolutely categorical no. Under this Labour Government, people are working harder, they’re not getting ahead, and they’re going backwards. Everyone knows it, everyone feels it. Even Grant Robertson knows it, he feels it, he knows it’s true as well. That’s the reality, and, sadly, that’s what you get with a Government that is focused on making announcements on spin and not actually on getting results. That’s what you get: spin over substance. You get activity over achievement. You get a so-called year of delivery that delivered little more than press releases. You get the year of the vaccine that somehow delivered the slowest vaccine roll-out in the developed world, resulting in a 15-week lockdown at $8 billion. You get a Government that banned rapid antigen tests, then changed its mind, and then decided to confiscate them from the good, proactive businesses who were just trying to keep their own workers safe.

You get a Prime Minister who promised to make housing more affordable, but instead she’s delivered the largest, the fastest increase in house prices in our nation’s history. The average house price is now over $1 million, and in just four years of Labour mismanagement we’ve seen house prices rise by a staggering $380,000. It’s a truly shocking result of Government incompetence. Now, Labour are pushing the dream of Kiwi homeownership away from a whole generation of young New Zealanders, and I can tell you that rapidly-rising interest rates are only going to make things much, much worse. Weekly rents are up $125 since 2017—that’s making it harder for Kiwis to pay the bills, let alone a chance to be able to save up for a deposit. Just think about that, that’s a Kiwi renting who has to go find $6,500—after tax, in a year—to rent the same house that they were renting just four years ago.

You’ve got almost 25,000 people languishing on the State waiting list for a State house—that’s a fourfold increase in four years. That’s unbelievable—it’s unbelievable. There’s 4,500 children living in motels, sharing unsuitable accommodation with violent gang members and drug dealers, all at a cost of about $1.2 million a day. So it is an absolute moral failure, and it is an indictment on a Government that promised to solve the housing crisis but has made it so much worse, and this from a Prime Minister who promised to build 100,000 KiwiBuild houses in 10 years. But here we are, we’re four years in and how many more do we have to go? Another 98,000 houses to go. The Prime Minister promised big on State housing, but over the past six months we’ve seen the State landlord remove homes that it’s built. That’s right, they’ve taken away more houses than they’ve built in the last six months.

Now, nowhere has the Prime Minister promised more and delivered less than in transport. Now, one of the first promises she made was that she’d send a tram from downtown Auckland to Mount Roskill, it would cost less than $2 billion, and it would have been completed by the end of last year. Well, here we are, we’re four years in and the only thing that’s been delivered is a brand new spanking price tag of $15 billion. And depending on what officials you want to listen to, it could be up to $24 billion, and then you’ve got a promise of a decade of disruption in Auckland. I reckon that for all of that, the Government could actually go out and buy each of the team of 5 million people a brand new, state-of-the-art, swish e-bike. And they would still have billions of dollars left to invest in heavy rail, they’d still have money left to invest in upgrading ferries, they’d still have money to invest in dedicated busways and improving maintenance and safety on our highways. But that’s the sort of sensible projects that are actually about helping people and businesses connect and do business around our towns and cities. That’s not what Labour politicians are about; it’s about a legacy, or trying to impress Twitter followers.

Now, at the last election, voters were also promised “no new taxes”. But when you have a 68 percent increase in Government spending, when you have a doubling of the debt in this country—which has to be repaid, forget about what modern monetary theorists say, it has to be repaid; and when it does, that will mean that we don’t have the cash to invest in better public services, or productivity-enhancing intergenerational infrastructure—you just know, you know in your bones, that Labour is going to increase your taxes. There’s no doubt about it, it’s coming. Because Labour can’t manage money, they’ll come after yours. Labour broke that election promise of new taxes in pretty quick time. What we saw was a ramming through of a stealth capital gains tax, which was quickly followed by the infamous “ute tax”, and if that wasn’t enough, Grant Robertson has now cooked up another brand new tax. This time he wants to slap it on every single worker and every single business in New Zealand and, would you believe it? The Labour Party wants to roll out a jobs tax.

Now, they’re going to try and hide it; they’re going to call it a levy, or they’re going to call it a contribution, or they’re going to call it income insurance, but you all know the saying: “If it looks like a duck, if it swims like a duck, and if it quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” I can tell you that this is a tax—this is a tax—

Hon Member: What kind of duck?

CHRISTOPHER LUXON: —not a Mallard—making Kiwis pay an extra tax at a time when Kiwis need that cash in their own pockets—as they navigate a cost of living crisis, when they’re buying stuff that’s going up twice as fast as their wages. That’s what they really need—they need the money back in their pockets, not going to Grant Robertson through another tax. They’re living in a cost of living crisis, but it doesn’t seem that this Government cares or even understands the reality of that for people.

Now, what we didn’t hear much about from the Prime Minister today was what’s happening with the three waters reforms. Now, I can tell you, Nanaia Mahuta, she made up her decision on day one. She locked in on a model. She’s gone through a sham consultation process with local government and, despite saying it would be voluntary, lo and behold, it’s now been compulsorily acquiring the assets from ratepayers and citizens who’ve spent decades paying for them. I can tell you, the costs are unrealistic, the scale of benefits aren’t there, there’s massive cross-subsidisation between districts, and, most importantly, it’s got a convoluted co-governance and management structure that, essentially, is like a set of Russian dolls that launders the asset out of the control of ratepayers and citizens and local government through a process to end up in the Government’s hands.

But I wouldn’t be too worried about it, because I can tell you what I think is going to happen. I can tell you what’s going to happen: Grant Robertson is worried, right? He’s been studying those polls over summer, he’s been looking into the numbers, and—in the same way he went and killed off Michael Wood’s lovely $785 million walking and cycling bridge, in the same way that he’s pushed and cajoled and argued with the Prime Minister about finally opening the joint up—he’s going to come in and he’s going to squash these reforms too. I bet you that’s what’s going to happen. You mark my words: these three waters reforms are absolutely finished, and I predict that we’re going to have a new local government Minister very, very shortly too. Either way, watch this space. A big back-down is coming your way.

I’ve made it clear that our job as the National Party over the next 20 months is not just to hold this Government to account, to oppose them and all their failure to deliver—of which there’s just endless opportunities—but we are here to propose. We are here to propose an alternative vision of this country so that come the next election, the New Zealand people will be able to see a National Government in waiting, ready to go.

Now, we’ve already proposed some pretty sensible upgrades to our COVID management plan and as we navigate our way through Omicron and out of these endless restrictions, we’ve been doing the same. Usually what happens is they like to rubbish our ideas and then they go back and then they pick them up and they talk about them and then a few months or a few weeks later, lo and behold, pre-departure testing, rapid antigen testing, a special fund to pre-purchase the COVID treatments—that all starts to appear in the Government’s plans. Now, I have to say, we don’t mind that—we don’t mind that—we’re good with that because we’re here to act in New Zealand’s national interests. If we can help a Government that doesn’t have its own ideas, we’re very good with that. We’re fine with that. So feel free, as we propose—take good, practical ideas that are in New Zealand’s interest and get them done.

I have to say, I think the Government did a pretty good job in 2020 managing COVID, and I’ve said that publicly and I’ll continue to say so. But I have to say, 2021 was a shambles. We had lots of time to see what was going on, we had first-mover advantage and we didn’t get anything done on time. It was a total, sort of, look one or two days ahead, never have a plan, and just make it up as you go along. That was the story of 2021, and we ended up losing the plot pretty quickly. For most of the year, we had the slowest vaccine roll-out of the developed world after being told we would be in the front of the queue. When Delta hit, we only had 20 percent of the eligible population fully vaccinated, and so we had to go into that extended lockdown.

Rather than delivering quickly on vaccines or rapid antigen tests and boosters, the Government’s response has relied on extending everyday restrictions to everyday life. Because there’s been no plan, we need to be looking further ahead and that’s why we’ve been arguing for things like rapid antigen tests, so that people can have them wherever they want them. They can take control, take personal responsibility, and buy them from supermarkets and pharmacies. We want them to be available to everyone. Seniors, workers, kids in schools should all have the opportunity to get a tester to help keep us all safe. But what did the Government do? What did the Government do? They banned them for no other reason than they were ideologically opposed to any non-Government solution. They didn’t work with community organisations; they didn’t work with businesses; they don’t believe, actually, that a Government should work with business and community on some of our biggest challenges, which just speaks to the arrogance, the centralisation, and control agenda—the we-know-best agenda—that this Government’s running with. And it’s only after challenge from the media that we see a Government react and miraculously start finding large quantities of rapid antigen tests in a matter of days. But it could have been done six months earlier; it could have been done a lot, lot sooner.

The National Party will continue to push the Government to do better on COVID, and that’s our job. But it’s also our job to offer solutions to all the other long-term challenges New Zealand faces, and I have to say we’ve got lot of long-term challenges that we’re not getting outcomes or results for. To rebuild our economy, we’re going to need to rebuild our connections with the world—and that’s 7.8 billion people, sitting in 195 countries that we trade and do business with. And New Zealand has a very proud tradition of going out in the world and building business and building export businesses to do so, and we need to reclaim that confidence, that ambition, that aspiration that we seem to have lost. I want New Zealand to be world leading; I want New Zealand to realise its full potential on all levels; I want a place where good enough is not just good enough for us. National understands that the only sustainable way to lift incomes across the economy is for Kiwis to become more productive.

Now, for too long, Kiwis have been of the mind-set that they just need to get ahead by working longer hours. We’re already some of the longest-working people on planet Earth, but our incomes still lag behind. So we’ve got to boost productivity to realise our potential; we’ve got to work smarter, not harder; and National’s going to do that by investing education so the basics are taught brilliantly and our kids can go out in the world and realise their dream and actually access higher-paying jobs. We’ll do it by delivering the infrastructure we need to support growth; we’ll do it by attracting the top talent here, because we know, when we do, they grow the pie for all of us; we’ll do it by opening up New Zealand to the world; we’ll do it by backing small business up and down the country—not just letting businesses suffer while the Government overheats an economy. I’d say that expanding that economic pie is how we secure our future.

Today, the Prime Minister made a big deal about unemployment being low, and it’s true: unemployment is low in this country. But that’s what you get when you have unprecedented Government spending and record-low interest rates designed to stimulate the economy—the only two levers that this Government and Grant Robertson have been capable of using. But that’s what you get, and, unfortunately, that’s the same recipe that’s pushing up inflation. That’s the same recipe that I can tell you won’t end well for us, and the real frustration with unemployment being so low is that this Government has not been able to help Kiwis get off benefit and into work. There are almost 90,000 more people on a benefit today than when Labour first took office—90,000 people. One in nine Kiwis is currently dependent upon the State for an income, and it just begs the question: what is the Government actually doing to support those on benefits into jobs? Even more concerning is the fact that Kiwis are spending longer on those benefits: 116,000 people now spend more than one year on a job-seeker benefit, and that’s an increase of 50,000 Kiwis since Labour were first elected—50,000 people staying on a benefit for longer. On this side of the House, we know when someone’s out of work for a long period of time, it is difficult for them to re-enter the workforce. But if you can’t get people from welfare to work now, with all the vacancies, with all the labour shortages, with low levels of unemployment in this country, when will you be able to do it?

Let’s be honest, we think the Labour Government has not only engineered a cost of living crisis; they’ve engineered a dependency crisis that is the exact opposite of kindness and compassion. They don’t care that they have written off and consigned a whole bunch of New Zealanders to a life that’s just slightly better than poverty and subsistence. They’ve decided in their heads, with all their lovely white-collar backgrounds as academics and professional career politicians and union organisers, that somewhere between where they are and where the other jobs are there’s a miraculous line that work below that level isn’t worthwhile. I can tell you right now, we want people off welfare, getting into work, and we know why—because, when you get a job, when you get into work, you get a sense of self-worth; you get a sense of mastery; you get a feeling of control of your life. I have to say National is more aspirational for New Zealanders. We care deeply about all of this this; we care deeply about New Zealanders; we don’t want them consigned for ever to be on welfare; we want them in work. We think that’s dignity; we think that’s the pathway that they need.

New Zealand deserves better; New Zealand deserves a Government that is forward thinking; New Zealand deserves a Government that is prepared to tackle the big issues, a Government that doesn’t simply just react to the latest headlines or put all its efforts into spinning the news cycle, a Government that doesn’t just throw money at a problem and, then, just walk away. We want a Government that restores our confidence, our ambition, our aspiration as a country—a country that actually builds a society of opportunity. That’s what we’re going to do with a National Government, and that’s what we’re going to deliver for the people of New Zealand. Thank you.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. E ngā mana e ngā reo e ngā rau rangatira mā o tēnei Whare nui o te ao, ngā mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

[To all authorities, all languages, and all chiefly people of this great House of the world, I offer my warm greetings. I acknowledge you all.]

Well, based on the last couple of performances, I have to say the next year looks it’s going to be a somewhat one sided battle between Superwoman and Lex Luthor. And I have to say, he has managed to fend off his chief rival over here—Brainiac—but, based on that performance, he is yet to find the kryptonite!

I have to say the Prime Minister’s statement demonstrates that, with a strong Green voice in this Parliament and in this Government, Aotearoa is at last heading towards a future where communities thrive, where ecosystems flourish, and our economy is sustainable and pollution-free. That is the vision that the Green Party was founded on over 30 years ago. I am going to respond to the Prime Minister’s statement through the lens of each of those three long-term and long-held priorities, but before I do, I do want to offer our response in relation to the shorter term but somewhat all-consuming challenge that is in front of us right now. It is entirely understandable that the attention of both the people and the Government of Aotearoa is taken up primarily with the ongoing pandemic crisis.

Now, as we reconnect Aotearoa with the rest of the world, the priority must be on the protection and the wellbeing of whānau and communities, and there are many people—here at home, and abroad—who have been unable to be with their friends and family at precisely the moment when they need it the most. But at the same time, it is a fact that there are literally thousands of people alive today who would not be, if it had not been for our border restrictions and managed quarantine and isolation (MIQ) system.

Hon Member: I thought it was capitalism.

Hon JAMES SHAW: We have one of the—I’m getting to that—lowest mortality rates in the world because of it, and it was good to hear from the Prime Minister that 40 percent of children have now received the first dose of the vaccine. That is a huge success, but there is no doubt that the reopening of the border does increase the risk of worsening the peak of the Omicron outbreak, and future variants. The Greens called for MIQ prioritisation based on humanitarian grounds—and that includes separated families—and we called for specialist MIQ facilities and that would have enabled more New Zealanders to reconnect with their loved ones, and that would have meant that we would have been able to maintain an elimination strategy long enough for everyone to get their booster shots and for all children to be immunised.

So if the borders are to open up before that point, then we must increase the focus on protecting and supporting our most vulnerable communities. We are very pleased to hear the Prime Minister say in her statement that tens of millions of rapid antigen tests will be made available to New Zealanders. The Greens’ view is that that shouldn’t just apply to rapid antigen tests, but also to N95 masks; they should be made available free to everybody who needs one. We’re also very pleased to hear the Prime Minister announce the extension of the Healthy Homes Initiative, the Warmer Kiwi Homes insulation programme, and the boost to the number of public housing places. Focusing on the social determinants of health, like housing, is utterly critical to reducing the impact of Omicron and later COVID variants.

As the Prime Minister said in her statement, empowering and funding Māori, Pasifika, and community providers was critical to getting the vaccination rates of those communities over 90 percent in most parts of the country, because when Māori and Pasifika peoples, and those who are most marginalised amongst us are taken care of, we are all taken care of.

My final word on the pandemic response, before I move on to some of the longer term issues facing us, is about the economic response. Thirty years of focusing on the debt to GDP ratio as the single most important measure of a Government’s success has left our country with a colossal deficit in housing, in health, in education, in transport, in water, in energy, in local government, and in public services. But in our response to the pandemic, we have demonstrated that, actually, Government can marshal the resources necessary to fight a crisis when the moment comes. We’ve demonstrated what can happen when good government meets good science, and we’ve demonstrated that the best economic response is, first and foremost, to keep everybody safe and well. But as we grasp toward some new semblance of a post-pandemic normality, we must not simply revert to the absolutely busted notions of the last 30 years that left us chronically short of houses and hospital beds and water pipes and classrooms and buses and trains as we were when the pandemic started.

Which brings me to the Green Party’s priorities, which are, and for a long time have been: one, to protect and restore our natural world; two, a fairer and more inclusive community; and, three, a clean, zero-carbon economy. So to have a New Zealand Prime Minister devote as much time as ours just did to placing climate change at the heart of our nation’s economic strategy in her opening address to Parliament gives me hope, and it should give some hope, too, to all of the scientists and the activists, the school strikers, the parents, the business people, and the regular folk who have campaigned for so many decades to make it so.

Now, the Prime Minister outlined a series of actions that we will take in energy and transport and agriculture and waste to modernise our economy and to cut emissions. I won’t repeat those, but I will add that, as we take those actions, we will seek to do so in a way that, first, ensures that the transition is equitable and just and inclusive; second, like our pandemic response, that it will be based on what the science says is required; third, that it honours te Tiriti and supports Māori in the design and the development of the transition; fourth, that it puts the protection and restoration of our indigenous biodiversity at the centre of our response; and, fifth, is well signalled, unlocks investment, builds innovation, and creates jobs.

Now, delivering all of this across so many industries and social sectors requires the attention and the leadership of a slew of Government agencies and at least half of Cabinet. And so I would like to thank all of the Labour Ministers for all that they are doing to deliver on New Zealand’s first and, now long-awaited, comprehensive plan to lower emissions and to limit warning.

Thanks to the changes that we made to the emissions trading scheme, there is now at least $4.5 billion available to tackle climate change over the course of the next four years. Now, dollar for euro, as a proportion of GDP, that puts our climate change response on a par with Germany. And I want to take this opportunity to address Te Paati Māori, the National Party, and the ACT Party. I know that we will disagree about many of the policy prescriptions that we may employ to get us there. But I do hope that we are able to maintain the consensus about where we need to get to and the institutions that we created to help to guide us there. So in that spirit, I will be consulting with all parties shortly on the emissions budgets before they are finalised, and we will also hold a parliamentary debate on those budgets so that every party may put down its views on record. And I hope that that will mean that there is a clear message to New Zealand about the direction of travel that has to span several changes of Government. But I do also welcome what I know will be robust critique and debate about the precise measures that this Government will be employing in the first emissions plan.

Of course, the emissions reduction plan is not the only major milestone on the climate change front in 2022. In August, we will be publishing the national adaptation plan, outlining how we’re going to build resilience to the increasingly frequent and severe floods and droughts and storms that we are already experiencing here and around the Pacific, and that will lead to the introduction of the Climate Change Adaptation Act early next year.

Of course, also this year, we will be deciding on the design of the system that we will be using to price agricultural emissions and support farmers to adopt practices and technology that adds value, increases profitability, and cuts emissions. There are so many good farmers who are already working with more sustainable and regenerative farming practices, and in 2019, the sector asked for and was given an opportunity to create a credible, effective, and fair way to reduce emissions from agriculture, and I hope that they take it.

I mentioned that one of the Green Party’s top three priorities was to protect and restore our natural world, and that will remain true in 2022. Tackling the biodiversity crisis goes hand in hand with tackling the climate crisis, but for decades, Governments have approached these issues separately. I am determined to better harness the power of nature to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to help us to adapt to the effects of climate change.

Also in 2022, the Greens will be pushing efforts and funding to rescue our native species from the brink, and we will continue to demand no more mines on conservation land. As the Government reforms the Resource Management Act, we will be the voice for nature in the House and we will put the health of our oceans firmly on the political agenda, pushing for a fix to the broken rules that allow overfishing, habitat destruction, and pollution to continue.

The Greens have always stood for fairer, more inclusive communities, and the truth is that in Aotearoa today, the comfort and security of the wealthiest New Zealanders would be virtually unimaginable to those on an average income, let alone the poorest half of our society. The clearest indicator of the rot is the housing crisis and the record low rates of homeownership, especially amongst Māori and Pasifika. Last year, as has been well-travelled, house prices rose a staggering 23 percent. Thousands of families, who should have been able to buy a home, are instead funding their landlord’s retirement through exorbitant weekly rents, which were up 5.8 percent last year alone for new tenancies. That is unfair and unjustified. We welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to accelerate housing supply and improve the emergency housing system, but one of these options has to include the possibility—wait for it, David—of rent controls. And I know that that has to include—sorry; I know that my colleagues on the right will blow their gaskets over this—but rent controls have been in place in cities like New York and Paris and Berlin for decades, and the sky hasn’t fallen in. In places like Ireland and Scotland and London, Governments are showing what new, modern rent controls can look like. So given the scale of the housing crisis in New Zealand, this House ought to consider it as an option.

Now, as an associate housing Minister, my co-leader, the Hon Marama Davidson will be working to bring support to our whānau who find themselves where no one expects or deserves to be, and that is without a home. We are in the midst of a crisis that is forcing all but the wealthiest out of quality, stable housing. I’m very proud of what she is doing and what we are doing to see that nobody goes without it.

At the same time, this year, the Hon Marama Davidson will be working across Government and with tangata whenua, communities, and NGOs to deliver the actions outlined in Aotearoa’s first ever strategy and action plan to eliminate family violence and sexual violence, Te Aorerekura. Te Aorerekura is nothing short of a landmark in New Zealand’s social history, but we also know that the hard work is just beginning and I cannot overstate the importance of that work. Everyone has the right to live in a peaceful home, to be respected, to be safe from mistreatment and violence.

The Greens will also keep pushing for action and approaches that honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the tino rangatiratanga of hapū and iwi over their lands, waters, and people. Honouring Te Tiriti can not only right past wrongs but also empower Aotearoa to address underlying social and environmental problems. For decades, Māori have been excluded from decisions about what happens to land that used to be theirs. Now the Green Party are calling on the Government to begin a process of returning stolen land to tangata whenua so that they may reassert their ancestral role as kaitiaki of our precious whenua, awa, and moana.

So, in conclusion, we broadly support the direction laid out in the Prime Minister’s statement. But, fundamentally, the Green Party’s view is that our country, our planet, and our people face a multiplicity of interconnected, independent, and escalating crises. But the root cause of all of these crises, whether it’s inequality in health or housing or wealth, whether it’s in mass extinctions or ocean plastics or polluted rivers, whether it’s in the accelerating droughts or storms or coastal erosion—the root cause of all of these crises is the same and that is an economic system that privatises benefit and socialises cost. It will not be transformed by incremental action. As these compounding crises continue to metastasise, Green Party Ministers inside the Government and MPs outside of it will continue to stand for transformative, long-term action over incremental short-term fixes.

Einstein warned us that we cannot solve the problems with the same level of thinking that created them. We agree with Einstein, and recent polling suggests that more and more New Zealanders agree with us. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. You’ll note that James Shaw gave some of the MPs around the Chamber superhero names. He appears to be living in a cartoon. I thought, “What would I call James Shaw?” Surely he would be Captain Planet. Then I thought, “Hang on a minute.” Those of you who have watched Captain Planet know that Captain Planet had five people’s powers combined. James Shaw is in a coalition agreement where he has no powers at all. That’s probably a good thing, because he just decided to bring back the economic lunacy that we should bring back rent control. Well, it’s a good example of why we needn’t worry about that, because Wonder Woman, as James Shaw called the Prime Minister, ruled out that policy this morning. So we can be safe in the knowledge that James Shaw’s lunacy—or was it Marama Davidson’s on behalf?—won’t be going anywhere.

It is so good to have our Parliament back, because this democracy depends on the simple idea that any person can stand for office and be elected and stand on this green carpet and question the Government and hold it accountable. There were so many times during this summer that I wished we had that power and ability. Why is the Government stealing rapid antigen tests? Why, if people with Omicron, who we know have Omicron, because they had a test that said they have it—if they can isolate at home, why must people returning from overseas, those who have had their maternity care outsourced to the Taliban, queue up for a space in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ), and only 12 percent of them get one? Well, the Government said it was because they wanted to delay the arrival of Omicron. Omicron’s here. We still have the nonsensical, miserable, and unjust concept of MIQ destroying people’s lives and livelihoods.

I wanted to ask, does the Government understand that borrowing, printing, and wasting money puts up the price of everything? You see, this year is the year of the hangover. Anybody can get through a pandemic if they borrow enough money; the hard part is paying for it. I wanted to ask the Government, why do they insist on putting the partnership principle of the Treaty, as they call it, at the heart of everything, when it’s not at the heart of the Labour Party constitution, now, is it?

I wanted to ask why people must isolate for 14 days if they test positive and a further 10 for everyone in their household. Is that why, perhaps, we have lower testing numbers at the start of Omicron, that’s more infectious, than we did at the start of Delta, that’s supposed to spread slower? Could it be that small business is suffering because people are staying home due to a lockdown in all but name? We have a fear going out because they can’t afford to have 14 days isolation and another 10 for their family. How are we supposed to get to stage two of the Government’s communications plan—I mean, sorry, public health response to COVID—if we don’t have the cases they set that was the threshold for their own policy failing so we could move on to the next stage because no one can afford to go out or get tested because the isolation rules are unworkable. So many questions for this Government, and that’s why it is so good to have our parliamentary democracy back in session.

Actually, the whole ACT team are thrilled to be back after 2021. Brooke has been extraordinary. As our deputy and whip she has organised the ACT caucus. She’s broken stories on the neglect of patients and led a campaign against mortgage interest deductibility changes that make no sense, and forced this House to face up to the evil of the Chinese Communist Party when our Government wanted to cut and run the other way.

Nicole McKee, Parliament’s most-loved knitter, but she also skewered our hapless police Minister on her softly, softly approach to gangs again and again.

Chris Baillie has stuck up for small business and our overstretched police force—that same police Minister won’t stand up for with his, shall we say, cutting speeches in the House.

Simon has travelled the country—Simon Court, that is, although I’m sure Simon Bridges has travelled the country. I remember the last time he did, actually. Simon Court, though, has travelled the country hearing from people in our primary and extractive industries and bringing the message back to Wellington that we need to stop regulating those who pay the bills to death or we will not have any economy left.

James McDowall has worked hard for so many heartlessly neglected by our clunky immigration democracy, bureaucracy, and presents legislation to Parliament that would underpin the purpose of our universities about being the free exchange of ideas, not complaining about emotional harm every time somebody disagrees with you, as if that will never happen outside the walls of the university.

Karen Chhour is the ultimate battler and keeps building her base for the fundamental reform of the way we care for children displaced, something which every society struggles with and needs the care, attention, and passion of somebody who has lived through that experience.

Mark, well, what can you say? The authentic and loved voice of rural New Zealand. He is a star in a society, or a sector of society, that gets so little love from the rest of our Government and Parliament, for that matter.

And then there’s Toni, who is endlessly improving and searching for a way to reduce our shameful levels of recidivism, Not many politicians have the conviction to go to jail for their beliefs. Toni goes inside frequently to advocate for a better way to rehabilitate prisoners.

Then there’s Damien, who’s done the heavy lifting on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, but also improved our voter base, particularly in Auckland, with his Celtic charm—I can’t say any more.

It’s a solid base for nine new MPs to become the household names of the future, and this year we have everything to play for. The best way of finding out what is really happening is to ask the majority of New Zealanders a simple question: is the country going in the right direction or the wrong direction? And what is going to set the tone for this year is that for the first time since the global financial crisis, the majority of New Zealanders are telling this Government this country is going in the wrong direction. We now have a gap of 25 points between the left and the right on election night, down to a gap of only six points—100,000 more voters changing their mind about Jacinda Ardern’s leadership is enough to change the Government. And it’s not difficult to see why.

As more and more people understand that Jacinda’s COVID response is a grand illusion, nearly every day brings another bizarre disaster showing we benefited from good luck, isolation, borrowing and printing, rather than good management. A million Kiwis offshore know anyone can quarantine an island. I mean, it took 100 million years of continental drift, but the work was already done for this Government. We’ve now entered a Wonderland where the Red Queen is talking backwards, and a million Kiwis are locked out of their country in the cruellest abrogation of any State’s responsibility to its citizens that anyone has seen in a modern democracy in a century, and it is shameful.

Every aspect of her response has been incompetent. Testing: banned them, then allowed some, now stealing the ones that they did allow, now forcing unworkable isolation rules because without testing the Government’s only solution is to lock people down until you probably don’t have COVID anyway, even though they know that it is going to spread whether they decimate the economy with these unworkable isolation rules or not. When the penalty for testing positive is 14 days at home, what do you think people are going to do if they are not a critical worker? The simple answer is that if your family or your business depends on you showing up for work, you’re going to be a critical worker. That is the reality.

Then we’re told to be grateful for getting some freedoms back, that our border will open over a torturous process between now and October, while Australia will be open for business just next week. Two weeks’ time, they’re open. And you have to ask: how should a New Zealand tourism operator, who’s worked for 20 years—their whole career—to build up their enterprise, feel when they watch the planes landing in Sydney and Melbourne and Brisbane? People are going to spend their hard-earned money over there instead of over here because our Government—the Government that boasted about a wellbeing approach where they would balance all of New Zealanders’ different needs—now has a policy obsession with just one thing that blinds it to all of the hurt and misery that it causes to every other aspect of New Zealanders’ wellbeing. That’s why we face the year of the hangover.

Families know the price of everything has skyrocketed. Now, it’s partly the result of supply chain constraints and inflationary pressure that’s affected the whole world, but hear this: we have the second-worst inflation in the developed world and we have the second-biggest Government spending and stimulus programme of the OECD—behind the United States, who have the worst inflation in the developed world. We have done this to ourselves, or rather our Government has done it to us. Make no mistake, this Government knows its policies have been inflationary and that is why we have a grand illusion.

And here’s another reason why people think the country’s going in the wrong direction: this Government was elected to fix housing. I have to admire the Prime Minister for her incredible chutzpah, getting up in her speech and talking about what the Government’s going to do about housing. Well, maybe it’s not bravery; maybe it’s contempt for New Zealanders and an assumption of gullibility. The truth is that under this Government, the average house price has gone up $387,000, 58 percent. The gap between homeowners and non-homeowners has skyrocketed under a Labour Government, increasing inequality because they’re incompetent at policy.

They’ve got an economy that’s busy, but it’s not one that is productive or healthy. And that’s why this year, the ACT Party is campaigning for a healthier economy—an economy that makes careful use of taxpayers’ money, because we know how carefully they have to earn and spend it.

We are seeing, at this time, record tax takes. You know, if you take the amount of tax that this Government collects for every single New Zealander—and if you’re kind to the Government and you adjust it for inflation, they are taking another $2,000 in tax overall for every person in your household. And they’ve been helped by inflation, because when prices go up they get more GST, and if wages go up—which they’re not compared with prices—you go into a higher tax bracket to buy the same stuff.

