Wednesday, 9 February 2022

WEDNESDAY, 9 FEBRUARY 2022

WEDNESDAY, 9 FEBRUARY 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

Hon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker): Ke tau lotu. ‘E ‘Otua Mafimafi, kuo mau taa‘i mālie ‘i ho‘o ‘ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. ‘Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke ke malu‘i ange mu‘a ‘a e Kuiní, mo tataki ‘emau fua fatongia ‘i he Fale Aleá ‘aki ‘a e poto Faka-‘Otua, ‘ofa pea mo e ‘ulungaanga malū, ko e ‘uhí ko e mo‘ui mo e melino ‘a e fonuá. ‘Oku mau kole atu ‘a e ngaahi me‘á ni hono kotoa ‘i he huafa ho ‘alo ka ko homau fakamo‘uí, ‘Emeni.

Motions

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II—Platinum Jubilee

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I move, That this House congratulate Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of the Platinum Jubilee of Her Majesty’s accession to the Throne.

On 6 February 1952, aged just 25, Queen Elizabeth II ascended to the Throne and became the monarch of seven independent States, including New Zealand. Now, 70 years later, she’s Queen of the 15 Commonwealth Realms, some of which did not exist as independent nations at the time. This change in the world’s geopolitical make-up is a strong reminder of the tremendous changes that have taken place in the world in the last 70 years, and through all of those years the Queen has stood as a model of service and unwavering dedication to her role.

As Queen of New Zealand, the Queen has always taken a strong personal interest in our nation. She has visited here 10 times between 1953 and 2002. She’s also attended many events in the United Kingdom celebrating and commemorating New Zealand and the wider Commonwealth. I have had the honour to meet her both in person and virtually, and I know that she has a deep knowledge of Aotearoa New Zealand and cares sincerely for the wellbeing of our nation. In more recent times when travel has been limited, the Queen has reached out to us here in New Zealand on at least two occasions in the midst of the pandemic. Her motivation was no more than to ask how everyone in New Zealand was doing. Her care and clear affection for Aotearoa and its people has been obvious in every conversation I’ve had the pleasure of having with her.

A few weeks ago in her Christmas message, the Queen said that she hoped that her platinum jubilee year would be an opportunity for people everywhere to enjoy a sense of togetherness. There are different views in society, and, indeed, in this Parliament on the role of the monarchy. However, I know that we all join with Her Majesty’s wish for a shared sense of togetherness as we face the challenges of the future.

Today I offer our congratulations on behalf of the people of Aotearoa New Zealand to our Queen as she celebrates her platinum jubilee, but I also offer our profound thanks for her sacrifice, her service, and her love for us.

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

CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition): On behalf of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I join with the Prime Minister in honouring the remarkable reign of the Queen of New Zealand, Elizabeth II, and congratulate her on the platinum jubilee of her accession to the throne.

Seventy years ago, a 25-year-old woman took on an extraordinary mantel of responsibility and made a lifelong commitment to serving others; a commitment that she has fulfilled with endless grace, dignity, and strength. Her Majesty made that commitment and took on that mantel at an immensely difficult time, having lost her beloved father, King George VI, a loss that we know she still feels keenly on the anniversary of her accession.

What followed since that day, 6 February 1952, has been a lifetime of immeasurable and selfless service. A great number of us have only ever known the sense of reassuring stability that the Queen’s reign has afforded to our lives. As our head of State, Her Majesty became the first Queen of New Zealand to visit our shores. In fact, she has visited New Zealand 10 times and members of her family countless more. She now becomes the first Queen of New Zealand to celebrate a platinum jubilee.

Over the last 70 years, New Zealand and the world has changed profoundly. We emerged from under the wing of the British Empire and we chartered our own course as an independent and confident young nation. Throughout that time, the Queen has continued to display her devoted and genuine care for New Zealand and for New Zealanders.

While international institutions have peaked and diminished in their influence and significance, the Queen’s reign has strengthened the role of a modern monarchy and the important part that it plays in our constitutional arrangements and our system of parliamentary democracy.

Her Majesty’s reign has all also included 70 years as the head of the Commonwealth, a body which, in a time of divisive politics and urgent global challenges, is important in bringing together countries with shared values and ideals so that we can find enduring solutions and celebrate our commonalities.

On behalf the New Zealand National Party, I congratulate Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of New Zealand, and wish to convey our sincere gratitude for her lifetime of duty, commitment, and service.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): On behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, I would like to acknowledge Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for her 70 years of public service. She has exercised her office with a remarkable sense of duty, grace, virtue, and integrity. To have maintained that service for longer than anyone in this House has been alive—not even you, Mr Speaker, is worthy of our admiration and praise. Frankly, any 95-year-old great-grandmother who is still working the same job that she was when she was 25 deserves our astonished accolades.

As we reflect on this historical moment, we should look to the future. My entire adult life I have firmly believed that the head of State of Aotearoa should be someone from Aotearoa. It is completely anachronistic to think that values and identity of 21st century New Zealand, a democratic nation, born of the Pacific, grounded in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, is best personified by an inherited monarchy from the opposite side of the planet, steeped in the history and values of feudal aristocracy and imperial colonialism.

There is no doubt that Queen Elizabeth II is an extraordinary woman who has given a lifetime of service to her country and its former colonies. But, as we mark her platinum jubilee, I do put it to this House that the debate over our future constitutional arrangements is overdue. As we approach the 50th anniversary of the Waitangi Tribunal, this is also an opportune time to repeat the Green Party’s call on the Crown to address the historical wrongs of Māori land dispossession.

I riro whenua atu, me hoki whenua mai.

[As the land was taken so the land should be returned.]

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): I stand on behalf of the ACT Party to commemorate Queen Elizabeth II’s 70-year reign as monarch of the Commonwealth. Born in a London townhouse in April 1926, she didn’t expect to rule but is doing an exceptional and consistent job for the people, as she promised she would do on her 21st birthday. Her intentions were made known well in advance of her becoming Queen when, in October 1940, she addressed children who had been evacuated during the Blitz using the BBC’s Children’s Hour radio broadcast. She spoke to those disaffected children as a 14-year-old herself, telling them, “And when peace comes, remember, it will be for us, the children of today, to make the world of tomorrow a better and happier place.”

She is now at the age of 95 and has seen many changes in our society, in culture, and in industry, adapting herself and her family to the modernisation of our world during this time. She sent her first email in 1976, when we were still trying to grapple with getting computers here in New Zealand, and her first Instagram post in 2019—I personally still don’t have the ’gram yet.

What an introduction, as head of State, to have Sir Winston Churchill as her first Prime Minister during a world war. And we note she has been a consistent and dutiful monarch who has outlasted 13 British Prime Ministers so far, 16 New Zealand Prime Ministers to date, and all together 170 Prime Ministers over her 54 Commonwealth nations.

Queen Elizabeth II was a part of the women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service during World War II. She trained as a mechanic and a military truck driver, being the first female member of the royal family to become a full-time, active member of the British Armed Forces, and she rose to the rank of junior commander by the end of the war and then, disguised and unnoticed in her army uniform, herself and her sister, Princess Margaret, held hands in jubilation with thousands of revellers gathering in front of Buckingham Palace to celebrate Victory in Europe day in May 1945.

The Queen had and has consistently sought to improve her knowledge in all areas of relevance to better enable dialogue and advice with world leaders. She continues to reign with dignity, fortitude, and respect from her Commonwealth nations. In October 1964, when addressing the Quebec provincial legislature, she said, “The function of constitutional monarchy is to personify the democratic state, to sanction legitimate authority, to assure the legality of means and guarantee the execution of the public will. It is my ardent desire that no citizen in my Realms should suffer restraint.”

The ACT Party congratulates Queen Elizabeth II on her 70-year jubilee celebrations. A leader who continues to reign over her Commonwealth nations with that dignity, fortitude, and respect of and for her subjects.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): This will come as no surprise to this House, or to Willie Jackson for that matter, that Te Paati Māori absolutely refute this motion. We were disappointed when the Prime Minister acknowledged the Queen’s platinum jubilee on Waitangi Day. We believe it was tone-deaf and colour-blind to the degradation of the rights of tangata whenua for 182 years. Kia ora tātou.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the House congratulate Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of the Platinum Jubilee of Her Majesty’s accession to the Throne.

Ayes 118

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 2

Te Paati Māori 2.

Motion agreed to.

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

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

CLERK:

Petition of Flick Electric Co. requesting that the House break up electricity generator-retailers so that they either generate electricity or retail it

petition of Grayson Sutherland requesting that the House pass legislation to ban the sale of fireworks to the public

petition of Brian Borland requesting that the House repeals cannabis prohibition

petition of Junming Mai requesting that the House urge the Government to approve all 2021 Resident Visa applications within 20 working days

petition of Tiziana Capochiani requesting that the House urge the Government to expand eligibility for the one-off 2021 Resident Visa to all working holiday visa holders who are in New Zealand from 2020

petition of Janaya Fowles requesting that the House urge the Government to reduce the child/teacher ratios applicable to early childhood education centres, and

petition of Maryam Ghadery requesting that the House urge the Government to reopen the suspended parent visa application process.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered a considerable number of papers.

CLERK:

Annual reports for 2021 for Pharmac, New Zealand Infrastructure Commission, Queen Elizabeth II National Trust, New Zealand Conservation Authority, Tāmaki Redevelopment Company Ltd., Electricity Authority, Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority, Law Commission, Māori Television Service, Predator Free 2050, New Zealand On Air, Walking Access Commission, Sport New Zealand, Broadcasting Standards Authority, Crown Infrastructure Partners, Financial Markets Authority, External Reporting Board, Creative New Zealand, Tourism New Zealand, Transpower, Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Human Rights Commission, New Zealand Qualifications Authority, New Zealand Productivity Commission, Independent Police Conduct Authority, Cadastral Surveyors Licensing Board of New Zealand, Ōtākaro, New Zealand Blood Service and organ service, Criminal Cases Review Commission, Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori, Transport Accident Investigation Commission, Civil Aviation Authority, Maritime New Zealand, Te Māngai Pāho, Te Mana Whakaatu Classification Office, and Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand

statements of performance expectations for the financial year 2021-22 for Predator Free 2050, New Zealand On Air, Broadcasting Standards Authority, Sport New Zealand group, and the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra

statement of intent 2021-25 for New Zealand on Air and Sport New Zealand group

statement of intent 2021-26 for the Ministry of Education

Government response to the petition of Arya Nair; and

Government response to the Regulations Review Committee on the Examination of COVID-19 orders presented between 18 and 31 August 2021.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Anu Kaloti and the petition of Juliana Carvalho

reports of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the briefing from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and the Financial Markets Authority on the outcomes of the Australian royal commission into banking; briefing on establishment of an Independent Fiscal Institution; and on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement, November 2021

reports of the Health Committee on the petition of Brooke Lacey; the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Ministry of Health: Management of personal protective equipment in response to COVID-19; and on four reports of the Ombudsman on unannounced inspection under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989

reports of the Justice Committee on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill and on the inquiry into the 2020 General Election and Referendums (Interim report)

reports of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Claims Settlement Bill and on the Ngāti Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill

reports of the Regulations Review Committee on the complaint about COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border) Order (No 2) 20; and the COVID-19 Public Health Response orders; and

report of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading. The briefings, Monetary Policy Statement, the inquiry, the reports of the Regulations Review Committee and the reports of the Controller and Auditor-General and Ombudsman are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.

CLERK:

Statutes Amendment Bill, introduction.

Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill, introduction.

Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill, introduction.

SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations

1. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Why did he introduce the Te Rohe o Rongokako Joint Redress Bill and the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Claims Settlement Bill, when in November 2021 the Waitangi Tribunal called for the Crown to postpone the introduction of the settlement legislation and allow the litigation in front of the Supreme Court to take its course?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I made the decision to introduce the bills because having taken the iwi 30 years to achieve a signed deed of settlement, during which they sustained many challenges, including litigation, over the last four years, it was time to honour the agreement made. In the process to reach agreement for redress over Treaty breaches, in this case Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, the Crown must balance a range of interests, which, in this case, included those of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua in achieving a long-awaited settlement, those of Rangitāne who cannot get some settlement redress until legislation is passed, and the burden of litigation that has been carried by Raukawa in defending their Treaty settlement interests and their mana whenua.

The decision was very carefully weighed. I took time to consider the most recent tribunal decision as well as the recent High Court decisions; I met with all interested parties, and I understand their positions. I weighed the fact that the Supreme Court proceedings will not be the end of this matter, and it is likely that Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua and Ngāti Rangitāne would be waiting another 10 years with no certainty the result would be materially different for them than it is now. Iwi would continue to miss out on the economic benefit of their settlement if the legislation is not progressed. Taking into account all the circumstances, I considered that the balance was in favour of ending further delay and bringing the benefits of redress to all of Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua.

Jan Logie: Why does the Minister believe he is a better judge of the fairness of the process than the Waitangi Tribunal, an expert body with a more-than-20-year relationship with the hapū involved in this settlement and these claims?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Waitangi Tribunal has been seized of issues for Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua for some years. It made some decisions back in 2017 that let to further engagement, further discussion, further review. It made an interesting point, or proposition, in one of its more recent decisions—I’m talking about the tribunal now—that suggested, in relation to the mandate held by the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Settlement Trust, that it may not have had a mandate for one of the iwi that it was representing, Ngāi Tūmapūhia, and it should have known that because Ngāi Tūmapūhia had been part of litigation challenging the mandate—notwithstanding earlier findings of the tribunal that that only way to deal with mandate is to go through the agreed process for withdrawing mandate. On balance, considering the tribunal’s decision, considering the extra effort that went in and the improved package that was agreed to with the settlement trust, and having heard from all the parties and seeing the risk of further delay, I made the judgment that it was time to bring the legislation to the House.

Jan Logie: Why has the Minister introduced legislation that brings to an end litigation in which the Crown is the defendant and where the Waitangi Tribunal has said that proceeding to legislate would be a breach of the Treaty?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: This is the tribunal that four years ago said that the settlement trust’s mandate was intact and should be respected and, then, four years later without explaining why, considered that the mandate was somehow not properly formed. So there are issues about the consistency of decision making by the tribunal. But, in the end, bringing the legislation to the House does not bring litigation to an end, and in fact, the Supreme Court is, this very day, hearing from parties relating to this particular settlement. There are points of law that the Supreme Court can consider and, as I understand it, is considering, but it means that those who come under the mandate represented by the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua Settlement Trust can get on and realise the benefits of the agreement they have reached with the Crown.

Jan Logie: What is the Minister’s response to the letter from the Federation of Māori Authorities and the New Zealand Māori Council informing the Government that if it continues with this legislation without waiting for resolution of the application before the Supreme Court, they will consider the 1987 lands and 1989 forestry agreements between the federation, council, and Crown to have been repudiated?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: My response is that neither of those bodies understand the detail of the agreements reached with Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua, and in fact, the return of Crown forest land to that settlement trust was the commitment by that settlement trust to ensure that one of the parties that has a specific claim on a very specific part of the Ngāumu Forest land can participate and exercise their kaitiaki rights, and I’m confident that the settlement trust will forge a strong relationship with that grouping to ensure that their interests and rights over that part of the Ngāumu Forest are observed. The spirit and letter of the pieces of legislation that the Federation of Māori Authorities and the New Zealand Māori Council refer to are being honoured.

Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the letter from the federation and the Māori Council.

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

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

Jan Logie: Is the Crown extinguishing rights that exist in law to prevent a larger financial cost to the Crown?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I think I indicated in my answer to the primary question, the Crown acts in a way that is fair to all parties with an interest in a particular matter. It’s important, I think, for this House to know that there are parties who have not played a single part in putting the particular settlement agreement together that have a stake in this, and that is Ngāti Raukawa and, to a lesser extent, Ngāti Tūwharetoa, whose mana whenua was, in a sense, under attack through a claim on the Pouākani lands around Mangakino because—and, in fact, as the High Court noted that itself, the tribunal had failed to recognise, was inconsistent with the tikanga that ought to be applied when it comes to a Māori organisation claiming rights and interests in land that is not in their rohe. I think, all the way through, the way the Crown has approached this is to make sure that all those with an interest not only in the settlement but in the peripheral issues to it are treated properly and fairly and have done. Now Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua and their people can realise the benefits of their agreement.

Jan Logie: Prior to this year, has any Government ever introduced legislation the week before a Supreme Court hearing which extinguishes the rights of the appellants before the court?

SPEAKER: I’ll let the Minister answer it. I’m not sure that he has responsibility for it.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I want to just point out to the House that it is not correct to say that the litigation rights of any party have been extinguished. The Supreme Court is continuing to hear matters raised and the appeals raised by the Wairarapa Moana Incorporation and other parties. There are points of law that it can consider, and it is considering those.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, I stand by this Government’s economic plan to build a higher wage, low-carbon economy that provides economic security in good times and bad. My statement to Parliament set out our work to increase the value of our exports, develop new markets, and invest in skills, new research and technology, and modern infrastructure to drive productivity, reduce emissions, and increase wages. We will do this while continuing our balanced and disciplined approach to managing the Government’s accounts. We are forecast to achieve a surplus in 2023-24—three years earlier than was forecast in Budget 2021 and, I might add, significantly faster than the Opposition achieved post the global financial crisis.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that when prices grow twice as fast as wages for an entire year, real incomes are going backwards, meaning average Kiwi families are getting poorer under her Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the premise of that question, because if we track back from 2018, the average annual rate of people’s wages, we were looking more at 3.5 percent relative to inflation, which has been sitting on average at 2.2 percent. What we have now is not something New Zealand is experiencing alone: there is an international phenomenon of countries experiencing high rates of inflation. We join the likes of the UK and the United States, and we also join them for similar reasons: each are identifying issues around, for instance, building more housing and, particularly, the cost increase in fuel prices. This is not something that people are forecasting to endure but we absolutely accept that it is having an impact on consumers.

Christopher Luxon: Does she agree that when rents are up $125 per week—or $6,500 per year—that we have a cost of living crisis in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I refer the member back to my answer, giving the context from 2018 to now, and the period that we’re in presently. I also refer the member back to the fact that what we’re actually experiencing in New Zealand has been a long-term housing crisis we inherited and are working very hard to turn around, and one of the most significant contributions we can make to turning that around is to growing housing supply. Now, I listened carefully yesterday to the member’s statement in this House and I did not hear one idea on how we are to turn around the housing crisis, yet on this side of the House, we have extended the brightline test, we have dealt with interest deductibility, we are growing the number of public and transitional housing places to over 8,000 already and another 2,000 this year. We have stopped letting fees, we have reduced the number of increases a renter experiences to once a year, we are reforming the Resource Management Act, and in the meantime expediting housing projects that will make a difference to housing supply, and, as a result, we have the highest number of consents on record. This is a Government that is progressing housing solutions. I hear nothing from that side of the House.

David Seymour: Was the Prime Minister listening carefully to the Opposition for housing policy ideas because none of hers have worked since house prices went up $387,000, or 58 percent, on her watch?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I was listening carefully to see whether or not we had, in an Opposition, the persistent idea of actually not acknowledging a housing crisis, first of all, and doing absolutely nothing except selling public housing stock.

Christopher Luxon: What does she say to Kiwis who are struggling to put food on the table when food price increases are the highest in a decade—so a block of cheese is $17 and 2 litres of milk is almost $5?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: To our families in New Zealand, I’d say that we are the Government that, of course, has increased things like Working for Families and of course already committed that they will see another increase in Working for Families this year of, on average, $20 a week, that we are a Government that will continue to see the increase in the minimum wage, when that leader disputes that the minimum wage should be increasing at all, and that we are a Government that are committed, for instance, to ensure that working people can retire at a certain age, when on that side they want to see working people working longer and harder. This is a Government that is focused on ensuring that we support working families and New Zealanders; on that side of the House I see no sign of that.

Christopher Luxon: How much of the record 5.9 percent inflation does she believe is a result of Government spending?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, I note that on that side of the House, the member when asked that question himself pointed to two policies: cameras on boats—a policy I notice the National Party used to support—for fisheries and consultants for three waters. It won’t be a surprise to this House that I disagree with that assertion and I disagree that things like the wage subsidy, resurgence support, and support for small businesses have been the driver of inflation. Instead, I point to what is actually on record, out of Stats New Zealand and out of Australia and the UK, which is pointing to supply constraints and issues like fuel costs.