If inflation is a thief in your pocket, then the Government should be had up for receiving stolen goods. They are inflating away their own debt and borrowing by lowering interest rates and causing inflation. But here’s the sequel—that’s why it’s called a hangover—the only way the Reserve Bank can get in control of inflation is if they’re prepared to raise interest rates. And you’ve got two-thirds of people coming off their mortgage rates this year—you’re going to see people go up two points, and that is when this Government will start to understand why people think they’re going in the wrong direction. They haven’t been confident at balancing New Zealanders’ needs through COVID. Anyone can isolate an island, anyone can borrow 60 billion bucks, but it’s paying it back and controlling the cost of living where they have failed.

And it’s not just a healthier economy that we require; it’s also healthier communities. You know, the Prime Minister has some gall to get up and talk about record low unemployment. You know, they say unemployment’s almost as low as 3 percent. What’s interesting: 6 percent of the workforce are on the jobseeker benefit; another 6 percent are on other main benefits. So you’ve got 12 percent on a benefit and they claim 3 percent unemployment. Why is that? Well, when Statistics New Zealand ring up and ask if you’re unemployed, they ask, “Are you looking for work?” If you’re not looking for work, you’re not unemployed. The figures the Government puts out are completely incredible, and I mean that in the true sense of the word—that they are not credible. The real problems are that we have too many people in our community for whom the best pathway to prosperity in their community is to join a gang because methamphetamine is a half-billion dollar a year industry with no tax.

We need healthy and thriving communities. We need communities where kids actually go to school. The Government had a policy like that called partnership schools, kura hourua, or charter schools. You know how they work? If the kids didn’t show up, the school didn’t get paid. You wouldn’t believe what happened next. The school started focusing on making sure kids went to school, and once they were at school, it was much easier to teach them useful things for the rest of their life than if they weren’t. None of this is complicated. We’ve been putting up the rates for benefits, and we’re wondering why there’s 12 percent on a main benefit despite claiming 3 percent unemployment. Well, the ACT Party says that if you’re on welfare for the long term, we’re going to use electronic income management and counselling to get you off a benefit.

That’s what healthier communities look like, and it looks like treating the criminals like actual criminals and being responsive when people find themselves like a woman I met just last week in a dairy in Epsom. I said, “What is wrong with your arm? Why do you have that cast?” She was fighting off a robber. When you consider that she lives above the store, you understand just how real that is.

And then, besides a healthier economy and healthy and thriving communities that we so badly need, based on the values of personal responsibility and respect for business, we also need to understand our Kiwi identity. It’s being said that we are going on some sort of bold trajectory, where we divide New Zealand into two types of people. On the one hand, tangata whenua, here by right; on the other, tangata Tiriti, here on some other criteria that is not clear. Through all of human history, there has never been a society that has succeeded by giving people different sets of political rights by birth. In fact, so many New Zealanders have come to escape the class system of England, the caste system of India, the one-party State of China, and the apartheid of South Africa—people dreaming of an equal future. Every good political movement, in 400 years; freedom of religion to believe what you want; equality between the sexes; equality between races; equality based on people’s sexuality—every good political movement has been about the simple idea that each human is born with the same basic rights. That is the way to address genuine challenges such as poverty and a lack of opportunity in education and health and welfare and housing, that we badly need to do. But if we divide our country into an ethno-State with different sets of political rights, depending on who your grandparents are, not only will we not achieve that, we will create a level of division and despair in this country that cannot be imagined in New Zealand as it currently conceives itself.

That is why we will be advocating, alongside a healthier economy, with less Government waste, less strangling regulation, and more respect for people who get up to make a difference in their own lives, along with healthier communities based on social services that really work with the premise of personal responsibility and the simple idea that people actually can make a difference in their own lives. We will also be advocating for New Zealand to be a modern, outward-looking, multi-ethnic, liberal democracy where every child or tamariki is born with the same bundle of political rights. That is perhaps the most important debate for New Zealand’s long-term future.

It is so good to have this House back. There is so much good work we can do holding this Government accountable and giving some hope of a better way forward to rebuild our country in the aftermath of COVID; or, perhaps more accurately, the Government’s expensive, cruel, and damaging, myopic, one-sided tunnel-visioned response to it. The ACT Party is thrilled to be here and can’t wait to do our best for this great country in 2022. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): E te Pīka, e te Whare tēnā tātou. Tēnā tātou i a tātou e pōhiri nei i te tau 2022. Kāti ake, ā, ko te wehi ki a Ihowa o ngā mano me ōna manaakitia i a tātou kei ngā tini āhuatanga o te wā. E kī ahau, ki ō tātou tini mate, ngā mate huhua o te wā, ngā mate kei runga i tēnā marae, kei runga i tēnā marae, tēnā kāinga, tēnā kāinga o tātou. Arā ko taku tuahine tērā i roto i Te Whakatōhea, ki a Kay i riro tītapu ki te pō i nehua i tāinahi, me ngā mate huhua o te wā. Kua rere ngā mate, haere, haere, whatungaro atu rā. Hoki mai rā ki a tātou ngā mahuetanga iho, ngā toe iho, ki a tātou e pae nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

[To the Speaker, to the House, greetings to all of us who have been welcomed here in 2022. May we be protected by the Lord God in the many current issues that we face. We mourn the many deaths, the many recent deaths on each and every marae and in each and every home of ours. Specifically, I mourn my sister Kay from Whakatōhea, who was taken recently and was buried yesterday, but also mourn the other many deaths. The dead have flown, go, go, be gone. I now return to us all, to those left behind, to those that remain, to us sitting here. Greetings, greetings, be well one and all.]

Well, as I reflect on the year that has gone, and I know many have done that—it was a big year and it was a hard year and it was trying year for many. But, with COVID, and with the summer period of the unknown, we are still here today ensuring the safety of all that live here in Aotearoa.

But let me bring you to a kaupapa that has been at the core of everything we have done, but at the core of our announcements in the last few days during the celebrations—or the commemorations—of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The whakapapa of Te Tiriti o Waitangi needs to be continued to be discussed and wānanga-ed at every level of this country, from this House—where it is not evident; it is not evident in this Chamber. I see a lot of spare space on this wall where Te Tiriti o Waitangi should be evident. It should guide the discussions of this House.

The whakapapa of Te Tiriti o Waitangi article 1, as I have said before, consented to custodianship of the Crown. Article 2 consented to Kāwanatanga and to maintain rangatiratanga over our whenua, our awa, our moana, our people, and our domains. Article 3 was to be treated as equals. Māori have been good partners through Te Tiriti o Waitangi for the last 182 years. We have consented to Kāwanatanga and we have upheld our part of the deal. Rangatiratanga has not been upheld. The Crown has not honoured the Treaty. We continue to fight for the equal rights of Māori to participate in our country’s democracy.

We talked about divorcing the Queen—this Waitangi Day, Te Paati Māori announced the removal of the British Crown and the royal family as head of State, and move Aotearoa to a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa. Now, if you look at it as a marriage—if you look at it as a marriage—tangata whenua went into a marriage with the Crown, and they beget a child called Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Just because the divorce happens doesn’t mean the child still doesn’t exist. And so what we are calling for is to relinquish the Crown as head of State of Aotearoa, but to allow Te Tiriti o Waitangi to guide us, to create a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa between tangata whenua—and like, David Seymour said in his speech, and I heard him supporting this, is that we have tangata Tiriti sit in their rightful place: to be able to make equal decisions for the wellbeing of our country. So just because the divorce happens doesn’t mean the child still doesn’t exist. So it is time for an adult and a mature conversation to the herald the dawn of a new union: a marriage of equality between tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti to create a true Aotearoa; an Aotearoa our tīpuna envisaged and consented to, a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa.

Our vision is not reform, because reform is a sugar-coated mechanism to be better servants to the system. As we work towards equality, let’s not confuse diversity and inclusion with equality—because it usually shows up with an obsession with numbers. How many Māori are in the photo? Have we met our 20 percent Māori quota? How many Māori are in Cabinet? All we are seeing is chocolate sprinkles put over a vanilla cake—the cake is still vanilla. Our mana motuhake policy is the reconciliation of our indigenous truth and our re-indigenisation of our collectivism as tangata whenua. Our mana motuhake policy is the revolutionary transformation of who we are as mana whenua of this nation, as tuakana of this nation.

The establishment of a Māori Parliament is critical to our constitutional transformation. The implementation of Matike Mai recommendations is also part of that policy. The overhaul of the Treaty settlement process and to return land to whānau, hapū, and iwi by ensuring the private and local government land is returned to mana whenua, introducing a first right of refusal policy, and I thank the Greens for supporting this part of our policy because it means we are in agreement with this particular policy in our mana motuhake endeavours. We want to return conservation land in the Department of Conversation estate to whānau, hapū, and iwi Māori. Land back must become reality for tino rangatiratanga. To be achieved, we must commit to restore our environment and tackle the climate change crisis—and I look forward to the invitation by the Greens’ co-leader to have those discussions—by allowing mātauranga Māori to lead the way. Only indigenous knowledge will save this planet—because science hasn’t.

There is a new generation on the rise. You have the baby boomers, you have Gen Y, Gen Z, the Millennials. I have dubbed this next generation as ‘Gen T’: Generation Tiriti. They are intelligent, they are strategic, and they are in tune, and—dare I say it—they are woke. We are here to dismantle and they are here to dismantle the system, and I am here for it.

Our mahi for the year ahead: in 2022, we will continue to be the unapologetic Māori voice for a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa and be a continued powerhouse in Opposition. Just last month, we supported the call for musicians, artists, and creatives who had the rug pulled from under them with the sudden cancellation of events. Thankfully, the Government listened and has now fronted up with more support. This, once again, shows the power of Te Paati Māori’s voice on the cross benches, and that even more Te Paati Māori MPs next term—and I believe we’re the kryptonite everybody’s talking about—will lead to even more wins for our people.

Our people expect and deserve liberated representatives who will be ashamedly Māori, always; who will not bow down to the Crown; and who do not suffer cognitive dissonance, where our actions conflict with our values. This year, we will continue as we’ve begun. We will continue to elevate the voices of te pani me te rawakore and fight against inequalities in the widening inequality that this country has seen.

COVID has not only highlighted the injustices in society but made it far worse. As economist Bernard Hickey has reported, the Government’s COVID policies made the rich $952 billion richer, while the poor have been forced with a $400 million further in debt to the Government itself. The poor now need more than twice as many food parcels as before COVID. As prices continue to rise much faster than wages, it is Māori, as always, who bear the brunt of capitalism’s failures. This is clear when looking at the housing market. We are seeing the biggest wealth transfer in generations: from hardworking whānau to greedy property developers and landlords. Since 1986, the number of Māori forced to rent has increased by 88.3 percent; 70 percent of Māori cannot afford homes and are living in rentals; one-third of Māori live in houses considered damp and/or overcrowded; Māori make up 50 percent of the waiting list for social housing; 30 percent of Māori pay rent that is over 30 percent of their weekly income; and 33 percent of Māori will shift residence every three years.

At the same time, there were 191,646 unoccupied houses on census night in 2018—38,000 of those ghost houses were in Auckland. At least 12,000 tangata whenua are homeless in their homeland. This is one of the most significant Treaty breaches of today. We have created a generation of renters and we are holding them hostage with the very real prospect of homelessness. Te Paati Māori will continue to push for bold solutions to the housing crisis, including taxing unearned wealth through capital gains and a ghost house tax; we will massively increase the construction of State houses while enabling papa kāinga housing at scale through regular reforms and increased investment; and we will stop all sales of freehold land to offshore foreign interest.

My member’s bill on electoral law overhaul needs this House to support all the recommendations. If we do not, we fall short. We need a fair electoral system that does not limit and suppress Māori participation. Our electoral law is archaic, it’s discriminatory, and it’s racist. There are only two opportunities for Māori to choose the electoral rolls: either at the time of initial enrolment or during the Māori Electoral Option period, which the last time was in 2018. So if you wanted to change in the election for 2020, you couldn’t because your next option is 2024. So you miss the next election in 2023 and so you participate on the roll of your choice in 2026. This is no accident. The barriers in place are calculated to lock tangata whenua out from fully participating in this country’s democracy. The system is designed to disenfranchise Māori voters and lock us out. My member’s bill is to remove the racism that locks our people out of their right to change rolls for up to eight years—it’s an eight-year lockout.

Specifically, the bill will allow Māori to change between the Māori and general rolls at any time; to change the requirement to redraw electoral boundaries; to set a date two years after each general election; set a legislative requirement that if somebody stipulates they are Māori when enrolling but doesn’t choose an electoral roll, they are automatically placed on the Māori roll; change the name of the general electoral district to “non-Māori electoral district” because you’ve got the Māori roll, the general roll, and then the general election—it doesn’t make sense. I am encouraging all my fellow MPs to support this bill. Supporting is consciously choosing to actively participate in a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa, recognising the mana of the Treaty that our ancestors signed together. If not, then we choose to continue to discriminate against tangata whenua and you choose to uphold this blatantly racist legislation.

Seabed mining is another one of our members’ bills. Te Paati Māori will also continue to assert the kaitiakitanga of tangata whenua and for the restoration of our whenua, moana, and taiao. The other Te Paati Māori member’s bill—under Debbie Ngarewa-Packer in the ballot—the Prohibition on Seabed Mining Legislation Amendment Bill, which would ban seabed mining in Aotearoa. Debbie’s Ngāti Ruanui and the iwi of Te Tai Hauāuru have been fighting for years against the greed of international corporates who would destroy our moana and offshore profits. They follow in the proud tradition of whānau, hapū, and iwi across Aotearoa who have fought against the pollution of our taiao and the desecration of our whenua taurikura such as Te Whānau-a-Apanui, my own people. I stood on the front lines of the protest that worked to get Petrobras out of the Raukumara.

Ngāti Ruanui have won in the courts time and time again, including in the Supreme Court in September of last year, and we are very proud of that. It’s now time for the Government to follow the precedent of the courts and to do what’s right: adopt Debbie’s bill, ban seabed mining in Aotearoa, and, while they’re at it, onshore drilling and fracking too.

We are entirely focused on advancing the aspirations of our people because we are the true indigenous political voice and movement in this House. We will continue to support bills that do that and oppose policies that harm our people, regardless of who puts them forward.

Nō reira, e te iwi Māori, kia kaha, kaha ki a tātou e hika mā.

[Therefore, I say to the Māori people, we must indeed continue to stay strong.]

We must continue to be the protectors and the projectors of our indigenous voice, we must continue to be the unapologetic Māori voice for our liberation, and we must continue to re-indigenise our world for the sake of our whenua, our moana, our mokopuna, and our future. Why? Because we are magic.

Nō reira, e hika mā, ka nui aku kōrero mō tēnei wā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katou.

[And so, I will leave my speech there. Greetings, greetings, be well one and all.]

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Māori Crown Relations: Te Arawhiti): Tēnā rā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ahakoa kua tae tātou ki te marama o Pēpuere e tautoko ana ahau i ō mihi ki a tātou mō te tau hou nā reira, huri rauna i tō tātou Whare tēnā rā tātou katoa.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. Although we have reached the month of February, I support your New Year’s greeting to us all and I also greet everyone in all parts of the House.]

I’ve reflected on the speeches of those who have stood before me this afternoon, and I have to say it’s only been 12 months since I’ve heard a more lacklustre speech than the one from the Leader of the Opposition. It was forgettable. He did miss his cue, and the debate just about ended before it started, but what was amusing was that within two sentences he said that “the National Party’s ready”. Obviously, when you miss your cue the National Party is not ready whatsoever.

But what concerned me most of all in his speech was his lamenting of our incredibly low unemployment rate. This Government has done superbly well in making sure people do have incomes and are able to feed their families, and yet what sort of politician, what sort of political party, laments a low unemployment rate? The National Party, and the ACT Party as well.

I was also really disappointed to listen to David Seymour, because somehow he buys into that whole theory that Māori are privileged and have greater rights than other New Zealanders. It’s interesting, Sir James Hēnare said, “Unity doesn’t mean to say we have to be the same”. We’re not the same, and I speak often about crossing over the bridge that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the Pākehā world into the Māori world. And I ask David Seymour, does he want to cross that bridge from his Pākehā world into the Māori world? Because he sees New Zealand and everybody in New Zealand being equal, if they are equal in his mould, in his vision of Aotearoa. And what’s really sad is that David Seymour has Māori whakapapa but he was born into the non-Māori world, and he wants everybody to be equal in his image. The reality is Te Tiriti o Waitangi in article 3 guaranteed equity. And if equity means that Māori have lower life expectancy, have lower employment rates, have lower education, then that’s not equity, and what he’s doing is actually going against the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. He has proved that he does not want to cross that bridge that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi and learn more about his own whakapapa.

He spoke about healthy and thriving communities, but then he disagreed with every single thing that this Government has done to make sure, through this pandemic, that we have healthy and thriving communities. We have had 53 deaths over two years because of the pandemic. Just 53. That’s averaging one every fortnight. Not 53,000: 53. Some countries around the world have had 53 deaths before lunchtime each day. This Government has done an incredible job at keeping New Zealanders alive. They lament a few other things, and they are upset about a few other things, but what is more upsetting than losing a family member unnecessarily? This Government, what we have done, has worked.

I reflect on the Prime Minister’s statement and I want to just quote a few parts from it. She says, “In a pandemic that moves swiftly, where new variants emerge quickly, no country has perfected the playbook.”—and we are saying we’re not claiming to have had a perfect response, but—“At every turn our goal has been to do what is right.”, and that everything we have done has been right because it has kept New Zealanders alive. Those political parties across the way, they don’t put the same value on human life that this Government has.

We have acted early and decisively to prevent the worst effects seen elsewhere and ensure our health workers haven’t had to carry the burden alone. It is an approach that has worked. Our confirmed cases, hospitalisations, and deaths have been the lowest in the OECD for each of the past two years. That is something to be celebrated and to be commended on. Unemployment is at record lows. Record numbers of New Zealanders have moved off a main benefit and into work. The measures we have taken have saved lives. Our policies protected jobs and saved businesses. The plan we followed has worked, and it has worked in saving Māori lives. I talk about my great grandmother, who passed away in 1919 as a result of the influenza after World War I. And I talk also about the urupā in the cemeteries and marae across the country, just like ours up north, in Ngāti Manu, where there is a stretch of ground that is full of graves and the bodies that are unmarked because people were dying so quickly up my valley that they didn’t have an opportunity to actually record who was dying. We avoided those sort of circumstances.

We have engaged with Māori since the start of the pandemic in 2020. I meet three different groups a week on the pandemic response—and they don’t make it easy for us, I’ll tell you. The Iwi Chairs Forum, those iwi chairs who are not affiliated to the forum, and then also other Māori organisations. There has been unequalled access for Māori to Ministers, to CEOs, to officials. We have listened and responded to many of their requests. We haven’t agreed all the time, we haven’t put everything in place that they’ve demanded, but we have acted on what Māori have asked of us.

The Prime Minister also talks about securing our economic future and, over the course of the pandemic, the Government has invested $8.8 billion in their health response. Over the past two years, we have invested $22.9 billion in saving jobs and businesses, and we’ve always said that a strong health response is our best economic policy. New Zealand has weathered the COVID-19 disruption better than many of our key trading partners. New Zealand’s economy grew by 4.9 percent over the last year and outperformed most of the OECD, led by our significant investment in keeping and creating jobs which the leader of the National Party disagrees with. We have record low unemployment, which the Leader of the Opposition party disagrees with. What’s the alternative, to lift unemployment? To have people out of work? That is the most preposterous idea in the history of this Parliament.

Record numbers of New Zealanders moving off a main benefit and into work; over 100,000 more people employed now than 12 months earlier; our primary sector obtaining record export prices; and a construction boom underpinned by the Government’s infrastructure programme—our plan as this Government has worked to keep people alive and the economy running. As I said, 53 deaths over two years, not 53,000, not 53 before lunchtime.

I just want to touch on some of the other work that—because each Minister has a work programme and I want to talk about some of the things that I’ll be doing in my portfolios. The first one is Oranga Tamariki. As we know, Oranga Tamariki for too long has put themselves up on a pedestal. They have been directing the state of play in communities and really what’s happened is things haven’t worked for our children. The future direction for Oranga Tamariki is going to put resources and decision making into the hands of the community. We have a future direction plan that will take three to five years to implement, which is going to change the way communities get to look after their children. The Māori medium / kaupapa Māori education programme: I hear that the Te Rūnanga nui o ngā Kura Kaupapa are going to the Waitangi Tribunal because they don’t believe that they have got their way; they want a Māori education authority and they’re comparing it to the Māori Health Authority. Now, one of the things I say is that the difference, the big difference between the Māori Health Authority and the Māori education authority that they are wanting is a Māori Health Authority looks after the health needs of all Māori. One hundred percent of Māori across New Zealand. The Māori education authority that they are talking about will look after about five percent of Māori learners, and I will never, ever agree to that. If we’re going to do something in Māori medium / kaupapa Māori education for Māori learners it has to be for 100 percent of our Māori children.

Matariki is a holiday that is fast approaching. For the first time, we get to celebrate a uniquely New Zealand Aotearoa holiday. New Zealand history in schools starts being taught later this year where the true history of New Zealand, not a vanilla history of New Zealand, is going to be taught. There is a lot the Government is doing.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Kia ora mai tātou. Labour has lowered the bar so low they will surely be remembered as the limbo Labour Government. The limbo-dancing Labour Government, an image I surely don’t want in my head, but one that is useful to set a structure to describe broken promises looking back, wasteful spending, and an inability to deliver looking forward. When we look at broken promises, first of all, certainly in the health space, the most obvious two that stand out are, firstly, a promise to deliver 20 mobile dental clinics by June 2021. Fail—broken promise. It doesn’t even come close, didn’t even start, wasn’t even on the agenda, didn’t make the Budget plan—just failed.

The second is free GP visits for those over 65, a big programme of about $385 million. Gone—shovelled under the couch, shovelled under the bed. Gone, completely removed for our older people. Two very clear broken promises. The clear failure to deliver in health spans many domains, and this Government actually needs to own them all over these last five years. I’ll certainly own every good and every bad of the National Government in health for the nine years preceding that, but this Government owns the last five years. They had the ability and the privilege to appoint DHB chairs; they signed off annual plans. This Government needs to own the last five years. Every single National health target when we handed over in 2017 is worse today than it was when we handed over. Oh, and by the way, it was getting worse before coronavirus struck, so we can’t just blame coronavirus for that.

When we handed over, there were only several thousand people on elective waiting lists, waiting for their surgery. Now, there are 100,000 who have had cancelled appointments, there are 30,000 who are waiting more than four months to see a specialist. While we are talking specialist services, over this Government’s five years, can Mr Little explain to me, please, Taranaki DHB’s reporting as an extreme risk 28 children between four to 16 years old “who have obstructive sleep apnoea or positive oximetry, tonsils grade two or above, snoring and pauses in breathing overnight” who are waiting more than six months for an ear, nose, and throat appointment? This is affecting their growth, development, concentration, and ability to learn and their behaviour. Every parent who has ever had a child with recurrent tonsillitis, a sore throat, snoring—that change in pitch that children have when their tonsils are enlarged—they will understand the importance of this measure. Minister Little, you own this. Your DHB is already reflecting it as an extreme risk. You need to do something with this.

Elective surgery is not the only area that this Government has failed to deliver. I’ve found it really interesting today; I was wondering how many people were going to stand up and talk about the 53 deaths under coronavirus. Every single death is tragic, but mortality by itself is stark, it is naked, it is cold, and it does not describe the fullness of the COVID consequences on New Zealanders. The British Medical Journal this week writes this: “Missed care for conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mental health, for example, has short and long term implications for morbidity and mortality. Measuring the pandemic’s effects only in terms of deaths due to COVID-19 fails to accommodate these important outcomes.” We need to understand the wider consequences of coronavirus beyond—and I accept a very good—53 deaths that we’ve had over two years, with each death tragic in its own right—absolutely. I don’t want to diminish that. But that cannot be our performance metric by itself. It is too shallow.

I want to focus on one particular aspect of health under coronavirus, and that’s cancer management. It worried me in the beginning, it continues to worry me today, and if we look back, under the Alpha strain what we know from Te Ahu o te Kahu is that in that first week after Alpha, or that first month after Alpha really hit us in April. If we particularly look at cancer diagnosis, particularly bronchoscopy, where we stick a telescope down the lung, looking for lung cancer, and gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, where we put a telescope down the mouth, generally, looking for bowel cancers—what we know is that in the month of April, compared to the previous year, we had 70 percent less bronchoscopies and endoscopies. Now, by October 2020, we’d actually caught up, but that delay in those people who weren’t able to get their endoscopy from April through to October has had a consequence.

Then what happened? The health system failed to prepare for Delta across ICU beds, nurses—you name it—and so when Delta struck on 17 August, again, if we look with the Government’s own data on diagnosis of cancer, we see, thankfully, less than what we saw with Alpha. But with Delta strain, in that first month of August to September, we see a 30 percent reduction in bronchoscopy and 30 percent reduction in GI endoscopy. Not clear if they’ve been caught up. Just want to mention bronchoscopy and lung cancer. It was a failure coming out of Alpha. It looks like it’s still a failure coming out of Delta. Lung cancer’s an area we need to do a lot of work in.

I have little faith in the ability of this Labour Government to deliver on its promises to deliver new ICU beds by July, to deliver 20-plus health infrastructure projects that the Prime Minister mentioned, to build roads, to improve housing, to reduce poverty, to support the cost of living, and lower inequality. Not only do I not have confidence, but, you know, the Treasury doesn’t have confidence in this Government doing that either—their own agency, their own agency reporting on Government, the investor confidence ratings, which came out a few months ago.

Now, investor confidence ratings: there’s two tranches. First tranche was done in our hands around about 2017. Second tranche was done 2018 to 2020, so in this Government’s hands. And if we look at what the investor confidence ratings do, it’s a Cabinet approval process for assessing agency investment performance and the level of confidence that stakeholders should place in the ability of an agency to manage its assets and investments. It is the confidence that stakeholders should place. Stakeholders? That’s you and me; that’s New Zealanders. This is the confidence we should have in these agencies.

What happened here is Cabinet identifies 25 Government State agencies and puts them through an assessment process. They select these 25 agencies because they’re responsible for roughly $100 billion or 75 percent of assets in the Crown’s balance sheets. So we’ve got an investor confidence rating from Treasury, and there were really important Government agencies—in our hands, there were 16, 17, and in this Government’s hands there are 18 to 20; the two rounds of investor confidence ratings assessments.

What do we see? Well, the first thing we see is an interesting change to the weightings under this Government’s hands. They reduced the weighting for project delivery from 15 percent to 10 percent. Too hard, can’t deliver, reduce the weighting. That’s not a good look. And then if we look across these 25 agencies, several worry me, but one that worries me particularly is the Ministry of Health, who is one of the few that has gone backwards under this Government’s management. They were a “C” in our hands, which was average; I accept that. They are a “D”, which the Treasury is reporting. In this Government’s hands, the trust that investors, the trust that New Zealanders can have in this Government managing the Ministry of Health is a “D”; 40 out of 100 points, in this Government’s hands. It’s unequivocal. This is Treasury reporting. Other agencies? A few have done well, and I’ll give credit to that. But across the board, this is not a good report for the Government’s handling or their ability or any faith we might have that they can deliver any of the fine and wonderful things they’ve said here today.

Some predictions: firstly, the health sector reforms in July will further damage workforce morale and the organisational change will result in a reduction in health services. Secondly, the Government will fail terribly to meet health targets and so will shift the goalposts away from targets. Oh wait, they’ve already done that. It’s called health indicators—health indicators that today, if you go to the website, say there is no problem accessing GPs. That is a dream. That is a terrible, terrible dream. Health indicators that say, actually, it’s a plus 3 percent, I think it is, delivery of specialist services. That also is a dream.

The third prediction I’ll make, and it’s a warning, is to Māori. To Māori in the Māori Health Authority, I say this: kia tūpato—be careful. A Māori Health Authority will be underfunded, under-resourced, and vital planks in the policy will be walked back before 1 July. Mark my words, we will see the true colours of the Crown-Māori relationship with this Government when key planks in the Māori health policy will be walked back before 1 July.

Our leader has proposed a vision of a stable economy, a productive economy enhanced by increased skills, increased learning, infrastructure that’s actually delivered on time, on budget, and in scope. We know how to do that. National knows how to deliver infrastructure. We know how to deliver jobs of the future. We know the importance of raising people out of poverty, reducing inequality—that progression, that upward mobility that we need to talk about—and the fact that before we spend money on social services, before we spend wealth on social services, we’ve got to create wealth. National proposes a stable economy that will let us have it all. We can have at all. We just need to be prudent, we need to be mindful, we need to be thoughtful, and this is the vision we bring to New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Courts): Happy New Year, Mr Speaker. As I listened to that speech, I couldn’t help but reflect on the saying “Beware a wolf wearing sheep’s skin”. And that’s the theme for the public: to beware of wolves wearing sheep’s skin, and I put my finger on that side of the House particularly. I want to say to Dr Shane Reti and the National Party that it does not matter how much you cut up the data, life matters—life matters—livelihood matters, and I’m proud to be a member of a Government in which we place that as a priority. And as my colleague Kelvin Davis said, the best economic response is a strong health response.

It’s a real pleasure to endorse the Prime Minister’s speech. I want to acknowledge her, acknowledge her leadership, and acknowledge also the manner by which she leads during this period. Make the comparison, I would say. I also I want to say that my heart goes out to her. I have seen sort of the kind of rhetoric that we don’t want to see in New Zealand. When I see people on social media and on placards where they’re threatening her, threatening her wellbeing, her family and their wellbeing, that does not belong to Aotearoa New Zealand.

When I see the racism that’s emerging—and I don’t care who you are: Pākehā, European, Māori, Pasifika, rainbow sector, elders, church leaders; if you are aiding and abetting that kind of rhetoric, I say, “They do not belong to Aotearoa New Zealand”. That’s not the kind of New Zealand that this Government is forging forward on. The Prime Minister is right when she was saying these are extraordinary times, and it is a testing time for this country; I want to say it is not for the victims of racism to try and address it. It is the culprits, the instigators, the perpetrators of racism—they must face up to that responsibility and it begins from this House and I say it begins from that side of the House.

I agree with the Prime Minister that the people of Aotearoa New Zealand by majority have risen to the challenges that we face. As the Prime Minister said, our confirmed cases, hospitalisations, and deaths have been the lowest in the OECD for each of the past two years. Unemployment is at record lows. Record numbers of New Zealanders have moved off a main benefit and into work with the minimum wage increasing every year, lifting families out of poverty. However, our Kiwi winter is around the corner and, as the Prime Minister has said, Omicron will not be the last variant. I take note of what’s happening around the Pacific region, and I’m so proud that we have a Government that continues not only to be concerned about the roll-out of vaccination for our people of Aotearoa New Zealand but recognising that we also have a place in the Pacific region in supporting what happens in the Pacific region. It remains a key priority of this Government to take pressure off our health services, so it’s critical that we work together, all of us, and I want to say to the Pacific community, we must commit to getting boosters and getting our children immunised. This Government will support your leadership in all that you do.

I want to acknowledge our providers right throughout the motu. They have been a leading arm of the Government’s response to COVID. They have been at the forefront. These are the frontline workers. But I’m not just talking about our health workers; I’m also talking about our Pacific communities who are working at the supermarkets, in the transportation sector, at the airport, at the hotel quarantine facilities. They are laying their lives on the line for the rest of Aotearoa New Zealand, and I take my hat off to you.

It remains, therefore, that our Government will continue to find ways of empowering and supporting our communities. The leadership that I have witnessed in the last two years—it’s just been amazing and I feel a sense of confidence. And I’m not just talking about our traditional chiefs and orators or our church leaders; I’m also acknowledging the leadership of our youth, our rainbow sector, our women, those up and coming clinicians that are graduating from university. I salute the leadership that you have played in these critical two years past.

The vaccine plays an important part in our preparations for Omicron. We need to ensure that our 5- to 11-year-old Pacific children are vaccinated and that all of our eligible Pacific peoples get their booster when they become due. It is critical that we vaccinate our children before the coming winter. It is critical to do this so that we can navigate our way through the traffic light system, and I’m delighted to say that the Pacific community’s response has been excellent. National vaccination figures show that 97 percent have received their first dose and 94 percent are fully vaccinated, with two doses. In Auckland, using both health survey user and primary health organisation data, we are at 94 percent partially vaccinated and 91.5 percent fully vaccinated of the 12-plus. In our boosters in Auckland, 30 percent, or 49,800 people, have received their booster. But we still need to do more. At the moment, the latest figures show just 42 percent of our Pacific population have boosters. The rest of Aotearoa has reached 52 percent and so we have to make sure that we rally our support, stand united, put aside any differences, and not listen to the rhetoric from this lot here but do the right thing for our families. So with our children aged from 5 to 11, it’s the same story that we’re hearing—that this Government will continue to support and empower the leadership.

I want to be able to make sure that we turn things around and achieve better vaccination, and that’s why we have been topping up the Prepare Pacific Community Vaccination Fund to the tune of $1.5 million. This will allow our community groups, churches, and youth to apply for up to $40,000 to do their plans in vaccinating boosters, children, and planning for self-isolation. The fund is run by The Cause Collective. This is one of our key movers and shakers in the Pacific community in South Auckland, who works to empower our Pacific people with information and action. So that’s available to support our communities.

As the Prime Minister has said, one of this Government’s key planks in terms of policy reform are our wide-ranging health reforms. The speech before seemed to blame everything on us. We inherited inequities. We inherited barriers and all you need to do is listen to Kelvin Davis’ speech—all you need to do. Don’t listen to me. Go talk to the Pacific communities in South Auckland. Go talk to the people who have suffered in and out of nine years of a National Government. Talk to those people. Talk to the people who were affected under the nine years of that Government. So the reform is about addressing those inequities. District health boards will be abolished and a new public health agency will be established. Along with these measures, the new Māori Health Authority will improve entrenched poor health outcomes for Māori. For Pacific people, it will see major changes of dedicated policy that will address inequities and supporting leadership throughout the new structure.

We also, this month, have seen a global mission to help Tonga, which has been led by the New Zealand Defence Force and our officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I want to acknowledge the wonderful, heartfelt response from peoples across Aotearoa, including people from across the House, putting aside my dislike of their speech—ha, ha!—I want to acknowledge just the wonderful way that people have responded. It recognises that we are part of whānau of the extended region, and I know that the work has only just begun, and I know that the Government of Tonga have been deeply appreciative of our response, not only in the volcanic eruption and the subsequent tsunami but also that we’re supplying them with the vaccine that they’ve asked for, to roll out for their boosters and, of course, for their young people.

I just want to finish off by saying remember the Prime Minister’s words of caring, of kindness, accepting of diversity, of culture, of standing together as opposed to the wolf in sheep’s skin—that’s the voice that I would not be listening to, because it takes us to a different kind of country, and that country is what is represented outside. That’s not New Zealand. That is not Aotearoa New Zealand, and any MPs associated with that, aiding and abetting that toxic rhetoric out there and on social media, don’t deserve to be called New Zealand.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to stand and speak today and talk about healthy, thriving communities. It has been a topic that ACT brought up and then Labour brought up—actually patting themselves on the back for how well they’ve done with their healthy, thriving communities. I don’t see that. The ACT Party do not see healthy, thriving communities. What we do see is that gang numbers have increased by over 50 percent since 2017, when Labour took over. What we do see, upon walking down the streets of Courtenay Place last year in December and talking to shop owners, is videos of extreme violence taking place on small-business owners as they try to go about their business. In one shop down Courtenay Place, a shop owner showed me videos of her staff members being punched in the head, of the doors at the front of her shop being smashed when people who were begging for money were not able to get it from the patrons trying to enter the shop, and the female shop keeper herself being thrown up against the wall for not allowing a person to store their drugs in her refrigerator.

What we are seeing is that people are becoming very, very scared to just go out into their streets—including another woman in Wellington who has a clothing shop down an alleyway, who said that she is now too afraid to open her doors, because people will come and urinate at her door while she has customers in the shop. The soft-on-crime approach that Labour has taken towards our communities is not healthy, and it does not allow our communities to thrive. People cannot afford basic amenities. They can’t get bread, milk. They’re struggling to pay their electricity bills, and when you start getting push notifications from the media, like we did today, suggesting that the $3 petrol price hike that we are seeing in some parts of the country means that the people that work at the petrol stations are being attacked, and they are asking us to, please, not take it out on them, we can’t justify this as being a healthy, thriving community—not when people are struggling to afford to live.

ACT has a future. We have policies that we think will help make New Zealand a healthy, thriving community in which to live. We can do this with some of the bills that we have already produced. We can do it by starting with addressing the crime rates. ACT has a criminal proceeds and recovery bill in the ballot box that we will be discussing. It will make sure that we can tax the gangs by taking away their assets, hitting them where it hurts—in their pockets, as ACT had originally said—by making sure that we can seize their assets upon finding them in possession of an illegal firearm. We also have—sitting in the ballot box—gang injunction orders. And while the firearm prohibition orders that the Government have laid will address some of the issues, we want to specifically target the gangs, and believe that this bill can do so.

We want to make sure that policing numbers in the future are based on our population, not on the Government’s priorities, which do not, obviously, look at a healthy, thriving community. We want to see our borders reopen so that critical workers and fruit pickers can get in, so that the tourists can come back, and so that those entrepreneurs who are making all sorts of things for New Zealanders and their tourists can continue to do so. Entrepreneurs strive to be successful, but, at the moment, they are being beaten down by bureaucracy. I want to make sure that those people can survive and that they can be a part of a community where they can thrive. These things are all needed to ensure that we have our healthy, thriving communities, and I’ve repeated that over and over again, because the reality is we have not got there. These are things that we’ve thought about, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg on how we can achieve it not only for our futures but also for the next generation, and we look forward to partaking in this year and bringing about our policies. Thank you.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Auckland traffic congestion has always been a hot topic. The city is growing quickly but roading and public transport simply haven’t kept up. My neighbour, who’s a 20-something hardcase tradie, told me it can take up to 90 minutes to get across the city to the big housing development that he works on in South Auckland. People who move to these new modern communities simply assume that the infrastructure, the transport networks, will already be there or will follow soon after, like four-laning rural roads in what is now suburbs inside the city limits and delivering decent public transport connections to where people live and work. But instead of solving these problems, the Prime Minister in 2017 announced the Government would build a light rail to the airport, starting with stops in her Mt Albert and Minister Woods’ Mt Roskill electorates by 2021. Well, I checked my calendar this morning and it’s 2022. Not a shovel has been turned and more than $100 million has been wasted.

A few weeks ago when the project was announced again by the finance and infrastructure Minister Robertson, he said it would be another six to eight years and only $15 billion to deliver this project. I’m going to make a prediction about Auckland light rail: this project’s going to get an award for the most announced. I’m going to make another prediction: it’s never ever going to be delivered. It’s going to stall at the planning stage. It’s going to stall under the terrible Resource Management Act consenting process. It’s going to stall when they try to work out how to relocate hundreds of kilometres of services along the route. It will fail at a cost of billions of dollars to taxpayers. And that is terrible, because we need efficient transport networks. We need good quality public transport to serve our fast-growing cities, to serve growing regions, and in order to support healthy communities and healthy business.

That is why ACT insists politicians stay the heck out of decision making when it comes to transport and infrastructure projects. Leave it to the experts, the experts who manage our roads and our infrastructure. ACT would entrust long-term planning and decision making to a new nation building agency, an independent agency that would prioritise transport projects by combining local knowledge with the smarts of the Infrastructure Commission, combine them with Crown Infrastructure Partners to get funding from the private and public sector. That’s how the nation-building agency would deliver more infrastructure and faster.

There is another major problem facing not just our transport sector but all of New Zealand, every sector, and that is this Government’s climate policy. The Prime Minister said climate change was her nuclear moment. Last year, this country imported record amounts of coal. If it was truly a nuclear moment, we would all be irradiated by now.

Now, in 2018, the Prime Minister announced a ban on oil and gas exploration. Since then, gas prices have skyrocketed. Manufacturing and production industries have either shut production lines or quit New Zealand altogether with the loss of jobs and all of those opportunities in the regions and in provincial communities. And according to climate Minister Shaw this afternoon, this Government and their Green Party coalition members are only just getting going. That should be a worry for everybody involved in making things and producing things in New Zealand.

Imagine being a New Zealand farmer, one of the most efficient and environmentally friendly farmers in the world. Your Government won’t give you any credits for the carbon that your farm takes up, whether it’s by growing grass in the soil or in the native bush you have on your farm. But they will tax you for the amount of greenhouse gases you produce. If a carbon investor buys that same farm, they can plant pines on it and take the carbon credits. ACT has a better idea than this Government. We believe that New Zealand should be allowed to trade in international carbon credits. Trade is our nation’s lifeline. So why does this Government make it illegal to trade in carbon credits? People are telling me, New Zealand needs ACT more than ever.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member’s time has expired. The Hon Poto Williams—five minutes.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Happy New Year, Madam Speaker, and greetings to all members across the House. I hope we’ve all had a chance to have a bit of time with family and friends and to rest after what has been a couple of very difficult years. And I want to thank you for presiding in what is definitely going to be a most robust discussion on the Prime Minister’s debate.

There’s no doubt that this year will continue to be a year where we explore lots of different ideas on how we help our country get through what is a very difficult time, and a big group of people who are helping us do that are the New Zealand Police. My thanks, my grateful thanks, go out to them because so many of them have given up a lot of their time, a lot of their family time, to make sure that we are safe, that we are well, and that we are protected, and I want to thank them so much for the work that they do.

Last week, I was at a graduation at the Royal New Zealand Police College—another 80 fine police graduates; I really enjoy going to graduations, because increasingly we are seeing New Zealand reflected in our graduates: more women; more Māori, Pacific, and other ethnicities; more representatives of our LGBTQI communities—people who put themselves out there to keep our community safe, and I want to thank them so much for that.

These 80 new officers that I saw last week join the ranks of the largest police force ever in New Zealand—an increase of 15 percent since we came to Government. They’re also better equipped with the necessary tools and training that’s being rolled out, in part due to our $45 million investment into front-line safety. But police are facing an increasingly complex environment, whether it’s policing during a pandemic or increasingly sophisticated organised crime, and of particular concern is the use of firearms to inflict harm on our communities. That’s why this Government is committed to tackling firearms violence in our communities by undertaking the most significant reform of our firearms laws in recent times.

Tomorrow, as has already been signalled, the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill has its first reading. This bill will introduce another tool to reduce gun crime and keep firearms out of the hands of those who would do us harm. Those subject to a firearms prohibition order will not be able to use, access, or be around firearms for 10 years. This is another part of our comprehensive plan to tackle gun crime.

When I visit police on their bases and at their stations—and, you know, we’ve been a little bit disrupted; I haven’t been able to get out as much as I would have liked—I ask them about what’s the most important thing for them, what we can do as a Government to keep them safe. They tell me, “More cops—more cops on the beat.” That’s why I’m really proud to support the work that we’ve been doing to increase our police. We’re still on target to deliver the 1,800 extra police into our service. But for me, as Minister of Police, I know that I will be privy to two of the most important things that I can do. Firstly, what I can do to support our police to be safe—and I’ve already talked about our investment into front-line safety which looks at lifting the training for our front-line police, lifting the training for police on base, which means that we have ready access to the best trained police when the most significant issues happen out there in our community; better analysis; and better deployment.

But the other thing that I can do is to make sure that our gun laws are fit for purpose and that our register is up to date so that we know that when we are deploying our police they are going into situations that they can assess the safety of, that they can make good decisions about that. But the other reason that’s really important is having a good handle on how to keep our community safe. If we know where firearms are, we know how to keep our community safe. So I’m really looking forward to this year to putting some more of that flesh on the bones of that particular piece of work. I’m proud of this Government.

Just one more message: please, please, please make sure you get your boosters because that will keep us all safe. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Arena Williams—five minutes.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): E te Pīka, ngā mihi o te tau hou ki a koe. Kei te Whare e tū nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I tēnei wā o Waitangi, ka huri ōku whakaaro ki ngā tāngata katoa o te motu e noho kotahi ana i te mana, i te mauri, i te maru o Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

[Madam Speaker, greetings of the new year to you. To the House that stands here, greetings to us all. At this time of Waitangi my thoughts turn to all the people in this country living as one under the authority, the spirit, and the protection of the Treaty of Waitangi.]

Madam Speaker, greetings of the new year to you. At this time in the year when we acknowledge the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, my thoughts turn to all of the people of Aotearoa who carry the hopes and aspirations of our tupuna who signed it in 1840. And though we could not come together this year ā-tinana on Waitangi Day, we can take time to reflect on what it means for each other and for us all to be a good partner to one another and how we need to work in partnership to improve outcomes for Māori and for all New Zealanders.

In this Government’s work, I see examples of that spirit of partnership in the efforts to understand and rectify injustices. I see, for example, the new Pae Ora Legislation Committee’s work, which I’m a member of, to establish the new Māori Health Authority. As you heard the Prime Minister say earlier, Māori suffer from more avoidable deaths than most New Zealanders. We have lower life expectancy, and we do not always receive the same quality of care. Māori die at twice the rate as non-Māori from cardiovascular disease, and Māori tamariki have a mortality rate 1½ half times the rate of non-Māori children. Māori are more likely to be diagnosed with, and to die from, cancer, and these inequities cannot continue. Past efforts have failed to fix these inequities, and we must change the way we work. It’s a privilege to be a part of a committee which is hearing from health leaders around the country, from clinicians, the doctors and nurses who make the health system work every day. And they are calling for this change, because we know that a fairer health system for Māori will be a fairer and more effective health system for all New Zealanders.

I see us learning from what this pandemic has been able to teach us about the underlying inequities in that health system that have built up over many generations, as we build on our COVID protections and get ready to fight Omicron. Māori and Pacific health and community providers remain an essential part of that plan. I mihi to the kaimahi in South Auckland, at Papakura Marae, at Manurewa Marae, who are out there vaccinating our population; at the airport park and ride, and our local pharmacists and GPs, like my mum, who has vaccinated 98 percent of her patients, predominantly Māori and Pacific, in the heart of South Auckland. These providers have driven our Māori vaccination rates around the country to 90 percent first dose and are providing care in the community for those who need to isolate. The Government supported their work by directly investing over $250 million, including $120 million to fund Māori communities to fast track vaccinations and prepare for Omicron. It has provided the basis for our close partnerships as we design the paediatric and booster roll-outs, as well as the care and community programme, which so many providers in South Auckland are already providing.

I see us investing in education designed and delivered by Māori for Māori learners. We will continue to grow Māori-medium and kaupapa Māori education to meet the needs of ākonga over the long term. We’re aiming to see 30 percent of Māori learners participating in Māori-medium education by 2040. To prepare for this, we’re planning for more Māori-medium providers and to train more teachers who are fluent in te reo, and will also reform the legislation underpinning the Māori-medium education programme in New Zealand.

I see us protecting our taiao, which is our identity and our sustenance. A low-carbon future for Aotearoa is within reach, powered by clean energy and underpinned by protecting and restoring the whenua. Climate change is an opportunity for new jobs and higher wages, and iwi and Māori are at the table. For a country already earning a premium for our clean, green, innovative image, there’s an opportunity to use that natural advantage to create jobs and new industries which Māori are so well positioned to champion.

I see us embedding a national holiday into our calendar which is truly unique to Aotearoa. Matariki is a deity, it’s a star, it’s an agricultural marker, and now it’s a public holiday that we can all celebrate. It’s a symbol of acknowledgment of the loved ones we have lost in a year, but it’s also a symbol of rebirth and hope for the future. I am hopeful for the future when I see the strides this Government has made for Māori, and for the Māori kids like mine with blue eyes and blonde hair, who will see themselves reflected in the doctors and nurses in a new fairer and more equitable public health system. They will see their stories told on a national stage and celebrated by everyone. These are challenges ahead, but we have learnt how to fight a virus together, and that togetherness, that kotahitanga, that partnership will stand us in good stead for the future. Tēnā tātou.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): As we gather in Parliament for the first day of the sitting in 2022, as tradition has it, we listen to the Prime Minister of the day’s statement, and we will debate this for 13 hours. So what did we hear today? Well, actually, another year, another list of hollow statements and empty promises—feels a bit like Groundhog Day, actually, for those of us who’ve been here before.

We had the year of delivery. Can anyone actually remember anything that was delivered? Then, of course, we had last year, which was heralded as the year of the vaccine. And how did that go? So, you know, on this side of the House, we acknowledge that in the first year of the COVID outbreak the Government did a good job. But to take credit for outstanding results last year is, quite frankly, appalling. I want to use the words of the Prime Minister’s own speech to challenge that: “New Zealand enters a third challenging year confronting the global pandemic better prepared than many other countries”. Really? Sixty-eight billion dollars of additional spending, higher levels of debt—but it won’t be those of us sitting around the Chamber today that have to worry about it; it’s our children and grandchildren that will bear the price for that. The highest spend per capita than any other country, and are New Zealanders feeling better off? No, they’re not. And the words in here: “to chart a path through the disruption and beyond into the recovery”—well, I thought the Minister of Finance had already started spending the billions of dollars for the recovery. No one out there feels better off, and that’s actually how people measure it.

So what’s it going to be this year? Is it going to be the year of central command and control? Is it going to be the year of spin and self-congratulations? Or perhaps the year of an alternate reality? The Prime Minister talks about preparing for winter. I think, for the Labour Government, it will be a very long winter, a winter of discontent and a winter that never ends, as the chills of public frustration at the decisions they are making come to roost. Because the reality is, when the Prime Minister talks about the fact that the last two years have tested New Zealanders in ways we have not seen for many decades, they’ve been tested, Prime Minister, because of the very decisions you have made, or the decisions you haven’t made, the plans you haven’t made, the actions that weren’t in place fast enough. So the damage has been done, and much of that damage could have been avoided.

I think about the families in my electorate. I think about the businesses in hospitality, in tourism, and events, that are absolutely decimated because of the decisions and the lack of planning and preparation by this Government. But, no, we sit here on a happy sunny day in February and hear the Prime Minister spread out some more empty promises, some more empty ideas of how wonderful it is right now. It is so far from many New Zealanders’ reality it is a joke. So I invite the Prime Minister to actually get amongst and listen to the people she represents. I was talking to one of her constituents the other day who said, “How do I get to go and meet my MP? How do I raise an issue with my MP?” And they can’t. Well, they should have every same access to her as an MP that any other member of the public does.

But let’s have a look at what this four years of failure—four years of failure—of a Labour Government has done to people. What has that meant in the area of social policy? Well, unfortunately, I agree with the former ACT speaker about the fact that many New Zealand families are struggling each and every day. We talk about the increase in petrol prices to $3 a litre. That’s a massive increase for households who are already struggling. The increase of $125 a week in rent—well, where does that come from? When the Consumers Price Index is nearly twice what the wage inflation is, that means New Zealand households have got less to spend in real terms. So, yep, Prime Minister, when you talk about the last two years testing New Zealanders, well, I actually think, under your decisions and the decisions this Government’s making, more New Zealand families, more individuals will be tested further in the weeks, months, and years ahead.

There’s nothing kind. There’s nothing caring or compassionate about many of the decisions that have been made under her watch, and, invariably over the summer, you have all of the barbecue conversations and the resounding comment has been that New Zealanders hate how divided we have become. And they never thought they would see a country with that level of division.

Well, on this side of the House, actually, we see greater opportunities for people, and one of the opportunities comes through work, and our leader, Christopher Luxon, clearly stated that in his response to the Prime Minister’s statement. Labour will crow about the fact that there are record numbers of New Zealanders moving off a main benefit. Guess what? There are record numbers going on. There are 90,000 more on benefit than there were four years ago. That’s four years of failure for those individuals and their families.

And what’s worse, we’ve seen a dramatic increase in the length of time that people are staying on benefit. So for the jobseeker benefit, previously called the dole, there’s been a 59 percent increase in the number of people who are on it for more than a year, at the very same time we have record levels of unemployment—something doesn’t add up—and at the very same time that just about every second business you walk past, whether it’s a supermarket, whether it’s a manufacturing plant, is advertising for jobs with posters. Go through the Hawke’s Bay, as I did with the leader a couple of weeks ago. It was astounding—quite shocking, in fact—just how many signs there were with businesses desperate for workers. So it doesn’t add up, Prime Minister. It’s clearly a failure of the welfare system to have a 59 percent increase in the number of people on the jobseeker benefit who’ve been stuck there for more than a year. Because the sad, hard facts are, the longer you are on a benefit and disconnected from employment the harder it is to connect.

Oh, so then, of course, we come out with this wonderful thing called social insurance. Guess what? The best thing that people can do is get back to work as quickly as possible after losing one. We’ve seen economists already saying this is Labour who have an intent to spend another $3 billion or $4 billion. And what do they get as an outcome? Not much—not much. People are saying, “Oh, well, actually, in between jobs I could just have a bit of a holiday. I could have a bit of a break.”, because that’s what you can do if you’re getting 80 percent of what you would have been earning previously. Oh, but, actually, who pays for it? The very same hard-working family that is already struggling to meet the costs day to day, week to week, because it’s going to be an extra tax on them.

So I thought the Prime Minister promised no new taxes. Well, this is clearly a tax. It’s a job tax at the very time households can’t afford it. The Prime Minister also talked about New Zealanders that have been tested. Well, there’s a particular group that has seen no kindness or caring from her, and that is superannuitants who have been stuck overseas and can’t get a managed isolation and quarantine slot. Not only have they had their pension cut, they’re now getting bills to pay that back—$10,000, $12,000, $18,000 in debt to the Ministry of Social Development, when, as the National Opposition, we offered them the solution months ago. We offered them the solution, requested that exemptions be granted, but, no, the Government refused to support superannuitants who through no fault of their own have been stuck overseas and the Government want to cut them off. That’s not kind or caring.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Rino Tirikatene—five minutes.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou i te Whare i tēnei tau hou. Harikoa te ngākau kua tae mai nei ki te tautoko i te kōrero a te Pirimia.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker, and greetings to everyone in the House in this new year. I am delighted to have come to support the Prime Minister’s statement.]

I am delighted to speak in wholehearted support of the Prime Minister’s statement this afternoon and the work programme that she has outlined for our Government. We know these are unprecedented, challenging times. Throughout the whole world, COVID-19 is unprecedented and it’s just causing absolute havoc. But our country, Aotearoa, we’ve done very well through this. Together, we have risen to the challenge, and, I think, whilst the other side can quibble about—moan about—this, that, and the other thing, at the end of the day, we are leading the world in terms of our response and the fact that our people are protected and that our vaccination rates are at record levels right across the board.

I just want to acknowledge the work that we’ve been doing as a Government in such trying times to be able to lead our country through the COVID-19 pandemic. We are doing so much work in this area. I have the utmost respect for the work of our Prime Minister and our Government in what they’re doing. We need to just look at where we’re at, because, yes, our economy may have taken a little hit in terms of tourism in certain sectors—that is the case all over the world—but our merchandise exports, our primary sectors, they are actually making record returns. Our export growth has been going up in the midst of this global pandemic. So I give credit to our export industries. I give credit to all our exporters, those hard-working folks that are actually ensuring that they can continue to operate in the most trying times, in these uncertain times. We are trying to give them the confidence and the certainty that they can continue to trade so we can continue to sell our products around the world and maintain the wonderful standard of living that we have here.

We are doing so much in terms of management of this global pandemic, but I also want to ensure that, at the same time, we are taking care of all of the other long-term challenges—immediate challenges as well—that are facing our country. As our Prime Minister has outlined, whether it’s in the areas of housing, health, infrastructure, climate change, we are doing so much work in those areas. Case in point, the work in infrastructure. I was delighted to accompany the member for Southland, Joseph Mooney, this morning to the opening of a brand new school in Queenstown—Te Kura Whakatipu o Kawarau. A wonderful, pristine, brand new school. This is the third school that’s had to be opened because of the growth that’s happening in the Lakes District in the Queenstown area. In spite of the global pandemic, the huge hit that they’ve taken in tourism, we have been supporting regions such as the Lakes District through investments in infrastructure, transport connectivity, and the opening of new schools to ensure that we can support these thriving communities that are around Aotearoa. So it’s not all doom and gloom. We are actually doing some wonderful support right across the country, and that’s a case in point.

I want to talk about what we’re doing also in health. Let’s not underestimate the groundbreaking reforms that we are doing, particularly in Māori health and the creation of a Māori Health Authority. I chaired the Māori Affairs Committee in the last Parliament, and it is so patently clear that there are inequities right across our health system in how it delivers to Māori and to other groups in Aotearoa society, but particularly to Māori. We need to address those inequities. If there’s a sick Māori and a sick non-Māori that go into the health system, unfortunately, the Māori doesn’t come out the better; they come out worse than compared to the non-Māori. So we need to address those inequities, and the Māori Health Authority, which is what we recommended as a committee, is now in its formative stages. I’m really looking forward to seeing the work that that does in conjunction with Health New Zealand, what we’re doing in public health, which will really be a game changer in terms of delivering better health outcomes for Māori and for all New Zealand. Those are absolutely wonderful reforms that we are doing.

I want to get back to the economy, because we need to be able to—we’re a productive economy, we need to sell our goods around the world, and we want to be more productive, absolutely. We can do that by the work that we have already done through free-trade agreements. Under our new Trade for All agenda, we have the UK fair-trade agreement—a landmark FTA in terms of access, better access for our exporters into those markets, absolutely wonderful gains for Māori under that trade agreement, and we will soon be doing an FTA with the EU. This year we really are going to be launching across the world. Our Prime Minister will be leading the way. I hope to be chipping in in terms of the contribution that we will be doing to really reconnect and to ensure that we can have that thriving Aotearoa that we are all proud of. Kia ora tātou.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can’t recall much from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, but I do recall that he mentioned be buys his cheese for $16 or $17 a kilo. I just received a message from my husband. He says, “We buy it for $10.60 every week, not even when it’s on special.” So he might want to shop around a little bit, out of that expensive deli that he might normally be visiting.

But, in all seriousness, New Zealanders have done the mahi and in large numbers they have gone through lockdowns, they masked up, they physically distanced, and on mass they have vaccinated, they’ve taken their boosters, and generally, as a country, we have looked after each other and our communities. And, as a result, what we’ve seen in New Zealand is we have fewer COVID cases and we have fewer hospitalisations and deaths than anywhere else in the OECD. And it’s also fantastic to see that we now have 4 million New Zealanders—that’s 94 percent of our country—fully vaccinated, and also 1.5 million New Zealanders have already taken their booster vaccination. So awesome effort from the team of 5 million.

But it’s not to say in any way that these last few years haven’t been stressful. In fact, we know that many have done it really tough. But no country has been immune from COVID, and, as the Prime Minister said in her speech, no country is immune from the Omicron disruption, but we are and we have been working very hard to make sure that we avoid the worst of that.

Like many others, border closures meant that I was separated from loved ones. In my case, that meant that I was separated from my family in the Netherlands. And while in New Zealand we were able to have our lives pretty much as normal for the last two years, with greater freedoms than in most other countries, I could see how being locked up and stuck in their homes for fear of going out and not being safe took its toll on my parents. And, at the same time, I also feared for the health and wellbeing of my sister, who works in a place where they look after the more vulnerable and the elderly, and where, in fact, many, many died during the COVID outbreaks. It’s not only that; when a country gets overwhelmed with COVID, the health services get strained to the point of breaking, and it means that many people can’t get their healthcare.

So it’s very stressful when you fear your parents getting sick or when you fear that you may never see them again. And it’s agonising to have to watch family overseas not able to get the healthcare that they need. So like many others did, I applied for managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) and to get a room so I could travel to my whānau in the Netherlands and help out where I could. And seventh time lucky in the MIQ ballot, I managed to secure one of those rooms.

But, putting the record straight, it wasn’t exactly the summer holiday that some have referred to. First of all, when I arrived in the Netherlands that week it was minus 4 degrees; so that is hardly summer. But also, as they had in 2020, Holland very quickly had to lock up all over Christmas and well into the New Year. As I said, it was the second year in a row they had to do that because cases were rising—and I don’t mean they were rising into the hundreds; they were rising into the thousands and then into the tens of thousands. And, in the Netherlands, the vaccination rate is roughly in the middle 80s, and also what they don’t do that many people may find surprising is they don’t have QR codes and they don’t do contact tracing.

So what living with the virus means in a country with a population of 17 million—which is roughly only just about three times New Zealand’s size—living with the virus means that 21,336 people have died from COVID, and many more, including my family, are suffering from long COVID. And, sure, the shops and the restaurants and the bars may be open, but the virus is going rampant. In the last 24 hours, they had 77,000 new cases—77,000 cases in a day. So 1,500 people in hospital, with 215 seriously ill in ICU, and that means that living with the virus means for so many that they can’t actually live life at all, and every day families lose loved ones, and they have since the very first day this pandemic started.