Rawiri Waititi: Does she stand by the statement of her Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education) that “I will never agree to a Māori education authority.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I acknowledge, first of all, all the work that our Minister has done in the area of ensuring that we improve the education outcomes for Māori students, whether they’re in kura or whether they’re in mainstream education, that we more broadly see the teaching of te reo, that we more broadly see the teaching of history in schools, and that we lift educational attainment for all our students, and I support his work on that.

Rawiri Waititi: How is it appropriate for a Minister of the Crown to rule out a Māori education authority when Te Rūnanga nui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori have a claim before the Waitangi Tribunal?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think the Minister—what he has not ruled out is his aspiration that all of our students, all of our Māori students, have the very best education possible and that is his focus.

Hon Kelvin Davis: Does she agree that a Māori education authority should actually apply to 100 percent of Māori tamariki, not 5 percent of Māori tamariki, as is proposed by Te Rūnanga nui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member will well know that I support the work that the Associate Minister is doing, because he is the one that has direct experience within our education system and, more importantly, teaching our tamariki. So I back him 100 percent.

Chlöe Swarbrick: How does the Prime Minister reconcile her comments that the Government is “pulling all the levers on housing affordability” with her statements yesterday: “We are not considering rent controls, we are not introducing rent controls, we are not planning to use rent controls.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Because we are pulling those levers, and the member will have heard me list in this House. Everything, for instance, around reforming interest deductibility, which we have seen the extension of that brightline test, which we’re already seeing in the mortgage data, is contributing to the fact that there are more first-home buyers now in the market. And investors now, in terms of their take-up of mortgages, are down at around 16 percent. At the same time, we have to make sure that rental properties are available. We are doing all we can, though, to make sure that we have a rental sector that is affordable and where we have more long-term stable tenancy for our renters.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept any responsibility for the skyrocketing cost of living in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Here I refer again to the international evidence. So, again, when the member was asked the question of the examples where he thought the Government was responsible, I can only again reflect that he replied: cameras on boats and consultants for three waters were the Government’s contribution to inflation. I disagree. The Australian Bureau of Statistics noted that there it was high levels of building construction activity and higher global oil prices. The UK Office for National Statistics: it came from housing and motor fuels. The US Bureau of Statistics—again, pointing to inflation being caused by gasoline prices, which were up 49.6 percent. I reflect on what we are seeing globally: we’re seeing the same trends overseas that we are seeing here in New Zealand.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that under this Labour Government people are working harder but they are not getting ahead; they’re going backwards because of a cost of living crisis driven by her Government’s economic mismanagement?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I reject the premise of the member’s question, and, again, no one is denying that internationally we are seeing increases in inflation due to all of the reasons that I’ve outlined. But I again refer back that since 2018, wages have outstripped inflation in this country, and I also point to the fact that if we had that party in office, we would have a Government that did not believe in, for instance, lifting the wages of our lowest-income New Zealanders and supporting families to get ahead—quite the opposite to what you’ve seen on this side.

Rawiri Waititi: Why is it that the Government rightfully accepted the need for a Māori Health Authority to deal with persistent inequalities, inequities, in a racist system and why can’t it do the same for an education system with a Māori education authority?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You know, our view is that we’ll do what works. We know that there is a need to make progress in both those areas, but our view is that in order to make the gains we need in Māori healthcare, we do need to make sure that we’re working much more in partnership to determine the way that services are delivered, and the Māori Health Authority takes a real leadership role there. But, at the same time, we’re also strengthening the role and availability of kura, and so it’s not that you necessarily need to have these two independent authorities in order to drive those outcomes; it is, though, about doing things differently and we’re doing that in both areas.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Government intend to increase the rate of GST, as the Government of the day did last time there was a spike in the cost of living in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would note that that was a period in which we saw a significant increase in the cost of living, but I again would add that alongside the credibility gap of being lectured by a Leader of the Opposition on the cost of living when he does not believe in increases to the minimum wage.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker—yep, I’ll go for it. The strength of the jobs market is continuing to support the New Zealand economy. Last week, Statistics New Zealand reported that the unemployment rate fell from 3.3 percent in the September quarter to a record low of 3.2 percent in the December quarter, the number of unemployed fell by 5,000 to 93,000, and the unemployment rate is 34 percent lower than a year ago and 14 percent below where it was in the pre-COVID December 2019 quarter. On comparable measures, New Zealand’s unemployment rate, at 3.2 percent, stands against 4.6 percent in Australia, 4.1 percent in the UK, 4.2 percent in the US, 6.2 percent in Canada, and the OECD average of 5.5 percent. The robust jobs market shows that the Government’s actions in response to COVID-19 to protect lives and livelihoods has proven to be the best economic approach as well as the best health approach.

Dr Duncan Webb: What did the report say on growth in employment?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The data also shows that the economy continued to add jobs, with 27,700 more people in work than in the September quarter, with more young people in work in particular. Hours worked rebounded 7.6 percent as restrictions in response to the Delta outbreak were eased over the quarter. The total number of people in work is now 117,300 above where it was in the pre-COVID December 2019 quarter. Kiwibank’s economist noted that there was no denying the strength of the labour market in this report, pointing out, “Jobs are plentiful, unemployment is at a new record low, and wages are rising.”

Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Government’s health-led approach to the COVID-19 pandemic and support for the economy has been reflected in the Crown financial accounts released in late January. For the six months to the end of September, core Crown tax revenue was $0.3 billion above that forecast in the December half-year update, at $41.1 billion. This was largely driven by better than expected corporate profits. The operating balance before gains and losses was a deficit of $8.4 billion, $1.2 billion better than forecast. This shows the resilience of the economy as restrictions triggered by the pandemic meant that we did have to put more support in to protect lives and livelihoods. I note that net core Crown debt stood at 34.5 percent of GDP, $0.6 billion less than had been predicted, and significantly below the countries with which we compare ourselves.

Christopher Luxon: Why, then, with such low unemployment and labour shortages are there 90,000 more people on a benefit today than when Labour took power?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been stated many times in this House, the two figures are not directly comparable. What we do know is that on a consistent measure of unemployment that has been in place since 1987, we have the lowest rate that we have ever had. What I did hear in this House yesterday was the Leader of the Opposition, whose only solution I could make out from his speech was that he wanted unemployment to rise. That’s the old National Party, and it’s still here.

Question No. 4—Housing

4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Housing: By what amount, if any, have both the median rent and the demand for social housing increased since the Government announced its housing package in March 2021?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The Government’s March 2021 housing package included a range of demand and supply side measures to increase the supply of housing. This was to address a housing crisis that was decades in the making. On the supply side, we simply weren’t building enough houses—which has been a major driver of increasing rents. According to Stats New Zealand, median rent increased 4.7 percent between March 2021 and December 2021. And the Housing Register has increased by 1,838 applications between March 2021 and December 2021. I do, however, note for the member that there is a wide regional variation in the rent increases we have seen. For example, in Auckland, where we have seen a strong increase in supply, rents were limited to a 2.4 percent increase. This shows that where we increase supply, there will be more moderate rent increases. We know that this is a housing crisis that cannot be solved overnight, but we are continuing to see some of the initial green shoots of positive change from our Government’s housing policies. But we know there is more work to do and we’ll continue taking action to get more houses built.

Nicola Willis: Can she confirm that according to the most recent Government rental data, in the past year, median weekly rents have increased by $50—the biggest annual increase since records began?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I indicated in the answer to the primary question, when we look at the Stats New Zealand figures—which are the figures that I will look at—we saw, for the period that the member is talking about between March and December of last year, a 4.7 percent median increase. But if we are to truly understand where the solutions to fixing our housing crisis lie, we have to look at the regional variation, and, where we can see where more supply is coming on, such as in Auckland, that we are holding rental increases to 2.4 percent. We cannot ignore that.

Nicola Willis: Does she recall receiving advice from housing officials in January last year, warning that the Government’s proposed housing tax changes “could have a negative impact on renters, particularly those on lower incomes”; and does she regret the impact her policies are having on renters?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I remember receiving the advice on 22 December very well, because it was put in my summer reading bag. This was advice that was at the initial stages of policy development, that pointed out that if we did not do something to incentivise the bringing on of new supply of housing, then we could possibly see an increase in rent. Of course, as the package announced in March 2021 showed, our Government did take heed of that advice and put in place mitigations by putting in place a 20-year exemption for new-build rental properties into that. So I recall it very well. I also recall myself and the Minister of Finance discussing it fully, along with our Cabinet colleagues, to come up with real solutions to a housing crisis.

Nicola Willis: Is it the Minister’s position that the Government’s housing package in March has been effective when renters are now paying $50 more a week for their housing, and does she think that is acceptable?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I indicated in the answer to the primary question, we are beginning to see the green shoots of the Government’s action in the area of housing. When we look at the evidence and where we can see that there were rental increases constrained to 2.4 percent in Auckland over the period under question, compared to some parts of the North Island that had 8 percent increases, we can see that bringing on new supply is absolutely critical to a Government addressing the housing crisis, and that is what we are doing. It is why we geared aspects of the March package towards ensuring that we could bring on supply in places other than metropolitan centres. It is exactly what the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund is about. I encourage the member to look at the evidence rather than the soundbites.

Nicola Willis: Was the Associate Minister of Housing correct when she stated last week that in response to rent increases, “There are a whole lot of proposals that are being floated at the moment, including things like rent control and indexation … There is nothing off the table.”; and, if so, why did the Prime Minister state yesterday, “We are not considering rent controls.”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our Cabinet consistently looks at what we can do to help people who are renting, whether that be by incentivising the bringing on of new supply of housing, because we do not want mum and dad property investors competing with their kids in the suburbs; we actually want property investors and developers to be part of solving the housing crisis. So both the Prime Minister and the Associate Minister of Housing were absolutely correct that we continually do what we can to aid renters. But we are an evidence-driven Government, and when we look at the evidence that the best way to control rent is to bring on the supply of new housing, we look at that 2.4 percent increase in Auckland—that is where we’re addressing our energy.

Question No. 5—COVID-19 Response

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): My question is to the Minister for COVID-19 Response and asks—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to give a little bit of development feedback to the member, and indicate that if she does that again, her colleagues will lose supplementaries.

5. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: What will be the focus for the Government’s response to COVID-19 in 2022?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): The year 2022 represents the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, and we begin this year with a plan to keep us as safe as possible and to keep the country moving forward. Our guiding principle for the last two years has been to protect the lives and livelihoods of New Zealanders, and that’s what we’ve done. Our confirmed cases, our hospitalisations, and our deaths have been the lowest in the OECD for the past two years. Our goal is to continue this trend. Vaccination will continue to be one of our greatest defences against the virus, and the roll-out of the booster and paediatric campaigns will be essential in obtaining the overall high rates of vaccination across all population groups but particularly our elderly, our immunocompromised, and others who are at risk. As we build our collective immunisation, we will be commencing our reconnection with the rest of the world.

Dr Liz Craig: How will boosters be used in the roll-out of New Zealand’s immunisation programme?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Boosters are essential. Cabinet recently considered the advice of the Director-General of Health and the COVID-19 Vaccine Technical Advisory Group, and on the basis of that advice reduced the interval between a person’s primary vaccination course—their first and their second dose—and their booster dose from four months to three months. As of today, over 1.6 million Kiwis have had their booster dose. That’s over half of the New Zealanders who are eligible as of today. Boosters are our strongest weapon at this point. Every booster dose that is delivered strengthens our collective immunity and takes pressure off our health system. So to every New Zealander: if you are eligible, please do go and get boosted today. It is the most significant thing that you can do to protect your family, your friends, and those hard-working doctors, nurses, paramedics, and health workers that we all rely on.

Dr Liz Craig: What progress has been made to date on the vaccination of New Zealand children under 12 years of age?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Roughly, 476,000 young New Zealanders between the ages of five and 11 are eligible to get their first dose. Over 200,000 of those tamariki have so far received their first dose. As we’ve seen to date, the virus can be unpredictable. While COVID-19 does sometimes have milder effects in children, with symptoms more similar to a cold, some children do become severely ill and require hospitalisation. In the most recent outbreak, 24 percent of our cases have been aged under 11, so the Government is strongly encouraging parents to have their children vaccinated against COVID-19.

Dr Liz Craig: What impact will the Government’s response to COVID-19 have on our borders?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The New Zealand border will reopen for vaccinated New Zealanders and other currently eligible travellers from Australia at 11.59 p.m. on 27 February. It will open for the same groups from the rest of the world two weeks later on 13 March. The Government’s reconnecting plan will see all New Zealanders and key visa holders able to start to enter the country over the coming three months. That will help to assist with our economic recovery and, of course, help to address some immediate workforce shortages. Having managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) for every traveller coming into the country was a temporary setting when we had no other forms of protection against the virus. New Zealanders need to reconnect with the world and with one another, families and friends need to reunite, our businesses need skills to grow, and exporters need to travel to make new connections. So we’ve developed a very careful plan that replaces MIQ for the vast majority of travellers whilst also ensuring that we maintain ongoing measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in our community from recent arrivals.

Question No. 6—Prime Minister

6. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and policies?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s actions to reconnect New Zealanders to the world, beginning at 11.59 p.m. on 27 February with New Zealanders and other eligible travellers from Australia. Our plan will see all New Zealanders and key visa holders able to enter the country without managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) over the next three months to reconnect families, reconnect businesses, and reconnect us to visitors. We begin to reopen in the context of high vaccination levels, our booster and paediatric vaccine campaign, and public health measures designed to protect us from the worst of Omicron. MIQ has been invaluable in protecting New Zealand from the worst of COVID, but it has not been without heartache and has been one of the hardest parts of the pandemic, but it’s also helped put us in a position to now move forward together safely.

David Seymour: Why does the New Zealand tourism industry have to wait until the end of this year, nearly, to reconnect with the world when Australia’s tourism industry will be welcoming tourists by the end of this month?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That’s actually not correct. The first step for reopening to tourists is in July, and we’ve also really predicated that date as being our maximum; it’s by July. Our expectation is that, in line with the advice from our experts, when we do see higher case numbers in New Zealand, the additional impact of seeding at our border is lessened. So we do expect that there is every chance that that date will come forward. That’s the date that Australians are able to re-enter; of course, progressively, we move through with visa-waiver countries and then finish with those requiring visas, and that’s at October.

David Seymour: Does she stand by the answer she gave to a question about whether Government spending has led to higher inflation, “I refute that. I absolutely refute that.”, and if she was right, was Treasury wrong to advise the finance Minister that “Increases in fiscal stimulus … have exerted inflationary pressures”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What you’ll have seen from my answers in their entirety is that the vast majority of inflationary pressures are coming from, as I’ve said—and this has been noticed by Stats New Zealand—fuel prices and building and construction. Some of that is, of course, exacerbated by supply constraints and supply chain issues. As you will have seen from my answers, that is the case in other countries also—the likes of Australia, the US, and the UK; their bureaux of statistics all pointing to the same inflationary pressures.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister point New Zealanders to one country registering higher inflation than New Zealand that we’d like to be compared with, excluding the United States, which was the only country in the OECD that had a bigger Government spend-up through COVID?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I take from the premise of the member’s question that he disagrees with the Government support that has been put in place over the course of the pandemic. That’s all that I can conclude. If the member is precluding, for instance, as he said, a country that has put investment into their COVID recovery, because I would have, of course, named the United States at 7 percent. Yes, we have invested Government spending to ensure that we could deliver a wage subsidy, which kept people connected to their jobs and contributed to a 3.2 percent unemployment rate. We invested in the Resurgence Support Payment and we invested in support specifically for small business. Now, if the member disagrees with those initiatives, it is his prerogative, but on this side of the House we stand by them.

David Seymour: So are New Zealanders to take it their Prime Minister can’t name another country in the world with higher inflation that we’d like to compare ourselves with?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The countries that we most often compare ourselves to, of course—as the member well knows, New Zealand is sitting at 5.9 percent. The UK is sitting at 5.4 percent, Germany at 5.3 percent, Canada at 4.8 percent, and the United States at 7 percent. The point is that these countries are all experiencing similar impacts, and that is because most of the contributing factors towards that are being internationally driven.

David Seymour: Can she give New Zealanders some hope of getting their way of life back by promising to lift all COVID-19 restrictions this calendar year, and if not, why not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We don’t wish to have restrictions in place longer than they are required. Of course, we have only used them in order to make sure that we are able to enjoy a way of life that feels like it has some kind of normality. The fact that we have now these lower levels of restrictions is because we have high rates of vaccination. It’s because New Zealanders have gone out and supported the vaccination campaign that we now have some lower restrictions that even other countries that have Omicron currently have. When we are able to, we will even remove those, because our constant drive is to have as much normality as possible whilst also keeping one another safe.

David Seymour: How does she explain to New Zealanders—94 percent have done their bit, gone out, got double vaccinated, while we still have some of the most stringent restrictions on our border and on our way of life of any country outside Communist China?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would reject that. For instance, there are some countries that have had stay at home orders for the better part of two years consistently. We have not had that. We’ve even now, you’ll see that we’ve got—yes, we have gathering restrictions, but otherwise businesses are able to open, they are able to trade, and that is precisely because of the vaccination rates and because we are using targeted restrictions that we know make a difference on Omicron. The member may have missed this, but relative to other countries, we’ve had some of the best outcomes in the world. Has it come with New Zealanders having to make sacrifices? Yes—but name a country who hasn’t and has still come out with some of the lowest hospitalisations, death rates, and still maintained economic growth and low unemployment. I stand by our COVID response.

Question No. 7—Finance

7. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: Does he accept that with inflation of 5.9 per cent and a wage rate increase of 2.6 per cent for 2021, real incomes for New Zealanders are going backwards; if so, what will he do about it?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I do not accept the member’s use of the labour cost index is an accurate reflection of how New Zealand’s wages have risen, and therefore I do not accept the conclusion that he draws. In fact, under this Government, average, ordinary-time, hourly earnings—money in people’s pocket—has risen, on average, by 3.5 percent a year, while inflation has averaged 2.2 percent a year.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he then accept the Council of Trade Unions survey of workers, out at the end of last year, which found that those who believe they are worse off is significantly higher now than the year before with 70 percent of workers saying their pay isn’t keeping up with the cost of living?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I look forward to the member’s ongoing endorsement of the Council of Trade Unions’ statements, which include such things as lifting the minimum wage, an exercise that would help people meet increasing costs of living. I stand by the statistics I used in my primary answer.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will he accept the findings of the Westpac McDermott Miller Employment Confidence Index, again, at the end of last year, which found that more New Zealanders are pessimistic about the economic environment and report that their personal circumstances are worse than the year before, for reasons including high inflation and rising interest rates?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I—and along with, I imagine, the member, and everyone else in this House—understand the impact that COVID-19 has had on New Zealand and New Zealanders. That survey was taken at the end of a period of time where there were restrictions in the New Zealand economy that have been difficult for many people. But when we take a look at New Zealand’s position overall, economically, we are doing well. Our very strong public health response has allowed the economy to rebound, such that the biggest issue being raised is the issue around the capacity of the economy to be able to deal with the growth that we have.

Hon Simon Bridges: When will he take action on the recommendation of the OECD, in their report out last week, where they say that the Government should “Withdraw fiscal stimulus rapidly to reduce the burden of macroeconomic stabilisation on monetary policy.”, or, in plain English, stop spending so much to ease pressure on high inflation and rising interest rates?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member will recall that we have made a decision, under the COVID-19 Protection Framework, that broad-based fiscal stimulus will not now take place. Unfortunately for the member, a number of his colleagues are continuing to call for that.

Hon Simon Bridges: What part of the OECD’s call to “Withdraw fiscal stimulus” doesn’t he understand?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I think the member might not have listened to my last answer. We have already said that across-the-board payments, such as the wage subsidy, wouldn’t be paid out under the COVID-19 Protection Framework. I do note—I do note—that in the National Party’s most recent plan, they called for the wage subsidy to be available at level 2 of the old framework. So the member needs to sort out what he actually believes.