So that’s the setting when I say that I count my blessings every day for the fact that New Zealand had their approach to COVID. I count my blessings every day for our brilliant leader, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, for how she led our team and the team of 5 million in keeping ourselves, our communities, and everyone safe. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā tātou ōku hoa kaimahi i tēnei Whare Pāremata.

[Good morning, Madam Speaker, and greetings to all my colleagues in this the House of Representatives.]

I’m really honoured to rise today—my first, like everyone’s, speech in the House for the year. I echo my co-leader and colleague, James Shaw, in his earlier address today in that it’s really clear that a strong Green Party voice in Parliament and also in our ministerial work is absolutely essential to protect our strong climate for generations to come; to protect our natural world and our living system, which we absolutely depend on; and to make sure that we are taking proper care of our people and communities, and especially those who are struggling the most.

What it is appropriate—having had Waitangi Day just a couple of days ago—for me to say is that key to achieving those clear Green Party priorities of climate and equality and nature is finally realising and upholding the justice and the mana of Te Tiriti in the way that all of our tūpuna envisaged that to be, and especially our tangata whenua, chiefs, and rangatira of iwi and hapū, who signed our Treaty to uphold the mana motuhake and the tino rangatiratanga of our hapū over our lands and our peoples and our resources for ever, for as long as we determine we want to do that. That continues today.

Tiriti justice requires a sharing of power that we have not yet seen ever in the almost 200 years since the Treaty was signed. In all of the speeches of my colleagues here in the House—and this is a response to the Prime Minister’s statement where she outlined the many challenges that are facing us that we are all concerned with today—it is for those very challenges, it is for those very challenges, that I was proud to launch yesterday the Green Party’s Hoki Whenua Mai, a policy proposal which discusses how we can give land back, whenua back, to tangata whenua. The proposals are not just about giving whenua back to tangata whenua via a Crown-facilitated process that allows that, that ensures that that can happen, but we know that upholding the mana and the tino rangatiratanga of Te Tiriti is how we can work towards a more equitable Aotearoa for everyone. It is the current system, it is the current processes of making decisions in our country, which are not Tiriti-led. It is that current system which is unfair for many other people. It is a Tiriti process which offers us the most inclusive, most dignity-enhancing way of being able to realise everyone’s mana, everyone’s integrity, everyone’s dignity.

Hoki Whenua Mai—I am so proud that, I think it was, within the very day since announcing it yesterday, we are already seeing Pākehā and tauiwi coming to us, saying, “Yes. I would like to be on a register of lands where our land, where our land that I have benefited from and my family has benefited from, and generations, could be offered first back to tangata whenua.” We ourselves weren’t even expecting that much of a quick response. But we can see that people are ready to do the right thing, because, first and foremost, Aotearoa could be a leading country in the world upholding the sovereignty and mana motuhake of its indigenous peoples. Nowhere in the world has that contract, has that understanding been upheld properly, and we could, first and foremost, do the right thing and actually honour that.

But Hoki Whenua Mai will also lead to the better outcomes that we know are good for everyone, for long-term enduring kaitiaki responsibilities to be upheld, where our climate is far better protected for the generations to come, where people absolutely have homes and kai and what they need to live dignified lives, where we understand and have a far better relationship with our living system, with our living world around us.

Hoki Whenua Mai is about transforming the current oppressive power structure, which has denied communities and iwi and tangata whenua power for ever, which has led to the harmful generational impacts that we are all now concerned with today, whether it’s because Māori are featuring disproportionately in the area of housing, whether it’s because Māori are featuring disproportionately in those who are struggling the most when it comes to income justice and income equity or health or justice or education. Land Back—Hoki Whenua Mai—is about a transformational shift that picks up on one of the most single aspirations of tangata whenua and indigenous people around the world, which is to have land that was stolen returned, which is to have kaitiaki responsibilities upheld, where we can look after our people and our planet. That is what Hoki Whenua Mai is about.

I am so proud that our Te Mātāwaka MPs, which are the Māori and Pasifika and Tiriti MPs which form a collective within the Green Party to lead on Māori political issues, have put this out collectively. I acknowledge my colleague Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, the chair of our Mātāwaka caucus, who has helped to drive this, to get this out to the conversation that we saw yesterday. I am so proud to be able to present for decades what our people have been talking about. People have dedicated their entire lives to seeing land back. People have dedicated their entire generations of families to this work. The Green Party has a role to simply now say, “This is how we do it.” We have had enough of the talking. This is actually how the Government gives the land back that it was responsible for dispossessing from us in the very first place. That is our role as the Green Party, is to put those visionary ideas and proposals—and we did the policy work—on the table. Already we are seeing the positivity being grabbed by both Māori and Tiriti partners and tauiwi from all variety of backgrounds saying, “This is tangible. This is real. It’s not just a pipe dream. It wasn’t just a catchcry. It’s not just a catchcry from all around the world. It’s actually something that can happen.”

In our proposals, we have outlined a number of very doable ways where it involves revisiting and making sure that our process of inquiry into land dispossession is actually brought together, that we have a proper inquiry into the real extent of land that was taken and its value—not just its fiscal value but its generational value—where we make sure we are revisiting settlements to ensure that they were adequate. One of the examples that was raised to us is where tracts of land have been included in settlements that have not been the most robust pieces of land, where coastal communities have to now rethink whether those pieces of land are now going to be at the threat and risk of climate change, where we include having a look about how just those settlements actually were.

We also know that Te Tiriti was never supposed to be settled; it is supposed to be an enduring, honest partnership, honest relationship between Crown and tangata whenua. We have put up that there should be additional redress at the hapū and whānau level. For far too long, even with acknowledging every single Treaty negotiator who has given life and blood to get the best that they possibly can get for their people, we know that it is the system that has kept the settlements and those claims miniscule, absolutely unjust, and that that settlement process has continued to see breaches of Te Tiriti.

So we know that we can do better, and especially getting the long-term enduring benefits to hapū and whānau, which is one of the biggest things that the settlement continues to create that harm, that ongoing harm, is the large natural groupings and the full and final clause is an ongoing breach of what our tūpuna who signed envisaged for us to live in true harmonious relationship here in Aotearoa. We want to see a Government fund that can enable the facilitation of that land back. As I said, we’re already seeing Pākehā saying, “Yes, we would like to go on that register.” We want to see the—[Time expired]

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Happy New Year to you, and it is good to be back in this House. The Prime Minister and some of my colleagues have comprehensively covered everything—what this Government has achieved in the last two years—and the list is so long, and all that was while fighting COVID-19 and keeping New Zealand and New Zealanders safe.

At the start of 2020, when COVID-19 hit China, I was in East Africa seeing my parents for the first time in almost 18 years. At the time, we knew very little about this COVID-19, and we thought it was going to be contained in no time—but here we are, two years on; we’re still fighting it. At the end of 2019 when I left New Zealand, the country was in a mood of celebration for Christmas, and the parties—it was a good time. Six weeks later, I returned back to a different country, where people were scrambling to stockpile food and the streets were quiet, which somehow reminded me of the wartime back in my home country. This is when I realised that we were up against a tough, tough enemy that was already taking so many lives, but I am proud the core of our response came from an empathetic leader who prioritised saving lives. When the Prime Minister stood at the podium, explaining the lockdown guidelines, she was sombre, and she was balanced, and she was reassuring, as she is today, but not hiding the alarming circumstance that we were about to face.

While we fought COVID-19, I’m proud to say that the Government have never lost sight of other issues that are important to our people, and particularly, I’m really proud of what this Government has achieved in the last two, three, four years for low-paid people. And this has proven to be a Government for all New Zealanders rather than a tiny sect in our society. And I want to talk about essential workers. I know that so many times we have talked about the bravery of our essential workers, but often I don’t think we talk enough about their struggle. When this Government decided to increase the minimum wage to $20, they were at the forefront of the Government’s policy; when the Government decided to give the living wage to the core Government workers, they were at the forefront of the Government’s policy; and when the Government talked about the fair-pay agreements policy, they were at the forefront of the same policy.

But I want to reflect on the speeches from the Opposition today. Everything we heard was really negative; there was nothing positive about it. I was hoping that they’d come with some sort of positive remarks as we move forward to the next phase of fighting COVID-19, but what we have heard is all negativity. But, funny enough, in the last few days and weeks, we have heard about the Opposition now wanting to change their approach and that they want to fight poverty, and that’s a good thing, but how do you fight poverty while you are denying an increase in the minimum wage, while you’re denying workers an increase in the living wage, and while you’re denying everything that the Government have been trying to do for low-paid workers, and rejecting the increase on benefits as well? That’s quite ironic, and I’ve been talking to a lot of workers, and when I shared this with them, they just seemed as confused as I am.

We have achieved everything; we have achieved the high vaccine roll-out, and now we are ready to open for business, and we’ve got the five-phase plan of reconnecting New Zealand to the world, and I’m one of the people that will be looking forward to this because, for the last 2½ years, I haven’t seen my family, and I’m looking forward to that. But this is not just about me; this is about all of us. While we all were looking forward to seeing our families, we also all understand why the borders were closed, because our borders were our first line in our fight against COVID-19, and they have served us well, and I am very proud of everything this Government has achieved. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Jo Luxton—five minutes.

JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise in response to the Prime Minister’s statement this afternoon. I want to wish everyone a happy New Year and hope everyone has enjoyed their summer break, and the reason that we’ve been able to have such a lovely summer break is because of the collective efforts of everyone right across New Zealand. In particular, I want to take this opportunity just to acknowledge all of those who’ve been on our front line right through the last couple of years of this pandemic, of this time of disruption, and they are the health workers, they are the managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) workers, they are the essential workers—those people who work in our supermarkets, our police, our fire crews—all those people who have had to continue working on the front line throughout this time. Our rural sector, our primary sector, has been a sector that has really, really stood up to the challenge during these times and really carried this country through economically; so I really want to acknowledge them also.

The Prime Minister spoke this afternoon about the fact that the Government’s focus was on saving as many lives as possible, and I think that we should stand as a nation very proudly that we have managed to do that. One death is obviously too many but, when we compare ourselves to countries around the world, we have done outstandingly well.

I heard members opposite, earlier on, talk about or criticise the vaccine roll-out, and I think that that’s a real shame when we stand here today and we have 94 percent of our population who are double vaccinated. We have 40 percent of our children who’ve had first doses, and we have 1.5 million people—eligible New Zealanders—who have had their booster shot. So I think that, rather than criticising the vaccine roll-out, we should celebrate that New Zealanders have embraced it and that we’ve had the opportunity to access these vaccinations for free, at no cost, in order to protect all New Zealanders. But we’re not out of the woods yet and we don’t know what will come next, and we don’t know what variant we might see next, but what we can do is plan as best as we are able to, knowing what we know currently.

I think that the things that the Prime Minister outlined in her speech today speak to some of those plans very well. She talked about preparing for winter and increasing the influenza vaccination roll-out programme to ensure that those that are vulnerable, our most vulnerable, have the option to be given the best protection that we can. Because what we know is there is a likelihood that there will be a lot of people hospitalised, whether it be through COVID or influenza or other ordinary illnesses and things that people end up being in hospital for. But what we don’t want to see is our health system overwhelmed, and getting vaccinated is one of the ways that we can work towards ensuring that that doesn’t happen.

The Prime Minister also talked about other measures that this Government has put in place in working towards ensuring that that doesn’t happen, such as the 10 days sick leave. And yes, it is an increased cost on businesses, but it does ensure that people have the ability to stay home when they are sick, rather than needing to go into work and spread their illness and therefore affecting the workforce in that way. Because we do know the workforce will be under pressure once Omicron really takes off. So the 10 days sick leave is something that has been a very good initiative, in my view. Things like the healthy homes standard and the healthy homes initiative, where that is going to be rolled out to another nine additional regions—I think that’s really important, where people come in and assess the home and think about ways that that can be made more healthy through curtains, insulation, bedding, and the like.

We know that COVID-19 has had a huge impact on mental health across New Zealand and across all walks of life and all ages and all ethnicities. Mental health doesn’t discriminate in that respect. We’ve made some really great progress in the area of mental health, but, yes, there is more work to be done, and I’m really pleased to see that Mana Ake will be rolled out to more primary schools across the country. And when I visited a primary school back before this pandemic really took off in 2020, the principal there said that he had found that that was just absolutely invaluable for our children, because it is our young children that bear the brunt often when they see how stressed parents are and things like that. So I think that it’s really important that we are looking after our youngest and most vulnerable. Yes, there is more to do, but this Government has a plan. Thank you.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, the speech from the PM earlier today was absolutely spot on in one respect. She made a comment in particular that struck a chord with the National Party—it struck a chord with me—that was very hard to disagree with. Her words hung in the air: we cannot return to business as usual. And, hallelujah, because business as usual for the last four years has seen a Government that has mixed up a hot mess of press releases, promises, and PR spin all served on a bed of lack of delivery, lack of detail, and a general failure to deliver on anything that they said they would get done. Business as usual from this Government has seen not a single extra ICU bed—a staffed ICU bed—added in two years. Despite everything we saw offshore, despite the Prime Minister today saying, “Well, we’re probably going to see new variants.”, not a single extra staffed ICU bed; that’s business as usual from this Government.

Business as usual from this Government: a health Minister that started the campaign to attract ICU nurses to our shores literally today—two years into the pandemic, and he starts that work today. That’s business as usual from this Government. A Government that ignored emails from Pfizer for six weeks, delaying our vaccination roll-out in 2020. A Government that, again, ignored emails from our rapid antigen supplier Kudu Spectrum at the end of last year for eight weeks. Very late in the piece, finally, after business leaders intervened, placing an order for 65 million rapid antigen tests right as Chinese New Year hit, meaning we will not get delivery of these as early as if we’d placed our order weeks ago, but they ignored that email again. Business as usual from this Government; not learning their lessons from 2020. And a Government that literally steals—as it now turns out—rapid antigen tests from the private sector when they realise the levels of their own incompetence.

An immigration Minister that literally takes six weeks to sign off immigration instructions to allow rural contractors to get their visas, and that was something that Minister Damien O’Connor announced six weeks ago, in early December. This is going to mean that we will not have agricultural machinery operators harvesting things like wheat, which we need for bread production in the South Island, and grains for food production—as we’re about to go into an Omicron curve. Business as usual from this Government is disastrous, and no more disastrous than has been evident in our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) systems. The lottery of human misery that has divided Kiwis into the 5 million onshore and the 1 million offshore while the Government reduced the 1 million offshore to being called “cumulative risks” by a Government that divides to rule. They told us they would manage the border, but we got DJ Omicron who came and went from this country at his leisure, film stars, nannies, production crews from reality TV shows, children’s entertainers, sports teams, The Lion King dancers—I’ve talked about this for two years now, nothing changed while desperate Kiwis in awful situations had to explain things like their very personal and complex medical conditions to non-medical professionals at MIQ, who decided who got a spot in MIQ.

Pregnant women with high-risk pregnancies stuck in countries where they weren’t able to give birth, with no visas, having to go to court to get an MIQ spot; nurses sitting offshore, unable to get in through MIQ to bolster our critically short workforce, while split-migrant families have spent three Christmases apart—that is business as usual at our border. Business as usual from this Government saw us being the only country in the world that, effectively, closed our borders to our own people while gas lighting them by pushing the narrative that they had all the time in the world to come back—“They’re only coming back for a holiday.”, “It’s all their own fault.”, and “They’re simply cumulative risks.” Business as usual from this Government turned Kiwis against Kiwis in a disgusting display of division; this was business as usual from this kind and caring Government! Did they reprioritise Kiwis over DJs? Nope. Did they increase MIQ capacity? Nope. Did they consider purpose-built MIQ capacity? No. Did they, in fact, use all of the MIQ rooms that they had available to them? No. They can argue all they like that they were keeping us safe, but the things don’t add up when sports teams, The Wiggles, DJs, and nannies come and go while desperate Kiwis and healthcare workers get relegated to the bottom of the pile. This has been business as usual for two years.

But how about business as usual for bolstering our health workers? Well, that’s been a complete nightmare from the start. What does business as usual look like? It looks like a health Minister who knew in June last year that health workers, including nurses, couldn’t get in through MIQ, and yet, it took him until October before he decided to do anything about it. After months and months of screams from the Opposition, “You need to have MIQ spots tied to these workers—these critical healthcare workers.”, finally, in October, he got around to thinking about it; it wasn’t in place until late November. And, as it turns out, of the 600 spaces that have been available since then, only 60 nurses have come in. The Minister will tell us that it’s just because, well, maybe nurses don’t want to come here, when the reality is that the scheme that he’s set up is so bureaucratic in nature and so difficult to get in that nurses and doctors around the world are choosing not to come. That is the truth—nothing to do with the fact that they didn’t want to come in the first place.

Business as usual has seen a health Minister and an immigration Minister that never had a conversation on how to attract nurses to New Zealand. National proposed residency on arrival for healthcare workers and this was, effectively, picked up by the Government with access to residence in 2021 for healthcare workers that now enter the country. Migrant nurses were split from their families, leaving the country in droves. National lobbied to get them reunited with their families; that finally happened May 2021, 14 months after the start of the pandemic. The immigration Minister never kept a record of how many ICU nurses were entering the country—didn’t bother to ask them! We knew nurses were coming in but we never knew their speciality; we still don’t—we still don’t ask that question. And now, the health Minister, after his summer break, two years into the pandemic, decides we might need a programme to start attracting ICU nurses to New Zealand. Well, here’s some free ideas that I’d welcome him to pick up. How about paying them a resettlement fee, like we do with teachers? How about paying their Competency Assessment Programme course, their competency course? How about expediting their residence? There’s a whole lot of ideas that he could be using—there we go, free to him—if he wishes to pick them up.

Business as usual for the border has seen big announcements and no delivery. Fancy PRs, with screams from rooftops, “Here we are, fixing the problem. We’re bringing in workers. We’re going to bring in farmers, we’re going to bring in teachers, we’re going to bring in port crane operators, we’re going to bring in vets.” The reality was no one ever arrived. Three hundred teachers in July last year; 8 have come in. Two hundred dairy farm workers; none have been delivered. Port crane operators in 2021; none have been delivered. Sixty vets; 7 have arrived. Two hundred rural contractors to drive the heavy machinery to harvest wheat and grains announced in December; none have arrived. And guess what? We need those grains and wheat being harvested right now. One hundred and ninety seven people were interested in that scheme; now only 40 are left because of this Government’s business-as-usual approach to the border. And it’s against this backdrop that we see, just recently, their opening up to the world scheme, against the backdrop of continued failure of border exceptions; where no one’s getting in the country, against a backdrop of people like Charlotte Bellis not being able to come home to give birth to their baby; the backdrop of very negative press. And, again, we get business as usual from this border announcement, because, when you take a look at it, it lacks so much detail.

The Prime Minister and her Minister of Immigration have said, “It’s going be great; we’re going to get 20,000 extra critical workers in in Phase 1 and 2. We’re going to have all these extra workers, they’re going to be paid 1.5 times the minimum wage, and they’ll be attracted to New Zealand.” Well, the question is: why would they come? The Minister has already said they can’t have access to their resident ’21 scheme; so that’s closed to them. There’s literally no pathway to residence right now for anyone entering the country under this new scheme that they’re setting up to attract 20,000 critical workers. If you were a highly skilled, well-paid professional overseas wanting some certainty about the future for you and your family in New Zealand, why would you come when there is no pathway to residence for you? The answer to that is: they will not come. The second part of that is why would they come if they can’t leave? Because this Government have made it very clear to migrants onshore: you are not allowed to leave and you are not allowed to come back until October. So you’re a highly trained, skilled professional overseas, no pathway to residence, no ability to leave the country if your mother gets sick or your father dies or you’ve got an emergency overseas—they can’t leave and come back again.

It’s this business-as-usual lack of detail that this Government perpetuates day after day after day. New Zealanders deserve better. This country deserves better. We need a Government that is focused on the detail, on getting things done, on picking up the phone sometimes when that’s required. Instead, we’ve got a Government that lacks any ambition, any get up and go, or any mojo.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’ve had a fair bit of whinging from the member who has just resumed her seat, Erica Stanford, who tries to grasp credit whenever and wherever she can, when the reality is that her lot have never run a country during a pandemic. So it is incredibly easy to sit across the House and to pick at and politicise individual experiences when you have never run a country through a pandemic. And then—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Don’t bring the Speaker into it.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: When she has never run a country during a pandemic. However, while people might be tempted to think that it’s all doom and gloom, listening to the rhetoric from that side of the House, the reality is that this is the third year wherein we are facing another challenging year confronting a global pandemic that virtually every other country is also grappling with. Within that, the priority for this side of the House for this Government has always been to protect the lives and the livelihoods of New Zealanders. It has always been to keep New Zealand as safe as possible from COVID, which, of course, as I said previously, is a virus, is a pandemic that everyone is facing. There are costs and there are tough decisions. We on this side of the House have had to make those tough decisions that are so easily politicised by that side of the House. That has meant making decisions around border restrictions, around managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) spots, which, by the way—I correct the member who took her seat recently—we have increased over the course of this pandemic as safely as we can. We have had about 200,000 people cross the border and use those MIQ facilities, and our priority has always been, our approach has always been—

Erica Stanford: DJs!

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: Yes, well, the economy, Miss Stanford. If we don’t focus on the economy, then the member will pick on that. We’ve had to balance safety with ensuring that we make decisions that keep New Zealand’s economy afloat. And I argue that our approach has worked.

We have had the lowest confirmed cases, the lowest hospitalisations, and the lowest number of deaths in the OECD each of the last two years. In addition, we’ve had unemployment at a record low. We have had a record number of New Zealanders who have moved off a main benefit and into work during the time of this pandemic. So I’d say to that member, we’ve had to make tough decisions, we’ve had to keep New Zealanders as safe as possible—and for that, we will always hold our head up high. Our approach was also to slow down and limit the spread of outbreaks.

In the short time that I have left, there are two points that I want to make: one was the fact that we recognised right from the start that a one-size-fits-all approach would not work in terms of keeping New Zealanders safe. So we’ve had an inclusive approach to that, whether it’s our Māori and Pacific health providers, whether it’s various community groups across the ethnic community landscape who have said continuously to us the needs of their communities and allowed us to then support them to support the vaccination uptake—and so on and so forth—that has now led to the high vaccination rates that we’ve seen across the board in New Zealand, and particularly with the Ministry for Ethnic Communities. I just wanted to highlight the latest data that we have. The national uptake for the Asian group is 106 percent for dose one and 105 for dose two; for the Middle East and Latin American and African groups, the national uptake is 99 percent for the first dose and 98 percent for the second. That didn’t just happen by accident. We worked with our communities to make sure that they had the support they needed to get communications out in a way that was relevant to their communities and that they had access to vaccination initiatives that were rolled out in a way that was appropriate, that was sensitive and respectful of those communities as well.

Finally, the community organisations that we’ve seen who have done a magnificent job and without whom we could not have achieved the rates that we have seen also need to be commended. Social service agencies that have seen people across the motu, iwi and hapū providers, various communities that have worked to provide food in ways that is culturally appropriate as well. We’ve also then worked with them to get some insights as to how they’ve worked differently and innovatively so that we could then incorporate that into how we do things even better to support these organisations. Not only are we a Government that governs in a crisis but we take those learnings to build the foundations for a much better future for New Zealanders. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Steph Lewis—five minutes.

STEPH LEWIS (Labour—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Earlier today, we heard the Prime Minister note how over the last two years we’ve seen our communities draw together to meet the challenges of COVID-19. Over that time, we’ve heard many heart-warming stories shared from people across the communities who have come together to support one another. But there’s one that stands out in my mind from the last 12 months, and that is as a young mother hearing about the millions of Kiwis who have come forward to be vaccinated. So I want to begin my contribution today by acknowledging all those individuals who’ve come forward and been vaccinated. I thank you. I also want to sincerely thank our front-line health workers who have worked tirelessly at the coalface right throughout every stage of this pandemic.

I have a three-year-old daughter. She’s too young to be vaccinated, and, in a few short months, my family of three is going to become a family of four when we welcome baby number two. As a mum, throughout this pandemic my primary consideration has been: what can I do to protect my daughter and now my unborn baby? I’ve spoken to mums and dads right across my electorate in Whanganui, who are equally as anxious about what they can do to keep their tamariki safe. That is why I want to acknowledge the millions of Kiwis who have been vaccinated. Because whether they know it or not, they are helping us mums and dads to keep our babies safe. Whether they know it or not, they’re also helping hundreds of thousands of Kiwi families across Aotearoa to protect the vulnerable and at-risk members of their families.

On Saturday, my husband and I joined the over 1.6 million Kiwis who’ve gone out and got their booster dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. I got mine because I know from looking at overseas research that, as a pregnant wahine, this is the best way that I can protect myself and my unborn baby. It’s the best way I can protect my three-year-old daughter. And it’s the best tool I have to protect those in my electorate who I talk to who are at higher risk. It’s a weight of responsibility that I feel heavily.

Vaccination is also the best tool that we have collectively to ensure that our health system is not overrun by this virus. And while COVID has featured heavily on the agenda over the last few years, our Government has continued to tackle the big issues head-on. We’ve been following our plan to protect jobs, and that is that the best economic response is a strong health response. By putting health first, we’ve not only saved lives but we’ve saved livelihoods, investing $22.9 billion in the wage subsidy scheme, resurgence support payment, and Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme. We’ve invested in critical infrastructure projects which have contributed towards our goal of becoming a high-wage, low-carbon economy.

In my electorate, we’ve been able to grow jobs through investment and the Whanganui Port revitalisation. Over the summer break, it’s been wonderful watching the progress of the repair of the North Mole. We’re grateful for investment in our Sarjeant Gallery, the Hāwera civic hub, and the investment in the development of green hydrogen by Hiringa Energy. A large part of the Whanganui electorate is rural, and we know that rural towns face barriers to accessing healthcare that those in urban centres don’t face. We’ve seen firsthand how waiting times can vary depending on what district health board you’re in. The healthcare you get in the 21st century should not depend on where you live. That’s why I am proud of the health reforms that we will deliver that will be a genuinely national health service for all New Zealanders, so the people in my electorate can get access to the same level of healthcare that their friends and family in the cities receive.

Housing is another long-term challenge that we’ve inherited, and I’m pleased to say that we’re seeing progress on that front in my electorate as well, seeing over 17 houses being built and more due to be completed at the end of this first quarter, and another 30 units scheduled for the near future. I’m proud to be part of this team that is putting people first during this pandemic.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Karen Chhour—five minutes.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an honour to be able to stand here today and address the many issues that this country is facing right now, because like it or not, there is more going on right now than just COVID. I recall multiple occasions of the Prime Minister standing up and giving the impression that child poverty and New Zealanders’ wellbeing were her number one priority. I struggled to find an area where this has improved in reality. We hear and see statistics that sound good, but is this a real reflection of what’s happening outside the walls of Wellington?

So while the Prime Minister and her team sit across from me today, patting themselves on the back and celebrating like they’ve won the war, in the real world, our children and our people are telling a different story. Well, Prime Minister, there is nothing to celebrate when we have record numbers of families living in motels, cars, and on their friends’ couches—if they’re lucky enough to get this help. For others, they’re not so lucky and we see this playing out in the form of our people sleeping rough in our city streets.

Prime Minister, there is nothing to celebrate when we have people waiting record times just to be placed in a stable home. The wait was around 54 days in 2016-17. It is now, on average, 168 days to house a client. These are families, often with children, who feel scared and frightened and feel that there is no light at the end of this dark tunnel. There is nothing to celebrate when we have gone from having 5,844 people on our housing waiting list to now 24,546. Prime Minister, there is nothing to celebrate when we have record numbers of families lining up at charities because they can’t feed themselves or their children. Since when are we a country that tolerates mothers and fathers having to choose who eats at night because there’s not enough food to go around?

All of these issues I have mentioned have come under a Labour Government who prides themselves on being kind. This Government has made assurances that they will fix our broken system when it comes to the safety of our most vulnerable children. Well, Prime Minister, what have you and your Government actually achieved except for another four-year plan to replace the old four-year plan that puts more effort into abiding by the Treaty than focusing on the wellbeing of the children themselves? Surely all our children deserve to feel safe and loved, and “loved” to me means the same thing in any language. Don’t get me wrong, culture is a bonus. I’m proud of my culture and I’m proud of who I am, but the safety and security of our children should always come first. I have witnessed the heartache and distress of families that have turned their lives upside down to take in children in need. These people have not only provided a home for these children but they have loved them as if they were their own. Then, out of nowhere, they are now being told they are not fit to raise these kids. Were they neglecting these kids? Were they starving them or beating them? No. The reason was they could not raise them culturally appropriately. This should never happen and this needs to stop.

I’ve been asked by non-Māori mothers with Māori children, how long will it be before they are told they are not good enough to raise their own children? I know that this may seem extreme, but when you hear things in the public and statements made questioning whether non-Māori should raise Māori children, surely we can understand why this has become a real and alarming situation for the parents asking this question. It is high time that this Government stops the lip service and actually creates policies that help the people they’re meant to represent. ACT is listening and will continue each and every day to hold this Government to account.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Toni Severin—five minutes.

TONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to say that we want a healthy economy. Cost of living is going up for New Zealanders and small businesses. The impact COVID has on New Zealand small businesses is only starting to show. It’s too late for our borders to be opened in October for the horticulture sector for this year’s harvest, and much of our tourist industry will not survive this winter. If unemployment is low, why is there a staff shortage as many businesses in New Zealand are looking for staff? Our farming community, our hospitality—these are just some of these areas that we’re lacking staff.

The Prime Minister, I’m sure, said that businesses are open to operate—yes. However, today, I just received a lovely letter from the chair of the Christchurch Central City Business Association. There’s about a thousand businesses within the four avenues of Christchurch, and they have over 500 members. This is probably only a snapshot of the businesses, but more than 90 percent of their respondents said the red light traffic setting was having (a), a negative and a very negative impact on the business, and (b), a negative to a very negative impact on the number of people visiting their businesses. Yes, businesses may be open, but people are not spending. It’s making it hard for them to operate, and most of them are also concerned that nearly over 80 percent of those who responded to the survey are very concerned for their mental health or the mental health of their colleagues or employees. We just need to see the signs around businesses around New Zealand that are asking for staff.

But the biggest concern that I have is that mental health for all. Most businesses are now propping up their own businesses with money, using their houses as collateral for mortgages. We can’t survive and nor can these small businesses if we don’t have the people to work them and if our economy is not boosting them. We just keep passing the money, like adding costs to small businesses and that has to get passed on to somebody. Who do businesses pass that on to? The everyday New Zealander. They are already struggling as it is with the everyday costs. So if our supply chains and everything keeps going up, from transport to get our goods, and especially if we cannot get our harvesting off, our fruit and vegetables are already going off. Most people are saying when they go into the shop, that lettuce is already winter prices and we’ve never seen that before—well, especially in my lifetime, and that’s been a wee bit long.

But the biggest comment, also, from this lovely survey that the chair of central city business sent to me—I actually gave some suggestions, and this is what ACT prides ourselves on, is actually listening to the people that are out there. The biggest thing that they said is to reduce the current restrictions. The current red light setting is not consistent with the Government’s original framework which has set out the requirements to move between the traffic light settings. The current settings are causing significant damage to business, mental health, and livelihoods. They also suggested to immediately reduce the isolation requirements. The requirements are strict and unworkable and result in a large number of people without COVID isolating, and the result is many businesses will not be able to open for trade. Provide free rapid antigen tests to businesses and individuals so that actual cases of COVID-19 can be managed and businesses can operate safely. These are just some of the suggestions that this association has sent us. We need to listen. We need those people to know that we are listening because their livelihoods, their employees’ livelihoods depend on us. We need to look after them.

But also, on a final note, we also have to identify the impact that this COVID is going to have on prisoners within our prison system, with restricted visit rights and backlog in courts. It’s not good for their mental health and their frustrations—they are going to be taking that out on Corrections staff, which they already are. So be aware. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Tangi Utikere—five-minute call.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Madam Speaker, thank you. Can I take the opportunity to wish you and colleagues all around the House New Year greetings as we recommence the parliamentary year. And can I also thank the Prime Minister for her statement earlier in the day, because what I take from the statement, actually, is that together we have risen to the challenge of COVID-19. And while we are all on this pandemic journey together, at every turn our goal as a Government has been to do what is right and to protect our communities and its peoples at every single turn.

And when we look at our current context, people can draw the conclusion that the approach has worked. I refer to contributions from my colleague the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who says, yes, that our confirmed cases, the hospitalisations, and deaths have been low compared with other countries for each of the past two years. It gave me an opportunity earlier today to reflect on those past two years. Just before we went into the very first lockdown in 2020, I vividly recall, as a deputy mayor, along with the mayor, going into my city’s emergency operation centre—they called it “The Bunker”—to confirm, at that particular time in a very small space of time, contingency plans for the refrigeration units that would be required to meet the overflow that our city’s cemetery would not be able to handle. And the reality of that was because that was what was proposed and what was happening in other cities, other regions, other places that people called home all around the globe. Now, thankfully, due to the Government’s plans, that did not eventuate, and we did not need to, as a city, call upon those contingency plans at the time.

So these results—and that result in itself, I would suggest—are a vote of confidence in the efforts of all of us throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. The measures that we have taken have saved lives, they have protected loved ones, and they have protected communities. Our policies have supported jobs and employment. And we’ve heard today in the House about the record low levels of unemployment, but the policies and decisions that this Government has taken have also saved businesses during times of uncertainty and also in times of immense need.

The plan that we have followed, during a difficult time, has worked. And, of course, we now find ourselves, relative to other countries around the world, in a stronger position because of our high vaccination rates. And it was pleasing also to hear from the Prime Minister today that 40 percent of tamariki have now had their first dose. And, of course, the ongoing roll-out and support for boosters will be a vital ongoing form of protection. So Kiwis can draw confidence from our current position—confidence that with a clear plan, based on good scientific advice and a real sense of unity, our country and its people can continue on its journey.

I want to take this opportunity to also acknowledge the Māori and Pacific health and community providers, who continue to be absolutely essential and critical to our plan. Yes, the Government has invested more than $250 million in partnerships in this space, but they are providers who are on the ground. They are providers who are connected and able to see the need within their communities. These are the providers who’ve driven up the vaccination rates. And I know that in my electorate of Palmerston North, and I’m sure in many others, they are the providers that will continue to be relentless in the work that they do. So I want to say thank you to all of them and to the broader line of vaccination frontline workers for the work that they continue to do to keep us safe.

When I reflect on the Prime Minister’s statement, she talks about the Government remaining committed to addressing some of those long-term, difficult issues. And I want to briefly reflect on that of housing through a local lens. When I see Kāinga Ora for the first time continuing to build new homes and houses in my city—the first time in decades where we see an increase in public housing infrastructure—warm, dry, healthy homes in Highbury, in Awapuni, in Roslyn, in Hokowhitu, in Takaro, in central Palmerston North, and there is much more to come, that is a fantastic part of the plan. And I have to say that there is no intention on this side of the House of taking our foot off the housing accelerator in Palmerston North for the fine people of Palmerston North as well.

So in conclusion: our Government has a plan for the year ahead; it’s a plan that we’re all committed to; it’s a plan that keeps us safe; it makes a real difference to the lives of many; and is a plan that as the member for Palmerston North, I wholeheartedly stand beside and endorse.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki—five minutes.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): It is always an honour and a privilege to make a contribution to the Prime Minister’s statement. What I want to do is to acknowledge the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s leadership. What I take from her speech today, were the words that together we have risen to the challenges of COVID-19, that the pandemic also has drawn us together.

I just love the way she laid out our Government’s action plan. Fundamentally, more than a vision, but a plan to get us through safely. I heard the Prime Minister talk about five key themes for our plan to keep New Zealand safe: one was about keeping people safe; preparing for winter; managing New Zealand’s health in the long term; securing our economic future; and, laying foundations for the future. Leadership is about action—leadership is about action.

On 7 January, the Hon Nanaia Mahuta congratulated Tonga’s Prime Minister the honourable Hu’akavameiliku Siaosi Sovaleni on being appointed as Tonga’s Prime Minister. On 15 January Maui Motua shook the kingdom of Tonga, where Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai exploded in the creation of new lands. The lands were—Tonga was covered by volcanic ash and the tsunami. I want to pay respect to the three people who lost their lives.

The day after, 16 January, we sent a message to Tonga that New Zealand is ready to help. On 18 January, we sent another message, $500,000 ready to support. On 20 January, the Royal New Zealand Air Force was on their way to Tonga while we were getting the navy vessels ready. On 21 January, we had said to Tonga “$3 million—$3 million total of support.” Last week, we also said to Tonga, “COVID-19, we’ll find the Pfizer vaccinations.” Ko e koloa ‘a e Tongá ko e fakamālō.

Giving thanks is Tonga’s greatest value. As a Tongan New Zealander living here, I am proud to be here. I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and the Government. I want to say thank you to Kīngi Tūheitia of Waikato-Tainui, the tangata o Aotearoa, the peoples of New Zealand, the ngā kāinga katoa, ngā kāinga katoa o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa. [all the villages, all the villages in the Pacific.] Si‘i kakai Tonga nofo he fonuá ni, mālō e ‘ofa ki Tonga ko ho‘omou ‘ofá ko e fu‘u koloa lahi ‘e tofuhia ai e ngaahi fāmilí, tufa ‘i he kāingá mo e kau ngāué pea fiefia ai e fonuá ‘i he fu‘u taimi faingata‘á.

I co-chair the Aotearoa Tonga Relief Committee with the Hon Jenny Salesa. I want to take this opportunity to thank Aotearoa New Zealand for your aroha; nothing like a natural disaster to bring us together. As the leader of the comms team I want to thank—my fakamālō goes out to the tech companies, the tech equipment for Techenz, Ingram and Logitech , Dove Electronics, Mobile Mentors, Dicker Data New Zealand, Leading Solutions, Shabana Khan, IT4U, Ernst & Young, and Keith Crow. I want to say big, huge fakamālō to La’auli Sir Michael Jones and Matson shipping, Graeme Hart, Foodstuffs, Mayor Phil Goff, Auckland Council, Mt Smart Stadium, Swire Shipping Mainfreight, The Fono, Snell Packaging, Coconut Wireless, Israeli Embassy of New Zealand, Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board, Pacific Forum Line, Chrystal Transport, Ultimate Transport, Fulton Hogan, Heinz-Wattie’s, Turners and Growers, Rapid Response Global, and Pita Taufatofoa, and Watercare New Zealand.

Last but not least, I would like to thank the other volunteers, the volunteers at Mt Smart Stadium, ‘Una Taufa and the Laise team in kolo-Tonga, Pakilau Manase Lua and team Topai in kolo-Ha‘apai. To Gretel Toleafoa and the donations team.

Importantly, I want to thank Maria Meredith and Daniel Meredith, who kept the army fed. Thank you to the Folaha/Nukuhetulu NZ Society, Fonu moe Moa Aotearoa, St Anne’s Catholic Church, Saipipi Village of Samoa, ‘Eua Community, Eight Roses Cafe, Sione Tu’itahi, and the Baha’i Faith, Lighthouse Community Church in Pakuranga. Fifty-one containers have left Mt Smart, over 1,000 tonnes of love from Aotearoa. That is the country we are in. The Prime Minister has kept us safe through COVID-19 so we can stop and think about our neighbours, the Pacific nation. On behalf of the Tongan community and on behalf of Aotearoa Tonga Relief Committee, ko e koloa ‘a e Tongá ko e fakamālō, fakamālō ‘aupito. And lastly, but not least, Gate 1 Rosie, Gate 3 Soni, Gate 4 T-boys Havelulahi, Toni Taufa, Saia Tukuafu, and Exit Alofi team tāpupuhá mālō ‘aupito, ‘ofa atu.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Happy New Year. I rise on behalf of the National Party in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, where I rise in support of the Leader of the Opposition—the leader of the National Party, Christopher Luxon—with his motion, “That all the words after ‘That’ be deleted and replaced with, ‘this House has no confidence in this Government that returns to Wellington at the start of each year with more promises it has no intention of keeping and fails to deliver.’ ”

I do want to start with one acknowledgement, and that’s for Hon Grant Robertson. I want to thank him from taking time out from his ivory tower in the Beehive to come down and listen to me and this important speech today. I also want to say: 2022—game on. National is back, and it starts this year. This is a Government that is tired. This is a Government that has run out of ideas. This is a Government that is increasingly out of touch—a Government that is a failed socialist experiment; that wants to run the country out of Wellington. It’s intrinsic in this Government’s DNA. It’s about running the country out of the beltway of Wellington. Bureaucrats know best.

Whereas, on this side of the House, we know different. We back hard-working Kiwis, who this year—in 2022—need a Government that will back them. And the first thing I’d raise: what a kick in the guts to South Islanders. What a kick in the guts this Prime Minister’s statement was to Cantabrians, to mainlanders—what was in it for them? Look at regional roads. What was announced for the South Island? Zip, de nada, zilch, forgotten. South Islanders are fleeced and forgotten, paying exorbitant rates at the petrol stations, exorbitant rates through their road user charges, and they’re fleeced and forgotten as this Government raids the National Land Transport Fund yet again for their pet projects in Auckland, while Cantabrians and mainlanders have to sit back and take it.

Look at a regional road in my electorate: the Woodend Bypass, announced by the National Government in 2017. This Government came in and cancelled it. Traffic volumes have increased 25 percent in that time—a State highway that runs through a small town that’s got a primary school on one side of it. And you know what’s galling? When I asked New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) about the latest update, they said there’s no commitment to it. The Woodend Bypass would have cost—it was costed by NZTA at $120 million—$120 million, yet these guys have wasted $50 million on consultants for light rail, another $50 million on a business case that will go nowhere, $50 million on consultants for the cycleway. That’s $150 million this Government has wasted on consultants. That could have paid for the Woodend Bypass to keep my constituents safe.

This is a Government of wastage. They’re fleecing and forgetting hard-working South Islanders. What did we hear about three waters today? Crickets. And they all keep their head down. Zip. De nada.

Erica Stanford: It’s not a winner.

MATT DOOCEY: Exactly. Erica Stanford said, “It’s not a winner.”, because they know three waters has gone down like a cup of cold sick. In Waimakariri, 95 percent of ratepayers are opposed to it. This is an asset grab. These guys will forcibly seize community-owned assets this year because they know best. Running New Zealand out of the beltway—bureaucracy before New Zealanders. This is 2022. New Zealand is waking up to this blind ideology of this failed socialist Government. Centralisation, Labour knows best, ride roughshod over local people.

And probably one of the worst parts of the Prime Minister’s statement when she said, “We have made progress on building mental health services in New Zealand.” Three years ago, they announced a front-line mental health service. It’s only rolled out to 28 percent of GPs after three years—at a time of a pandemic, where there’s increased mental distress. That’s 72 percent of GP practices that are not providing the new front-line mental health service after three years. They announced a free counselling service for 18- to 25-year-olds years ago. It hasn’t gone past Greater Wellington yet. One authority out of the dozens in New Zealand.

And then of course, there’s the mental health facility rebuilds. And yeah, David Clark, he’s putting his head down because he knows where this is going: 2018, 2019, not one is opened. Do you know what? Not one’s even got a shovel in the ground. They had budgeted $443 million; they haven’t even spent $18 million of that yet. It’s about 5 percent, they’re all still in the design stage. A year ago, Health Minister Hon Andrew Little said he was extraordinarily frustrated, so he had a review. You know what he did? He asked his mate Grant Robertson to hold a review with the implementation unit. They came back and said, “Oh, good progress. Good progress.”

We’re seeing in New Zealand, in our young people, research out of the Auckland University last year reported higher rates of young people trying to access eating disorders as a direct result of the pandemic. The Ministry of Health released data for last year which showed a disproportionate increase of antidepressant prescribing amongst our young people in the first year of the pandemic. The St John annual report, released last week: disproportionate increase in under-14s calling up with suicide attempts and mental health. Australia is calling it a “shadow pandemic”. In the UK, they are saying they cannot respond to the increased waiting times. The surgeon general in America has warned of the devastation of young peoples’ mental health caused by the pandemic.

I wrote to Andrew Little highlighting this a week ago, saying, “Let’s get the best people around a table: young people with lived experience, advocates, academics, researchers, mental health professionals.” Zip, de nada, zilch, nothing. We are facing a tidal wave of mental distress in our young people caused by the pandemic, and this Government is sitting on its hands. It needs to respond urgently—to understand and leave no stone unturned; how we look at every new idea, every development, every innovation that will open up access and decrease waiting times for young people in this time of a pandemic.

And yes, the Prime Minister says, “Oh, we’ve provided mental health support for small business.” Well, I’ll tell you about that, because on 15 September, Radio New Zealand ran a story when I called on the Government—I gave them the policy: a $10 million mental health small business policy to be delivered through BusinessNZ. Hon Stuart Nash came out, said, “We’re not planning a specific fund for this.” Two months later, they came kicking and screaming and finally announced a policy for our small business owners.

Fine, they’ve pinched my idea. But the thing is, we could be doing it now. We could be responding now. This Government is becoming increasingly tone-deaf. They are out of touch. Name one Minister that’s been in to North Canterbury, let alone the Prime Minister. None in four years. They do not get out of Wellington. And in the Prime Minister’s statement, once again—like 2021—we start the year in 2022 with a kick in the guts for mainlanders. Nothing in it for them and a Government that wants to run the South Island from Wellington.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): This debate is adjourned and is set down for resumption next sitting day. Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 o’clock this evening.

Sitting suspended from 17.59 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Speaker’s Rulings

Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill—Voting

SPEAKER: The House is resumed. Members, following discussions at the Business Committee today, I want to inform you about how the House will handle voting over the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. The National Party has indicated that it intends to treat all future votes on the bill as a conscience issue. No other party has indicated that it is doing so, and, in fact, it was treated as a party vote matter at the first reading. Normally, I would allow a personal vote in such circumstances. However, we need to consider how to maintain physical distancing in the debating chamber and lobbies and personal voting makes that challenging.

At the Business Committee, we agreed to use split party voting—as set out in Standing Order 145—on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. Split party voting, effectively, allows members to vote individually but their votes are aggregated by their parties and cast during the party voting process. Parties splitting their votes indicate to the Clerk, when called on, how many votes they wish to cast for or against the question and any abstentions. They then provide the Clerk with a list showing how the vote of each member of the party was cast. These votes are recorded in the Journals of the House and in the Hansard.

When we get to the committee of the whole House stage, there will be multiple votes because the bill is in three parts and there may be amendments proposed. Casting split party votes on amendments is more challenging logistically. I would encourage any member planning amendments to release them as a Supplementary Order Paper as soon as possible so others can consider their positions.

If a member is not sure how they will vote until they have heard the debate or wishes to react to amendments as they are presented, I encourage them to be in the Chamber for the debate subject to the limits on numbers. They can then instruct their whip how they wish to cast their vote. Standing Order 145 also enables members to cast their votes as individuals, separately from their parties, if they so wish. That might be useful in the more dynamic committee stage of the whole House environment. Such votes are cast by a member rising in their place and indicating how they wish to vote when the Clerk calls for any other votes. Clearly, before members do that, they have to indicate to their party whip that they do not want to be included within the other numbers.

The House seldom uses split party votes. Presiding officers will proceed more slowly than usual with votes to ensure that parties are ready to cast them. So members will have to give a little bit of patience to the whips in order to get their ducks in a row so that we get the system working well.

Bills

Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill.

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

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I move, That the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Can I begin with a quote from a submission to the Justice Committee. It reads: “We support the … intent of this bill, which, when passed into law, will provide protection for people to work through issues relating to their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression without being forced or ‘strongly encouraged’ to undergo programmes, systems, or activities that seek to ‘change’ or supress their natural state.” That is a summation of the submission of the St Barnabas Anglican Church of Roseneath, and I thank them for it. It very plainly sets out the purpose of this piece of legislation, and shows that, despite some of the hyperbolic debate, most Kiwis know that this bill is well and truly overdue.

Conversion practices are based on the falsehood that a person’s sexual orientation, their gender identity, or gender expression can and should be changed. And I know that members on this side of the House utterly reject that falsehood, and that rejection is in our DNA. It is with great pride that I begin the second reading of the debate on this bill to prohibit these practices. I’m also proud that this prohibition is something that draws a line around our caucus and not through it. Our united view is that there is unquestionably no evidence to suggest that conversion practices work. There is, however, clear evidence of the real, serious, and life-altering harm that they can cause, and that is why Labour made a commitment at their 2020 election to ban these practices.

It is a fact that this bill has received the largest number of submissions to a select committee that this Parliament has seen, and so can I acknowledge all submitters and thank members of the Justice Committee for their deliberation. I know that the nature of the in-person submissions were challenging for many reasons—many harrowing stories of those who have suffered as a result of conversion practices were juxtaposed with those who remain stuck in a time where the diversity of gender and orientation was not accepted.

Taking into account the feedback from the submitters, the Justice Committee has recommended a few technical changes to make what the bill is trying to achieve even clearer, such as changes to the purpose clause and the definition of “serious harm” within the bill. The committee’s most extensive changes clarify the types of conduct which would and would not meet the definition of a “conversion practice”. A number of submitters thought that the definition of a “conversion practice” in the bill could be more specific, to remove any ambiguity about what a conversion practice is. This definition is a key part of the bill, and the committee has fine-tuned it, and I thank them for that. The committee has clarified that a conversion practice can be a “practice, sustained effort, or treatment”.

Additionally, the committee recommended adding a few examples of what a conversion practice is, to remove doubt about the sorts of practices that the piece of legislation addresses. It is important that the prohibition of conversion practices targets the right behaviour, and the bill is intended to promote, rather than interfere with, access to legitimate healthcare services. However, some submitters were concerned that the bill’s exclusion of health services provided by a health practitioner in accordance with their scope of practice might not be robust enough to stop conversion practices occurring in health settings. A number of submitters referred to the professional standards and codes of ethics practitioners are subject to, which could prevent them from being able to perform conversion practices. The committee heard these concerns, and has tightened up this clause, clause 5(2)(a), by removing the reference to a “scope of practice”, and instead referring to an action taken by a health practitioner providing a health service that is appropriate in their “reasonable professional judgement”, and “complies with all legal, professional, and ethical standards” to which they are subject.

An important aspect of the bill is balancing the need to prevent the harm that conversion practices cause with individual rights and freedoms. Some submitters expressed concern that the bill does not adequately provide and protect religious rights for freedom of expression. Others were concerned that the bill would impact on the ability for parents, whānau, and teachers to engage in open discussions with children about their sexuality and their gender. The bill is focused on banning conversion practices, which are done on the harmful premise that a person is broken and in need of fixing, and which the evidence tells us causes serious and life-altering harm. Unless a belief or a religious principle was expressed as part of a conversion practice being performed, then that sort of expression would not be impacted by the bill. For clarity, the bill already states that a conversion practice does not include the expression only of a religious principle or belief. The committee has amended this wording to make it clear that the expression of a non-religious belief would not be a conversion practice either.

I acknowledge that many submitters who supported the bill were concerned that it did not go far enough and, in particular, that the criminal offence has set the threshold for prosecution too high. The intention of this bill is not to criminalise all conduct, but to deter the performance of conversion practices and provide avenues for redress.

The bill provides a range of responses to the performance of conversion practices under both criminal and civil law regimes. The criminal offences in the bill are intended to capture the most serious of conduct. Recognising the consequences that can arise from a criminal conviction, the civil pathway created by the bill through the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Review Tribunal will allow for a constructive and educative process, with a focus on remedying harm and preventing it from happening again. By banning conversion practices in New Zealand, the Government intends to enhance the ability of rainbow communities to enjoy their rights and freedoms free from harm and discrimination.

At this point, I want to acknowledge the Labour movement for making sure that this piece of legislation was prioritised in this Parliament. Can I begin by acknowledging my colleague Marja Lubeck, who, as a member of this Parliament, has championed this issue. Can I also acknowledge my colleagues in our Labour Rainbow Caucus. Can I also acknowledge many of the rainbow Labour members in our whānau, and also Young Labour for championing this issue and making it policy and now seeing it take its final stages until legislation. Finally, can I acknowledge those who have first-hand experience of conversion practices. Your lived experience, your pain, your strength, and advocacy has led to these final stages of this bill, which will hopefully soon become law.

I’d like to leave the absolute final word to another submission, again, as proof that this bill has brought communities together. And I quote, “We believe that gender and sexual identity should be able to be explored in an accepting and supportive environment where agency lies with the individual and those who guide the conversation act in the role of facilitator versus authority figure. We believe that well-crafted legislation to ban conversion therapy will help eradicate these neglectful and abusive practices in Aotearoa New Zealand and will be a catalyst for more justice and inclusion.” Can I thank the ALT_Mary Anglican Church of New Plymouth for their submission. I commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I just want to indicate to the House, as I did to the Business Committee, that while this is not a personal vote matter, I am going to treat it a bit more like a conscience vote when it comes to calls. There will be a bit more flexibility, a bit less party structure. And if people do want to indicate to me that—other than at the ninth call, which is a split call anyway—people want to only have five minutes, if they indicate that to me privately, that might get them priority in the speaking list.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, for one, certainly do not support conversion therapy. It’s an outdated process, it can be harmful and dangerous when coercive, and I understand why many people feel very strongly about it. We heard many deeply moving examples through the course of the select committee process of people who have been affected by conversion therapy as it has been conducted. My intention is to support this bill at second reading. However, I will be introducing some Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) because while I support a bill banning the practice in a tight, clear, and targeted way, I do still have some concerns about the breadth and looseness of the language in the bill that has been constructed. I’m hoping that I might get a fair hearing from the Minister and the Labour Party, in particular.

My primary concerns are about maintaining freedom of thought and opinion, but also about respecting the role of parents, particularly in the complex area of children struggling with their gender identity, and wanting to make life-changing decisions around medical interventions that may have lifelong consequences. Because this bill that is being introduced is not just about praying the gay away and gay conversion therapy—which, I think, there is a broad range of agreement around—but it’s much broader and includes issues around gender identity. Thirdly, I want to ensure that proper discussions are had before any medical intervention in gender transitions—those discussions are not restricted in any way.

So in terms of the select committee process, as the Minister said, it generated a lot of submissions—107,000 submissions. Of the ones that were analysed, about 70 percent were in favour, and 30 percent were against. But, given the numbers involved, I’m not quite sure how they reached that conclusion with any accuracy. I do want to thank the submitters on all sides for taking the effort and having their say.

Sadly, not much has changed in the bill as reported back by the majority of the select committee. The New Zealand Law Society, for one, were worried about the broadness of the definition of conversion practice in the bill. And it was any practice that is directed towards an individual because of the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, and is performed with the intention of changing, or suppressing, the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

Now, as we know, the select committee has broadened, in my view, that definition to say now that it is any practice, sustained effort, or treatment that’s directed at an individual, and is done with the intention of changing or supressing and individual’s identity or sexuality. Now, my real concern is that, given the very broad definition of a conversion practice, it can be interpreted very widely. One way of reading that is to say that a conversion practice—for which, if somebody is found guilty, they can go to jail for three years—could include any sustained effort that is done with the intention of supressing someone’s gender identity.

So what does that actually mean in practice—to understand the effect such a law, with serious legal consequences, would have—the risk of going to prison, or being hauled before the Human Rights Commission—to understand what impact that has on behaviour. What I, for one, don’t want to see is parents being afraid to talk openly and frankly about important issues with their kids, particularly when confronted with a child who wants to change their gender, who asserts that they are a different gender, and they want to start puberty blockers, or more invasive medical treatments. My worry is that the natural reaction, given vague law and large consequences, is for parents, and even potentially medical professionals, to hang back. It’s safer just to affirm whatever is asserted, and agree rather than to challenge. And so, in my view, it is important.

One of the most fundamental questions that should be asked when making decisions of this sort, which may have lifelong consequences around the ability to have children, and a whole host of other areas—the most basic medical question one should ask is, “Do you really want to do this?” It’s an important question to ask, and I talked to my mother about this two years ago—she gave my father a kidney. She couldn’t just give him a kidney; she went through a very long, detailed process where she was asked many times, “Do you really want to do this?” That’s basic kind of medical practice.

All I want is nothing in this bill to limit those discussions in any way, given the natural reaction of people to be cautious when laws are passed where they could go to jail, or be hauled before the Human Rights Commission if they get it wrong.

Now, all the reports that we’ve had from officials have assured us that the bill does not stop the expression of opinion, and that it doesn’t stop medical professionals asking tough questions, and it doesn’t capture parents declining to give consent to medical interventions. So they’ve made those assurances, but, of course, officials don’t always get things right, and the legislation, as it is introduced, is, arguably, not 100 percent clear. So I would bring SOPs to the committee stage, trying to make those things clear.

The select committee has included in the bill examples of conversion practices because, I think, there’s an acknowledgment that the definition of a conversion practice is rather vague, and so they’ve included examples of conversion practices, such as using shame or coercion intending to give an individual an aversion to same-sex attractions, or to encourage gender-conforming behaviour.

My suggestion is that we include three examples that are not conversion practices, to make it very clear that, just for clarity, so that prosecutors, so that lawyers and parents understand what is not a conversion practice, and I would include the expression of any opinion. Secondly, another example of what is not a conversion practice under this legislation: a parent, or caregiver, withholding consent for a medical intervention, in relation to gender transition, in what they consider the child’s best interests, for example. The third one would be a health practitioner frankly outlining the risks, consequences, and merits of medical intervention in relation to gender transition. Now, the officials have said, “No, no, they’re not captured.” They’ve given us that assurance—well, why don’t we use that as an example of something that is not a conversion practice according to this bill, so that we can have that reassurance. The purpose of it is simply to say, yes, let’s make sure this legislation is properly targeted on conversion practices that cause harm, but it doesn’t, in any way, restrict the important, and necessary, and appropriate discussions that parents and medical practitioners should have with young people, in particular, before they’re making important decisions about what could potentially be life-changing medical decisions.

My hope is that the Minister and Labour will consider that, that the logic is pretty sound. If you’ve got a bill which has a very broad definition and has to have a whole bunch of exclusions or things that are not included by the bill, and then some examples, then why not have a few examples just making it absolutely clear that expressing an opinion is not going to be falling into the definition of any sustained effort to supress something; and, secondly, that parents do have the ability to not agree to medical interventions for their children—and that is not included in this legislation—and that full and frank and robust discussions with medical practitioners, before any such major decisions are made, is also not a conversion practice. My hope is that that will be considered over the next few stages of the bill. Thank you.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I am proud of the Labour Party’s strong track record on gay rights and improving the rights of our rainbow community, and I’m proud that this bill continues that legacy.

As the chair of the select committee, we received a record-breaking 107,000 written submissions on this bill, and I think that speaks to the heart of the level of engagement and interest in the topic that lies before us tonight. I thought it was important, as the chair, to kind of break down quickly where they came from. So approximately 61,000 of those written submissions came from form submissions—those that were generated online through a portal—and we worked with Opposition members in agreement that we would not have oral submissions from those that were simply a straightforward pro-forma submission. So we unanimously agreed on going ahead and analysing the 38,900 submissions. And of those 38,900, 69 percent supported the bill and 30 percent opposed. So there’s approximately a 70-percent support for this legislation going ahead. Of all of those submissions, the committee heard in person around 800, which took a significant amount of time—I think approximately 18 sessions of sitting for full days.

At times, it was incredibly hard-going to hear those submissions from both sides of the debate. At times, I was brought to near tears and, at other times, I felt quite intense anger. I would like to acknowledge all MPs that contributed to listening through those submissions. I think it’s an incredibly valuable part of our democratic process, and I think all those who submitted should be acknowledged for taking the time to contribute to what we’ve reached today.

The intent of this bill is incredibly important—and I want to spell that out—because the legislative objectives of this bill will assist in how that is interpreted over time. The number one intent is to prevent harm. The second legislative objective of the bill is to encourage safe, respectful conversations around sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression. I think that is really important, because one of the main arguments that we heard from some members of the Opposition in the first reading and also from some submitters through the select committee process was that the role of parents was compromised in some way, that there was a concern or a fear that conversations between a parent and their child would somehow be criminalised. And so, for that purpose, I think it’s incredibly important for me to read out the section that provides the specific advice in and around that point that is being raised in concern: “We consider that a clear expression of contrary opinion or a failure to act by parents or family members would not meet the requirements for the definition in this bill as they cannot be directed towards or performed on a person.” As such, the definition would not capture, for example, a parent not supporting their child to seek support for gender dysphoria, withholding consent for the administration of puberty blockers, or advising a wait-and-see approach to gender-affirming care.

I think it’s important, also, to note that people who are struggling with their sexuality or gender should be able to receive the support they need, including that ability to explore their identity or to reconcile their faith and sexuality. However, rather than being supportive or exploratory, conversion practices are external attempts to achieve a predetermined outcome of changing or suppressing a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. In a nutshell, it’s identifying or seeing being gay is wrong or broken, and that is where we on this side find a problem and why conversion practices should be made illegal. Being gay is not wrong or broken; it’s part of someone’s identity, and it can’t be “fixed”.