Hon Stuart Nash: In terms of the state of global economic variables impacting on inflation, what is he personally doing to solve congestion problems at US west coast ports, reopen port cities in China closed down by the Chinese Government due to COVID, or—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept that it isn’t simply the OECD that’s calling for withdrawing fiscal stimulus, but that as interest.co.nz has recently reported out, “Bank economists are increasingly calling for the Government to start reining in spending to avoid fuelling higher inflation.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As I’ve already said, when it comes to across-the-board fiscal stimulus, that decision has already been made. I can only take from the member’s repeated questioning here that he believes that the Government should be cutting spending on things like health and our health response, or the other business supports that we’ve given. The member needs to front up—what’s he going to cut? Because he’s going to cut some spending, and it can’t just be cameras on boats; it’s got be to be something more, so it’ll be health, or it’ll be housing. That’s what the member has to front up to.

Question No. 8—Arts, Culture and Heritage

8. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What recent announcements has she made about support for the arts and events sector?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Last week, I announced $121 million in further support for the arts and cultural sector. Key elements of the support we announced include: extending the Arts and Culture Event Support Scheme to 31 January 2023 and extending the key eligibility criteria; funding more direct support for individuals and organisations through the Cultural Sector Emergency Relief Fund; increasing the limit on funding for individual organisations from $100,000 to $300,000; a one-off grant of $5,000 to self-employed individuals or sole traders; and a boost in funding for the Screen Production Recovery Fund.

Arena Williams: Why is this support important for the sector?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The arts and culture sector continues to be the engine of growth and innovation, helping to fuel the New Zealand economy. The sector contributes approximately $10.9 billion to the New Zealand economy, making up about 3.4 percent of GDP. The support we’ve announced follows ongoing engagement with the sector to understand their needs as the pandemic has progressed. It underlines the economic and social value of the arts, and ensures that we’re taking active steps towards protecting people’s jobs, incomes, and the livelihoods of those who make a living from delivering arts experiences and events.

Arena Williams: What feedback has she seen on the announcement?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’m pleased with the responses I’ve seen so far. The executive director of the Auckland Pride Festival, Max Tweedie, said, “This is a massive relief. The support scheme is a fantastic initiative that I’m excited all events across 2022 will be able to access. Fantastic to see the Government responding quickly to the needs of the arts sector.”

Question No. 9—Transport

9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Transport: Does he have confidence that he can deliver light rail in Auckland; if so, why?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Yes, I am confident that we will deliver light rail because the indicative business case has provided a sound analytical base on which to make informed decisions; because an enduring position and agreement between the Auckland Council, the Crown, and mana whenua has been established; because the governance arrangements that have been established will provide for appropriate Crown oversight and will incorporate the necessary skills to make the project a success; because Ministers have agreed to establish a competency-based board that brings the necessary skills together to deliver this city-shaping project. And, finally, I would say that I have great confidence because this Government is utterly determined that, after 50 years of successive local and central government administrations kicking this issue of a proper transport system for Auckland down the road, we have decided that it is time to act. I’d finish by quoting the comments of Infrastructure New Zealand on this issue, who said that, “We have to remember too, that what’s good for Auckland is good for New Zealand. We commend the Government for this approach, but we’re mindful that things can … change over successive terms of Government. We need to step aside from politics and just get this done.” We will, and I invite the Opposition to engage in a constructive and mature conversation about it.

Simeon Brown: Does he stand by his statement: “Early works will commence by 2023.”; and, if so, how can New Zealanders believe him, given the Government promised this project would be completed by 2021, yet hasn’t even started construction?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: It’s well-known and understood by New Zealanders who have observed this project that there was not consensus between the parties of the Government in the previous term, and therefore it didn’t proceed. There is consensus between the parties of Government in this term of Government, and within one year of this Government recommencing this project an indicative business case has been produced, Cabinet has decided on the preferred option, and we have advice on the table that supports the fact that we will be able to begin those works in 2023.

Simeon Brown: In what year will the final business case be completed by?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I trust that the member has read the indicative business case and the supporting documents that have been released. It is our expectation that a detailed business case will be before Cabinet by approximately the end of 2023.

Simon Court: Does the Minister agree with Matt Lowrie of Greater Auckland that, had he chosen the cheaper surface light rail option, there would be enough money left over to build another rail link to the north-west to Westgate; and, if not, why not?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: I thank the member for his question. I also thank the member for his constructive engagement in this issue over time, albeit that we don’t agree on all aspects of the proposal. I disagree with Mr Lowrie on this point, because, ultimately, what we have determined we need to do in Auckland, our largest city, is to finally develop a proper, linked up, high-capacity transport system. The challenges with the surface light rail option favoured by Mr Lowrie and some others, despite the benefits that that offered in terms of cost, were ultimately that it would not provide sufficient capacity into the long term. We don’t want to do what Auckland did in the 1950s and under-build a harbour bridge that then had to be expanded within 10 years.

Secondly, and this is a very important point, the Government’s announcements did not just relate to building a light rail line along the city centre to Māngere corridor. They’re about futureproofing the network with a full network approach, including a new public transport - centred connection to the North Shore, and if we want to have the capacity to link those two systems together, tunnelling is a necessity.

Simeon Brown: Can he confirm that the indicative business case states that the cost of light rail could be as high as $24 billion; and, if so, does he think that a billion dollars for every kilometre of light rail is cost effective?

Hon MICHAEL WOOD: No, the indicative business case does not quote that figure. The member is extrapolating, as I believe another journalist has extrapolated. It is important to have some clarity around the cost of the project. The 2021 net present value estimate for the project is $10.3 billion. The $14.6 billion P50 price that has been quoted is the inflated cost over the lifetime of the project that builds in significant contingency.

Simeon Brown: What will he have delivered more of by the end of this parliamentary term: metres of light rail or metres of press releases talking about light rail?

SPEAKER: Order! No.

Question No. 10—Police

10. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What steps is the Government taking to tackle firearms violence?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. This Government has committed to the most significant reform of our firearms laws in recent times. Last week, the Arms Amendment Regulations 2021 came into effect. This will tighten up the firearms licence application process by requiring additional information from applicants, including a list of countries visited in the last five years. Following the terrorist attack of March 15, the Government has moved to take 60,000 military-style weapons off the streets. We’ve also established a ministerial arms advisory group to assist these reforms. We’re setting up a new purpose-built firearms unit within police to implement these reforms and, by June 2023, we will have a comprehensive register in place that will help to fill a 30-year deficit of information when it comes to firearms in our community.

Ginny Andersen: What other steps is the Government taking to reduce gun crime?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government is introducing a comprehensive firearms prohibition order (FPO) regime, which is part of our plan to reduce firearms violence. The bill, which will have its first reading in the House later today, will allow the courts to apply a FPO on someone who has committed a serious offence under the Arms Act 1983, the Crimes Act 1961, and the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002. This is a significant step in the Government’s ongoing commitment to protect the public from the harm inflicted by firearms and to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What is her response to Kāinga Ora chief executive Andrew McKenzie’s statement today, “Living up here in Auckland, particularly with the level of gun … violence, which has impacted on our customers, there’s certainly a fear in the community.”?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I know that Kāinga Ora has worked hard to ensure that they provide the appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure that their tenants and the communities and their neighbourhoods are as safe as possible. And I know that they work hand in hand with the police when the police are required to intervene in these cases.

Ginny Andersen: What impact will firearm prohibition orders have on gun crime?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What we’ve seen from firearms prohibition order regime around the world is that they are a highly effective tool used to reduce gun crime. A person who is subject to an FPO will be banned from accessing, using, or owning a firearm for a decade. Breaching the order will be a criminal offence. High-risk offenders subject to such an order will no longer be able to use licensed gun owners as a front for their illegal firearms. This is yet another tool this Government is putting in place to crack down on gun violence in New Zealand.

Nicole McKee: Is the Minister certain that it’s 60,000 military-style semi-automatics that have been handed in by complying licence owners, as she continuously repeats, or is it a figure of 60,000 firearms that have been handed in by licensed firearm owners, not only military-style semi-automatics?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: My understanding is that the 60,000 are what is termed a “military-style semi-automatic”, as I have been quoting. However, if this is not correct, I am more than prepared to correct the statement in the House—and I shall check that.

Question No. 11—Finance

11. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the advice provided to him by the Treasury that “Increases in fiscal stimulus outside of higher Alert Levels … have exerted inflationary pressures … by increasing aggregate demand”; if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I note that the member has chosen not to provide the full quote in his question. It should be: “Increases in fiscal stimulus outside of higher Alert Levels, however, have exerted inflationary pressures as usual by increasing aggregate demand”. I agree with a good deal of the advice I get from the Treasury, including the advice that they gave to help set up the COVID response and recovery fund to help protect New Zealanders’ lives and livelihoods. I also agree with the Treasury, who, in the previous paragraph to the quote that the member has used, note that “Upward inflationary pressures are coming from the continued supply side disruptions related to this pandemic.” This is a global issue many countries are facing, not just New Zealand.

David Seymour: So, everything else being equal, does he think that borrowing and printing and spending money the way he has for the last two years has put pressure on interest rates and the prices people pay at the checkout and the pump, or not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: To begin with, everything else being equal is kind of a big caveat—isn’t it?—that the member put on that question. What I would say is I stand by the Government’s response, which was to make sure that we acted swiftly to give people cash flow and confidence and to make sure that we saved lives and livelihoods, and I think we’ve been proven that that approach, both to the economy and health, was a good one. But I do note there are people who would like us to spend more—for example, Chris Baillie, an ACT Party MP, who said that the Government’s Resurgence Support Payment would barely touch the sides for most businesses. So we have to strike a balance between people in the ACT Party who want us to spend more money, and those of us who are taking a careful and balanced approach to the economy.

David Seymour: Has he considered quoting Chris Baillie’s full view that putting endless restrictions with no end in sight on small businesses puts them under enormous pressure, requiring even more Government spending of borrowed money to prop them up, and has he advised his colleagues that if they don’t show New Zealanders a proper pathway to getting our lives back without his endless COVID-controlling restrictions, he’s going to run out of other people’s money?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I took my lead from the member and chose the bits of the quote I liked.

David Seymour: What’s the most convincing reassurance the Minister can give New Zealanders that his Government has a solution to the rising costs of living that they face?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The record that the Government has had consistently over the four years we’ve been in office is of making careful spending decisions while investing in the areas of economy and society that need it. New Zealanders know, because they can see in the fact that we have the lowest unemployment rate that we’ve ever had, that we actually have economic growth running into this last outbreak ahead of where we were in COVID, that we’re going to get back to surplus earlier than expected, that our level of debt is likely to peak out at 40 percent of GDP—much lower than most other countries in the OECD—and that they have a Government that not only cares about them but also is carefully managing the economy.

David Seymour: What responsibility does the Minister take for the fact that prices are at a 31-year high and Kiwis are having to choose between putting food on the table and petrol in the car as they anticipate rising mortgage rates taking, in some cases, hundreds of dollars a week out of household budgets, or does he just think everything’s tickety-boo?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We all understand the pressure that increasing prices put on families. That’s why this Government has increased benefits by a greater amount than any Government in a generation, it’s why we continue to lift the minimum wage, and it’s why we make very careful spending decisions that invest both in the short-term need now and in the long-term future. The member needs to explain to this House how it is he thinks cutting health spending or education spending is somehow going to lower the cost of petrol. It’s not. Inflation is a global phenomenon, and the Government will continue to support New Zealanders to deal with it.

David Seymour: Since spending is at record highs—up 58 percent—under his Government, are the only solutions this Government has left for the cost of living crisis for everyone to be either on a benefit or the minimum wage? Because that’s the only other thing he mentions.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What we’ve had to do was deal with the likes of David Seymour, who wanted us to increase spending on the Resurgence Support Payment well ahead of where we were, and we took the balanced approach of making sure we looked after New Zealanders while being careful with our spending.

David Seymour: Is the Minister seriously saying that the problem with his COVID response and everything he’s got wrong in the last two years is the fault of one David Seymour?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. I think what we’ve got right is by not listening to Mr Seymour.

Question No. 12—Economic and Regional Development

12. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What progress has the Government made on regional economic priorities?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): In the member’s own electorate of Northland—also part of Kelvin Davis’s Te Tai Tokerau seat—the Puketawa Marae in the Hokianga became the 500th regional economic development project completed with Crown investment from the Provincial Growth Fund and other funds. With more than 500 projects now delivered, regional economies have been given a shot in the arm from our wider strategy to support local jobs and businesses and strengthen community resilience. As our Prime Minister announced in her statement to Parliament yesterday, historic under-investment in infrastructure has been a handbrake on our economy and our communities and held back regions from reaching their full potential. The renovation of Puketawa Marae was done by local companies, subbies, and workers, with 22 people employed at various stages. Locals were kept in work during the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and local businesses won contracts for materials and service.

Anna Lorck: What projects in Hawke’s Bay have enabled the Government to make progress on regional economic development priorities?

Hon STUART NASH: The Government has delivered 47 completed regional economic development projects in Hawke’s Bay—$34 million has been invested in this region, creating jobs, investing in regional infrastructure, and supporting local jobs and businesses. For example, our investments have seen Hawk Group increase manufacturing to accommodate growth, extension and improvement of the Tukituki cycle trails, and allowed The Limery in Wairoa to greatly expand. This Government will continue to deliver support for our regional economies, investing in regional infrastructure which has previously been run down, and removing barriers for growth in our regional economies.

Tāmati Coffey: What projects in the Bay of Plenty have enabled the Government to make progress on regional economic development priorities?

Hon STUART NASH: For the Bay of Plenty, the Government has delivered 50 completed regional economic development projects, with a value of over $40 million. These projects have removed barriers for growth and given a meaningful boost to the regional economy. Our investment has seen investment in the St John Ambulance station, the Miro-Meihana Koata Berry Farm, creating jobs and supporting the local economy. And we are not done yet. The momentum of regional economic development is picking up pace. We’re delivering for communities, boosting regional economies across a wide variety of industries, and supporting local jobs and businesses.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 8 February.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I am extremely proud to stand today in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. I am proud of the record of this Government in providing what the Lowy Institute has declared as the best COVID-19 response in the world. That is a COVID-19 response that has been driven by the view that the best response for the whole of society, including the economy, is a strong public health response. We have stuck to that throughout this period of COVID-19, believing that if we support New Zealanders’ lives and livelihoods, we will come through this pandemic stronger. I am proud of the fact that we are now going to build on that response to take New Zealand forward, to not accept business as usual but to build a high-wage, low-carbon economy that provides economic security to New Zealanders in good times and in bad.

That is what New Zealanders have learnt over the last 2 years: that this Government is prepared to step forward and give them security. In the face of a one-in-100-year health and economic shock, it was this Government that stepped up and provided the support for New Zealanders to stay in work, and today we stand here with the lowest unemployment rate in New Zealand’s history, at 3.2 percent. That means, though, in turn, that there are 2.83 million New Zealanders in work today. We have under 100,000 people unemployed in New Zealand, and that—at the end of a pandemic that has rocked people and has hurt some businesses and some sectors—is a remarkable result. It is down to the hard work and the resilience of New Zealand businesses and workers that we have got there, and the fact that there is a Government that is prepared to stand alongside them.

There are no easy decisions in COVID-19. At each and every stage, we have been presented with difficult and worse options. We’ve had to shift and adapt at each stage to try to stay ahead of the virus. Of course we will not get every single decision right, but New Zealanders know that we have kept to our word: that we would save lives and we would save livelihoods—and that is what we have done.

What New Zealanders also know is that they cannot trust the National Party when it comes to COVID. For two years, across five poor leaders, they have flip-flopped around with open borders, closed borders, and were for ever arguing against the very things that are working. Remember, this is the party, and, indeed contestant number five is the leader, who said in December, as Omicron began to spread around the world, that now was a good time to open up, invite Omicron in through the door. A petition went up in the name of the National Party and it said “End MIQ now.” Then, when it started to get just a little bit hard and Omicron cases started to pile up at the border, they changed the name of the petition on the National Party website to “End MIQ”—no other word. I think we can probably make the judgment that the next step for the National Party’s petition will be simply the word “End”, and on that I think we could all agree.

When National comes forward and puts out ideas and positive solutions, people will respond, but, yesterday, we heard Christopher Luxon come to the House with a speech that could’ve been written by any National Party leader since the 1990s. He came here with the energy of Tony Robbins on Valium, a corporate life coach with nowhere else to go, and he told us that New Zealanders weren’t happy. Well, what we know, on this side of the House, is, having got through COVID-19 in the way that we have, New Zealanders know that they have a Government that has their back. But the National Party leader went on to say that the cost of living crisis, he said, in New Zealand is one that he will address, but not once yesterday did he say what he would do, and then when he was pressed he said, “Cameras on boats”, representing the major inflationary push that we have seen in New Zealand! He also said, though—I want to give credit here—that they were going to get rid of the Auckland regional fuel tax. It was a little bit confusing, because when he was asked what he would replace that with, he said, “A congestion charge.”—i.e., a levy; i.e., replacing one tax with another tax, which wouldn’t actually reduce the cost of living.

While we’re on the subject of the regional fuel tax and getting rid of it, I wonder if he—the Leader of the Opposition—has spoken to the National Party’s transport spokesperson, Simeon Brown, who, I believe, attended with great excitement the opening of the Eastern Busway, a project funded from the regional fuel tax. They cannot have it both ways. Either they support those transport projects or they don’t, and what we know is they are just playing politics here.

On this side of the House, our focus when it comes to the economy is the lifting of wages. We do need to do that by investing in the initiatives that will lift productivity, and on that I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, but that means actually investing in infrastructure—$57 billion worth over the next five years. It means being prepared to look ahead, not take the cheap political shots, but actually say, “What does a plan for transport look like? How do we actually invest in the building of public housing, not the selling off of public housing, making sure that our hospitals, our educational facilities are all being built and turned into world-class facilities?” That’s what helps grow productivity.

What else helps grow productivity is skills and skills training, and one of the proudest things I have of our response to COVID-19 was our move to make apprenticeships free, and subsidised trades training free. Over 100,000 New Zealanders have benefited from that. It’s lifting skills. It’s giving people opportunities like that that actually makes a difference when it comes to productivity, just as it does when we reach out into the world, and I want to give credit to both our former trade Minister, David Parker, and our current trade Minister, Damien O’Connor, for the work they have done in establishing the UK free-trade agreement alongside Minister Nanaia Mahuta. We are on the way to a strong agreement with the European Union and we are out there supporting our exporters in a practical way, and the Prime Minister will lead trade delegations later this year to support that.

All the way through COVID, we have had a mind to how we support our exporters to continue to be able to drive the New Zealand economy, and here I do want to thank our primary sector. It is a sector, I note, that the Leader of the Opposition didn’t bother to talk about during his speech yesterday. That primary sector has driven those exports and we’ve got alongside them. We have had an air freight subsidy scheme that has meant that planes have travelled in and out of New Zealand throughout this pandemic, which they would not have without that. That has meant that tens of billions of dollars of exports have gone out of New Zealand, and imports have come in. That is a practical partnership between the Government and business to make sure that New Zealand has made it through COVID-19.

So what we do now is we move forward to make sure that we are producing those higher-wage, low-carbon jobs, and, at this point, I want to thank our partnership with the Green Party, particularly in the cooperation agreement when it comes to climate change. The year 2022 will be a year when New Zealand finally comes to terms with what we need to do to reach our zero-carbon target. That is a big challenge. It is a massive environmental challenge but it is also an enormous economic opportunity for New Zealand.

No one’s better at renewable energy in the world than New Zealand. No one’s better at sustainable agriculture anywhere in the world than New Zealand. We can do this and we can create economic opportunity and higher-wage jobs out of the way that we approach the climate change challenge, and those emissions reduction plans and the new climate emergency relief fund that we have in the Budget will drive us forward to meeting both our environmental and our economic goals. Our industry transformation plan, which is being led by the Hon Stuart Nash, is vital to ensure that we get alongside business to make sure they have the skilled workforce, to make sure that they have the infrastructure that they need, be it in agritech, be it in advanced manufacturing, be it in forestry, be it in fisheries—industries that New Zealand is good at, but industries we know we must add value to. That is the answer to productivity, not old stories and old slogans from the 1990s but actual investment and partnership, not only with business but also with workers and with iwi, who we know want to be part of driving forward that story of a higher-wage, lower-carbon economy that supports economic security.