The intent of this bill is not to criminalise all conduct but to deter the performance of conversion practices and to provide avenues for redress. And, for that purpose, part of the clarification that the committee did was to be very clear about what was captured as being a conversion practice. And, for that purpose, the committee actually gave specific examples of what would classify: using shame or coercion with the intention of giving a person an aversion to same-sex attractions or to encourage gender-conforming behaviour. Another example would be to encourage a person to believe that their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression needs changing because it is a defect or disorder; or carrying out a prayer-based practice, deliverance practice, or exorcism with the intention of changing or suppressing their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

Before this bill even had a first reading, I met somebody in my electorate office who came and gave me some material that they had written, and they explained that they had been, over a 20-year period, conducting conversion practices. They came to me in concern just about hearing that this bill was progressing, and they had taken down all notifications on their website in fear that their practices may result in being prosecuted. It took me the progression of this bill to realise that that’s exactly the intent of what this bill is. It’s not to prosecute; it is to deter these practices—those that are incredibly harmful to our rainbow community.

The other changes that the bill has outlined have already been mentioned by the Minister, but in relation to health practitioners. And this was a refinement. A number of the submitters referred to the professional standards code of ethics that practitioners are subject to, which would prevent them from being able to perform conversion practices. The committee heard these concerns and, as a result of listening to those submissions, tightened up the clause. And we did this by removing the reference to “scope of practice” and instead referring to an action taken by a health practitioner in providing a health service that is appropriate in their reasonable professional judgment and complies with all legal, professional, and ethical standards to which they are subject. And I think that’s an improvement on the bill.

I will admit I phoned a friend for a quote for tonight, because I was searching for a good quote, and the one I arrived at was from Harvey Milk, who was the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California. And he said in his famous “Hope” speech, “Unless you have dialogue, unless you open the walls of dialogue, you can never reach to change people’s opinion … Once you have dialogue starting, you know you can break down prejudice.” I hope that this bill takes a step towards that direction in order to open those walls of dialogue and to break down prejudice.

I’d like to close by stating that the two main purposes of this bill that underpin it is to prevent harm, harm to our communities, harm to our rainbow communities, and secondly, it is to promote those discussions, those open dialogues around our kitchen or dinner tables that parents, children, community groups—whoever they are—can be open and free to explore their identity without limitation or fear. Mr Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh, that was easy! Thanks, Mr Speaker. I’m actually not going to be voting for this bill. It probably isn’t a surprise to members across the other side of the House. It’s partly a consistency issue. I voted against it at first reading because I thought the bill was problematic, and now that it’s come through select committee I think it’s arguably more problematic, and I might just expand on that.

I want to acknowledge the previous speaker Ginny Andersen and the work that she’s done, taking the bill through the Justice Committee. She used, I think, at one level appropriately, a quote from Harvey Milk, talking about dialogue. The irony of this bill is it’s not actually about dialogue; it’s trying to limit speech. It’s actually stopping dialogue. The explicit intention of this bill is to stop dialogue. It’s to deter. That’s probably the underlying reason why I have concerns about this bill. It’s firmly in the area of free speech. I’ve always been very wary, and will continue to be very wary, of any legislation that comes into this House which seeks to limit or compel speech. Arguably, and we’ve heard it from a couple of others who have spoken earlier, the definitions that have come through the select committee process make it more ambiguous, and maybe we can tease that out little.

Look, first and foremost, if this bill was truly and simply about conversion practices, as I think most of us intuitively and connotatively understand, it would be a no-brainer to support it. It would be relatively easy. The bill, unfortunately, goes so much further than that. Arguably, a lot of it could be solved by tightening up some of the definitions to give surety, and my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith has touched on some of that. Because we did hear from some amazing submitters. I mean, you read through the submissions themselves—deeply, deeply felt, and some who were actually proud supporters of the LGBTQIA+ community spoke against this bill, because it went too far. They don’t themselves want to be converted but they do want to have conversations; it’s as simple as that.

I’ve got lesbian and gay friends who are concerned about this bill because actually that community, the LGBTQIA+ community, is not a single cohesive unit. As one acquaintance put to me, “As a gay man,” he said, “actually, in today’s day and age I’d be afraid that I’d be told actually I’m really just needing something gender affirming—I’m not actually a gay man; I’m a woman and I just need to explore that.” He feels his identity as a gay man could be erased with the modern zeitgeist at the moment that’s is more around transgender issues. That’s his experience. It’s only one of them, but I do put to those colleagues voting for this bill: how does he and others have a genuine dialogue without the fear that he is, or those talking to him are, going to be captured by this bill? Because as I keep saying, unfortunately—and I do want to stress that because as I keep wanting to repeat—if this was a narrow well-defined bill around conversion practices, we’d be fine—we’d be fine. But it’s now about sustained effort. It’s about wider treatments. And it was also put forward by the previous speaker around examples of conversion practices of someone who may encourage here gender-conforming behaviour. Does that capture biological women who want to use biological terms like “she” and “her”? Is that going to offend people who actually want different pronouns? Maybe it does. I don’t know—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

SIMON O’CONNOR: —and that’s the whole point. This bill is so broad, and they laugh because they don’t particularly care. They don’t seem to care that this bill comes with criminal and civil consequences. This is very serious.

The bill here in black and white: an example of a conversion practice is something sustained that may be directed towards an individual—sorry, I’ve read the wrong line here; using shame or coercion that’s intended to give an individual an aversion to their attraction or to encourage gender-conforming behaviour.

Maybe the sustained use of a traditional pronoun against someone who prefers something different will be seen as problematic. And again I want to stress, particularly to anyone at home who is having conniptions, I don’t know and I suspect they don’t know. There isn’t the clarity in this bill. As I say, it’s gone broader; the definitions have gone much, much broader. I don’t have the confidence in what officials have told us and that is no disrespect to them personally, but what I don’t like is inconsistency and what I don’t like is what I would term as Orwellian doublespeak. So when they have been questioned around parental rights, when they’ve had questions put to them around prayer and so forth, the answer is “Oh no, one can still have conversations so long as it’s affirming the child. It’s OK for the Muslim imam to preach as long as they’re preaching in an affirming statement.” That’s double speak. That raises alarms.

And again, the simple thing, for someone like me, because I’m a simple man, is I just want a clear definition.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

SIMON O’CONNOR: They think they’re funny and insulting on issues like this, and this is what puts out further red lights to people like myself. There’s an underlying arrogance here, which ultimately draws us back to that free speech, because ultimately free speech is built on respect. And I might suggest to those voting for this, it also relies on proper dialogue.

And you know what? Free speech is harmful. Free speech is not safe. Free speech is sometimes not respectful. That’s the nature of it. And that’s how for 6,000 years of recorded history, humanity has moved forward. And that’s why I vote against this bill. It’s not that you want to go out and cause harm. It’s not that you want to go out and make people unsafe. It’s not that you want them to feel disrespected. You know what? Conversations, at times, are difficult; they are challenging. And the underlying paradox in this bill is that in preventing the conversion of some, the bill is seeking to make sure others convert their minds, that they’re not allowed to say, think, pray, or feel a certain opinion. This bill goes far too far—far too far.

And I want to just end with I suppose it’s just one last little observation, because you can sort of feel that this bill—as I say, it’s a bit like trying to break a chestnut with a sledgehammer. It’s just that intuitive feel that it just goes a little too far; in fact, far too far. And it’s an interesting observation: the two examples the Minister chose to use in his speech. Why, of the thousands of submissions, was the Minister so interested, of all things, to quote the Anglican Church? For those who know me well, there’s possibly a double entendre there. But why quote the Anglican Church? Why such a focus on the Christian churches? I’m not going to answer it. I think those at home have their suspicions. But this is ultimately a bill which has to be opposed because it is an attempt to limit speech.

I want to end by where I started, that if this bill was simply looking to define conversion practices, as we all intuitively know and reject, we’d be there—we’d be there.

Hon Kris Faafoi: It’d help if you’d read it.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Well, the problem is I have read it, and that’s actually probably one of the fundamental issues, because the Minister—sorry, for those listening—said I’d better read it. The funny thing is, I’ve read it multiple times. I’ve read the original, I’ve compared it with the existing, I’ve gone and talked to QCs, even, who are giving us quite interesting opinions of where this could go—even talking to justices and judges who say, “Well, actually, with the way it’s defined at the moment, we could end up with an array of interpretations.”

That is fundamentally the point that I’m wanting to put out there—that if this was clear, well defined, we’d be there in spades. But it’s not. And fundamentally, it’s ultimately very little, in my mind, actually, strictly even to do with the LGBTIQA community per se. It’s ultimately an issue of free speech and free rights. And as I also said, whenever it comes to that, when it comes to free speech and the ability for people to have conversations and not be criminalised for having conversations, I will oppose the legislation and will do so, but will be watching with great interest of how the dialogue continues with the Supplementary Order Papers from my colleague Paul Goldsmith.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. There’s a Welsh word, “hwyliau”, and one of its meanings is “boat sails”—that full sense of pace and purpose is blowing from this side of the House to embed the rights of our rainbow communities. This is who we are on this side of the House, saying “No” to conversion therapy as a unified team, saying “Yes” to equality and “Yes” to embedding human rights in our domestic legislative architecture as a unified team. I’m going to riff off my colleague Ginny Andersen and also quote Harvey Milk. He also said, “Hope will never be silent.”, and for those of us on the Justice Committee, the last five months has been anything but silent. I suspect we’ll all remember that day in September when we sat down and the exhausted-looking clerks told us just how many submissions that we had—just under 107,000. And, sure, some people didn’t agree with the purpose of the bill, but volumes and volumes of people did—“Hope will never be silent.”

Of the 38,900 submissions that were unique submissions, 69 percent supported the bill. So we caught our breath and wrapped our heads around the historic numbers of submissions, we reorganised into subcommittees, and we sat in 18 hearings to receive those oral submissions. But what we couldn’t have planned for was the volume of human experience that flooded into the room as we heard stories from people who had been subject to conversion therapy themselves; from friends who had supported their friends for years, from family members who’d done the same; and from a multitude of people who had been and continued to be discriminated against. While we immersed ourselves in the policy, what will remain the most vivid memory for me will be the people who Zoomed into those virtual rooms.

I had the privilege of chairing the first subcommittee to hear submissions, and the representatives from Victoria University rainbow law society were first up, and I’ll always remember they gave each other a glance that felt like it said both “Here we go.”, and “Here we are.” I’ll remember the submitters who brought along support people with them, and while I was listening attentively to the submitters themselves, every now and then I glanced across at their support person who was just beaming love and pride in the direction of their family member. It was incredibly powerful and a reinforcement that rainbow rights so often aren’t won from inside the closet, but are won on the back of voices of some of the most courageous people who I’ve had the privilege to meet over the course of these hearings.

I’ll remember those who submitted who came from an ethnic background, who talked about their rainbow experience and what it meant to be subject to attempts to change who they were. To those ethnic community members who submitted, something perhaps they already know: diverse gender identities are boundless in this world and equality is not a Western invention—its genesis sits inside us all. But responding to their submissions, to that group’s challenge, while we make this significant law change, we actively need to work to ensure young people from diverse backgrounds are fully supported to navigate unearthing their identity in the cultural context that’s very real to them.

I’ll also remember the detail of some of our submitters’ words. One submitter said, “As a queer person, it’s painful to accept that conversion practices are still legal in Aotearoa in 2021. There is no justification for the erasure of our people. While conversion practices remain legal in Aotearoa, my human rights cannot be my human reality.”

I want to also commend Ginny Andersen, our chair, but also our select committee as a whole. I do believe that we collectively listened in a really respectful way, and where the majority landed—in terms of recommendations from the subcommittee—has provided a greater sense of clarity in terms of the scope of the bill, which my colleagues have spoken to. The purpose clause now explicitly acknowledges that conversion practices are inherently harmful. We also proposed amendments to the meaning of “conversion therapy” to include treatment or sustained effort, which ensured there was coverage of both one-off and cumulative acts. The committee also proposed amending clause 5 to include examples of what constitutes a conversion practice, incorporating the examples of the legislation in Queensland and Victoria. We also amended clause 5(2)(f), which a number of speakers have referred to, to clarify that not only is expressing a religious principle or belief not within the sphere of what is conversion therapy, but neither is expressing a personal belief that’s not religious, which was an issue raised on the opposite side of the House that is now covered in the bill. I just also wanted to point out that while those were changes that were made to the bill in select committee stage, actually, clause 5(2) of the bill is all about clarifying what is not conversion therapy. These are not exceptions; this is all about clarifying what is not conversion therapy.

Likewise, there was concern that gender affirming care or supporting a gender transition could perhaps be classified as conversion therapy and we were very clear that that was not the case. We also noted that the bill would not amend legislation around decisions concerning the healthcare of children, including the prescription of puberty blockers.

There is a myth perpetuated by some that free speech is under attack. This is politics. I understand the “why”, but it’s too easy to frame it this way and to do so ignores the physiology and the character of what a right is. Free speech has never been absolute. It’s always been bound by Mill’s harm principle and, in this case, serious harm. Boundaries placed around this and other rights interwoven into so many aspects of our legislative framework are a part of what our legislative system is—defamation, perjury, false advertising, obscenity, profanity, solicitation of a crime. The boundaries are explicitly stated in the Harmful Digital Communications Act—which the Opposition party will be very familiar with—the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act, and other legislation. They are boundaried as a matter of the very process of developing legislation by the task that section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act asks of us, which foresees and expects an exercise of justified limitations. Legislative leadership doesn’t mean declaring that rights should be unboundaried. It requires us to actively consider harm. It requires us to be coherent, not just to place reasonable limitations on a right to protect something like reputation, but also to do so where exercise of a right creates serious and long-term psychological harm.

The boat sails are blowing on this unified side of the House as we progress a robust and responsible rights agenda. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. Tēnā koe e te Māngai, tēnā koe o te Whare. Although I’ve often been in my office over the last few weeks, this is my first time speaking in the House; it is lovely to see all of you here.

Hon Member: Welcome back.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Kia ora. Even better, we are progressing the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. On the trail of amending the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 2021 in the last week of Parliament last year, this is great progress. We’re not saying this is perfect, but as long as we’re progressing, that is always a good, good thing.

Thank you to the Justice Committee for having me join them for the months and months of hearings by four subcommittees. So mihi atu ki a Dr Emily Henderson, who very ably and competently chaired subcommittee C, and to my colleague Mark Mitchell, I think we can safely say that was shared experience we will never forget.

As has been stated, we received nearly 107,000 submissions to this bill. That speaks to the energy around this topic, but I know when people were sending messages to us back a year ago when we did our petition, people could not believe this was still happening in our country, and I think, even though our submitters had very wide-ranging views, every single one still said they don’t support conversion practices. So I think that is a huge indication of where our country has moved to.

About—as also has been said—38,900 submissions had unique content, and those are the ones we engaged with. So about 70 percent of those were positive, so that means approximately 68,000 voices were actually lost in this process because they were identified as form submissions, even if they added unique text to that form. So I think this is a very important lesson for our community organisers: that if you’re out there encouraging people to engage in our democratic process, absolutely this is critical, we need that, go for it—go with guidelines, not necessarily templates. Always encourage submissions that are unique, because three lines of authentic voice have more weight than the most beautifully crafted and carefully articulated submission that was written by someone else. Shout-out to Chargn Keenan, who organised our webinars to explain this bill to people, and to Rainbow Greens, who guided thousands of people to submit in their own words.

Several things stood out for me when we were hearing these hundreds of submissions. The first was the willingness of survivors and people who have experienced conversion practices, and many who came to me as well, who said they’d never thought about what happened to them as being conversion practices but realised through this process that it was, and decades later that is still affecting many, many people. Many of those stories were heart-rending, and that trauma is still there—those people still need to be looked after, they still need care, because that harm was usually done by trusted people.

The second thing that stood out for me was how rainbow communities, our whānau, and our allies rallied to respond to two bills happening at the same time. It was a lot of work, it was hundreds of pages of submissions, it was a lot of meetings, webinars—that’s just in the last five minutes, but it represents the culmination of decades of work of people to get to this point.

But I’m really sorry for the amount of abuse and misinformation that was directed to members of rainbow communities or was expressed about them. It was awful to listen to, and especially—when I was a young activist at the time of the homosexual law reform, we were marching down the streets and doing our protests and we were meeting with the local MPs. At that time, we were writing strongly worded letters. And we heard many of the same arguments that we heard in these hearings; we heard it back then, we heard it in the Civil Union Act, and we heard it in the marriage equality. So there’s a standard narrative that gets used against our community. It’s kind of a distilled version of the discrimination that many parts of our community face.

The biggest difference between all of those, though, and this bill, was the way that the anti-trans lobby weaponised it against trans people. That was remarkable to me. And even though it was, ultimately, unsuccessful, they caused a lot of harm and spread a lot of misinformation that exists to this date. So for this record—for this record: puberty blockers cannot be obtained as easily as lollies. No family in this country is going to jail for reacting really badly when their child comes out to them or tells them they want to transition. We want to give all the support that’s needed to whānau for them to have really healthy—and sometimes loud—conversations about what’s going on, and the right of any whānau to look after their children especially.

I hope for those people who were brought up in a way that their belief, their religion, is core to who they are that this was a healing thing, because when I was brought up Catholic, and back in 1986 and homosexual law reform, the Unitarian Church was one of the only churches that supported that law, and the Salvation Army led every other church against it. To have the Salvation Army and every other mainstream church come to submit in support of the bill and to be categorical that it did not jeopardise, or they did not believe that it affected their expression of belief and religion. The Greens have a principal in our charter of appropriate decision making that the decisions should be made by those who are most affected by it. So for me, as someone who doesn’t belong to any particular religion, that has my Māori spirituality, I take their advice then, I take their guidance. I’m pleased that we decided not to add something and that we can actually trust that our churches, our places of worship will be safe for everybody who goes to them, who belongs to them, and that those churches can have these conversations without fear—because realistically, with a law that says the Attorney-General has to decide whether someone is going to jail or not, we can be pretty sure no one is going to jail.

One of the things that was added to the bill through the committee process was about the definition of “conversion practices”, and I think this is really important, because lots of people have things in their mind, but we need to have the same understanding. However, for the first time the words “gender identity” and “gender expression” are also going into law, for the first time in this country, with no definition. So I think we’ll be putting in a Supplementary Order Paper tomorrow to say, “That’s actually quite important to define so people know what we’re talking about in this law.”

My last point is for people who intersex, whether they belong to rainbow communities or not, and I am sad that sex characteristics was not added to gender identity and gender expression. We tried to do that. We did get a section added into the committee report that acknowledges what the Government is undertaking to a rights-based approach that focuses on ensuring that intersex people and their whānau have all the relevant information and support they need to make informed decisions and to support health practitioners to provide best-practice healthcare for intersex people. I look forward to the time when I can stand up in this House and support that bill.

Clearly, we’re in support of this bill. We are thankful that this House is moving this forward. Just a final word to all of the people who we know are experiencing this right now—because it has not stopped, it’s happening right now—this is a stake in the ground, it is not acceptable, and we will be stopping it. Kia ora.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): I stand to speak on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. And before I begin, I think it’s really important to take some time to, first of all, acknowledge the submitters—the 107,000 people who made the effort, whether to support or not, but to get in touch with Parliament and utilise their ability to have a voice in the way that we construct our legislation. Their voices were clear—very clear—on both sides. I think it’s also important to acknowledge the debate that continues to happen in this House this evening, because, while we have one side that says the legislation is very clear, there is obviously, on the other side, debate about just how clear it is and how much clearer it could be. But what I do want to acknowledge is everybody’s individual views and party views, because I think that they are all important in this important piece of legislation.

I’d also like to acknowledge the work of the officials and the clerks. Those submissions were absolutely huge, and they had to process them in a very short time frame. They worked extremely hard and over long hours, and I would like to specifically acknowledge the efforts that they made.

I’d also like to acknowledge the difficulty that New Zealanders as a whole, on both sides of this debate, have feared as we have gone through this select committee stage. There has been concern mentioned by submitters about how far the legislation goes, and there was also concern mentioned by submitters about how far it doesn’t go, so trying to find that balance was extremely hard for the officials and also for the Justice Committee. And in that respect, I’d like to acknowledge the work of the committee across the House in bringing in other MPs during the submission process so that everybody could partake in that select committee process. I’d like to acknowledge the challenging aspects, as I mentioned beforehand, and there’s still some challenges before us as we head into the committee of the whole House after this reading.

Finally in my acknowledgments: Paul Goldsmith, I really enjoyed listening to your views, and I think that you articulated those issues really, really well.

David Seymour: He doesn’t do that every day!

NICOLE McKEE: No, he doesn’t; that’s why I thought it was important to actually say I thought he did a good job there.

Now, our view is that—and when I submitted the differing view on behalf of the ACT Party it was because I needed to express our concerns. We did so in the first reading. And while some changes have been made to the legislation, we don’t think that those changes went far enough. We do think what we did was good, but we don’t think that it’s very clear—or as clear as we want it to be.

The chair of the Justice Committee, Ginny Andersen, read out clauses that she said we would be expected to be able to define: the fact that having a discussion with mum and dad would not be concluded as being a conversion therapy, but when you have aspects such as a “sustained effort” and not defining about those conversations, then of course there will be concern that those parents could actually be brought into the realm of a potential prosecution. Our concerns were acknowledged by the Justice Committee, and they were also acknowledged by the officials, and they did try to remedy those concerns.

We were looking to seek a balance: a balance between what is harmful and, of course, the freedom of speech and the freedom of thought—autonomy in both respects, without having harm to either. We also wanted to address the concerns about the parental rights being lost. Of course, this comes back to the “sustained efforts”. Addressing our concerns about the free speech implications, about the unravelling of democracy—and that happens with the removal of a person to be able to consent to what happens to themselves. The United Nations declaration on human rights and our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act have been justifiably excluded in some of the clauses, and we don’t think that is the right route to go down.

It’s quite difficult to find a genuine path that would give us an effective bill that balances the legislation in a way that we are all seeking. By not excluding parental conversations outright, the Government, effectively, creates a fear about the authority the Government is giving to itself via the Attorney-General being able to place his role directly into our homes, making decisions about the conversations that are being held as a parent with a minor and whether or not a prosecution could entail. So we just don’t believe that the balance there had been met. But on the other side of this discussion, we also recognise the harm of conversion practices, as experienced by individuals and families—the balancing against harm experienced by the LGBTQIA+ community, because this community also has rights as individuals. They should be able to be themselves without interference, without harm being placed against them. They also have the right to have autonomy over themselves.

So we want to send a very clear message that we do not accept harm against those that express themselves or those that want to seek guidance. We would hope that in some way, perhaps, this legislation will stop teachers in schools asking students to justify their sexuality to them, as is happening at present, because many parents see that as a harmful practice too.

In order to try and find some balance, we have prepared two Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). They are ready, but unfortunately there is a problem with the computer system, and the clerks are struggling to get those SOPs through, but they have been done. We would like to ensure that conversations between parents and children—just the conversations—are exempt. That will give clarity to the parents and to those in their homes that it’s OK to continue to have these discussions.

Our second SOP would ensure that there would be a three-year initial review of the Act, followed by five-yearly reviews. This was suggested but it was not incorporated into the bill. If the review is actually justified, then we can strengthen the Act; and if it’s not, then we have lost nothing. So by being able to have a review, it actually means that we can look at whether or not the Act is going to work. And if it doesn’t, we can fix it, and if it does, it will be all good—we won’t lose anything.

In the meantime, the ACT Party has decided to continue to support this bill, because we would hope that consideration of our SOPs and the changes that we want to implement to give that further clarity and find better balance will be able to go through at the next stage in the committee of the whole House, allowing us to continue to support the bill.

The best we can do is to find some balance and the ability to ensure that those 107,000 submitters actually all have a voice, whether they agreed to this bill or not, that we can take in everybody’s views and alleviate the fears that parents have of the intrusion in their homes. But at this stage, we will support, because we believe that everybody has the right to have the freedom to choose about who they are and how they conduct themselves. Thank you.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker, ā, tēnei te mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa, ngā mema Pāremata, ā, tēnei te mihi aroha ki ngā tāngata e mātakitaki mai ki te pouaka whakaata hoki.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Warm greetings to all the members of Parliament, and it is with love that I greet the people also watching on television.]

To those watching the passage of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill tonight, I said, i tōku reo rangatira [in my noble language], it is with love that I greet you, because it is with love in all its forms that this Government celebrates tonight with the second reading of this bill.

You know that this bill inspired a record number of submissions. It started the conversation which has been building for many years in the Labour movement about what is acceptable for our rangatahi who undergo these conversion practices to be exposed to and the harm that it causes, and I was blown away by the passion and the emotion of those submitters. It’s not often that our select committee process inspires the next generation of Māori and Pacific young people to come forward, but, time and time again, we heard from Māori parents, from rangatahi Māori, and from young Pacific people from all over the country who wanted to speak to this process because it was something dear to their hearts and they wanted to change things for the better.

People like Timoti, who joined the committee to talk about why this legislation is needed and to protect young people in the formative stages of their lives. He joined us one morning, as my colleagues in the House have reflected on, when we were split into the many subcommittees that heard these submissions, and it was just me and the Hon Simon Bridges. He shared with us some really powerful reflections on growing up as a young Māori man. He told us that we didn’t need a crystal ball to see the harm done to Māori over generations by practices intended to change our identity, to mould us into something other than our unique identity. He told us to look to the high rates of depression, of suicide, and of incarceration borne by Māori—mostly Māori men like him. Whether it’s the denial of our reo or our sexuality and gender, Māori are living proof that intolerance of expression and identity damages not only the individual but their children, their whānau, and their whakapapa.

People like Waima, a Māori mum of five, who joined the committee to tell us why she didn’t want her children to experience the conversion practices that so deeply affected her brother when they were growing up. As a parent, she reflected on the type of conversation she could have with her children, and how she would never and could never do to them what she, as a sister, had seen done to the brother she loved.

I want to address some of the points raised on the other side of the House tonight: firstly, this idea that parents will be banned from speaking with their children and that it’s stopping dialogue. The expression of religious and non-religious belief will not be covered by this legislation, and, as free speech, it’s still protected. The intention of this bill is not to criminalise this conduct, but to capture the egregious example of those practices. We know that conversion practices, even when they’re done or encouraged by parents, don’t work, but rather, in most cases, they cause serious and long-term harm, regardless of whether they are done by parents to their own children.

Conversion practices in 2020: we’re now ensuring that this promise to rangatahi in this situation is delivered on, and the purpose of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill is to encourage these safe and open discussions around sexuality and gender expressions that most parents who submitted to the Justice Committee were concerned about. The bill strikes what I think is the right balance between outlining the harm that conversion practices cause and the individual rights and freedoms of the people they are done to. It respects the rights of parents to speak with children about decisions to seek medical advice and treatment that affirms their identity and themselves.

Further, this bill protects parents from practices that may do harm to their family unbeknownst to them. I’m grateful to a submitter from a well-known church who submitted to the committee about her own experiences joining a church as a teenager from a household that didn’t attend. She talked about the guilt and shame that she felt when her pastors came to her and wanted to speak with her about her sexuality and her gender identity, and the worry she felt about talking with her parents about the practice that she had been exposed to in a church that they didn’t approve of. This bill draws a line under those practices and it protects parents, as well.

The second idea is that the wording is too unclear in the bill and that it creates too much confusion. But the definition is clear: conversion practices are the most severe, and they cause the most serious harm. Conversion practices and the sort of serious harm they cause are severe depression and anxiety, isolation and alienation, and increased feelings of shame and grief. They also cause difficulty with forming relationships, they might cause substance abuse, and there is a possible risk of suicide attached. Some research identifies survivors of conversion practices as experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, and that is what the bill has set out to address. It’s not about using the wrong pronouns. It’s not about engaging in conversations with peers where you use the wrong terms. This is about the harm done to people, predominantly young people—predominantly people who are not used to having their identities affirmed in the first place.

Thirdly, this idea that the bill has gone too far. Well, the bill uses both criminal and civil law to prohibit and deter the performance of conversion practices, and this is a nuanced approach because it doesn’t use a heavy-handed approach of criminal sanctions only.

The bill creates two new criminal offences, where there is either a heightened risk of harm, as is the case of conversion practices performed on people under the age of 18 or people with impaired decision-making capacity, or where it can be demonstrated that a person has suffered serious harm as a result of the conversion practice. These criminal offences are intended to capture particularly serious cases and to send a clear message that conversion practices are unacceptable and should not be appearing here in Aotearoa.

But the civil redress scheme also creates a civil pathway for redress, and this involves the Human Rights Commission, which will be able to receive complaints about conversion practices and provide services to facilitate resolution. Where a complaint cannot be resolved using the commission’s services, a claim can be taken to the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and the tribunal will be able to grant a range of remedies such as a declaration that a wrong has occurred, an order restraining a person or organisation from continuing to perform the conversion practices, or an award of damages. This allows a two-track process, which is fair and nuanced in this case.

This idea, as well, the bill, is not about the LGBTI communities, but is, in fact, about limiting free speech—I wanted to address this quickly, because that’s simply not the case. This bill has been developed alongside rainbow communities from all around the country by members of rainbow communities from all around the country in service to people from those backgrounds all around the country, and we are accountable to rainbow communities around the country tonight. This is about advancing progress for the rainbow people we are trying to protect here.

There was a final note that I wanted to touch on from my colleague Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, who talked about the role of community organisers within this process. She said that submissions to Parliament are powerful and advice about the three lines of authentic voice being powerful as well—that is true. But community organising for the rights of marginalised people is something I am passionate about, and so I have to add to that.

Organisers whose power comes from their connection to their whānau or their aiga, who are trying to bring their whānau with them on hard issues like conversion therapy within their church—those are the people we should stand beside, and organisers need a movement. We get to pass legislation like this in the House tonight because we are bringing people with us, and this is a movement which calls those organisers to be a part of it.

This is a movement that has boosted mental health support, ensuring diversity of identity and sexual orientation doesn’t present barriers to accessing support. We’re the first Government to provide targeted nationwide funding for mental health services supporting rainbow young people to ensure that they can access support when they need it. This Government supported transition, helping trans people access the care they needed by reducing wait times for gender affirming surgery and lifting the cap on the number of publicly funded surgeries. This is a movement which ensured HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) prevention services in New Zealand are targeted appropriately, ensuring rainbow communities aren’t disadvantaged in terms of healthcare, and it invested $300,000 in research updating behavioural information, like HIV and STI testing rates, to guide the improved design and delivery of prevention services in the future.

Labour has a long history of looking out for Aotearoa’s LGBTIQA+ and takatāpui communities, and we’re proud to continue that legacy tonight, and to celebrate love in all its forms. Tēnā tātou.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call the Hon Mark Mitchell—a five-minute call.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madan Speaker. It’s my pleasure to stand and take a short call on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill.

Can I just acknowledge at the start Elizabeth Kerekere, who I sat with consistently through most of the submissions that we heard on the Justice Committee, along with other members of the committee as well. I think she made a very good point in her speech to the House when she said that most of the submitters that actually came and submitted to the committee, a lot of them shared very personal views in terms of what conversion meant to them and the impact that it had had on them. We had doctors and we had parents, caregivers, that fundamentally were making submissions around the fact that they didn’t want to see a chilling effect on the ability for parents to be able to have open conversations with their children, or to parent their children.

But the one thing that I found very interesting when we started questioning and got into a dialogue with them was that most of them were against conversion therapy. They’re against conversion therapy; they just wanted to make sure that they weren’t going to be criminalised, especially in the case of parents, when they were trying to parent their children. Nicole McKee made a very good speech outlining that very succinctly, along with Paul Goldsmith, and both of the parties are going to be putting up Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). So I hope the Minister will take into serious consideration with his advisers to make sure that we can absolutely give an unequivocal message to parents and caregivers, and, actually, medical practitioners, that the Government’s not going to be sitting in the room with them, with the fear of criminal charges and a term of imprisonment hanging over their heads, when they’re trying to parent or have discussions with their children.

That being said, when this bill was first brought to our caucus, my initial, gut reaction was absolute abhorrence at the thought of conversion therapy. I was actually stunned. I couldn’t believe that in modern New Zealand, a practice like that could actually be undertaken, and I still feel like that. But one thing that I learnt through the select committee process was that it’s a lot more complicated and more nuanced. A lot of the submissions that we heard from people that had been to subjected to conversion therapy, you could put on the more extreme end of the scale and you could put on the more mild end of the scale, but the one thing that was consistent was it had had a deeply negative impact on them.

I think, as lawmakers, when we come to this House, one of the things that we all hold fast to is the fact that we should pass legislation and do all that we can to protect vulnerable people in our country and in our communities, and that’s what this bill is trying to do. That is the spirit and intent of this bill, and therefore I do support the bill, but I support it on the premise that the Minister would, please, go away and give serious consideration to the SOPs that have been brought to this House by the National Party and by the ACT Party to give absolute surety and clarity in this legislation that a parent sitting in their lounge with their child, trying to parent them and have a discussion with them, is not going to be captured by the Government, that the Government’s not going to be there, it’s not going to create that chilling effect, and that those parents don’t have to worry about a sentence of imprisonment when they’re trying to engage in the parenting of their children. I do acknowledge that those conversations have to be done with respect and openness and love, and not a conversation of trying to change or disrupt or convert what a person fundamentally feels strongly about in terms of their identity.

So, like I said—me, personally—I will be supporting the bill in its passage through this House. I would ask the Minister to please have a look at, consider, and engage on the SOPs that have been brought to this House to ensure that we don’t pass legislation that inadvertently—because I don’t think the intent is to catch parents or caregivers or doctors or counsellors. But with the way the bill is written at the moment, there is a risk of that, and I’d ask that the Minister, like I said, consider carefully those SOPs. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Willow-Jean Prime—five minutes.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe, otirā tēnā tātou katoa, ā, tātou kua huihui mai i tēnei pō ki te kōrero e pā ana ki tēnei pire kei mua i a tātou i te pō nei.

[To the Speaker of the House, greetings, and also greetings to everyone, to all of us who have gathered here tonight to discuss the bill that lays before us tonight.]

Thank you for the opportunity to take a brief call. I’m standing because we do not have representation from the Māori Party tonight to speak on the second reading, so, taking that opportunity, I want to acknowledge the many whānau, many Māori, te hunga takatāpui, who I know who are part of our rainbow community—many who came and submitted to the Justice Committee—for having the courage to make a submission and to come before us to share your experiences and to talk to your support for the bill.

This has not been my experience, not even in my immediate whānau, and so it was a privilege to be a member of that select committee and to hear the harrowing stories that were shared with us. I found it particularly difficult to sit there amongst colleagues—we are the most rainbow Parliament in the world. To have some of my colleague sitting there hearing from submitters, hearing that there is something “wrong” with them, I found that really, really difficult, and if I was finding that difficult and hurtful, I can only imagine how hurtful that was for my colleagues, who this directly impacts. So I want to acknowledge all of those who sat through the many, many submissions, many of which were difficult for us at times, and to acknowledge your kaha to do that, as we tried to navigate that process and come up with the best piece of legislation that we could report back to the House, which we are debating tonight, and I believe we arrived in the right place with that.

As you heard in many of the speeches already this evening, you never quite know which issues are going to get the response that we do from the community. So as we opened up for submissions, I was watching social media, Instagram. People were encouraging people to make submissions—“There are forms that you can use. This is how you do the process.”—so I got a sense from that that, unlike lots of other legislation that goes through the House where people have the opportunity but they don’t take it, there were going to be quite a number. Well, when we got the final count in, it was 107,000—the largest number of submissions this Parliament has ever received. It shocked me that it was on an issue like this, when there are also so many other important issues that come before us.

There were 107,000 submissions, with 38,900 unique submissions—we’ve heard tonight that there was a lot of use of the template submissions—and more than 3,400 submitters requesting to make oral submissions. So that meant that for the Justice Committee—and I want to acknowledge our chair, Ginny Andersen—to just get through the process of determining which submissions we were going to hear from and how we were going to organise ourselves, I think we ended up in, was it, four subcommittees to be able to do that. We had 18 oral hearings to hear evidence from 800 oral submissions. It was a huge exercise that we undertook as the Justice Committee, and so I just really want to acknowledge all members.

I wasn’t there for the final deliberations on the report. I was on the Pae Ora Legislation Committee at the same time, but my notifications on my phone were pinging, and to have heard that we got unanimous support for the report back, I’m really proud of everybody who was on the committee that got it to the point that we’re at this evening.

You know, the statement that I really want to make is that after listening to all of those submissions for and against, but particularly against, there just can be no justification for trying to force someone to change their sexuality or their gender. This bill, the purpose of it is to try and prevent harm—and we heard so clearly that it causes harm—and to encourage, instead, safe and respectful conversations around sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. I don’t believe that this bill will remove all of the harm and all of the prejudice that our rainbow whānau suffer from, but it is another thing that we can do in our proud history of upholding rainbow rights, and I’m proud to be part of that this evening. Tēnā koutou katoa.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, me ngā mihi mō te tau hou ki ngā mema Pāremata i runga i te Whare i tēnei pō, nō reira tēnā koutou.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker, and best wishes for the New Year to the members of Parliament in the House tonight, greetings to you all.]

Happy New Year to everyone, and it’s wonderful to be back in the House with my parliamentary colleagues. Kia tau te rangimārie.

[Let peace be upon us.]

But it’s a particular pleasure because this is the second reading, of course, to confirm this Government’s commitment at the general election to pass legislation that bans conversion practices.

Normally, February is when we celebrate Pride in Aotearoa, and while I’m sad for obvious reasons that the spread of Omicron has meant Pride festivities have had to be put on hold, I hope delivering this legislation on time is some compensation for our rainbow communities. This bill encourages safe and open discussions around sexuality and gender expression, and it will prevent the harm that conversion practices cause and provide an avenue for redress for those who have been impacted by them.

Conversion practices are based on the falsehood that a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression can and should be changed. They are discriminatory, harmful, and outdated, and they have no place in modern Aotearoa New Zealand. It also shifts the conversation about sexuality, gender identity, and gender expression this evening. It has become apparent through the consideration of this particular bill that we are no longer talking about whether we should support people to live authentically, but to a far more healthy and loving conversation about how we do that.

As I said in my first speech on this, this bill is about showing kotahitanga—unity—to our rainbow communities. Sexuality, gender identity, and gender expression are not political issues; they are issues of humanity, and it’s actually confusing to me why such basic human rights are even up for debate in this House, let alone why, sadly, some members this evening would choose to vote against them. As politicians, I believe that we have a duty of care to support our constituents, and this is one of those issues where how we vote will be remembered in years to come.

I joined the Justice Committee for a number of evidence sessions on the bill. There were almost 107,000 submissions on this legislation, close to 40,000 of which included original content. Eighteen separate oral hearings were held by many of us—days and days of listening to the people of Aotearoa. But I was impressed by the efforts that submitters in favour of the bill made to clearly set out the case for banning conversion practices—in particular, young New Zealanders, our rangatahi, who have a much more enlightened attitude to sexuality and gender identity and expression. They know who they are. They support one another to live authentically, as this legislation sets out to ensure, and this evening, I want to say to them that I hear you.

On the other side, I also want to acknowledge our religious groups that we heard from. I also want to acknowledge the progress that I saw in those submissions from religious groups—the progress that they have made on these issues. For these communities, sexuality and gender issues have been confronting. However, what I saw and what I heard from a number of faith-based communities, making the shifts that they need to in order to offer loving and affirming pastoral care to the young people that they care for—in that spirit, and, as a Catholic, I’d like to encourage us to navigate a pathway forward on these issues, too. I sometimes think about my own place as a gay man in this country within my faith community, and I believe too that, through kotahitanga, we can get there together and that my faith, my culture, and my sexuality can go hand in hand.

These are certainly issues that weighed on the committee’s mind, and it has proposed some sensible amendments to the purpose of the bill and the definitions of “serious harm” and “conversion practice”. The definition of “conversion practice” has been amended to cover practices, sustained efforts, and treatments, so that both one-off and cumulative practices are captured. Examples of what conversion practices look like have been added to for the avoidance of any doubt and the doubt that we’ve heard this evening. These include “using shame or coercion intending to give an individual an aversion to same-sex attractions or to encourage gender-conforming behaviour:”, “encouraging an individual to believe that their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression needs changing because it is a defect or a disorder:”, and “carrying out a prayer-based practice, a deliverance practice, or an exorcism intending to change or suppress an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.”

The bill defines a conversion practice as a “practice, sustained effort, or treatment” that is both directed towards a person because of their “sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression;” or “done with the intention of changing or suppressing … sexual orientation, gender identity, or expression.” It explicitly does not capture the expression of a religious principle or belief that is not intended to change or suppress a person from being who they are, nor does it prevent parents from being part of conversations with medical practitioners about healthcare for their tamariki, their children. These will remain matters to be decided between health professionals, patients, and their families.

Under the bill, criminal and civil law will prohibit and deter the performance of conversion practices. Criminal offences are created where there is a heightened risk of harm or where it can be demonstrated someone has suffered serious harm as a result of conversion practices. A pathway for civil redress is created for the Human Rights Commission to take complaints about conversion practice, with escalation to the Human Rights Review Tribunal where a resolution cannot be arrived at.

This evening, I stand here as a proud Labour MP, and I’m proud because Labour Governments have consistently advanced the position of human rights for our rainbow communities. I remind everyone this evening that Labour has shifted homosexual law reform, property relations, civil unions, equal marriage, expunging historical homosexual convictions, and, only last year, we amended the births, deaths, and marriages legislation. The Labour Party—our Government—remains relentlessly proud for our rainbow communities, and this bill is a part of our active support for continuing this journey forward and, most of all, for our country to be the inclusive and accepting nation that we want it to be. I particularly want this evening to acknowledge Rainbow Labour and Young Labour for campaigning on conversion practices. That paved the way for this piece of Government legislation that we’re now considering.

Sadly, across the room, I’m disappointed in the decision of many of you this evening. It’s a great shame that you can’t decide on where you sit on a human rights issue that is detrimental to our rainbow communities, that you sit on the fence this evening, and that, most of all, you can’t take a unified position on a way forward. We are not a nut to crack, nor are we like a kidney transplant, as said in your speeches this evening.

Finally, and to conclude my speech this evening, I want to acknowledge OutLine, who do great work for our rainbow communities across the country. This legislation is also a tribute to them and groups like them, who have seen the harm of our rainbow communities when they are confronted by the long-term impacts that follow from conversion practices. For them, and for all of our rainbow communities, I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā tātou.

SPEAKER: Matt Doocey—a five-minute call.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. To start off 2022, I think it’s a reminder of what an absolute privilege it is to be a member of Parliament and the House of Representatives, and I want to acknowledge everyone here tonight for this considered debate about a very important issue. My sense is both sides of the argument have a lot of commonalities, and it’s right that we debate this bill in the second reading and go on to the committee of the whole House to test the integrity of the drafting of the bill and the integrity of the legislation so that it will deliver what it says it will deliver.

I stand here tonight as the mental health and suicide prevention spokesperson for the National Party, and also the youth spokesperson and the inaugural Young Nats patron, a role I was excited to accept. I did say to the Young Nats, though, that if I accepted this inaugural role of being their patron, I wasn’t signing up to going out drinking with them—I’m way too old for that now. But these are a group of young people who are absolutely passionate about their country, as I’m sure all the other youth wings are as well.

I also stand here tonight as an individual who’s been on both sides of the therapeutic alliance: someone who’s been a consumer and someone who’s been a mental health practitioner. As we do say in mental health, it is a fine line between provider and consumer at times.

I also stand here as someone who’s a proud father of two young children, a boy and a girl—and I do look forward to celebrating their sexual orientation, their gender identity that they will decide—and as someone who grew up in a faith-based community and still goes to church.

Second readings are about the submissions, and I want to bring voice to one submission, and that is from the Young Nats. The Young Nats have been championing the banning of conversion practices since late 2019, and I want to acknowledge them for all their advocacy. It is difficult, I think, having different views, especially when those differing views are within your own caucus, but I think that it’s important that we do debate them. I want to acknowledge Stephanie-Anne Ross, the president of the New Zealand Young Nationals, and Madison Chamberlain, the national policy chair of the New Zealand Young Nationals. They were very clear in their submission on why they supported the banning of conversion practices, which is that “There is no evidence that conversion practices work.”, and I think that when you look at some of the institutions—the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, and the New Zealand Association of Counsellors—this practice does not work and actually causes harm.

That’s their second point: conversion practices do harm. We know our young people have high rates of mental distress at that part of the life course as they navigate their way through identity and development. Those in our rainbow community have higher rates of mental distress and suicide attempts, and, of course, those who have been through conversion therapy have even higher rates of suicide attempts and, unfortunately, even higher rates of suicide.

They said that “Engaging in conversion practices is often not a choice.”—there is a lot of coercion—and that the difference between parenting and subjecting a child to conversion practices is different. The Young Nats don’t want to see parents being prosecuted, but they clearly believe that there is a difference here—and I support them in that statement—and also that prohibition of these practices does not impact religious freedom: “There is a substantial difference between expressing a religious principle and subjecting an individual to conversion practices.” Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. May I say at the outset that I don’t think anyone—or, certainly, no one I’ve heard—disagrees with the intention behind this bill, the good meaning which is inherent in this bill. The conversion practice that would make someone question or have a lack of belief or courage in who they are is something that should not ever be encouraged or supported. In fact, we should ensure as best we can in our society that our young people are supported to be who they are and to make the decisions that they feel are best for them.

I can certainly say for me personally that I have numerous family members who are in the LGBTQIA+ community, and so it’s something I’m aware of at a personal level. Fortunately, my personal knowledge doesn’t extend to those members being subject to conversion practices, but it’s certainly something that I’ve heard about and, as I’ve heard from other people in this House, it would fill me with horror that that would happen.

However, there is an important point which has been raised this evening by the Hon Paul Goldsmith and Nicole McKee, and we just need some clarity from the Minister—I’m hoping it comes in the committee of the whole House stage—on the concerns raised by parents. There is a real concern that hasn’t fully been clarified, as I read this bill, about whether parents or caregivers could be caught by this bill if they, for example, withheld consent for medical intervention in relation to gender transition for what they consider their child’s best interests. As a father of three children, that’s not something I’ve had to personally deal with, but certainly I know that during that formative stage of a young person coming into their teenage years, there is a lot of uncertainty. Certainly, if a parent thought that it was in the best interest of their child not to have a medical intervention that could have longstanding consequences for them, that’s something that I would not want to see criminalised. I know there has been discussion that that is not in the intention of this bill, but it would be helpful if, for example, in the examples of conversion practices that was made clear to alleviate those concerns that a number of parents in our country have.

I note that we need to get the right balance between free speech, on one hand, and harms, on the other. I note that free speech has led our country to have some significant social change which has been of great benefit to our country—for example, back in 1986, the homosexual law reform, which led to huge change in our country, and has, obviously, led us on the journey which has led us to where we are today.

I just want to encourage the Government to make sure we get the right balance in this bill to carry on that good work to make sure people in our communities feel safe, and so that we have a good balance between the interests of those parents who are concerned that they will be captured for having well-meaning discussions with their children—particularly around medical intervention—and it is the intention of this bill to ensure that young people can feel safe to express themselves and to explore their identity and their sexuality. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Mā te whakatū ka mōhio, mā te mōhio ka mārama, mā te mārama ka mātau, mā te mātau ka ora—with discussion comes knowledge, with knowledge comes light and understanding, with light and understanding comes wisdom, with wisdom comes wellness. This was the beginning of a submission made that I was able to sit in on during the select committee stage.

They went on to say, “Some of us in the past have supported conversion therapy and now realise the damage it does. Some of us have never supported conversion therapy. Some of us have been hurt [some of us have close friends] who have been hurt [and pained] by conversion therapy. Our experiences and faith have led us collectively to believe that conversion therapy has no place in a society that values the humanity of all its people.”

Now, this submission was significant for me in many ways, but one is because this submission was from a group that I used to head up and lead. It was from a Christian organisation that I came out to a number of years ago, as leader. We were a conservative—as was said, it supported conversion practices in the past and had to deal with this. I’ve had to deal with this, they had to deal with this, and we came to a place where they talked about discussion, about knowledge, and about light and understanding which brings wisdom, and with that it brings wellness.

That is what this piece of legislation is about. It is around enabling discussion, and not around enabling parents to be thrown into prison because they want to lean in and love their children. They want to lean in and be good parents, and they want to lean in and be challenged and pushed, but they want to lean in and ensure what is right for their child.

Now, this organisation Incedo, as I said, was part of my journey. It still is a part of my journey—and it’s funny, because I missed the first half of speeches tonight. I want to say it was because I didn’t want to hear all the rhetoric and all the waffle and all the “We like you, but” and “We think you’re OK, but”. I was actually up in Bellamy’s, having my first anniversary dinner with my husband. It was good; I was behaved. But I just want to thank the Labour Party and I want to thank our Government for leaning in and ensuring that I can live my authentic self, and so that people who are listening tonight and people who are online listening to the select committee processes can live their authentic lives without fear of discrimination and without fear of being told something is wrong with them.

So often in this debate, when we talk about this issue, we forget the real lives, and as I was on the select committee listening, it hurt—thank you, Willow-Jean Prime, for your comments. It hurts to hear the rhetoric. It hurts, in 2021 and, now, in 2022, to still feel, even though I’m married and even though I can live my best life, that I still have this narrative of “Yeah, we support you, mostly, but what happens if one of our children”—we’re like you. Yeah, I’ve got friends, but what about my children, and we want to be in a place where the hard conversations are had. Yes, it’ll be hard—yes. But I just wish that my parents could have had those conversations with me. They never could.

I never came out to them either, because I was too scared because I had learnt—as I also listened to it in the select committee—“Love the sinner, hate the sin.” All I heard, as a 12-year-old, as a 15-year-old, as a 21-year-old, as a 30-year-old—and even now, as a 46-year-old, when you hear that “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”, all I hear is “Blah-blah-blah-blah”—hate—“Blah-blah-blah-blah”—hate—because for me, that is an essence of who I am. But I’m grateful that so many of our society support me, support our takatāpui whānau, and support our transgender and intersex communities.

As I listened and was hurt, I also listened and was brought to life as I heard Christian organisations, as I heard individuals, and as I heard community and youth organisations support this piece of legislation. Taranaki Youth Voice, based in Taranaki—I thought they made a really good point. Again, for parents, for those who are scared of “What might this mean for me?”, they talked about how conversion practices actually give a false hope to parents. They give a false hope to caregivers. They give a false hope to communities that maybe our rainbow alphabet soup of people can be fixed or can be changed—that false hope—and please, this isn’t just a phase or something; it is around the affirmation of who I am.

I also want to note the Salvation Army and their comments, and in the first reading, I mentioned them in terms of my history within the Salvation Army. But they mentioned that God is love, and one of the primary attributes of God is that if he’s love, there are no limits, and it’s for whosoever. They also talked in their submission about Jesus resisting the legalistic interpretation of the Scriptures. Summing it all up, it was around love God and love your neighbour—that’s it—and I think this piece of legislation is around that.

It’s how do we enable people to love people who are different to them and love people who aren’t like them—but also, again, for our whānau, for our parents, to find people to talk to. If you’re a good, conservative Christian out there and you’ve made a submission and you are nervous and fearful, then seek out people who maybe can alleviate your concern and your fear. You never know, it might just help you to lean in, in that light and that knowledge, which also brings that wellbeing.

Finally tonight, I want to thank Minister Kris Faafoi for taking this on. I’m sitting strategically in Marja Lubeck’s seat right now—or standing at her podium—to say thank you for the work that you’ve done to ensure this legislation has made it to second reading. As my colleague and others have said, to Rainbow Labour, to Young Labour, and to all those out there who took the time to put pen to paper, to put voice to Zoom, and to speak for me—and I’m aware that I’m a cis gay male; I’m one of the privileged ones. But they were speaking for our trans community, our intersex community, those who are fearful and are afraid to admit to even their closest friend or family member that they may feel like something is different—but you’re OK.

I started with a whakataukī, and I’m going to close with a prayer. Growing up in the Salvation Army, we had a lot to do with the world of alcohol and drugs, and Alcoholics Anonymous and the Twelve Steps, and there’s the prayer that we would always use at the end of those services. I think it’s apt for tonight, and it says this: “Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” Kia ora.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye, to the contrary opinion will say No. the Ayes have it.

Chris Penk: Party vote.

Hon Member: A personal vote, don’t you mean?

Chris Penk: A personal vote—I beg your pardon.

SPEAKER: No, well, I—yeah, we will have a party vote. But I just want to tell members that the normal thing when you have a party vote is that you’ve got to have people saying it both ways, but—all right. At the moment, it’s sort of like 120 to none, but I’ll accept the fact that we’re in unusual circumstances, and we will have a party vote. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 113

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 26 (Bayly, Bennett, Bishop, Brownlee, Collins, Dean, Doocey, Goldsmith, Grigg, Hipango, Kuriger, Luxon, McClay, McKelvie, Mitchell, Mooney, Muller, Penk, Pugh, Simmonds, Simpson, Smith S, Stanford, van de Molen, Watts, Willis); Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Noes 7

New Zealand National 7 (Bridges, Brown, Lee, O’Connor S, Reti, Upston, Woodhouse).

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Speaker’s Statements

Reminder to Members—Email

SPEAKER: Members, before I call Government order of the day No. 2, I will ask members, and especially whips, to consult their emails before they leave the buildings tonight.

Bills

Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill.

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

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I move, That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

It’s not that often that a Minister is able to stand in the House and speak to a bill in his or her name with clear evidence on the table that the policy is already working. I don’t mean modelling or predictions from officials. I don’t mean by reference to overseas examples. I mean clear evidence that the policy has already started to work. But I’m very pleased to be able to inform the House tonight that that is the case with the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill, and that’s because from 1 July 2021 the initial parts of the Government’s clean car package took effect. These were the discounts that were implemented on battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Those changes did not require legislative amendment to take effect.

The effect of those provisions has been extraordinarily successful, and I would like to show to the House briefly the effect that those measures have had. The clean car discount has already led to an enormous increase in the number of clean vehicles entering the New Zealand fleet. The number of electric vehicles coming into New Zealand and being registered has roughly tripled month on month since the introduction of the clean car discount. Since 1 July, and the discount coming into effect, the average emissions of new vehicles coming into New Zealand have decreased by 15 percent across the fleet. It took eight years, before 1 July 2021, for us to achieve that reduction in emissions previously. In September, for the first time ever, the top-selling new vehicle in New Zealand was an electric vehicle, and one in four electric vehicles on the road today has been purchased since 1 July, when the clean car discount commenced. New Zealanders are voting with their feet. They’re voting with their wallets. They want cleaner and more affordable vehicles for themselves, their families, their communities, and for our environment. This policy is already working. The implementation as it will happen after this bill has passed, of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill, will ensure that we keep up that momentum.

I do think it’s worth just tracking back a little bit to the why—why it is we are moving forward with this policy. It goes back to the fact that we have this enormous challenge in front of us, one that this entire House, virtually, has accepted: the challenge of actually taking decisive action on climate change. We know that we have to take up that challenge if we want to reach net zero by 2050 and, barring one party currently in this House, every party represented here, including the National Party, voted to try and reach net zero by 2050, voted to set up an independent climate commission, and voted to set up five-yearly carbon budgets to ratchet down our emissions to reach those targets. Well, having done that, we can’t just sit on our fine words as a House; we actually have to introduce the policies that will make the difference, and that is a challenge for every party in this House as they come to vote on this piece of legislation tonight.

The independent Climate Change Commission—which, again, I say every party in this House, except for the ACT Party, voted to establish—said that they should have the independent capacity to tell us what we needed to do, and they have told us what we need to do: we need to reduce our emissions from the transport sector by 41 percent by 2035. We need to achieve around about 30 percent of the vehicles on our road by 2035 being zero-emissions vehicles. We’re going to have to do something if we want to achieve that, because the truth is that New Zealand’s performance in this area has been woeful. We have one of the dirtiest fleets in the world. Since 1990, the part of the New Zealand economy in which emissions have increased the most has been our vehicle fleet, where emissions have increased by 90 percent. Only New Zealand, Russia, and Australia—of developed economies—do not have an emissions vehicle standard. We are currently the laggards, and if we don’t take action as the rest of the world and car companies, countries all around the world, clean up fleets, we will become the dumping ground for the world’s dirtiest vehicles. And that’s why this piece of legislation is so important.

There are two strands to it. The first is the clean car standard, and the standard is about supporting and incentivising importers to get cleaner stock of vehicles into New Zealanders. It incentivises them by having a steadily increasing target for bringing cleaner vehicles into New Zealand year by year. Importantly—and many of those New Zealand - based importers tell me this—for the first time it is giving them leverage when they go back to their head offices in Europe or Japan or Korea or China to say, “We need to get cleaner vehicles into New Zealand.” They previously haven’t had that, because we haven’t had a standard; so we’ve got the dirty vehicles. The clean car standard gives those New Zealand - based companies the ability to go back and get cleaner vehicles here for Kiwis to be able to drive.

It’s important to note that this is also a manifesto commitment. The Labour Party campaigned on setting up a 105 grams of carbon dioxide per tonne of emissions target by 2025 and via this piece of legislation we will follow through and we will implement that commitment that we made to the electorate.

The bill seeks targets that go through to 2027. Countries all over the world have targets with an increasing level of ambition up to that point and beyond. The bill sets up the Minister with the ability to review those targets in 2024, and I acknowledge the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, very ably led by Greg O’Connor, who have proposed a number of changes to the bill, including strengthening the consultation requirements around how that review will take place.

There were many submitters on the bill. The majority supported the bill. Some people who submitted asked us to go even further. The committee has made a range of other changes, including introducing a transition period before the clean car standard takes effect; strengthening the provisions for review; as I said, clarifying how carbon dioxide emissions are determined to ensure that that’s clear and understood across all vehicle types coming into the country; and improving the definition of a used vehicle. I thank the committee and all of the submitters for the work on that.

It’s important to note that, with the clean car standard, through the consultation process prior to legislation being drafted, considerable flexibility has been built into the scheme. So importers of vehicles across their fleets can bank, borrow, and trade in credits to make sure that they achieve those targets across the average of their fleet that they bring in on an annual basis.

The second part of the clean car package in this bill is the clean car discount that I spoke about earlier on. As I said, it’s already working. Modelling shows it’ll prevent over 5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2050, and the result so far is that we’re ahead of target. Even our most optimistic upside scenarios for the numbers of electric vehicles coming into New Zealand have been significantly exceeded. Since the clean car discount came into effect on 1 July, five of the top-selling new vehicles have attracted the discount, and it’s either seven or eight of the top-selling used vehicles attract the discount. This is providing cars that Kiwis want to get into.

The standard and the discount work together to increase the supply of clean vehicles and then to incentivise and support Kiwis to get into them. Modelling from overseas jurisdictions where discounts have applied clearly shows this is a progressive measure, and it’s also one that makes economic sense. For every tonne of carbon that we avoid through this policy, it doesn’t cost New Zealand money; it saves our country money because we save so massively on the national fuel bill that we currently have to use, and that’ll save Kiwi consumers up to $7,000 or $8,000 over the lifetime of their vehicles.

As I said at the beginning, this is a policy that’s already working. The National Party, my friends over here, supported the establishment of the independent climate commission. They supported net zero. They support, via that, five-yearly carbon budgets and the need to reduce our emissions from this sector by 41 percent by 2035. At some point, they are going to have to stop opposing every single measure that is actually put forward to achieve any of their targets. And I’ll guarantee one thing to this House: at whatever point that party pulls itself together and is able to get back into Government, they will never repeal this policy, because not even they are backward enough to go backwards on a policy and make the New Zealand vehicle fleet dirtier and make clean vehicles more expensive, which is what would happen were they to repeal this policy.

And so my question for them tonight: is the Christopher Luxon National Party actually any different from the Judith Collins one, or any of the other previous leaders they’ve cycled through? Are they actually going to step up and support a policy that follows through on what they have stood up in this House and said they support, which is actually taking meaningful action on one of the great challenges of our time, reducing emissions so that this is a decent world to live in for this generation and those to come? I commend this bill to the House.

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

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. That was a fascinating speech by the Minister of Transport in support of this piece of legislation, the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. National will be opposing this piece of legislation because, ultimately, this piece of legislation will not work in achieving the goal that the Government is—

Dr Duncan Webb: It’s working already.

SIMEON BROWN: And I hear them say, “It’s already working. It’s already working.” Well, what’s working is not this legislation; what’s working is a range of subsidies, which the Government has introduced without ever actually needing this legislation at all. And so the surprising thing here is that, if you subsidise something, of course it makes it cheaper. But this piece of legislation goes much, much further than that, and that is actually what we are going to be debating here tonight—the legislation and its impacts on the market—rather than simply the subsidies that the Minister has already put in place.