We have a big agenda this year. We are reforming the health system. We are reforming our three waters system. We are making sure that as a country we have the infrastructure that New Zealanders need, and deserve, to give them the opportunities to be able to achieve their potential. I am enormously proud of the statement that the Prime Minister put out. It is a plan for New Zealand to be able to drive forward, to provide opportunities for the next generation, to look after our planet, and to make sure that every New Zealander has a stake in our future. This is a statement to be proud of.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): You know, the most significant thing in the Prime Minister’s statement and her speech was what wasn’t in it. I listened very carefully to everything the Prime Minister was saying yesterday.

David Seymour: Why?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, because it was a thought experiment—it was a thought experiment. Barely a whisper about the economy, and I was just listening to Grant Robertson—well, there was a little bit; he talked about wages for about 15 seconds, but did he mention the word “inflation”, cost of living, and the pain New Zealanders are feeling? Not a murmur from Mr Robertson. In fact, I think what you’ll find is he spent much, much, much more time in that speech than on anything else, talking about Christopher Luxon and the New Zealand National Party. I’ll tell you why that is: he’s worried. He can see the National Party coming; he understands we’re a party that’s reset and that’s focused on issues, like cost of living and inflation, that really matter to New Zealand, and that are worrying them, and they’re not hearing a bean from the New Zealand Labour Party in Government.

And I want to say those naysayers over there: when we talk about the economy, we’re not talking highfalutin stuff, we’re not talking about the most wealthy, we’re not talking about those things that David Parker and Grant Robertson are obsessed about, with their envy of the rich. We’re actually talking about the regular Joes and Joannas, who actually are really worried right now, because when they go to the petrol station—at some places a bit under, at some places $3 a litre—they have to decide whether they’re going to fill it a quarter or a half full. They can’t afford the petrol at the petrol station.

They’re worried, because when they go to buy fruit and vegetables, they know the price of cauliflower, the price of broccoli, the price of tomatoes, and these things are unaffordable today and, actually, whether it’s mum or it’s dad and they’re going to get their school lunches for their children, they understand that sometimes they get to the checkout and they have to put things back in a way they didn’t have to, because of the economy that Grant Robertson and Jacinda Ardern are presiding over.

New Zealanders understand that they’ve still got their 30-year-old at home, in the basement, in the garage, because that 30-year-old today—more than ever in New Zealand’s history—can’t afford a home. They can’t move out of home because inflation is so high. And, as Nicola Willis has said so clearly today, and could not get a straight answer from the Minister of Housing on—she would not straight answer the question—rent has gone up $50 a week last year; the highest ever, as I understand it, in New Zealand; $50 a week. New Zealanders are going backwards.

So I want to focus on, today, a few of the things that should have, could have, would have been in Jacinda Ardern’s and Grant Robertson’s speeches, as they set out their float, their priorities for the year, in the Labour Party parade, that matter to New Zealanders. The first one—I’ve already mentioned but I want to come back to—is 5.9 percent inflation. It is the highest in 31 years in this country. It’s been higher, that’s true, but I tell you what, actually, for myself, for David Seymour, for Chris Bishop, for Simon Watts, for Simon O’Connor—I think I’m the oldest of all of the people I’ve just mentioned right there; I know, I don’t look 45!—for all of us in our adult lifetimes, we have never experienced inflation like that. A lot of New Zealanders haven’t. It is a thief in your pocket. It is an invisible tax and it hits the poor and the most vulnerable, and those workers close to the minimum wage are hit the hardest. We have inflation that’s one of the highest in the Western world. We hear a lot of nonsense from the Government. Their excuse today in this Parliament is “It’s all international.” Well, here’s the thing: actually, domestic inflation was up over 5 percent last year. It’s a big part of it. It is growing. At the end of last year, on the last figures, we have faster, higher than the international part. So it’s simply not right to say that.

And here’s what the ANZ, New Zealand’s biggest bank, said about the question and the blame that Grant Robertson and Ardern put on the international picture. They said, on 27 January, “The domestic economy is … highly inflationary”. It’s New Zealand. Infometrics said on the same day, “Inflation isn’t an offshore problem that New Zealand is caught up in.”; it’s domestic and it is hurting New Zealanders. Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson need to front up to that.

Wage growth, and here’s the real kicker: it’s only 2.6 percent. Again, obfuscation—I’d use some other words, but we’re in Parliament—from Grant Robertson today when he tries to hide the lack of wage growth relative to inflation, the cost of living going up in New Zealand. It’s very simple. It just means this: New Zealanders right now are going backwards—they are going backwards. They can’t afford the kind of economy that Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson are presiding over. And interest rates, as a result, because the Reserve Bank will have to act as a result of what Grant Robertson is doing and the spending that he keeps on spending and spending and spending—interest rates will go up several times this year. It will be a double whammy for New Zealanders as they face high inflation and high interest rates, and we have real problems for them being able to afford the basics for their whānau, for their family.

So what can Grant Robertson do? Because his excuse is, “Well, you know, I’ve saved us from COVID. Hasn’t it been amazing—the business subsidy, all of these things!” Well, he can now—not back then; now—rein in the spending as he continues to spend more and more and more. We’ve come a long way. He wants to spend more than he was spending at the height of COVID, in the next Budget. That’s what his public documents tell us. He wants to take spending from 40 percent, more than National ever spent, to 68 percent, or $128 billion, in the next year, from a position where we are second only to the United States, who, by the way, has the highest inflation in the Western World, fundamentally—second only to them for the most spending of any Government in the world as a proportion of our GDP.

That’s not success. It was a sugar hit for a time, but, actually, there’s an unsustainable hangover that comes in the form of inflation and interest rates that really knock Kiwis back. And so we’re saying pretty clearly: Grant Robertson, rein it in. It’s not cuts. It’s not austerity. It does not at any level—in fact, it is a lie to say that it means health spending, education spending, and investment have to go down. Rein in the new spending—the many billions more and the biggest operational spending we’ve ever seen—that you want this year, Grant Robertson. Rein it in a bit, actually, and focus on the quality. Don’t take my word for it, by the way. The OECD, Treasury, and every commercial bank in New Zealand is saying the same: Grant Robertson, please rein in the spending so that New Zealanders aren’t socked in the back pocket; they’re not stolen from by the thief that is inflation.

The real tragedy here is that economic commentators on the left who I don’t always agree with, like Bernard Hickey, like Max Rashbrooke, and so on—actually, they’ve got a real point. The pumping in of cash that we have seen relentlessly from Grant Robertson has made the rich and the asset classes richer, and it has made the poor and the vulnerable—sometimes called the working poor—poorer. All of that money.

Jacinda Ardern has made, despite what they campaigned on, the generational divide in this country worse: more kids, more young people, 25-year-olds, 30-year-olds living in their parents’ garage. His answer to all of this is: low unemployment. He boasts about it at Parliament, but engineering long-term dependency and a long-term dependency crisis all the while, as the jobseeker support benefit goes up and up and up: up 90,000 since Grant Robertson has been the Minister of Finance; and 50,000 more people have been on that benefit, that welfare, for a year or more. That’s a shame, actually, at a time like this, in a hot economy.

You know, Norman Kirk said something that Jacinda Ardern likes to refer to: basically, there are four things that matter—people have to have somewhere to live, food to eat, clothing to wear, and something to hope for. That’s actually pretty un-aspirational, but, at the end of the day, Labour on its own terms, because they are failing in a cost of living crisis, are making it worse for the Kiwi battler, for the strugglers, for the vulnerable in this country. National is needed to turn back the clock—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The member’s time is up.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Well, there were no solutions in that speech, but I am proud to speak to the Prime Minister’s statement, where she clearly sets out three key objectives in our effort to respond to a global pandemic and navigate our way forward. Those three points, in my mind, were about leading a country through this global pandemic; to emerge economically stronger by being an active Government who wants an inclusive, productive economy; and to save lives by putting people first. Aotearoa has shown, time and time again, its strength as a nation by working as a team.

We’ve taken a science- and evidence-based public health response to COVID-19, and, because of that, we’re a nation that is better prepared for what the future may throw at us, ready to grasp the opportunities that we create and will emerge as a result. And when I reflect on my own work, I look at the resilience of our domestic infrastructure, supporting our region and neighbours towards greater economic resilience.

Water is a taonga. And when I think about the way in which water underpins livelihoods and economic growth, what we do in this space matters. Whether it is, for example, investing in water infrastructure and a resilient network, safe drinking water, ensuring water security, ensuring that there are water storage options where needed, or even desalination solutions in the Pacific, water is a core component to wellbeing and resilience. It is a taonga; it’s our most precious natural resource and it brings life to the heart of people and communities and their livelihoods. It’s a necessity, and that’s why we’re placing such importance on our nation’s water infrastructure.

We’ve seen the effects of compromised water infrastructure up and down the country over summer, over winter, and, certainly, when we see significant natural weather events occurring around the land. Our current system is crumbling; it’s causing disruption to our communities on a daily basis and everyone knows the problems facing our system. But without maintaining and upgrading pipes and plants to meet the needs of our growing population, the changing climate, and ever-frequent weather events, we’re going to see the negative impact of water when it’s contaminated; bursting out of our pipes; breaching treatment plants; and affecting our towns, cities, and communities.

Our storm waste and water infrastructure may not be an attractive thing to talk about, but we certainly need to do it. It wasn’t cool 20 years ago, or even six years ago when that group was in Government. They were holding the reins and they did absolutely nothing about it. They hardly even talked about it. Well, we will not kick this can down the road. The stark reality is that decades of under-investment in water infrastructure means we can no longer ignore the situation we have arrived at. It is a serious situation. We not only need to talk about water but we need to act. And we need to act in a way that puts the resilience of our water network at the forefront and underpins regional growth and strong economic opportunities.

That’s why our proposal around three waters is a commitment that was reflected in the Prime Minister’s speech. We’ve been engaging and working on this for four years—working with communities, councils, water experts and environmental experts, iwi, and leading industry professionals and policy makers—talking with locals to do the jobs to patch the holes and stop the leaks. When the system breaks down and ratepayers get frustrated at permanent boiled water notices, we’ve got to do something about it. We can’t ignore it.

The Leader of the Opposition stood up yesterday in this House and predicted that these water reforms will fail, while not offering any type of a solution. He’s taken a scuttlebutt approach to the serious water matter rather than doing something about it. The fact is: the Opposition don’t want water reforms to succeed. It’s an Opposition whose only policy position has been to oppose for the sake of opposing, and I haven’t heard a single solution in the alternative. We cannot let people die from unsafe drinking water and I will not let that happen.

But let’s go to a brief fact check of Mr Luxon’s speech. One: on the consultation process, this Government has spent four years and hundreds of meetings consulting with stakeholders, and we continue through the governance working group that councils are a part of to engage. We want to ensure the reforms themselves suit the New Zealand context, are robust, and financially sustainable—a model where infrastructure investment is affordable over time, both in terms of value back to ratepayers but affordability to them as well, and we’re providing for Te Mana o Te Wai.

Two: there’s no compulsory acquiring of ratepayers assets. Communities will retain ownership through the new entities and the funding package will ensure no council is worse off.

Three: Mr Luxon claims the cost savings are unrealistic. These savings are modelled using councils’ own forecast water infrastructure costs. His do-nothing solution will see households face incredible costs over the next 30 years to pay for an inefficient system, constant repairs, and continued disruption.

Finally, Mr Luxon predicted the Government will back down on these reforms—again, wrong. While he may favour political dog-whistling—and his local government spokesperson, whoever that is, is saying nothing on the matter—New Zealanders want safe drinking water. They want to make sure that no matter where they live around the country, in a metro or rural area, there should be no difference in the water that they receive. Quite frankly, doing nothing isn’t an option. We can’t ignore the evidence. We must do something about it. But, ultimately, the proposed reforms are about generating more jobs and are about a financially sustainable way of investing in infrastructure: better value back to ratepayers, more affordable outcomes over the long term. It’s got to be a way forward for all of us, and we’ve all got to be in on this critical solution.

But let’s move from local to the Pacific. Briefly, while COVID has been a significant challenge for Pacific nations, so too is climate change and the impact of sea-level rise. That’s why I’m really proud that Aotearoa New Zealand will invest $1.3 billion to support countries most vulnerable, a large majority of which will be in the Pacific, to help respond to the effects of climate change. We’ve seen first-hand the impact of climate change in our region: domestically over the summer with extreme weather events, and last year with the likes of Cyclone Ana having a deadly toll for our Pacific neighbours, and also the recent volcanic eruption, Madam Speaker, in Tonga, which you are very familiar with, and its devastating impact on your family and your community.

We know that addressing these types of issues are fundamental to the resilience of the Pacific going forward into the future, and that’s why climate finance spending will be used to support mid- to long-term adaptation, like clean-energy projects in developing countries; ensuring buildings are able to withstand more damaging storms; crops are resilient to droughts, floods, and new pests; and communities are protected from sea-level rise and storm surges. And like our three waters programme, it’s about creating jobs and upskilling local peoples to maintain and fix their own infrastructure. Resilience isn’t just about swooping in to fix things up and leaving again. Teach a man to fish, or a woman, and they’ll fish for a lifetime. Or as my tūpuna would say: Ko taku rourou iti ā-haere maringi kai whenua, ko taku rourou iti ā-haere maringi kai moana—while small is our offering, it’s cultivated with the deepest riches of the land and the sea. Climate change remains the single greatest threat to Pacific lives and livelihoods, and at least half of the climate finance that has been committed by New Zealand will go to the Pacific over the next four years, and I’m very proud of that—it will make a difference.

Finally, as I reflect on the Prime Minister’s statement and the challenge that is still ahead of us in relation to the COVID-19 response, our nation is better prepared than many. And the Lowy report that was referred to by the Deputy Prime Minister is a significant one, because, when you get to travel around the world and they are looking at the way that New Zealand responds, while we can be proud, we know there is still work to do, like the Prime Minister has said. While we know that our effort is the combined effort of the many New Zealanders who have taken on board a public health response, we know that we have to work through many of the anxieties that they face on a day-to-day basis, and we do not take that responsibility lightly.

What we want is an economy that is underpinned by people who are able to work and contribute to an inclusive economic solution where their livelihoods are being cared for. We want innovation to underpin a high-value, low-carbon economy future. All of this is possible because at the heart of our economic response is a health response that puts people first. This Government has taken a COVID-19 response that seeks to save lives; be an active Government to support a productive, resilient economy; and ever-mindful that our responsibility to transition to a high-wage, low-carbon economy is the goal.

Iti rearea teitei kahikatea ka taea.

[Even the small bellbird can ascend to the great heights of the Kahikatea tree.]

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Well, that was a bold speech from a Minister who will not be the Minister for Local Government come 12 months’ time.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Scuttlebutt.

CHRIS BISHOP: Oh, “Scuttlebutt”, she says. She’s heard the rumours too. We’ve all heard the rumours about what’s going to happen. We’ve heard the rumours that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta is going to be moved on from local government and three waters is dead. I’ll tell you why: because that Minister has done more to fracture the relationship between central government and local government than any local government Minister in the last 30 years since local government reforms led by Michael Bassett in 1989. They are in open revolt at that Minister’s poor handling of the three waters situation. So she’s heard the rumours. We’ve all heard the rumours. But we’ve got her on the record: “Three waters is still happening.” Let’s wait and see whether or not that happens or not.

I want to start by acknowledging a couple of groups of people. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the Grounded Kiwis, because in a couple of weeks’ time, there’s a court case coming before the High Court, led by Alexandra Birt and Kiwis abroad. One of the most regrettable things about the last two years of this pandemic has been the insularity that New Zealand has adopted as an approach to the world. The Prime Minister talks about a team of 5 million, but there’s 6 million New Zealanders—a million abroad. The Grounded Kiwis have taken a court case to the High Court in order to challenge the legality of managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ). That court case is going to be very interesting. We now have, finally, seen some movements from the Government—they’ve been dragged kicking and screaming to it—to end the lottery of human misery that is MIQ. And, frankly, that can’t come soon enough. So I just want to give a shout-out to all the Kiwis abroad who have had to suffer through the MIQ system. Some members of the House will have seen the Kiwis in London at the Waitangi Day pub crawl, which is, frankly, not something that I necessarily approve of, but many of them dressed up in the old MIQ lottery T-shirts and jerseys poking fun, in a very Kiwi way—very irreverent Kiwi way—at the lottery of human misery.

Secondly, can I acknowledge the split migrant families, because forgotten in all of the announcements last week by the Prime Minister was the shameful fact that yet again, migrant families here in New Zealand, working in our hospitals, working in our rest homes, working around the country, keeping us going through COVID, have been left out in the cold again—again. The Government can wipe their hands of them and say, “Oh, well, we’ll sort them out later.” But these are a group of people who have moved here to New Zealand to work in our sometimes critical industries, and the Government has consciously, deliberately split them apart from their families abroad. Can’t say that it’s inadvertent anymore. There have been petitions and protests on the forecourt of Parliament. There have been exhortations made to Ministers. There have been meetings. So let it be recorded in the House that this Government that preaches the mantra of kindness and compassion, this Government has made a deliberate, malevolent, and malicious policy choice to make sure that families who have moved here in good faith can be split apart from their families. Even though we’re doing the immigration reset, and even though we’re ending MIQ, there’s no solution in sight for the split migrant families.

One of the interesting things about the Prime Minister’s speech was the downgrade in ambition from just four years ago, because this Government was elected with huge ambitions—transformational policy agenda. You go back and read that Speech from the Throne. It’s inspirational almost, if you believe in Labour Party policies—“We’re going to do this. We’re going to do that. We’ve going to transform the country.” It’s interesting how the level of ambition has diminished over time. Now it’s just, “We’ll make progress.”, “We’re setting ourselves to work on—”, and “The direction of travel is this—”.

Nowhere is that more apparent than in housing, because very interesting stats released last night by Statistics New Zealand: average rents—median rents—up 50 bucks a week in the last year—$50. In Lower Hutt, my area, average rents in Lower Hutt are up $200 a week in four years—200 bucks a week. That is $10,000 a year for the average family: $375 a week in October 2017, now $575 a week in December 2021. The average house in Lower Hutt is a million bucks—$1 million. When I became an MP, you could buy a house in Wainuiōmata—good, solid suburb—for $280,000, $300,000. Houses in Wainuiōmata now go for over $850,000. I see the MP for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti there, who represents that area; she knows what I’m talking about. In Wainuiōmata, 850,000, 900,000 bucks. There are, in Lower Hutt, 588 families on the social housing register. That is up from 200. It’s 200 more than there should be, but it has trebled in four years. There are children growing up in motels in the Hutt Valley—children growing up in motels. The Government will say, “Yep. We inherited a bad situation.” That’s true. But things are not better; they are demonstrably worse. They are going backwards, not forwards.

Interesting piece of rebuttal to the Prime Minister. In her speech, she said that Kāinga Ora built 2,432 houses last year. That’s true. Guess what, though! Two thousand four hundred and thirty-seven were demolished. So what’s the net increase? Negative five—negative five. So, yep, the Government built 2,500 homes, give or take, last year. They also demolished 2,500 homes. So there’s no net increase in social housing. So let’s put aside this myth driven by the Government that they’re going on this massive building spree; that is not correct. So we’re going to have to grapple with this housing crisis not only in the Hutt Valley but the wider country, and the Government has no answers to it. MPs on the Government benches know it because they represent areas where they see it. They see average houses at a million bucks. They see that the average house price-to-income ratio is now over eight, 8½, nine—the worst in the developed world.

There are three things that are clear about this Government. The first is that they think good intentions are enough. As long as you care the most, that that results in better policy outcomes. We know from the last four years that’s not true. Good intentions don’t drive good outcomes; they just drive empathy, basically. That’s about it. I’ve got good intentions, but it’s the policies that matter and the delivery that matters.

Second thing is: they think press releases are enough, because there’s 57 people who have been housed through the progressive home ownership scheme, and I reckon there’d be 57 press releases issued on it—57 people in a thing that was announced in a the Speech from the Throne in 2017. This is four years ago we got that in the Speech from the Throne, and we’ve had endless press releases about it. Press releases about petrol prices, press releases about welfare working groups. Remember when the Prime Minister used to stand up and say, “Kiwis are being fleeced at the pump and I’m going to sort it out.” We got endless studies and a Commerce Commission market inquiry and things like that. Now when you go down to the petrol station, the petrol prices are three bucks. Now, that’s not wholly the Prime Minister’s fault, but the critical point is this: don’t make promises you can’t deliver and wave around good intentions.