The first point I want to make tonight is that the National Party has a strong record of investing in electric vehicles. And I’d put our record up against this Government’s simply just trying to put this legislation through. National was the party which put in place the exemption for EVs, placing them outside of the road charges until 2 percent of the vehicles were EVs. We implemented tax changes, we worked with business, and we actually made sure the Government and the Government departments were actually increasing the number of EVs—and something which has actually stalled under this Government’s watch. Since then, they have done very, very little.

And now we come to this bill, which, effectively, tries to give the Minister full control of the car industry here in New Zealand by imposing the feebate and Clean Car Standard. And what, effectively, this will be doing is increasing costs for New Zealanders without actually reducing the emissions that New Zealand emits through its transport sector or across the economy. And the Minister says, “This is not going to cost the taxpayer at all.” Well, it’s already cost the taxpayer millions of dollars through his subsidies. It’s already cost the taxpayer, and now it’s going to cost the taxpayer even more because of the charges and the increased cost that it’s going to be putting on to consumers through the feebate and the Clean Car Standard.

Submitters to this piece of legislation made it very clear that this bill will not be able to make the difference in terms of reducing transport emissions, as the Government is trying to make out. The Motor Industry Association and the Vehicle Importer’ Association made it very clear that these targets are too ambitious in the short term, meaning what will end up happening is that we will end up either with New Zealanders not getting access to the cars this Government is promising or New Zealanders having the choice of paying more for the existing cars that they decide to already purchase—for whatever reason they decide to purchase those cars—or they will simply hold on to their existing cars for longer to avoid the additional charges and costs that this piece of legislation will put and impose upon them.

Manufacturers will have the decision whether to send their cars to New Zealand or send them elsewhere. They’ll be able to send them to New Zealand at an increased cost, or they’ll be able to part sell them elsewhere. And the supply challenges, which were brought to us by the suppliers and manufacturers around the world, around vehicles, are some issues that this Government should not be seeking to ignore as they try to implement this policy. If this policy will end up, as I predict, with the number of newer vehicles moving into the fleet slowing down and the number of people holding on to their vehicles for longer, what we’ll end up with is the emissions being emitted from our vehicles actually plateauing rather than reducing, as this Government seeks to do.

A couple of examples as to where this will have a significant impact is, firstly, in the area of utes. Now, the Minister tries to talk about how he’s going to be trying to get everyone out of their cars and into EVs, and I ask him, “Where is the evidence that he’s going to be able to get the tradies out of their utes and into EV utes?” Because the evidence from the market is very clear: these are being manufactured, but they are not at the scale these targets require them to be over the next few years. And the Minister might try and talk about how this is working, but these are the cold, hard facts and realities, which actually may get in the way of his inconvenient truths. The reality is that what will happen is that our tradies, our farmers, and those who need a ute for their job will end up paying, on average, 15 to 20 percent more, on average, for their vehicles. And what will they do with that cost? Do you think they are just going to suck it up? Or do you think they are going pass it on to the people who they supply services for?

Hon Members: Pass it on.

SIMEON BROWN: Pass it on. Exactly. Precisely. They will pass that cost on to consumers, whether it’s a farmer, a tradie, or whoever. And people on the other side of the House, we heard the—I think it was the Prime Minister who said that some people don’t use their utes for so-called “legitimate purposes”. Remember that quote? No, they’re not using their utes for “legitimate purposes”. Well, I’d like to put another inconvenient fact out there: the industry’s made it very clear that 70 percent of people who purchase utes purchase them for commercial purposes, and that’s something which I don’t think people on the other side of the House like to hear. And so the reality is that, yes, the market will begin to deliver many more different types of utes, with EVs or hybrids, which will be able to be much more effective, but they are not here yet, and, in the meantime, New Zealanders will be paying through the nose for that.

But it isn’t just utes and farmers and tradies who won’t be able to afford these EVs. It might come as a surprise to the chardonnay socialists on the other side of the aisle—look, there’s one, a chardonnay socialist; hands up, guilty as charged—that a $60,000 Tesla is not actually affordable to most New Zealanders. Now, when they’re drinking their lattes in Ponsonby and Parnell, they might think that a $60,000 Tesla can be bought by anybody. But even with an $8,000 subsidy, as proposed by this Government, most New Zealanders still can’t afford to buy those vehicles. And so, effectively, what we’re doing here is we’re subsidising the people who can already afford to buy the Teslas, and we’re going to tax the people who can’t afford them or who have a much lower budget when it comes to purchasing a new vehicle.

And so they will either pay more for their next vehicle or they’ll simply, as I said earlier, hold on to their existing vehicle for longer, a car which is likely to be emitting more carbon dioxide and which will cost them more in petrol—and we could talk about petrol taxes, as they keep increasing under this Government—and it will be more pollutant in our environment. And so, Madam Speaker, this piece of legislation will have significant perverse impacts on the people that the chardonnay socialists on the other side say they care about—the people of Mount Roskill, the people of Māngere, the people in those suburbs who won’t be able to have the choice even with these subsidies. They’ll be the ones paying more or holding on to their more pollutant vehicles.

And another problem—and we’re going to touch more on this when this bill gets to the committee of the whole House stage—is that this bill, effectively, just gives carte blanche powers to the Minister of Transport to, effectively, increase the charges, determine the subsidies, manage the market as he sees fit from his ivory tower in the Beehive. And that speaks volumes of a Government which wants to tell New Zealanders what vehicle they should be able to drive, tell them when they can drive it, and try to manage the industry as they see fit. National wants to see a transition to lower-emissions vehicles, but we believe on this side of the aisle that you work with the industry; you make sure the targets can actually be delivered on. You don’t say, “Oh, New Zealand, we can choose whatever vehicles we like.”

We are such a small percentage of the vehicle market—0.017 percent of the vehicle market of the world. We have to work alongside the industry, we have to look at what other countries are doing, and we have to work alongside them and give New Zealanders real choices so that they are able to have the vehicles they need for their jobs—the farmers, the tradies, the families with a large number of children, so they can have vehicles for their families. We want to make sure of that without penalising them arbitrarily, as this Government is seeking to do with this piece of legislation. So National will be opposing this piece of legislation, and we will be proposing sensible, pragmatic policies which work alongside industry to make a real difference in this area. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Madam Speaker, thank you. Chardonnay sales are going to take a big jump in the Northern Club and other places habituated by the National Party members, because, despite what the previous speaker, Simeon Brown, has been talking about, there is a lot of support on the other side and has been for electric vehicles: “National is the party of electric vehicles.” Chris Bishop, press release, 9 September 2020. Energy Minister: “The Government wants to see more people swap to electric vehicles, which are cheaper to run and maintain than petrol-fuelled vehicles.” That was the Hon Judith Collins in 2017. Chris Bishop, last year: “They’re the way of the future and the next National-led Government will encourage their uptake.” “A move from petrol and diesel to low-emission transport is the natural evolution. That is our aim to encourage that switch sooner rather than later.” Simon Bridges, press release, 2016.

I could go through several of these quotes, but I think you’re getting idea. Just in case, I bring another tome to the House, where Simon Bridges, if I can go to page 226 [Reading from Simon Bridges’ National Identity]: “I also recall, at the time, for whatever reason, we were down on our luck polling wise. A number in my team, MPs included, wanted to support the tax measures, as they thought it wouldn’t look green and modern if we didn’t. But I spotted an opportunity. I instructed the team to go all guns blazing on social media against the car tax.” We will hear from other speakers from the Opposition, but anyone who is listening tonight, I would just say: take it with a grain of salt, because we know that this is an idea whose time has come. In fact, its time came some time ago.

If we’d been here debating about 120-odd years ago—and, despite claims, I wasn’t there then—what we would have seen is the internal combustion engine was the answer to a problem, not the problem. It was the answer to the problem of the time of a major environmental problem, which was horses. Horses, whose excrement was all over London, was all over New York, as were dead horses. “Something’s required to fix this major environmental problem.”—along came the internal combustion engine. And now, as we know, with that engine, like many things, the cure can become the disease itself.

Now, as has been outlined by the Minister, we are in an era where even, as I’ve shown from those quotes, there is generally full understanding and agreement that we have to do something about this. So this bill is a very timely bill that has come at the very right time. As the Minister has pointed out already, before we have actually had to implement the bill, we are seeing this massive uptake in electric vehicles. Just to put some numbers on those figures that the Minister mentioned: 6,899 battery electric vehicles in 2021; there were 1,554 in 2020. That’s a pretty good uptake. Two thousand four hundred and sixty-one plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in 2021 as opposed to 756 in 2020. It goes on. It is very important that we have a framework, something that is actually now clearly well under way, that we now put some very good legislation and regulation around that, and that’s exactly what this bill does.

Just to get down into some of the detail of it—because it is important that people do understand how it will work—largely, it’s our importers who are the ones who will be determining very much the importation of these vehicles. Because what will we see happen? There will be a market established which will enable them to actually bring in some of the higher-emitting vehicles that will be offset by the low-emitting vehicles they bring in. So it will actually be a relatively neutral experience, as will the cost. So all those that are on the opposite side that are talking about how much this is going to cost, actually, once this is implemented, it will be a relatively cost-neutral exercise.

The other thing, just some of the details, some of the opposition we are seeing or hearing tonight certainly wasn’t evidenced during the select committee, because we did have some very good submissions. Most of the importers came. They talked of their agreement, largely, of this new piece of legislation. They talked about, yes, concerns as to whether the technology will keep up. And also there were concerns that even our standards by 2025 are maybe actually starting to get ahead of some of the European standards; however, they will be aware that the European standards are being reviewed and will be tightened considerably. Also there is the ability—in fact, this will be reviewed in 2024—to ensure that we don’t actually get too far ahead, and we’ll be actually reviewing this.

The select committee had the opportunity to go through this. We’ve made some recommendations. Those recommendations have now been incorporated into the bill. So I’m happy to commend this bill to the House. This is a piece of legislation whose time—well, I won’t say its time has come. Its time is probably overdue, but certainly it is going to ensure that New Zealand—we’d mentioned the fact that we’re now in the salubrious company of Australia and Russia with being without a scheme such as this; so this ensures that we are going to be in a position to ensure that we now do what we can, that New Zealanders will be doing their bit, and more importantly we’ll actually be a very modern fleet to ensure we can do that. I commend this to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my first opportunity to speak in the Chamber in this calendar year, and so it’s good to be back, and it’s good to be back seeing colleagues from across the Parliament debating issues that matter. “Relatively cost-neutral” is what the former highwayman, Robin Hood, used to say of people, as he was robbing them on the highway! The only problem was that, when Robin Hood was talking about relatively cost-neutral interferences in marketplaces, Robin Hood was robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Well, this is a piece of legislation that is reverse Robin Hood—reverse Robin Hood. This is a piece of legislation that takes from those who can least afford it, who have the smallest number of choices available to them, who have the largest impacts of costs upon them, and it takes from that group of people and it gives to those who can afford, who do have choices, who do have options, and who want to drive electric vehicles.

Now, I should say at the outset that I’m a convert. I’ve been driving a 100 percent electric Hyundai Kona now for just over three years and, in fact, have only just, in the last couple days, clicked over 100,000 kilometres driven, mostly around the beautiful Coromandel electorate. It’s served me very well. It’s a car that has been a lot of fun to drive. I’m looking forward to the next 100,000 kilometres in the car. But I bought that car for a variety of reasons, not because it was inexpensive but because I wanted to do several things. First of all, I wanted to prove to people, and myself, that actually a 100 percent electric vehicle was a viable option for a constituency MP doing quite high mileage around one of the large provincial electorates in New Zealand, and I’ve been able to do that very effectively. I wanted to get into an electric vehicle (EV) because, naturally, I have an interest in environmental matters, and climate change matters, and that is absolutely a component in the decision to have a low-emissions vehicle, and to go into an EV.

Then, I also, I guess, looked at the maths, at the dollars and cents. And yes, there was a significantly higher cost point of entry to get into the EV, but the cost of running it, on a day-to-day basis, is very low. Over the course of the 100,000 kilometres that I’ve clocked up around the beautiful Coromandel electorate in almost three years, I think that’s a vehicle that has significantly saved me, as a consumer and as a driver, money. The reason for that is because electricity is considerably less expensive than fossil fuels. Just to give you some context, I used to drive a large Ford Territory, and it was not unusual for me to be spending something close to $200 a week on petrol at the fuel pump. When I went into my EV, I guess my domestic electricity bill went up $50 a month, and so the dollars and cents was another factor.

This piece of legislation, this Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill, seeks to do what Labour socialist Governments always like to do: they like to tell people how they should live their lives, what cars they should buy, how they should be taxed, and always have their hand—the hand of big State, big Government—in other people’s wallets and pockets. And that’s what they like to do, because they don’t understand the fundamentals of economics, and that’s why the country is in the economic shambles and mess that it is, and it’s going to take a National Government to reconfigure, realign, and bring back some sense of balance to the economy with our friends from the ACT Party, when we get the first opportunity at the next election.

We support the broad concept, in the National Party, of making polluters pay. I heard the Minister say, “Oh yes, well, all the parties in the House—in fact, every party in the House—the zero-carbon legislation was passed in this House without dissension.” And that was because one party didn’t turn up and vote. But that would have been just one vote at that stage—and, yes, we supported it. But I heard the Minister James Shaw in the House earlier today talking about the broad direction of travel. And he’s right; we do agree on the broad direction of travel. We do understand the need to decarbonise our economy over the next several decades and beyond. And we do understand that there is a range of options and policy levers that are available to the Government of the day. But we do support the setting up of the climate commission, and we do look forward to their recommendations. But, we reserve absolutely the right to debate, discuss, argue, and differ with the Government on issues of policy and fine detail, albeit that the broad direction of travel towards net zero is set and agreed. That policy of net zero—that path, that direction towards it—will be maintained by a re-elected National-led Government, along with our colleagues in the ACT Party.

But we won’t be tinkering in the way that this Labour Government likes to tinker, likes to tell people how to live their life and how they can, actually, as a Government, tell people what they should do and how they should do it. And the thing that annoys me most about this legislation is the perverse nature of it. It’s actually from a Government that, on the face of it, purports to be a Government of kindness and caring. Actually, when you look down into the reality of it, it’s exactly the reverse that is true because the people who will be most punished by this piece of legislation are those who can least afford it, those who have the smallest range of options in front of them, and those that have already too much cost. Now, a truly enlightened and truly progressive Labour Party would actually look at some of the legislation that has taken place in other jurisdictions, and they’d be looking at legislation that encouraged the uptake of EVs based not on your ability to buy a high-end car, but actually to look at ranges of options, policy settings that would encourage middle and low income earners to get into EVs. Because that’s really where the best benefit is. The people who can currently afford to buy EVs, even with the gift of free money, are going to make that decision anyway.

I was appalled by the Minister’s lack of knowledge and understanding of the marketplace, and this happens from someone who’s come from the pedigree of the trade union and the trade hall—they literally don’t understand it. He stood up there and he said, “Look, look, the number of EVs that have been purchased has gone up dramatically since we started giving away the free money.” Since we started giving away the free money! Well, there’s no skill, Minister, there is no skill, wit, or ability in giving away free money, particularly when it’s other people’s free money—other people’s free money that you give away with such abandon and such ill-conceived thought and understanding for what the impacts are on the people who have to pay to give you the money that you’re giving away to other people. Now, that’s classic socialism, and we don’t support that. We think that there are far better ways of doing it.

In fact, talking about housing in today’s New Zealand Herald—but, actually, it could equally be applied to this piece of legislation—none other than that bastion of left-wing literary comment, Simon Wilson, says, “It’s been the biggest transfer of wealth from the struggling to the well off and from the young to the old ever seen in this country.” And that’s exactly as it is with this piece of legislation. It’s the antithesis of what a traditional socialist Labour Party should really be doing in supporting their base. And the people who are driving the Teslas around the beautiful Coromandel—most of them can actually already afford it, and they would have bought it anyway. Part of the reason that the number of cars being bought since the spreading around of free money has occurred is because this Government signalled years ago that they were going to start giving the free money away. So a whole lot of people actually waited. They sat back and waited and they said, “Well, we’ll just leave the decision to buy our EV. We’ll leave it a year or two because, if we leave it a year or two, guess what? Labour’s going to give us some free money that they have purloined and taken from other taxpayers.”—other taxpayers who will soon be paying for this piece of environmental socialism.

It’s environmental socialism that has, at its core, a fundamental objection to capitalism. They don’t like markets, they don’t like people making choices, and they don’t like suppliers selling product on the basis of features and benefits of the sort that EVs provide to the buyers of them. This is a “ute tax”, and ours is an economy that means that we are different from other jurisdictions. So to simply have the ability to just do a carbon copy of what may have arguably worked in other jurisdictions and apply it to our own doesn’t necessarily follow. We are a country that has a diverse and challenging geography. We are a country that is, essentially, dominated by our rural, provincial, and agricultural economy. Those are features that mean that the sorts of vehicles—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! The member’s time has expired.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and it’s a pleasure to be here and talk on the first day back for the 2022 calendar year. And can I just take this moment to say kia ora and greetings to everyone across the House. I was just reflecting on the previous member, Scott Simpson’s call and thought, I’m sure Robin Hood wouldn’t mind if he had an electric vehicle during his work, because it would make him really silent and efficient and get a whole lot more treasure, loot, or whatever else he wanted to call it! And I’m sure he too was an environmental socialist in some way, but I’ll let you guys think more about that.

I just want to take a short call just to remind the House about this bill’s primary objective, and that’s to achieve the rapid reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from our light vehicle fleet imported into Aotearoa New Zealand. That’s really the main objective here, and it’s been a pleasure sitting on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. I acknowledge the chair, Greg O’Connor, and the team of those MPs across the House on it. We’ve had some good debate, and that’s been reflected in the work being presented here. There were 135 written submissions—we did do many of those, 28 in total, but at length over several days, where we heard from most of the major New Zealand car manufacturers. And it was interesting—interesting from the perspective that I quite like cars—but I was interested to hear how some of our traditional brands, and those that’ve been here since they got into New Zealand, just some of the issues that they face in terms of modern car production; where New Zealand fits into the scheme of things; how they would make that transition across. It seemed like lots were in a hurry. It seemed that many were keen—in fact, many had already made that transition and were well under way.

Many of the comments that have been said around some manufacturers struggling to meet those targets are true. They acknowledge that; they express that frustration. And, in fairness to them, they are subject to global production schedules and guidelines, and a whole manner of things. Look, for some, it means that’s it, and while some may say, “Hey, look, that’s terrible. Look at their pedigree and heritage in New Zealand.”, we have had new ones. I don’t need to name all of them, but you know we’ve talked about them in the House tonight already. And they have made that transition because electric vehicles are the only thing that they are producing as a manufacturer, and they are doing other bits and pieces around that.

But I want to say this: it took me some time to be convinced and to be brought on board, but as some of the arguments went here and there, I’m absolutely convinced. Because if we look at that primary objective, someone transformational and bold like this Government had to make a call on saying how we are going to achieve this, notwithstanding many people in this House who have purchased electric vehicles or hybrids, and in many local authorities—I heard some jibes across the floor there around local government—but many have responded, and there are articles galore here, examples all over New Zealand, where, in partnership with the New Zealand Transport Agency, Waka Kotahi, there’s been a surge in demand for charging stations. And if you go around Wellington City in my part of the eastern and southern suburbs, you will see a whole lot of charging stations that have been put in. And I know the almighty ratepayer was a bit upset; they said, “Well, how come these have been put in here? No one’s using them.” But can I say now there is a demand; in fact, they want more. And I expect that to happen more and more and more.

And one of the best things about having those car manufacturers come online is that I was able to talk some of them through about some of the concerns about what the second-hand car market looks like—how does affordability feature in your grand plan? I’m no dodgy car sales rep, but I can tell you this: that many are excited, many do want to create a second-hand affordable market where they can sell these vehicles to those who don’t have a lot but still want to continue using a car. Many are also supportive of this Government’s plight to see mode shift, to see us say, “Hey, not only will you consider using this type of vehicle, but looking at other modes such as using public transport.” You only need to go outside, probably not tonight, but on any other day, and you will see a Metlink council-run bus service where it’s an electric vehicle of some sort, and that has taken off across the metro fleets in New Zealand.

Walking and cycling—and I know, I’m a bit of a walker—it’s proved to be beneficial in many ways, but can I say that this is all part of that bigger picture in terms of meeting that primary objective. I am happy that we’ve also announced this clean vehicle standard, and I know that the bill provides the short transition period to enable importers to register a carbon dioxide account before the full standard commences on 1 January 2023. There are targets there, in the bill, and mention of transferring carbon dioxide credits and improved use of the term “used vehicle”. There is, of course, the clean vehicle discount scheme, and those views have been canvassed tonight.

But what I want to finish by saying is that we know that climate change poses the greatest long-term threat to our environment. I’m confident that this bill will function as intended. I’m also confident that the car manufacturers on the whole are supportive, but, ultimately, it is our biggest and most positive step to reducing carbon dioxide emissions in our light vehicle fleets. I commend the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill to the House.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you. It’s a real pleasure to speak about the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill, and it’s been a while since I’ve been here; so it’s nice to warm up and get some practice. I would like to start off by acknowledging the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, Greg O’Connor, who has shepherded this bill, but also particularly my colleague Julie Anne Genter, who has been integral in driving this work, and who has not only been championing the policies that are in this bill but who has been advocating for many, many years for a reduction in our emissions within transport, acknowledging that, particularly in Aotearoa, this is a massive source of emissions and we need to be ambitious in the legislation that we’re introducing so that we will ensure that we have a liveable planet and that we provide New Zealanders with the options that they require to move around.

I was really struck by the comments from some of the members to my right, who were talking about things like increasing options for people to move around and who were talking about, potentially, having cheaper vehicles in the second-hand market and were telling people how to live their lives—or even champagne socialism—because I think the biggest hypocrisy here is that often, when it comes to low-income people, it is those members to my right who tend to really like to dictate how they live their lives, whether it is through benefit sanctions or putting in legislation that has meant that they cannot be their true selves. So it’s interesting hearing people supposedly advocating for those in Mt Roskill and Māngere, who actually have the most to gain from not just this legislation but a shift in our infrastructure when it comes to transport—getting people to use public transport and other ways to move around. So, yeah, we’re looking forward to this rebranded National Party’s championing of low-income people, and why don’t you start by supporting those on benefits?

As many members to my left have mentioned, New Zealand is a dumping ground for polluting vehicles, and we heard a lot of resistance from industry to this shift in legislation because they know that they will have to change their habits. They know that we will no longer be their dumping ground and that they will have to change the way that they operate.

It was heartening throughout the submission process to hear people calling for ambitious action on climate change to give people options to be able to purchase cheaper electric vehicles, which, again, takes me to that disconnect that the National members were having when it comes to just the reality that people on the ground face, because low-income people are not buying new vehicles. Low-income people, if they’re lucky, are buying second-hand vehicles, and what this bill will do is it will guarantee that people will have cleaner vehicles at their disposal in the second-hand market.

This will address equity issues. This is not, as they propose, a reverse Robin Hood act. If anything, it’s about giving people options, and I think no one would kid themselves when it comes to climate action that this is a silver bullet. This is one of the many levers we need to pull to fully reduce emissions within our transport sector. So, on top of this legislation finally giving people the options that they deserve, we should also be striving for things like free fares; public ownership of our depots, vehicles, and services; better conditions for workers in the industry as well; and a complete paradigm shift when it comes to the way that we fund transport infrastructure.

I think the debate has focused so much just on the impact that electric vehicles will have when it comes to reducing emissions, and it’s important to contextualise this as a broader way of thinking that will lead us to an Aotearoa where people will have options to get to work and to go to school, and where low-income families will not be locked out of the second-hand market and given very few, limited, polluting options because we’ve chosen to be the dumping ground for industry. So it is a real pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do admire the Minister of Transport’s passion and his determination to drive through this piece of legislation, because he truly does believe—and that makes me very, very concerned. This bill is another example—in fact, it could be among the best evidence—of what’s wrong with this Government’s climate change policy. It all comes back to the zero carbon Act. This bill is two taxes dressed up as an ugly climate fairy. The Minister claims that this bill will lead to reductions in emissions of 41 percent by 2035. The problem the Minister and the Government have with this climate policy is that his own Ministry of Transport says the opposite—that vehicle kilometres travelled will increase by 20 percent by 2035; not go down by 40 percent. These two facts cannot both be true, and that is what we see with this Government’s climate policy. It is running into a brick wall of reality.

Now, I want to remind Minister Wood that simply wishing something to come true when you’re on the campaign trail and then coming to this House and telling the people of New Zealand that it was a manifesto commitment, therefore it will happen, does not make good policy. This policy is actually working, though. The Minister held up his graphs. He held up his graphs—“Oh there’s a graph.” He held it up—“It’s actually working.” It’s working to take money from tradies and business people and family owners who need big vehicles and who have got to pay a $4,000 tax on the wharf and maybe a $2,000, $3,000, or $4,000 tax on the wharf! This is two taxes, mind you. This is not a single tax policy; this is two ideas about how to solve this problem of encouraging more low-emissions vehicles put together into one bill. The officials said, “You don’t need to do that.” The industry said, “You don’t need to do that.” But apparently this is a Government that wants to pull all the levers. Now, I’ve driven a digger. In fact, I drove one a few weeks ago on the Christmas break. I was reminded that, if you pull all the levers at once, a couple of things happen: either it spins around, out of control, or it just comes to a dead stop. I think that’s where this Government’s climate policies are going to end up.

But thinking about this Government’s climate policies, this new style of Labour Party policy must be very, very confusing to Minister Wood’s former colleagues in the union movement; this fact that his policy has resulted—and the motor vehicle importers confirm this: that more Teslas were imported into New Zealand than BMWs in the last quarter. The policy’s definitely working, but not in the way that traditional Labour voters thought it might. When this bill was introduced, the transport Minister admitted that more than 100,000 New Zealanders could be hit with the car tax in the next year. These vehicles being taxed include utilities, utes, tradies’ vans, and, of course, larger vehicles that larger families, particularly people with young children or in mixed families with parents and grandparents, young children all living in the same home—families who need those kinds of low-cost vehicles. They are the ones who will be hit. Now, we don’t know what sort of cars people will buy, but let’s assume the average fee is about $3,000 per vehicle. That’s going to net $273 million from New Zealand motorists buying new vehicles in the next year. Under any plausible scenario, because they won’t be spending even a fraction of that on subsidising Teslas, this policy is nothing more than a tax grab; in fact, it’s an ugly tax dressed up as an ugly climate fairy.

Now, when this bill came to select committee, the industry made some very interesting points. They said, “Only a few countries drive on the left-hand side of the road.” Now, I know not many New Zealanders have left recently, and the ones who are stuck overseas can’t come back, but most countries in the world drive on the right, which means there are very, very few cars available to New Zealand in left-hand drive configuration. That was a surprise to some of the Government members on the committee. The suppliers said, “Look, you’re not going to be able to have these vehicles until we start making them.” This bill doesn’t solve the supply-side problem, because the factories where these vehicles are made are getting retooled right now to churn out hundreds of thousands—millions—of EVs and hydrogen electric vehicles over the next 10 to 20 years, but until they start making them, you can’t have them. So if you apply a tax at the border and if you apply a tax at the lot where people go to buy a new or second-hand car, then all you’ll be doing is taking money out of Kiwis’ pockets, because we can’t supply you with the vehicles. But there is some hope. I don’t need to wish for policy. I don’t need to go out on the campaign trail and make manifesto commitments. I just need to listen to the motor vehicle importers and the suppliers who say that, by the late 2020s, there’ll be millions and millions of these vehicles, and they’ll be relatively low cost.

Now, unfortunately, in addition to the costs hitting Kiwi families, actually this bill won’t reduce emissions. That’s because New Zealand already has a comprehensive emissions trading scheme which caps the limit of climate emissions. And so not a single policy, apart from the cap and trade policy of the emissions trading scheme—it’s a fantastic scheme; it allows the free exchange of people’s money for carbon credits, although, to be fair, it is limited just to this little New Zealand bubble. I can’t buy carbon credits on the London carbon market; they can’t buy ours, but they certainly can plant a lot of trees here and turn our farms into carbon farms—but that’s a story for another day. This bill will not reduce carbon emissions by a single tonne of carbon, because, if you take carbon out of one part of the economy, if you reduce it by subsidising EVs and actually reducing the amount of emissions from cars and trucks, all that will happen is that carbon will be available to be emitted by a factory or some other producer.

Now, if the Minister, in conjunction with his coalition or support, hand-holding partner, the Green Minister for Climate Change, wanted to reduce the amount of New Zealand’s emissions, they’d simply lower the cap on the emissions trading scheme. The Climate Commissioner himself said that New Zealand could meet its emissions reduction targets if the carbon price was $50 a tonne. Well, I had a look at my carbon news the other day, and it’s $72 a tonne. That means that the New Zealand Government doesn’t need to do anything else to reduce carbon emissions. This policy is completely unnecessary. It won’t work, except to take money from hard-working families, tradies, and farmers, and hand it over to people who might have bought an electric vehicle anyway but now will receive a $7,000 or $8,000 subsidy.

So not only is it an unnecessary regulation and a cost to business, it’s actually going to cause a heck of a lot of confusion with the Government agencies asked to administer it. When you look through the papers, the Customs department said, “We don’t want a bar of this thing. Please don’t give us this crazy thing to administer. We don’t want to have to take away from our real job of protecting New Zealand’s borders to try and administer a clean car tax on the wharf. What do you want us to do? Take some sniffer machine around the docks, getting the importers to start the cars so that we can check the emissions.” But that’s what the Government wants to do. They won’t even accept the emissions data from the vehicle manufacturers. They’re going to set up their own department, and they’re going to make up their own mind about what the emissions are. So I tell you what: this thing’s not going to help the supply chain; it’s not going to help get stuff off the wharf.

Simeon Brown: It’s a make-work scheme.

SIMON COURT: It is a make-work scheme. Unfortunately we’ve got a labour shortage and a whole lot of resource demand; so it’s only going to lead to not just inflation but slowing down of the entire New Zealand machine.

And I want to leave the Government members and the people watching this tonight with one last thought. Any Government policy which claims to reduce emissions that makes the Suzuki Swift off limits—that the Suzuki company said, “We can’t meet your standards. We’re going to stop sending you Swifts because your standards are stupid and wrong.”—that’s not good policy. New Zealanders know that; Japanese carmakers know that. New Zealanders will be asking themselves: why on earth do this when it won’t solve one tonne of carbon emissions and is only going to put the price of cars up? Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.