The third thing about this Government is they think money is always the answer. They think spending money—more money—is always the answer, taxing and spending. We know that that’s not true, because if it was true, KiwiBuild would have worked. It didn’t. If it was true, light rail would have happened by now. It hasn’t; it’s gone backwards. If it was true, there’d be fewer kids growing up in poverty than there were four years ago, and the number’s gone up, not down. So we’ve had a 68 percent increase in Government spending in just five years, and we’ve ended up with 90,000 more people on a main benefit. Go figure.

Finally, I want to comment on rapid antigen tests. The Government spent most of last year banning rapid antigen tests. They didn’t allow people to import them into the country. They were rightly castigated for that in the Government’s own expert review not only by Sir Brian Roche but by Professor Murdoch as well. And then they got around to ordering them late. We’ve had the unedifying spectacle in the last two weeks or so of the Government, basically, nicking rapid tests ordered by the—

Hon Member: Not true.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the Minister says that’s not true. It’s totally correct. The Government admits this—Dr Bloomfield said that. They said, “We’ve consolidated them.”—in other words: “We’ve seized them.” “We’ve consolidated them all together and we’ve collated the forward orders.” Here’s the point: there are private companies out there that did the right thing and got ahead of the game and ordered rapid tests who don’t have rapid tests anymore because the Government’s got them. That is the critical take-home point. So the Government was late to the party on rapid tests—[Time expired]

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): It’s a privilege, as always, to take a call in this House, but no one should be more grateful for the Speaker’s generosity than the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Luxon, who missed his call in the first debate of the year and, then, without a shred of irony, got up and said, “National’s ready.” And we all saw how ready National is. We wanted to hear a debate speech, but instead we got a TED Talk, which characterised their COVID policy as “sensible upgrades”. What does that mean? I won’t repeat the litany of different positions the National Party has had on managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) that the Deputy Prime Minister outlined well, but it’s fair to say that the National Party have had more positions on MIQ than the Kama Sutra! And each change in their policy, they don’t need to worry about, because it has no consequences. They’re just trying to win one media cycle after the next, while the Government has succeeded time and time again in keeping people alive.

You can’t undo the consequences of bad pandemic management—although Mr Bishop tried to suggest you could just change up your border policy when it seems to be politically inconvenient. During the Omicron outbreak, our border policy has stopped a thousand further incursions and kept New Zealanders alive while they got boosted. And, today, Mr Luxon asked for a time line for an end to vaccine mandates—like you can schedule a pandemic like you can an aeroplane. And, yet, it is abundantly clear to any objective observer that the COVID response that New Zealand has launched has been one of the best in the world. And it probably kills the Opposition to acknowledge that. We have the lowest rate of deaths, we have low case numbers, we have had succeeded where other countries with stronger health systems have failed—where those with stronger scientific institutions have failed, we have succeeded. And we have built effective systems where none existed. We built those systems in 2020 and 2021 and then adjusted them again for Omicron. We have kept New Zealanders safe through an MIQ system in which we have a staged and managed approach to allowing people to reconnect. We have developed a testing system that has had one of the lowest positivity rates in the world. We have doubled our PCR capacity. We have installed robotic methods to make sure that our workforce is supported from the stress of running the testing system. We have a contact tracing system that is currently keeping one of the most virulent and transmissible variants or infectious diseases at bay—incredibly effectively. We are deploying boosters at the time when they are most needed and also vaccinating the paediatric population. We have built and refined our systems, and the Opposition have focused on the RATs and mice of winning each individual media cycle.

It is worth remembering that this isn’t the first pandemic that we have experienced in our lifetime. I was a doctor in the Wellington Hospital laboratory during the 2009 pandemic, the H1N1 influenza pandemic. And what was the legacy of that pandemic response? What was it? Where were the quarantine facilities built after than pandemic response? Where were the contact tracing systems—the infection-control infrastructure that was strengthened? No, we didn’t have that. We did have a handful of pandemic personal protective equipment supplies, some masks with the elastic that had perished. So there is an embarrassment of lack of investment in pandemic preparedness, which this Government has not only countered but has built the most successful pandemic response in the world on the back of it. And what the pandemic response has shown us is that prevention is better than cure, and that is how we have achieved some of the best health outcomes in the pandemic and enabled many of our economic freedoms to continue. It has been because we have addressed some of the long-term issues that have not been confronted, and we will continue to do this, this year, through our wider work in strengthening public health in New Zealand.

We will, now, enabled by legislation passed last year, improve the oral health of New Zealanders by fluoridating more community water supplies—another health issue that has not been confronted for years. We will implement the now-regulated fortification of bread and flour with folate to prevent neural-tube defects. We will take a world-leading approach to preventing the most harmful consumer product in the world—tobacco—and make sure that future generations of New Zealanders grow up smoke-free. We will install the fundamental of public health, which is access to clean water, through the three waters reforms that Minister Mahuta so ably leads. We will build HPV and breast-screening infrastructure that’ll keep women safe in their adulthood, and we will do these things that National promised to do but never funded. We will stop women from falling through the cracks of the public health system, and we will leverage the technology that we have built in the COVID response to make sure that our wider childhood immunisation system prevents diseases like influenza and measles. And that will be through technology, like mobile apps that we’ve already used, but also through the community mobilisation that has been a strength of our vaccine roll-out.

These long-term issues in securing the health of New Zealanders have been in the too-hard basket for too long, and I am looking forward to the work that we will do this year in order to secure those changes. But the pandemic has also shone a light on our health system, and we have seen both the exceptional efforts of our highly trained staff and our ability to deploy science to bear on a critical problem in a rapid period of time.

But we have also faced challenges. We saw in our vaccine roll-out that some DHBs were slower to roll out vaccinations than others. This is what we mean by the postcode lottery. There are many small and financially challenged DHBs that needed the greater support to complete their roll-out. It also revealed the inadequacy of some small DHBs’ investments in their IT system and, as a result, we had to build multiple systems centrally. This Government is committed to reforming the health system for our day-to-day health so it can be improved, but also in case we face future health challenges, like the pandemic, that we inevitably will. Critical to this is building a Māori Health Authority that will address the shameful health inequalities that have, for far too long, characterised healthcare in our country. At the heart of our reformed Ministry of Health will be a public health agency where the skills and knowledge built through this pandemic will be deployed to address preventable causes of disease in the future.

One of the most important things we will do is build Health New Zealand and set its strategy through health plans. It will get DHBs off the cycle of single-year annual plans so that we can address long-term challenges. That includes, in DHB infrastructure, CAPEX, but also the challenges of diseases that need to be addressed over the longer term, such as diabetes. And we will find improved ways of working at the community, using lessons that we have built through the vaccine roll-out and deployed at the level of localities. This Government has achieved the best health outcomes in the OECD through the global pandemic, and we have kept our people safe. We have kept our freedoms, we have kept people in work, we have kept our exporters going, and we will be bringing our people home safely—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! With apologies to the member, can I direct members to Speaker’s ruling 140/2 and just remind members that interjections are to be rare and continue to be reasonable.

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend the PM’s statement to the House, and I am eager to continue the work.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was reading this Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, and I think it could be summed up by saying “all talk and no action”. And I think that member who just sat down, Ayesha Verrall, also just reiterated these very points. I found it fascinating how they’re already trying to rewrite the history of the vaccine roll-out in New Zealand, and apparently the reason why we had the slowest vaccine roll-out in the OECD was because it was the DHB’s fault—the DHB’s fault. And what a great solution they’ve got now to fixing that problem, “Well, let’s restructure all of our DHBs across New Zealand, right in the middle of a pandemic” as the solution to that problem. They don’t take responsibility; it’s all talk and when something goes wrong, it’s time to blame, blame, blame other people.

I also found it fascinating that she said that this Government will implement the three waters reforms. Well, I’ve been reading this document, and I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister’s statement, and I’m not sure if the Prime Minister actually referenced the three waters reforms once in her speech or in this document. They’re trying to hide themselves away from it, but clearly that part of the memo has not quite filtered all the way down to other Ministers and to backbenchers in the Labour Party.

But one of the issues which I don’t think was highlighted effectively in this Prime Minister’s statement, but which I can tell this House that New Zealanders up and down this country are very concerned about, is the increased cost of living which is a thief in the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders, and which is impacting everybody’s lives. This was only mentioned once—in this very, very long statement of 23 pages—the Prime Minister only mentioned “cost of living” once. Well, I can tell you out there, in New Zealand, people are talking about the price of petrol which has just hit $3 a litre. They’re talking about the fact that rents have increased by $125 on average a week under this Government. They’re talking about the fact that this Government came to office saying that they were going to fix the so-called housing crisis, but they’ve inflated the housing market so much that the average house price has increased by $380,000 under their watch, and is now over an average of $1 million for New Zealanders. They are the ones who have inflated the housing market, they’re inflating the economy, and they’re making it harder for New Zealanders to get by in their day-to-day lives. And that is the issue which New Zealanders out there are worrying about every single day.

What this doesn’t speak about is just the absolute waste of Government spending, and one of the areas which I’m very focused on is the growth in the public sector which has grown substantially over the last few years. We’ve had a 50 percent increase in salaries for core public servants; 10,000 additional Wellington bureaucrats, and they’re saying, “Well, that’s all because of COVID”. Well, even last year when they increased the number of bureaucrats in Wellington by 6,900, the Public Service Commission said, “Oh, only half of that’s actually because of COVID”. So what’s the other half for, and how many of these jobs are going to get baked-in over the years to come? The wastage of expenditure, the number of people in the Public Service earning over $400,000 a year has doubled, and hard-working New Zealanders out there who are just trying to put petrol in their car, pay the rent, pay the electricity bill, and to get by and, hopefully, one day own a house are the ones scratching their head and saying, “Where is this Government, and what is it actually doing for me?” And the question they’ll be asking is: “Am I better off now than I was four years ago?” The answer is no, they’re not; they’re going backwards, and that’s something that’s hurting many, many New Zealanders but was not addressed in this speech.

So I come now to the other issue of delivery. As the transport spokesperson for the National Party, I’m very focused on actually making sure that transport policy is not just about issuing press releases but actually delivering results. And one of the issues we’ve got is this Government came to office and promised light rail down Dominion Road by 2021. Well, I’m not sure if the Minister of Transport has actually realised it’s 2022. Now, I know that he would like to take a lot of New Zealand policy back to the 1970s: workplace relations, trams—he loves trams and trains and all sorts of that sort of stuff from the 1970s—but, actually, it’s now 2022 and light rail hasn’t even been started. In fact, this Government’s issued 7.1 metres of press release about light rail, and not delivered a single metre of actual light rail for Auckland.

And now they’re saying to Aucklanders, “Well, just trust us, trust us. We will deliver light rail, we’ll deliver it, we’re announcing it all over again.” Except now it’s going to cost $14.6 billion at least, potentially going up to $25 billion. It’s going to cost $14.6 billion, up from $2.4 billion when it was first announced back in 2017. And they think Aucklanders are going to believe them. They think Aucklanders are going to keep believing their promises of delivery, but also their promises of keeping to the cost that they say these projects are going to cost. And I can tell you: Aucklanders and New Zealanders won’t continue believing them. They look around the country and they say, “Well, where’s the actual delivery of projects?”

The statement says, here in the Prime Minister’s statement: “We will continue to deliver new transport infrastructure. Key projects such as the Hamilton section of the Waikato Expressway, the Matakana link road in Auckland, the northern bus extension to Albany, and the Pūhoi to Wellsford project are due for completion this year.” Well, are they actually going to deliver the projects this year? All of these were meant to be finished a while ago. Are they actually going to complete them?

What about Transmission Gully, which has been delayed four times under this Government’s watch and which has still not been delivered by this Government? Then it says here, “Construction will begin on Mt Messenger bypass and State Highway 3 and New Zealand upgrade projects Penlink and Takitimu North Link.” That’s if this Government doesn’t cancel them again before they actually get spades in the ground—because they love cancelling roads. They love cancelling these roads. They keep announcing them, putting a carrot out in front of New Zealanders, saying, “Oh, we’ll build this for you if you vote for us” and then what do they do when they get in there? They cancel them. We’ve seen it up and down the country. Whether it’s Ōtaki to Levin, Mill Road, the East West Link, Penlink, all of these roads: cancel/start, cancel/start. Well, you can’t progress construction in new infrastructure in New Zealand if that’s your attitude to actually building our country.

As my colleague Matt Doocey mentioned yesterday, not one mention of South Island roads in this Prime Minister’s statement. Does this Government not even know where the South Island is? It seems like it’s just the North Island map under this Government and no investment proposed into the South Island under this Prime Minister’s statement. And I can tell you: people living in the South Island will be incredibly disappointed. They’ll be looking at Auckland, going: “$14.6 billion for light rail? Well, that’s a lot of money, we could do with some of that. And $6.7 or $7 billion on light rail in Wellington? Well, we could do with some of that.” Well, I can tell you, just replacing the Ashburton Bridge which got damaged: $35 million. That’s less money than this Minister of Transport has already spent on consultants for Auckland’s light rail. He could replace that bridge and help the good people of Ashburton and Canterbury to get around their region, but he doesn’t care. He’s ideologically fixed on his pet projects rather than actually delivering good outcomes for New Zealanders.

The other thing tucked away inside of this, they call it the “Clean Car Standard”. Well, it’s the car tax, the ute tax, it’s the taxes which are going to be piled upon New Zealanders, hard-working New Zealanders: farmers who’ve got no choice but to buy a ute to get around their property—the productive sector of our society—the tradies who can’t take their tools to work on the train or the bus. I haven’t seen many tradies—and I’m not sure if the Minister has seen many tradies—taking their tools on the bus or the train. But they can’t take their tools on the train or on the bus. But, yet, they’re going to be taxing the productive sector of our society without offering them other options, and at the same time failing to alleviate the pressure at the pump for Aucklanders, who are paying 11.5c per litre additional on their petrol costs. The Government’s taken $515 million off hard-working Aucklanders, and they’ve spent less than half of it. It’s just sitting in a bank account—it’s just sitting in a bank account. And the Minister says, “How much is in the bank account today? Oh, it’s gone up, it’s now $285 million. That’s wonderful. We’ve taken all this money away from Aucklanders.” They’re not delivering anything.

So my message to the Government is: a Government should be measured on how much it delivers, not on how many press releases it issues; how much it improves New Zealanders lives, not by how many metres of press release about some project which it hopes to deliver sometime in the future. This Prime Minister’s statement is not what New Zealanders want. It’s not what New Zealanders need, and we do not endorse it.

Hon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēna koe, otirā ngā Mema katoa, tēnā tātou katoa. E ngā mate huhua kua wehe atu ki te pō, haere, haere, moe mai rā.

[Madam Speaker, greetings to you and greetings to all the honourable members. To the many deceased who have recently passed, may you rest in peace.]

It’s customary to farewell those who have recently passed amongst our members, so I wanted to acknowledge that.

I am proud to take a call on the Prime Minister’s statement. I’m proud and stand in solidarity because not only did the plan that the Prime Minister deliver in this House talk about what we have delivered with a backdrop of a pandemic but also a plan forward to take this great nation forward. This Government has been around delivering for all while managing and keeping people safe, and that’s what I want to touch on in the short time I have in contributing to this debate: keeping people safe, taking a health-lens approach that ensures not only the safety of all New Zealanders but to enable our economy to thrive. The COVID-19 Protection Framework not only kept us safe, but it has proven to be safe—having one of the lowest not only hospitalisation rates but mortality rates in the developed world, and that’s something we shouldn’t lose sight of.

The vaccination roll-out plan—something very dear to my heart, particularly when it came to the people I represent of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and our Māori and Pacific communities. I want to acknowledge the many hauora providers around the motu: our iwi organisations that stepped in to that bridge, our social services providers who worked in tandem with our DHB leadership. It was a complete nationwide effort and I want to acknowledge everybody that ensured our vaccination rates went up. I am pleased to announce that the Hawke’s Bay yesterday, for all eligible Māori first-time vaccination, finally hit the 90 percent mark. So I’m very, very proud about that: securing our economy and our future.

We heard—and I was hoping that the member that just resumed his seat, Simeon Brown, and many others on the Opposition benches would talk about their plan, but I haven’t heard anything. So this is supposed to be a debate, you put up your plan and you counter that plan, but I didn’t hear one thing from that member that resumed his seat. So he talked about non-delivery. Let’s just put this on the pages of Hansard. Let’s talk about the $8.8 billion that we invested in health through the COVID period. Let’s talk about the $22.9 billion invested in saving jobs, like wage subsidies to support businesses, whānau, workers. I’m proud that we have responded to the urgent needs of our communities, of our businesses, and of our workers in securing our economic future.

But, for now, I want to acknowledge the role of the primary sector. Record export earnings over the last 12 months. I want to acknowledge what they have contributed to this nation while many of us were being locked down—the delivery, the returns. That has been fantastic for the country.

The Prime Minister talked about reconnecting to the world and I want to acknowledge the United Kingdom Fair Trade Agreement and the pending one with the European Union, because those offer huge opportunities for not only our primary sectors, but our emerging industries whether it’s in the creative, whether it’s in the IT. We’ve got some creative minds in this country and having new trading partners opens those opportunities. So that’s why I’m proud that this side has not only secured an FTA with the UK, but is working very, very hard on one with the European Union.

When we talk about modernising New Zealand’s infrastructure, you cannot go past the $53.3 billion that we have invested in infrastructure. This is where our new schools, our hospitals—the major infrastructure that we require around the nation to keep us a thriving and growing nation that I’m really proud that we have announced. Higher wages and growing skills all add to the possibility of rangatahi that are out there thinking where is their hope for the future. That’s why an investment this significant in the work that we’re doing around Mana in Mahi and the opportunities around apprenticeships bode well for our rangatahi who want to see their future in this nation.

This was a great delivery from the Prime Minister. It is an inclusive plan that takes all New Zealanders, all Aotearoa, along with us as we still continue to deal with COVID-19. I endorse this plan and I present it to the House.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Madam Speaker. My colleague Meka Whaitiri asked a question. She said, “What is their plan? What is the plan that we have heard from the other party in contrast to our plan? What is their plan?” and it’s a good question, Meka Whaitiri. The answer is: there is no plan. They never have a plan, and we can tell this when we cast back our minds to a time when they were in Government. What did we get? We got nine long years of neglect, where they managed, managed, managed, and managed with benign neglect. There was no initiative, but though it might have been benign neglect, it was still neglect. It left us with problems that this Government is taking active steps to address. We were called to office and we started on the huge task of working on housing, of working on climate change, of working on poverty—all issues that that party, when they were in power, had neglected. We started work on it.

And then we were thrown the most extraordinary curveball. We were thrown the extraordinary curveball of a global pandemic. Throughout this global pandemic, this Government, on this side of the House, has demonstrated that it has the capacity to face challenges. That virus wreaks havoc. Two years ago, people were dying, there was no vaccine, and we were staring at it coming towards us. This Government based its response on the principle that the best response is a health response. If we get the health response right, then all the other things will come along with it. So well have we done that we have had one of the best health responses in the world, one of the best economic responses—so much so that the Lowy Institute has judged us as No. 1 in the world.

What have we heard from that side of the House? We’ve heard carping, we’ve heard quibbling, we’ve heard complaining, but we have heard no plan. I’ve got to say to you, given our extraordinary success with the virus, given our hugely well-vaccinated population, given the incredible economic results, which side of the House would you trust—would anyone trust—to handle a challenge? I say that it is this side of the House. It is the Labour Party that you can trust to lead New Zealand through a crisis.

We are facing an ongoing crisis from the epidemic—a worldwide crisis. Not one of our making but one we need to deal with. We are facing the worldwide problem of inflation. But when it comes to handling inflation, who do we trust? Do we trust the party that has no plan—that functions on neglect? Or do we trust the party that has guided us so well through the global pandemic—that has led us through it very successfully? I say to you that we have the solutions there, and we will work on that in the next few months.

So we will continue to work on the problems that have been brought about by the benign neglect of the National Party. Climate: this year we will deliver our emissions budget and 15 years’ worth of emissions budgets so that businesses have certainty, so that New Zealanders have certainty, so that everyone can plan for how to deal with the climate challenge, and everyone can contribute to dealing it.

What else will we do this year? We will bring to the table the health reforms, where we are removing the structure of DHBs, which has failed us—even though people have worked very hard, it has failed us. We will move to a new health structure. Something that is an important part of our Treaty obligations and an important part of addressing need, we will establish a Māori Health Authority. We will try to end the inequity in health.

We will continue to work on housing. I see the Kāinga Ora units being built in my electorate, where there is a great need for housing—some really exciting developments going up there. There will be many, many more houses offered so that we can control the cost of housing. We will work on kauri dieback—again, dear to my electorate—through the national pest management plan. We will work on all the issues that confront New Zealanders.

This is a Government that is determined. We are determined to make positive change to make New Zealanders’ lives better. We are determined to respond to the challenges that face us, not just to manage and neglect them. We are determined to do the very best for all New Zealanders. I am proud to be part of this Government, and I am proud to be led by our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. At the beginning of 2020, before COVID-19 had reached our shores, officials from Treasury and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand produced advice for the Government. It was later Official Information Act requested. That advice said that if we were to cushion the economic impacts of COVID-19 through what was once called—and I don’t think it anymore can be called—unconventional monetary policy, we would experience what they called “distributional impacts”. Distributional impacts is a nice way of saying increased inequality.

The Government knew this when it made the decision to rely heavily on unconventional monetary policy. The Government knew that the alternative was to use more heavily fiscal policy, which is a nice way of saying, “Taxing and spending”. Yes, taxing and spending is something that all Governments of all stripes do indeed do. The Government, and, in fact, all of us, have seen those distributional impacts. We’ve seen it in house prices rising by more than $300,000 on average across Aotearoa. We’ve seen it in the $1 trillion estimated transfer of wealth to the wealthiest New Zealanders. The Government has seen that increase in inequality not through some natural process but as a result of decisions that were made and decisions that were not made.

The word “ideology” is thrown around a lot in this place, and it’s usually one side accusing the other of doing something without any other justification than they believe in it. But, the thing is, all of us have ideologies, because all of us have values and philosophies. Those values and philosophies are actually the things that we run election campaigns on. They’re the underlying principles of our policies that we take out on the hustings and we ask the people of this country to vote for. Almost all of us can find evidence for the things that we believe in, but, of course, not all of that evidence is made equal.

The very basis of the scientific method starts with a hypothetical answer to the universe’s many questions, then rigorously trying to prove yourself wrong. Your hot takes, the things you’ve extrapolated from your life experiences, your reckons—there has been a lot of ink spilled and millennia of academic years spent arguing about how we format these hypotheses, about who’s hypotheses are given air time to be tested or not, about whose life experiences and brains get inside of institutions like our universities—and, in fact, even this very debating chamber—to translate the inherently limited experiences and thoughts of each of our lives into ideas that we have the privilege of testing out. Science is the process of falsifying the things that you thought.

But politics feels like doing anything to justify exactly those same thoughts, and that is where ideology comes back into the picture. If we do not constantly challenge our views and values and political positions we form as a result of talking to people—yes, people out there, especially the people who are so far outside of institutions like this that come up with these ideas—then we cannot begin to pretend that any of us are any better than deeply dogmatic ideologues. Regardless, even and especially when tested, it will always ultimately be our values as people and as politicians that will allow us to accept or reject new information, to either change our opinions and our policies or not to do so—in fact, that’s often the path that is rewarded in politics—and that is why it is so important that we are, in fact, straight up about these ideologies, about our values, our priorities, and the things that we are willing to trade off.

I am not just talking about rhetoric, because in fact, all of us—all of us—can talk about freedom and kindness and respect and fairness and justice and responsibility. All of those words, though, mean totally different things to all of us. What I am talking about is those values in practice and how, when it really comes down to it, we will have to prioritise things—how none of us in our policies or in our voter bases can have it all; how it is a complete and utter folly to pretend that there is somehow some middle road through really crunchy and difficult issues of poverty, of racism, of the climate crisis.

Each and every one of us can give really nice speeches and use similar words on those issues, but you cannot have a world below 1.5 degrees of warming without taking the necessary, and now requisite, radical action to actually achieve that. That means you cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. You cannot end poverty without raising benefit levels to livable incomes. To do otherwise is to decide that some people deserve to live in poverty. You cannot get house prices to affordable levels when you refuse to define what affordable levels actually are, let alone refuse to let house prices fall down to what we all kind of think is a vibe of affordable levels. You cannot say that you are pulling all of the available levers while ruling out land back, a capital gains tax, a wealth tax, and rent controls. You simply can’t say that you’re using all of the cutlery available to you when you leave the knife and fork in the drawer.

Today, I asked the Finance and Expenditure Committee to hold an inquiry into the COVID-19 economic response. Unfortunately, a Labour majority voted it down—and do not take that as some glowing endorsement of the current state of the Opposition. Because we know that inequality today is worse than it was two years ago. All of this, and all of us, will say that we know how to deal with this problem; that we want to deal with this problem. But do we? Because, when it really comes down to it, you either reduce inequality or you don’t. That means being honest about our ideologies, about our values, and who and what we will prioritise when it really comes down to it. I’ve been told that I have offended landlords by standing up for renters. I’ve been told that I have offended some in university hierarchies by standing up for students. It is, of course, the case that actions and the words that we, as politicians, speak have consequences, and we all will try our best to negotiate solutions amongst parties that have differing opinions. But you genuinely cannot have it all, because, when you are genuinely fighting for something, when you are genuinely fighting for people, you will have to choose a side. And we must be honest about it.

That is why I am so deeply proud to be in the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. Obviously, our name is Green and our colour is green; so a lot of people can draw a lot of extrapolations about that. In our founding document, our charter principles, the underlying principle is a commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and that is something which we will continue to do our best to live up to. Embedded within that is a commitment to what we call “ecological wisdom”—note that these are terms that were come up with, I believe, in a hui of a hundred-odd Greens back in the day. But ecological wisdom is a recognition that the resources of this planet are finite and, if we accept that as a premise, then we must accept that, in order to have our second core principle of social responsibility or social justice fully and properly meet, those finite resources must be shared amongst people in a way that enables us to have a cohesive society.

We also hold steadfast to the vision and the value of appropriate decision-making. That means boiling decision-making powers down to the level where it actually affects people. It’s where we are such staunch and stoked advocates of things like localism and empowering our local communities. We also believe fundamentally in non-violence. And while for some, that, of course, is making sure that we are doing our utmost to engage in non-violent direct action to stand for the things that we believe in, it also means bringing people around a decision-making table—voices that are not always heard—representative of all, in a non-tokenistic way, to ensure that we come to a creative and constructive solution.

My question to all of the other parliamentarians who will engage in this debate today and tonight is: where, really, when it comes down to it, do you stand? Who and what will you prioritise when those hard decisions around climate action, around inequality, around housing affordability, around Te Tiriti o Waitangi are truly on the table? Because actions speak louder than words, and I implore my fellow parliamentarians to be honest. Kia ora.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Recently, I had a period in my life when I was a little bit distracted about what was going on in the real world—it was around the death of a close relation—but, at the end of it, I came and I sat down and watched my telly one night, just thinking that I would have a catch-up with what’s happening around the world. There was a poll result that came out—I believe it might have been on Newshub—and the poll was actually pretty good for this side of the House. But, in reflecting on the poll, I heard the commentator make a comment about “despite the omnishambles”, and I thought, “Have I missed something here? During this period of distraction, have I gone into some sort of a time warp of the kind that I am reminded of when I look at the demographic across the other side of the House?” So I thought I had better do some research because I may have missed a little period of my life, because when I went into this possible time warp, things were looking quite good for New Zealand.

So when I went into this perhaps time warp, there had been a COVID outbreak. The world was facing a COVID pandemic. So I thought, “Well, with something that serious, probably a pretty good way to judge how you’re going as a country is how many people have died.”, because this is a pandemic that does have a high mortality rate and it also leaves many of those who are infected quite debilitated for some time. I thought, “Well, in New Zealand, we like to look at other countries, and the first country we always look at is Australia. We’ll see how the Aussies are going.”, because many times in this House, when we’re being persuaded and we’re being harangued about what we should be doing, quite often our Aussie neighbours are mentioned. So I thought, “Oh, let’s go and see how they’re going in Australia, shall we: 164 deaths per million—hmm, that seems higher than I remember. But, anyway, we’ll just go to Denmark, the old Scandinavians. Scandinavia—you know, good old social democratic countries. They get it pretty right. They look after their people. Oh, 667 deaths per million people. Israel—always in the news, Israel.”—they’re on their fourth booster, I believe, now—“988 per million people.”

It goes on. Sweden—oh, we were told that Sweden had got it right: “Leave it with the health authorities. Don’t have a leader like Jacinda Ardern, who is involved in the decision making.” I thought, “The Swedes have got it—oh, 1,592 per million. We could go to the United States, of course: 2,711 per million.”, and then I thought “Obviously, this had all happened while I was in that time warp that I’m reminded of whenever I look at the Opposition, and I had better have a look at how we’re going in New Zealand, because we must be pretty bad if we’re in some sort of omnishambles: 10.34 deaths per million.” I thought, “Oh, that’s pretty good, actually. I wonder what all this criticism is all about. We’re doing pretty well.”

But then, in that same story, there was actually a mention made around building, saying that we’re doing terribly in the building statistics. So I thought, “Oh, I’d better have a look at that.” In fact, what I could see from September 2017 to December 2021 was that we’ve had 166,922 new buildings consented, and this compares with 188,000 for the 10 years of the Key-English Government. So I thought, “Boy, we’re doing pretty well there. I wonder how many people we’ve got actually involved in the building industry.” Between 2017 and 2021, the construction sector added 31,700 jobs. Well, it would appear that, actually, we’re doing quite a bit about that which ails us.

I’ve run out of time. I could go through our inflation rates, but just before I do finish—and I would like the Opposition and those who are looking at ways in which they can put the boot into Government to remember this—I will leave you with this. There is one group of people that I would really like to pay tribute to, and that is our managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) workers, who at some time last year went from being the heroes of the piece—and I’ll put it right down to, actually, a previous Prime Minister who started using words like hermit kingdom. All of a sudden, they became the bad guys. They became the jailers, and all of a sudden, the job where they had been hailed became very difficult. So I would just remind anyone opposite who’s going to stand here and put the boot into our MIQ system to just remember how well those people have done by us. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Shanan Halbert—five minutes.

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s wonderful to stand here. Together we have risen to the challenge of COVID-19 in our third year. We see this challenge, and it’s an incredibly frustrating time for all New Zealanders, but, can I say, we are the best in the world. I repeat: we are the best in the world. Now, I know this because I’ve followed it closely. People can yell and shout all they want, but we know we have incredible vaccination rates across this country. That is what has kept us safe from COVID-19—through Delta and, now, through Omicron. We’ve done an incredible job at running our economy, ensuring that unemployment remains low. In fact, on the North Shore of Auckland, 10 percent of people have moved into employment off benefits. That’s an incredible number in this time, in a pandemic.

I want to go back to our infrastructure. We know that, in growing Auckland, we have to invest in our infrastructure. It’s no longer fit for purpose, and Aucklanders know this. I listened to Simeon Brown this afternoon talking about transport—and no, he had no ideas—but what Aucklanders face is ongoing congestion that we have to address. We have growing emissions, since 1990, that are out of this world, and we’ve got to take action now, and we’ve got to invest in infrastructure for Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland to ensure that it meets our needs now but also for future generations. Yes, that does include light rail. Yes, that does include North Shore Northern Busway extension. Those things are important.

Why I believe in our Prime Minister’s statement, and the words of this Government, is because we have delivered on transport and infrastructure. In fact, if I go back and—it’s been 15 years since a Labour MP has held a seat on Auckland’s North Shore—as we look to the transport projects, or under-delivery of 15 years, and I look back to the Northern Busway, that was the last piece of transport infrastructure that was delivered to North Shore people in Auckland. The last. Now it’s up to this Government to deliver again. In fact, I move forward to the Northcote housing development: we’ve got on and delivered and built houses. We’ve built 300 so far, and this time next year we will have doubled that, doubled the houses up to 600, up to almost 2,000 at the completion of this.

In addition to building houses, we’ve focused on infrastructure in the ground. I’ve heard lots about three waters, and the scaremongering that sits there, but, I come back to, people in my community want to protect our water. They want infrastructure that’s going to support our growing community and the intensification that we’ve seen. We’ve seen the start of this Government—in my own community, $13.5 million has been invested in water infrastructure. We’ve got to ask ourselves: what do we want moving forwards? We want infrastructure that supports our growth. We want infrastructure that enables us to move around our city when we want, how we want, and we’ve got to build good public transport to enable us to do that.

I’m so proud of our plan to not only build light rail in Auckland and get on with that but integrate it into the additional harbour crossing. Yes, all parties have talked it up. We’ve known for a long time that we have to do it, but this Government is delivering on it. We’ve invested in it—$100 million has gone into the Auckland Transport Alignment Project plan to get that started already. That’s why we’re here where we are now.

But what is important is that people believe in this Government and our ability to deliver, our stability and our unity, as a caucus, to get on and do the things that we said. So investment in infrastructure, getting on with our economic recovery and ensuring that people continue to have good jobs, that they are paid the wages that they need to be paid, and that they are able to operate in what are difficult times, and times that will continue to be difficult.

Lastly, and coming back to infrastructure again, I’m proud of the change that we’re seeing in our health system, the investment in our hospitals. I come back to North Shore Hospital—120 additional beds, $5.5 million over the COVID period invested in increasing the number of ICU beds, should we need it when Omicron comes largely into play, and we’re seeing tens of thousands—[Time expired]

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand today, because it is my first opportunity to speak after the summer break. But I have to say I stand in absolute opposition to the Prime Minister’s statement. I guess one of the reasons is that I cannot believe the kind of speeches that I’m actually hearing—for example, from Shanan Halbert. I mean, the very fact that he claims that the Government has delivered on infrastructure! What a joke. Has he even been to a local business in his electorate and talked to the business people and seen how much they have suffered as a result of Government actions? He obviously hasn’t actually visited any.

I just want to actually talk about Chlöe Swarbrick’s comment. She said, and I quote, “Actions speak louder than words.” I completely, utterly agree with her, but obviously she doesn’t believe in that, because she’s done nothing about the climate—apparently—actions that the Government has taken. Because when you look at the Prime Minister’s promises to deliver on the climate issue—they actually claimed that it was their nuclear moment, of this Labour Government. And yet, when you actually consider the fact that, for example, the clean energy issue—“A low-carbon future for Aotearoa New Zealand is within reach, powered by clean energy.”, she says. Well, in 2020, New Zealand coal imports hit a 14-year high and at the same time the Government declared a climate emergency and they imported one of the dirtiest coals from Indonesia. They took 1 million tonnes for the first time since 2006. I wonder where Chlöe Swarbrick was when the Government actually did that. Obviously, she believes that the Government has delivered, and I guess Shanan Halbert actually believes that the Government has delivered on their promises.

I’d like to go to what Dr Deborah Russell actually talked about. She said something about, “We’ve had one of the biggest issues called the pandemic.” Let me actually remind people: every Government faces difficulties. Let me go back to the previous 2008 Government of John Key. We had the global financial crisis, we’ve had severe acute respiratory syndrome, we’ve had the Christchurch earthquakes—oh my God, thousands of earthquakes—the Kaikōura earthquake; we’ve even had the Psa kiwifruit virus that decimated the horticultural industry in New Zealand. Every Government faces difficulties. How we actually determine whether the Government is coping well and has actually delivered on their promise is the outcome that the people will see.

This Government has promised so much and yet delivered so little. KiwiBuild—my goodness, was one of the—

Hon Member: What?

MELISSA LEE: Yeah, KiwiBuild was one of those promises.

Hon Member: What happened to KiwiBuild?

MELISSA LEE: I don’t know whatever happened to KiwiBuild, because they promised 100,000 houses that they would build, and how many did they actually build? My goodness, do I hear any numbers from that side of the House? I guess not.

And when I actually listened to the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, I was hoping that she was going to deliver for the rural communities when she talked about connectivity. She only had maybe one line about it. You know, she hasn’t actually delivered rural connectivity. Ultra-fast broadband was something that the National Government actually delivered for New Zealand. We began the business. All they had to do was extend it slightly, and yet they still haven’t done that.

I was hoping that they would actually talk about digital safety, talk about the issues of cyber-security. Government departments have been hit with hacks. They’ve been hit with breaches in the digital space. The digital border is not secure under this Government. We talk about Omicron coming into this country. Why is that? It’s the border. It’s been brought over from the border, it’s been spread from the border entry, and it’s now in the community.

The same thing with Delta. The same thing with everything else. COVID, yes, yes, but the thing is we could have done it better. There could have been less people impacted as a result. We could have delivered the vaccines faster, ordered the vaccines faster, yet they say, “Oh, yeah, we’ve done everything.”—compared to the lowest common denominator, just like they do with the minimum wage. They say, “Oh, we don’t believe in a minimum wage.” Why do we have to focus on the lowest common denominator? Why don’t we grow an economy where people are earning more than the minimum wage—that we give aspiration to New Zealanders, we actually provide the best possible education system so that our children can actually aspire to more than the minimum wage?

This Government talked about delivering for and addressing some of the countries long-standing difficult issues, they said. They wanted to lift 100,000 children out of poverty. How many did they actually lift out of poverty? Only a 1,500 increase. That is not a lot when the Prime Minister holds the portfolio herself. She wanted to lift 100,000 children out of poverty and yet we only lifted a 1,500 increase.

They also said that they were going to deal to the housing price increase. Well, housing prices increased in the last four years on average $380,000. That is, like, way more expensive than my first home that I bought—my goodness. And rents: they said they were going to make sure that people can have affordable rents. Rents actually increased by $125 a week—my goodness.

How is that Government, the Labour-led Government, delivering for New Zealand? I just don’t think they can claim that they are actually delivering for New Zealand, especially when they have the highest number of New Zealanders on the main benefit—90,000 more Kiwis on a main benefit today than there were when Labour actually first took office. That is not something that they can crow about. All of the PR that they actually put out—I mean, Ministers actually like putting out PR. They actually want to talk about “Oh, we have a record number of people getting off the main benefit.” Perhaps that is because they have a record number of people on the main benefit to get off the main benefit, and yet still they’re on the main benefit—90,000 of them. That is not something that they can actually crow about.

You know, when you look at the impact that COVID has, I mean, no doubt the Government’s done the best that they can. And I have to say everyone who actually works in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ)—I know that my colleague across the House Greg O’Connor actually talked about the staff and the people who work in MIQ. I have to say thank you to all of them, because they, the police, and everyone who is actually involved, having to deal with COVID, put themselves on the line to actually do the job, and we applaud them. It’s not about them; it’s about how much better the Government could have delivered if they had, in fact, acted faster.

Just like in the tourism sector—I don’t know if my colleagues across the House have even spoken to people who are in the tourism sector. I had a group of inbound tour operators from the Korean community whose businesses are absolutely decimated. These are grown men who have invested millions of dollars into their business; some have even bought new buses thinking that they are going to actually grow their business, and yet, after how many years now, they still cannot operate. I had grown men in my office, in tears, without the ability to accept the fact that they actually needed some counselling, you know, and the fact that they couldn’t talk to anybody. Where was the Government helping these people, some of whom actually need some language support for counselling?

Hon Scott Simpson: Where’s the kindness?

MELISSA LEE: Where in fact is the kindness? That’s right, Mr Simpson. Where is the kindness of this Government?

I only have less than one minute left. I just want to say, in closing, I’d like to make a short comment on the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Like many first-generation New Zealanders, the first moment we know we are New Zealand citizens, that we truly in fact belong in this country, is when we take the oath and affirmation of allegiance, the final step towards citizenship and a sign of loyalty to the sovereign Queen of New Zealand, representing our democratic institutions and our Kiwi way of life. I’m proud to be a member of Parliament, having sworn the oath to her in my mother tongue, Korean, at the start of this Parliament and at many more occasions to come. I just want to say, you know, there are some who actually disrespect that, but all I can say is I’m very pleased that I’m a New Zealand citizen, so help me God, and God save the Queen!

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. It’s with great pleasure that I stand in support of the Prime Minister’s statement in my first speech of the year, and I wish everybody a very happy New Year.

My family takes pandemics very seriously. I lost two great, great grandparents—young, healthy, fit, and with five young children—to the Spanish flu pandemic. It changed our family for ever, as it did to the honourable member Kelvin Davis, who also lost members of his family. So when I say that I’m proud to be part of this Government, proud to be here representing our pandemic response, it’s with a very clear understanding of the impact of those pandemic responses.

I know that the decisions that we make aren’t part of some political game, but they have irreversible consequences for some people. And I know that you can’t actually wind back mistakes that you may make—you can’t open borders and shut them and expect everything to go back to as it was before, because, despite what members of the party sitting opposite might say, there actually isn’t any coming back from the dead, divinity notwithstanding.

We have lost 53 Kiwis to COVID. And this is undoubtedly a tragedy, and my heart goes out to those families and to those who loved them. But putting this in a global context: Ireland has suffered the loss of 6,228 people—Ireland, an island with an almost identical population to New Zealand. In the UK: 158,000 deaths, equivalent, when adjusted by population, to 11,752 Kiwis we could have lost. But, of course, none of these countries are 100 percent directly comparable. The closest comparison still sits in the thousands of deaths to date.

Now, I lived through the earthquakes in Canterbury, and I have seen the effect on our community of losing 185 beloved people. The terrible effects of those losses still reverberate through the entire country. We’re a close community here in New Zealand, and I can’t begin to imagine what it would be like for us to have lost thousands of Kiwis. We could have; however, we went there and we took early and decisive action to prevent it. We listened to our experts, and over and over again, we responded with intelligence and flexibility to new challenges, new variants. And last year, we delivered one of the highest vaccination rates in the world. We should be very proud, and I am.

I’m going to sing Canterbury’s praises here, because 98 percent of Cantabrians are fully vaccinated, 91 percent of our Māori population, and 97 percent of Pacific people. People and communities have pulled together to ensure that no one is left behind. And in Ilam, our Orchard Road vaccination centre has been breaking records daily, and I thank them, together with every pharmacy, GP, vaccination clinic, and every single person who’s rolled up their sleeves to keep us all safe, like my daughter, who today got her booster—the first of our children to do so. I’m proud of her, and I’m proud of every Kiwi who’s going to take that action to keep us safe. And in an ever-changing global situation, we have looked after our people, we have delivered, and we will continue to do so.

But we haven’t just been delivering a world-leading COVID response; we have remained focused on and committed to making things better for all. We’ve increased the minimum wage steadily to $20 per hour, and the predicted falling of the sky just didn’t happen, but what did happen was that money was put directly in the pockets of our lowest earners. The party opposite, which was performatively hand-wringing over the cost of living, has opposed the rise in the minimum wage time after time after time. It’s completely ludicrous to adopt a position of caring for everyday Kiwis when you’ve personally bemoaned the increasing cost of your barista-made coffee. And when a super-wealthy member of Parliament bemoans a 10c increase to a cup of coffee, when that 10c has such a significant effect on a barista’s wages, you know that that party couldn’t give a flying fig for everyday Kiwis.

So I’m proud of what we’ve achieved, and I’m excited for the year ahead. We have the long overdue creation of our unified health authority to address inequities for Māori health, and I’m very proud to stand by my Prime Minister’s statement and her speech. Thank you.

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini): Fa‘afetai lava, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Prime Minister’s statement. And again, like all my colleagues before me, I want to say happy New Year across the House, manuia le Tausaga Fou.

I acknowledge, Madam Speaker, your work as well with the most recent Tonga disaster, with their eruption. Madam Speaker, thank you for your work with Anahila, as well as co-chairs of the Aotearoa Tonga Relief Committee, and well done on sending those containers full of relief for the community there.

I’ve listened to the contributions across the House and I’ve heard the Opposition say they have no confidence in this Government, and I’m thinking to myself, which country do they live in? And like my colleague “Greg O” behind me—

Hon Member: Which planet do they live on?

Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA: Yes, which planet? Yes, I wonder. It’s almost like they’re in The Twilight Zone. But, I just want to say, you know, I’ve heard from Simeon Brown in his contribution that we’re “all talk and no action”. I thought he was talking about his own party right there. I would say that they’re all talk and no plan, because that’s all we’ve heard—it’s all hot air and no balloons flying anywhere. But I just want to point out the things that this Government has done in order to combat COVID.

Our cases, hospitalisations, and deaths have been the lowest. And again you’ve heard that across on this side of the House, because that is one of the markers of how well this response has done for COVID. It’s been the lowest in the OECD for each of the past two years. I wonder if they have confidence in those numbers. Ninety-four percent of our eligible population is fully vaccinated, and our boosters are heading in the right direction—up to today it’s 53 percent. I wonder if they, on that side of the House, have confidence in those numbers. Our unemployment is at a record low, and record numbers of New Zealanders have moved off the main benefit into work. Again, I wonder if that side of the House have confidence in that. All these things are just some markers and numbers that show the collective effort that this Government and the team of 5 million have done to protect the lives and livelihoods of our community. Our policy is protect jobs, and therefore saving businesses as well.

The Leader of the Opposition, yesterday, hearing what he was saying, and I wonder—one of the first things he wanted to do when he came into that position was to have “Freedom Day” in December. And it certainly would have been “freedom” day—it would have been freedom for the Omicron variant to run rampant in our community, and therefore cause unnecessary illnesses, and therefore lead to unnecessary harm for our community. So I’m confident in this Government, in making sure that those numbers have improved and protecting our community.

I look to a couple of things that our Prime Minister has made in her statement, one of them being keeping people safe and keeping our whānau safe. Omicron did come—we saw globally how difficult it was for other Governments to manage the infectious nature of this new variant—and I’m glad that this Government had a plan to make sure that we slow down and limit the spread of the outbreak. The COVID-19 Protection Framework that was set up in order to make sure that we took into consideration the high vaccination rates, and now boosters, in order to control the spread of the virus and make sure that the economy was kept ticking over.

No country is immune, we’ve heard that, but with the markers and the details and results of this COVID response I’m glad that the public health response has done really well, and again in partnership with our community. The investment into COVID-19 treatments has improved—we’ve funded, now, therapies when people do get COVID-19 in order to make sure that they don’t go into hospital and therefore ICU admission. Those are the antivirals and, also, antibodies that’ll make sure that we boost the immune system of our community. Boosters are our strongest weapon, and I want to acknowledge and make sure that our community go and get their boosters—53 percent is a good number. We’re on the right track, but let us keep going with that.

Lastly, again I want to acknowledge the amount of work that our health providers, our community providers, and social providers have done in this pandemic, and the amount of work they’re going to be doing in the next short months and weeks. I acknowledge them. Kia kaha. Faamalosi, malo le tautua, faafetai lava.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party and the good people of Coromandel to oppose the motion put forward yesterday by the Prime Minister and to support the very good motion of no confidence in this Government and the Prime Minister put forward by the leader of the National Party, Christopher Luxon.

You can tell when a Government is running out of steam, and the best way to tell that is when they get personal, and when they start attacking people and individuals not for the quality of their ideas or the passion of their aspirations for New Zealand and New Zealanders but because they don’t like them personally. And that’s what we’ve seen so much of in this debate from the Government, from Cabinet Ministers, from backbenchers who know that this is going to be probably the second-to-last year of their time in this place, before they are ejected from it by the voters of New Zealand in 2023.

And so, we had a speech yesterday from a Prime Minister who was uncharacteristically flat in terms of her presentation. It was a speech that lacked energy, that lacked vision, that lacked hope, and that lacked a sense of purpose or direction for New Zealand at a time when New Zealand does actually need leadership—when it needs inspirational, aspirational leadership of the sort that is not being provided by this Government, and that so many New Zealanders desperately want and need. And that’s kind of sad, because I think that we all come to this place as members of Parliament, as legislators, to provide hope and a brighter future for all New Zealanders, no matter how they vote. And to see a Government that is bereft of ideas and running out of steam is, I think, a sad thing. And we’ve seen, effectively, the roll-out of a speech yesterday that was just a rerun of speeches past that delivered no performance, that delivered no measures, that delivered no sense of direction other than, “Oh well, we’ll just manage our way through as best we can. We’ll make things up as we go along and we’ll change the rules and the parameters on a day-by-day basis as we see fit.” And that’s just not good enough.

Earlier today, a colleague of mine, Christopher Bishop, gave a very good speech, and he said that this Government was famous for three things—first of all, for their good intentions. And I guess no Government has bad intentions—no politician has bad intentions. But this Government has hung their hat firmly on the hook of good intentions, but there they have left it—their hat, on the hook of good intentions—and never taken it off. This is a Government that simply doesn’t understand that policy and actions are what’s important, rather than good intentions. Policy, actions, and delivery are more important.

The second point that Chris Bishop said this Government was famous for was the issuing of press releases and announcements. And press releases and announcements are not enough, either. Endless announcements, endless issuing of press statements, simply doesn’t cut the mustard. People want results, they want delivery, and they want to see action. And this is a Government into the fifth year of its term in office, and it’s tired, it’s bereft, and it’s run out of steam.

And the third matter that Chris Bishop raised in his speech today that this Government is famous for is that their view is that money is the solution to everything. Other people’s money is the solution to everything. And just “Spray and walk away.” is some kind of economic or political plan for the future of this country. Well, sooner or later, someone has to pay. And it’s not going to be so many of us in this debating chamber that are going to pay, because people with my colour hair are not going to be the ones that pay it. It’s going to be my children, my grandchildren, and their grandchildren who are going to pay for that again.

Hon David Bennett: Stop being ageist!

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Some people, like the Hon David Bennett, worry a lot about hair. But he knows that it’s going to be his children that will pay for the profligate spending, the printing of money, and the poor quality of decisions of this Government. And so that’s a sad indictment on them.

There was no mention—I think the Prime Minister mentioned inflation only once in her entire 20 minutes. For 30 years, we’ve had low inflation in New Zealand. And I can remember when inflation was running out of control. There are some members in this House, like Nicola Grigg, who is far too young to remember when inflation was running in an uncontrolled way, but I do, and it’s a thief in the pocket of all New Zealanders, as Simon Bridges has said—a thief in the pocket of all New Zealanders. It’s an unlegislated tax, and it eats away at people’s savings, and it makes them less well off at a time when, actually, the cost of living is increasing out of control.

Ordinary Kiwis listening to me speaking in this Chamber tonight as they’re driving home, in the petrol cars that they have had to pay nearly $3 a litre—in fact, over $3 a litre to put petrol in their cars—as they’re driving home from their hard-working day trying to keep the economy ticking over, they know how much this Government is hurting them. And, today, we’ve had released that median rent increases are the highest yearly increases on record—not just the highest in the last few years but the highest median increase in annual rentals on record. Now, that’s reached a staggering, eye-watering nationwide median of $540 a week. And that hurts. That really does hurt.

So I listened this morning to the fellow from—I think he’s the general manager of the Gull petrol station chain, Dave Bodger. He’s a good guy and he usually speaks a lot of sense. And he said on the radio this morning, just before the Hon Stuart Nash committed political hari-kari on the Mike Hosking show—this guy, Dave Bodger, said that, actually, people will still buy petrol. They’ll still do that because they need to buy the petrol. But what they will do is actually spend less on other things. They’ll spend less on food, they’ll spend less on clothing, they’ll spend less on hospitality, and they will spend less on other things because they need the petrol. And so I think he’s right.

But, in terms of issues relating to climate and the environment, I’m very worried that the $4.5 billion emissions trading scheme fund money that’s going to become available to this Government will be spent not on quality, practical, pragmatic climate issues, because we across the Parliament actually agree on the direction of travel, but I’m very worried that these funds will be invested and spent on party political pet projects, of which this Government is so famous. And they’ve actually done very little in the area, even though the Prime Minister reverts to talking about climate change when she’s in trouble. She always does it—always when she’s in trouble, she’s, “Oh, we’re going to talk about climate change. We’ll change the subject and talk about something else.” But here’s what Greenpeace campaigner Christine Rose—not normally known, Greenpeace campaigners, for being anti-Labour governments—has said: “When it comes to the climate crisis, the Ardern Government talks big but spends small.” That’s what they say in Greenpeace. And, in terms of the environment, where has been the delivery? A Government that talks big but delivers nothing or little.

Where is the progress on our threatened indigenous biodiversity? That progress has been delayed. Why is the Resource Management Act reform—the much-vaunted RMA reform—taking so long? Why was the exposure draft document full of so many gaps? Why were there so many hollow, empty spaces in that piece of draft legislation? Where is their work on marine protected areas? And, what’s more important, why haven’t we advanced the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary? And to the shame of the Greens, who, during the first term of this Government, if they had decided to support us, we would have had a Parliamentary majority for an entire three years to see that sanctuary put in place. It’s to the eternal shame of the Greens that they chose not to do it, because that speaks volumes about how really the Greens think about the environment. Where’s the progress on freshwater quality? It’s stalled, it’s confused—

Hon Member: Too hard!

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: It’s fraught, it’s too hard, it’s not understood, and it isn’t getting results. Where’s their much-vaunted action on reducing the amount of stuff we send to landfill? On waste? Why haven’t we got the delivery of their nationwide standardised kerbside recycling programme? They promised us that five years ago. Where is it? And why are we still sending such huge volumes of waste to landfill? Just digging holes in the ground.

I read over the summer break a paper by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment about weeds. Where is their progress on noxious weeds that are a blight upon our natural environment? So this is a Government that talks a big game on climate, that talks a big game on the environment, but simply fails to deliver.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is adjourned and is set down for resumption next sitting day.

Bills

Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill

First Reading

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I present a legislative statement on the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill.

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

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government is committed to reducing firearms violence—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Excuse me, honourable Minister, would you please move?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice Committee to consider the bill.

This Government is committed to reducing firearms violence and the impact it has on our communities. Following the tragic events of 15 March, this Government embarked on an ambitious firearm reform programme which will reshape how we regulate firearms in our country. This included taking 60 prohibited weapons off the streets, establishing a ministerial arms advisory group to assist these reforms, setting up a new purpose-built firearms unit within police to implement these reforms and, by June 2023, we will have a comprehensive register in place that will help to fill a 30-year deficit of information when it comes to firearms in our community.

This bill is another part of the Government’s comprehensive plan to tackle firearms violence. We need to respond to the harm that gun-related violence does to our society. We need to put aside political divisions and recognise that more can be done to remove guns from the hands of those who would use them to harm us.

As Minister of Police, it is my strong belief—and that of this Government—that it is a privilege not a right to own or use a gun in this country. Those that maintain a risk of recidivism back into serious crime need to be excluded from a key means of perpetrating their criminal violence, coercion, and control: their future access to firearms.

This bill presents to the House firearms prohibition orders as an additional tool to reduce gun crime. The bill provides an important new way for New Zealand to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, and to keep our communities safe. This bill will ensure that a person subject to a firearms prohibition order will not be able to use, access, or be around guns. Unless a court order says otherwise, they also will not be able to live in or visit locations where there are firearms, or associate with someone who has them.

The bill will make it a criminal offence to breach a firearms prohibition order, and also a crime to knowingly supply firearms to those that have a firearms prohibition order placed on them. The bill enables a court to make a firearms prohibition order for any person 18 years of age or older who has been convicted of a serious criminal offence. Qualifying offences for a firearms prohibition order are serious firearms offences, serious violent offences, participation in organised criminal groups, or terrorism-related offences.

The bill has a number of safeguards built into it. In particular, the court must be satisfied that, on balance of probabilities, the making of a firearms prohibition order is reasonable, necessary, and appropriate to assist in managing the risk that that person sentenced poses to public safety. The qualifying convictions in the bill target those who present the highest risk of future serious violent crime or serious firearms offences. Those who are subject to a firearms prohibition order are required to meet a number of conditions: they would not be able to be around firearms, stay where firearms are stored or are available, join or visit shooting clubs or ranges, participate in any activity that involves firearms, visit places where firearms are made, repaired or modified.

However, these standard conditions may be modified by the court to take into account particular personal circumstances—this is an important safeguard. The bill enables a court to take into consideration a person’s rehabilitation and reintegration needs, and provides some flexibility to enable a subject person to reside or work in a place where guns may be stored, such as a farm. The court can provide for this flexibility through a tailored court order. In this way, the bill provides some important flexibility to support a subject person’s rehabilitation, reintegration, and ongoing relationships with and within the community. The bill provides a tiered approach to penalties to ensure that they are proportionate to the extent of the breach of the firearms prohibition order.

Clause 10 of the bill creates lower and upper order penalties. The lower order penalty which would be available for breaches of standard or special conditions would be punishable by a term of up to two years’ imprisonment. This is consistent with most breach offences. The higher order penalty would see someone who committed a breach of a broad condition imprisoned for up to five years—or up to seven years if that breach involved a prohibited firearm. This is consistent with similar unlawful possession offences. There are also penalties for knowingly supplying a firearm to a person subject to a firearms prohibition order. This offence would have similar tiered penalties: up to seven years’ imprisonment for selling or supplying a prohibited firearm; up to five years’ imprisonment for selling or supplying other arms parts.

This bill aims to reduce firearm offending and victimisation, and that will help reduce victimisation in our communities and, in particular, in our Māori communities. Māori have experienced a worrying growth in serious firearms offences perpetrated on their communities and whānau. The incidence of these crimes on these communities has almost doubled over the last 10 years. The serious firearms-related criminal harm that is their lived experience is now close to double that of the general population, too. Firearms prohibition orders will help us in addressing this. I know that matters raised and considered by Māori will be further explored as the bill is scrutinised by the Justice Committee, and I look forward to hearing this important feedback.

The bill before Parliament today represents an important development in extending the New Zealand arms control. It will further improve public safety, and build on earlier reforms introduced by this Government. It provides additional measures, and wider sanction and controls targeted at those that have serious criminal convictions and are hardened to crime. We want to prevent those people from accessing firearms which are a key means of perpetrating future violent and serious crime. If they breach such a ban, or others are complicit in such a breach by supplying firearms, they will face harsh penalties. This is an important step towards making our communities safer and addressing firearms violence. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand this evening and take a first reading call on this, the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill. I want to put on record, first of all, to the Minister that I don’t believe that there’s been any real focus or commitment or will on her part or on the part of the Government to address what’s been happening in this country in the last four years. It is a shameless stain on the performance, the support, and the introduction to this House of bills that would actually take serious and positive action against what we’ve seen in this country, and that is a massive growth in gang numbers. The 501s, we know that they have been a big contributor to that. We know that there is a more sinister element to what they do. They’ve got international networks, they’re well-funded, they’re violent, they’re willing to carry firearms, and they’re also willing to use them.

But we’ve had two members’ bills come into this House, two firearms prohibition orders bills come into this House, both sponsored by members of the Opposition—Chris Bishop, when he was police spokesperson, and then Simeon Brown, when he was police spokesperson. This Government voted both of them down, and they voted both of them down on the promise that they’d introduce their own bill. Call me cynical, but this bill was introduced on the last sitting day of last year. Their priorities are all wrong. The messages that they are sending to our front-line police staff is that this isn’t important enough.

I want to acknowledge Greg O’Connor, and I do want to acknowledge him as also a colleague in the police service. I was very proud to have had 14 years in our police service, what I consider to be the world’s most professional, the best police service, and police officers that serve every day without fear or favour. But I had several conversations with Greg over the last three or four years, and I was extremely disappointed to have them dismissed, just saying, “Oh, tub-thumping and trying to be tough and no, there’s no issues, and that’s the wrong approach.” And that type of response—and I was extremely disappointed that from a serving member with the experience that he’s got that he could not communicate to his own team, to his own caucus, to his own Cabinet that we had a growing issue in this country. And now, as we see and we heard the—

Greg O’Connor: It started in 2013.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: It started when, Greg? When did it start? I’ll tell you when it started. It started in 2017. It started in 2017 when we started to see a rise in violent crime. And not only did we start to see a rise in violent crime—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Order! Interjections should be rare and reasonable. Thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Not only do we start to see a rise in violent crime in 2017, but sitting right alongside that, we started to see a decrease in action being taken. So you had a rise in violent crime right through the country and, at the same time, arrests started to drop off and go down. And the reason for that is because the signals that were been sent from this Government to the police is that we don’t want you making arrests. We don’t want you dealing with this. We don’t want you bringing people into the criminal justice system. And what you’ve done is you’ve overseen and created an environment for gangs to feel emboldened, for gangs to be able to get out there and take over public spaces, for gangs to be able to get out and abuse members of the public and ignore laws that other law-abiding members of the public have to stick to, and with gangs that are now regularly carrying firearms and are willing to use them. Our police officers every night and every day have to go out now and they have to face and deal with gangs and gang bangers that are carrying firearms and are willing to use them. And it’s all happened under the watch of this Government.

Support your police, give them the tools that they need. This is good. We’re going to support it. We’ll support it through select committee. We have to make some changes because you haven’t got a warrantless search power in there. What do the front-line police officers say? I’ll tell you what they say, because I was talking to the police officers that worked on the Matthew Hunt case and the David Goldfinch case. Just to remind the House, Matthew was shot and killed in broad daylight on the streets of West Auckland by a gang member that had two military-style rifles. And David was shot and was able to get himself and remove himself out of that situation. He showed resilience and bravery to actually extract himself. He’s a father of two young kids, and thank goodness he’s still around. But the reality of it is, Mr O’Connor, that they needed to have these types of orders. They needed to have this sort of ability two, three years ago in 2018 or 2019, not 2022. It’s late. Let’s get it through as quickly as we can. We see you keep bringing bills into this House and trying to pass them as quickly as you can. Let’s get this one. This one here should be passed as quickly as we can. We should be giving them the tools that they need now. But what you’ve failed to do—and coming back to my original point, is that I was speaking to some of the officers that worked on the Matthew Hunt and the David Goldfinch case, and they did an outstanding job. We saw a conviction and we saw a very good sentencing, but I talked about this, and do you know what they said? They said without a warrantless search capability, this is meaningless. It’s toothless—it’s toothless.

The Police Association is saying the same thing. I’ve spoken to Chris Cahill—very clear about it. They know and they understand. They’re speaking to the front-line police officers every day. As a past president of the Police Association, you should be listening to that, Mr O’Connor, and I expect when you stand to take your call that you will acknowledge that. If you’re serious on the Government side of the House, when we go into select committee, I’d expect us to work together in a bipartisan way to make sure that we strengthen this bill and that we give our front-line police officers that go out there every night, every day and deal with these gangs that are armed up, that are well armed, better armed than they are, willing to use them, that we actually give them legislation that has some teeth to it and that they can actually use to start making some inroads into what has now become a massive problem and is going to be extremely difficult to deal with in the future.

I don’t have any confidence at all in the police Minister currently, Poto Williams—zero. I have no confidence at all in the Labour Cabinet. I’d like to have some confidence in the broader caucus and the member sitting across from me, because he has got a wealth of experience. But right now I’ve got zero because they’ve created an environment where police don’t feel supported. They don’t feel like this Government’s got their back. There are massive issues around leadership. And they want to protect their community; that’s why they joined the police.

I don’t like harking too far back. Like I said, I had a policing career and I loved it and I’m very proud of the police service. Recently, I’ve been to a couple of graduations at the Police Dog Training Centre, one for Grant Diver, a very close friend of mine who I worked with on the armed offenders squad (AOS) for a long time and who was shot in the line of duty. He’ll never fully recover. He’ll never fully come right. Or Bruce Lamb, I attended his son’s graduation. He’s following his father’s footsteps. He was shot in Christchurch.

These things were very rare, they didn’t really happen too much, in my time. In my time, we were more dealing with sharpened knives and things like that. Occasionally, yes, there’d be firearms that we’d have to deal with. But it was rare. Our police officers today are working and operating in a very different environment. They’re operating in an environment where we’ve seen a huge proliferation of gangs. In my own electorate, where we’ve been gang-free and where my police area commander worked very hard with his staff to try and keep the gangs out, we now have the Hell’s Angels who have bought commercial property in Silverdale and set up a pad. We’ve now got the Comanchero Motorcycle Club that have moved in. They’re now actively recruiting within my community, and I’m working very closely with my area commander and with our other elected officials, the local board and the councillors, to try and come up with a local plan to push these guys out and purge our community—get rid of them.

But it’s time for this House to get serious. My expectation with this Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill is that we genuinely work together on the Justice Committee with the chair—who is a very good chair, and I acknowledge her; she’s in the House. I served with her husband—and I acknowledge him, Geoff Gwyn; we did our AOS qualifying course together—and he has a clear understanding of the challenges that are faced by front-line police officers.

But I would ask that when we start to consider this bill that the first thing that we do is we bring a warrantless search power and we give that to our front-line police officers because without it, this bill is meaningless. There are other things on the fringes that we’ll discuss and we’ll try to make it stronger, but I’m putting a line in the sand on this, which is that that is something that we feel very strongly is required inside this bill to make sure that our front-line police officers can actually use a piece of legislation that is effective and will make them safer and will make the public safer. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you, Madam Speaker. New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their homes and safe in their communities. That is why this Government is introducing firearms prohibition orders, an additional tool in the tool kit to reduce gun crime and also to reduce organised crime in New Zealand.

This bill enables a court to make a firearms prohibition order—or an FPO—for any person who’s aged over 18 years who has been convicted of a serious criminal offence. Qualifying offences for an FPO are a serious firearms order or a serious violent offence. Those people who are subject to an FPO are required to meet a number of conditions. It means they would not be able to be around firearms, stay where firearms are stored or be available, join or visit a shooting range, participate in any activity that involves firearms, and also visit places where firearms are made, repaired, or modified.

It’s important to note that this bill enables flexibility for the court to take into consideration a person’s rehabilitation and reintegration needs. It’s important to have that flexibility to enable a subject person to reside or work in a place where guns may be stored, such as a farm place. The court can provide for this flexibility through a tailored court order.

The bill also provides a tiered approach to offenders. The lower order penalty, which would be available for breaches of a standard special condition, would be punishable by a term of up to two years in prison. The higher order penalty would see someone who has committed a breach of the broad condition imprisoned for up to five years, or up to even seven years if that breach involved a prohibited firearm. This is consistent with similar unlawful possession offences. There are also penalties for knowingly supplying a firearm to a person with a firearms prohibition order. This is particularly important in the organised criminal space. This bill aims to reduce firearm offending and victimisation that will help reduce crime in New Zealand and will help make an impact in that space.

Introducing FPOs sits alongside a record number of police in the front line, with specific focus on gangs and organised crime. Thanks to this Government’s investment in police, we have the largest police workforce ever. Police are out there every day outside this building keeping our communities safe. New Zealand will have over 700—700—officers specifically focused on organised crime; far more than when that member opposite, the Hon Mark Mitchell, was a police officer.

Over the last year, Operation Tauwhiro targeted the disruption and prevention of firearms-related violence by criminal gangs and organised criminal groups. Since it was launched, 1,369 firearms and 52.87 kilograms of methamphetamine have been seized, with 1,161 having been arrested in relation to firearm offences.

This Government is hitting gangs where it hurts: in their pockets. Already, this Government has seized $500 million in cash and assets from gangs and criminals in four years alone. Translated, that’s an equivalent to $1.6 billion from the illicit economy; an economy that profits from guns, drugs, criminal offending, and exploiting our communities.

But we cannot simply arrest our way out of a problem. Firearms prohibition orders and law enforcement alone will not resolve such a complex issue. We can’t be tough on crime without addressing the underlying causes of crime. We must continue our efforts to break the cycle of gang violence in order to reduce the harm in our communities—in particular, Māori communities, that are disproportionately affected each day.

Budget 2021 provided $70 million for the expansion of Te Pae Oranga or iwi justice panels. Te Pae Oranga panels don’t just look at what happened when someone offended; they also look at the underlying reasons why someone offended, what’s going on in peoples’ lives, and give participants and victims a chance to have their say. They’re working. Already they’ve been shown to reduce the harm from reoffending by 22 percent. When we reduce reoffending, we reduce victimisation.

In comparison to this, what have the National Party achieved? They were talking about firearms prohibition orders in 2008, back when Simeon Brown was still in church kindy. When they were in Government they were asleep at the wheel and in Opposition they’re asleep in the backseat with a cashmere blanket pulled down overhead listening to a bit of Mike Hosking, or Michael Bublé if you’re Paul Goldsmith—true story.

This bill extends arms control in New Zealand. It will provide additional measures, wider sanctions, and controls targeted at those who have serious criminal convictions and who are hardened to crime. We want to prevent those people from accessing firearms, with the key means for perpetrating future violent—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! With apologies to the member, I’ve warned the House once in this debate already: interjections will be rare and they will be reasonable. A barrage of shouting is not acceptable.

GINNY ANDERSEN: New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their homes and their communities. This bill is just one tool of many delivered by this Government to make our communities safer. I commend it to the House.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill. I think there’s a very important question which the Government actually needs to give an answer to. My colleague Andrew Bayly was asking it before, and members opposite have failed to actually answer it, and it is this question: if this piece of legislation is so important, as the Government is stating it is—and this side of the House agrees it is—why have you not supported bringing this legislation to this House sooner?

The Government was recommended by the police in 2017 in the briefing to the incoming Minister that the police needed firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) to help arrest the growth of gangs and the growth of firearms violence in our communities. This Government has sat on its hands under Stuart Nash, and then under Poto Williams. This Government has sat on its hands and ignored the real issues facing our community when it comes to guns and gangs. The fact is that they have peddled their soft-on-crime philosophy through this country, and New Zealanders are the ones paying the consequences of those decisions. This bill is something which, unfortunately, has come far too late for many New Zealanders. We’ve seen the stories in the news. Day after day, there are shootings—whether it’s at shopping centres, at bars in the late night, or wherever it is—and even innocent families are having their houses shot because the gang forgot they got the wrong address. That’s the kind of violence too many New Zealanders are actually being perpetrated by far too often.

If the Minister spent a bit more time actually on the front line, talking to front-line police officers and asking them how they feel they are going with their job, they would be telling this Government that they feel like they’re losing the battle when it comes to crime at the moment in New Zealand. They’d tell her that they feel like things are going backwards far too quickly. They might talk about how many extra police they’ve recruited—well, they can talk about it; they’ve failed on the 1,800 police they promised. They said 1,800 by 2020; they’ve got only halfway there. That’s a failure. They can talk about all the different things that they’ve tried to do, but the reality is that, if you talk to police on the front line, they say New Zealand’s law and order is going backwards under this Government, and they feel like they’re losing. That’s not how I want our front-line police officers to feel. I want them to feel them to feel confident, I want them to feel equipped, and I want them to feel like they’ve got the tools they need to be able to enforce the law rather than sit by and watch while others perpetrate violence.

I ask members on the other side to actually answer this question: National has had two pieces of legislation come before Parliament—there was Chris Bishop’s and there was my bill, which came to Parliament to address this issue. Now, my bill went to the Justice Committee, and the members on the other side could have worked with the National Party to actually make sure that bill had what it needed to be good law and to make sure that it would be in the best interests of New Zealand. The committee did its best. We made that law as good as we could, and the Government voted it down. They could have worked with the National Party to actually make it happen. In fact, while it was going through select committee, the Government just announced they were going to bring their own legislation through—while it was going through select committee. That is something which just shows that they’re acting in bad faith on an issue where they should be working with the Opposition to make sure that the police have the tools they need and that New Zealanders can be kept safe.

We heard the previous member say, “New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their homes and in their communities.” We fundamentally agree with that statement, but why did you sit on your hands for four years? Now, how long is it going to take for this to actually go into law? They could have worked with us and had that law in place by the end of last year. Now, this has to go through a whole other select committee process. Submitters have to put their submissions back in again. They have to scrutinise a new piece of legislation. Officials have to be involved—when that process could have been sorted and actually made sure the law was in place by now to help keep our communities safe.

So the National Party will be supporting this bill because we want to make sure New Zealanders are kept safe and we want to make sure our police have the tools that they need, but there are a couple of areas in this piece of legislation which, from my perspective, do raise some serious concerns. The first one is around the fact that there is a lack of search powers in this piece of legislation, and it was very clear in the submissions which came through—particularly from the Police Association—where they made it abundantly clear that, if you bring in place firearms prohibition orders legislation without giving the police new search powers, effectively the powers will be toothless. So I can imagine the Police Association—they may have already written their submission on this bill, and they’ll be saying that point to the select committee again. The question I’ve got for the Government is: are they actually going to listen to our front-line police officers? Because, otherwise, you’re going to pass this piece of legislation, and it’s not actually going to give them the tools to actually go in there and fix the problem which actually needs to be addressed.

The other issue which is in the bill, which is very different from the bill that I brought to Parliament last year, is the fact that this bill now requires someone to go and commit an offence prior to the courts being able to put in place a firearms prohibition order. Now, I don’t know about other members on the other side of the House, but I would’ve thought the police should be given the ability to put these in place against people who have already committed violent offences, so that they have less access to firearms, so we can protect the public. But, in this bill, it’s saying, “No, no, no. We want these people—before we’re going to put in place the FPO—to actually go out and commit another serious offence and create more victims of crime.” So instead of actually trying to be preventative and trying to prevent crime, we are actually saying, “Well, if you commit a serious violent crime, we’ll give you an FPO. But until you’ve done it, well, fair game!” I mean, that’s the reality. So I just think that’s something which, actually, New Zealanders will be very concerned about it, and I think people are going to be submitting on that point because, actually, this bill should be preventative.

I know that members may not like the idea of the police—because the bill I brought allowed the Police Commissioner to be able to put in place, with some very strict tests as to whether those FPOs could be put in place. They might not have liked that, but it was about looking forward and trying to prevent harm, whereas this bill is saying, “Actually, well, if these people go and commit a very serious violent offence and cause more victims of crime, the courts may impose an FPO at that point.” Well it’s too late then, because more harm has been done.

So the National Party will be supporting this bill, and I know that my colleague Mark Mitchell will be working very hard on that committee to make sure that we improve this piece of legislation so that it is the best it can be to keep New Zealanders safe. We just hope that the Government, actually, also acts in good faith and works with the National Party so that we can have an enduring piece of legislation which actually works for New Zealanders and supports our police for years to come and keeps New Zealanders safe. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break, and the House will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Kia ora. Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to take what will be a “briefish” call on the first reading of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill.

Just today, actually, I saw a headline that I found quite alarming, and it was about knowingly supplying a firearm to gang members. It was timely, because we’re talking about this bill—we’re debating this bill—in the House tonight, and I will come back to that as one of the key points of this legislation. It has really concerned me that I feel like I’m seeing an increasing number of reports in my communities in Northland—shared by Northland police, for example—of more gun violence and more gun seizures. There was a report just yesterday in Kaitāia, and five days ago there was another report in the paper. There were reports in December; and there were reports in November. I think that this piece of legislation is timely, and I am speaking in full support of it.

The Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill is another step that we are taking to ensure that our communities are safer. It’s thanks to this Government’s record investment in police that we have the largest police workforce ever. Our police are out there on the streets every day, keeping our communities safe. I want to talk about Operation Tauwhiro, which has targeted the disruption and prevention of firearms-related violence by criminal gangs and organised criminal groups. Since it was launched, 1,369 firearms and 52.87 kilograms of methamphetamine have been seized, and 1,161 people have been arrested in relation to firearm offences. We have a huge issue in Aotearoa New Zealand, and I hope that this piece of legislation is going to be another step that we can take to protect our communities.

This bill will make it illegal for high-risk people to own firearms by introducing firearms prohibition orders (FPOs). That will strengthen action taken already to combat the influence of gangs and organised crime to help keep New Zealanders and their families safe. FPOs will protect the public from harm by prohibiting high-risk people from accessing, being around, or using firearms, and breaching the conditions of firearms prohibition orders will be a criminal offence.

I did just want to refer to the Minister’s opening speech, which I was here for at the beginning of the debate. I’m just going to pull it up here. One of the points that she made, which I was particularly interested in—and, as I am a member of the Justice Committee, I hope that, through submissions, we will be able to explore this further. She made the comment that this bill aims to reduce firearm offending and victimisation and that it will help reduce victimisation of Māori and the impact of firearms-related violence on Māori communities. She then went on to say that Māori have experienced a worrying growth in serious firearm offences perpetrated on their communities and whānau. The incidence of these crimes on these communities has almost doubled over the last 10 years. The serious firearms-related criminal harm that is their lived experience is now close to double that of the general population too. As a Māori member on the Justice Committee, I hope we receive submissions in relation to this, so that we can explore that further during that process, because that is, as I referred to at the opening of my speech, what I am sensing and noticing within our communities and why I am supporting this legislation.

I also want to go back to what I mentioned in the beginning of my speech: how in this legislation it is actually proposed that if you knowingly supply somebody with one of these orders with a firearm, that will be captured by this legislation and that will be an offence. In the news today: “[a] gun licence holder “gladly” supplied firearms to [a] gang member”. The judge accepted the Crown’s submission that “it is hard to imagine more serious offending than what you did. You supplied a person who you knew was a gang member with lethal weapons, and you did so in a covert and underhanded way … voluntarily, willingly, and gladly.” Willingness to supply weapons to people who are prohibited is a serious issue, and I am glad that the legislation that we are introducing tonight is proposing that that be an offence under this legislation as well. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I begin, I was just reflecting on the fact that as an immunocompromised Auckland member of the House, it’s been almost six months since I was here in person, speaking. So it’s good to see everyone—although distanced—and, you know, just keeping that locked-down city in mind, because we did do some hard yards.

But to begin, to come back to the topic of this particular bill, which is more effective firearm regulation and the safety of our communities against gun violence, I do want us to hold in our minds and hearts the tragedy that led to this work being brought before this House and being prioritised for our nation, which was the terror attack on the mosques on 15 March in 2019. So it’s almost three years ago—although time seems to have lost meaning—since the fact that 51 people lost their lives as a result of gun violence. Of course, that means that countless lives were affected and changed for ever. Hundreds were impacted directly. Some of those victims will live with the impact of their very real physical injuries for their whole lifetime, and others will live with the very real impact of the mental health scars as a result of that hate crime.

It was, of course, the latest and probably the first act of hate that led to such an extent of harm in living memory in our nation, and what came after that was a reaction by the last Government—which the Green Party is proudly a part of—that was swift. It should never have come to a tragedy like that, with the extent of the loss of life, for this House of Representatives or successive Governments to react and look at our very lax gun laws. But the first Act immediately after that was a call—a massive call—by members of the public who had rallied around the victims of March 15 and had actually called for action, and the first Act of these different tranches of gun law reform was to ban all military-style semi-automatics. That came quickly, but it was very clear that other regulations like this one have to follow and they have to come with a bit more detailed thought.

Regulating gun violence falls within the kaupapa of the Green Party, as one of our charter values is non-violence. So we do support evidence-based regulation of all firearms, and in this case, we were involved. I, as both police and justice spokesperson, was involved in the consultations that began the work of this particular bill with the previous Minister of Police, the Hon Stuart Nash, and I commend the current Minister for continuing that work and bringing it before the House. Because this is a bill that criminalises the association of those who have an order against them with others who hold guns, one of our core concerns is alleviated in this current form of the bill, which was that it wasn’t just association with those who might hold gun licences but that, in fact, they were living in a house with a firearm, for example. So it’s a higher risk, and one that takes the discretion out and the speculation out and leads us away in our lawmaking from prejudice-based application of the law.

So this bill, effectively, creates two criminal offences, but it also creates the power of a judge to issue in sentencing a 10-year long firearms prohibition order, which then bans association with people who have firearms not in a secure storage from residing, if you have an order against you, at premises in which firearms are stored and joining shooting clubs and attending activities involving firearms. That seems like a good balance for us, but I do want to address the fact that the two criminal offences that are created here carry sentences of five years’ or seven years’ maximum penalties.

We do always have a concern that our criminal justice policy does follow an evidence-based core, and we do want to hold that, in fact, although this bill does speak of things like rehabilitation and successful reintegration being taken into account when orders are considered, currently in New Zealand our prisons don’t, in fact, have standardised rehabilitation programmes. People don’t actually have access to what we might say will be successful reintegration back into the community, and our prison system, according to the Prime Minister’s chief scientist last term, has failed.

So prison isn’t a solution for keeping our communities safe, and we do want to see more investment by this Government in what does work—standardised rehabilitation programmes, drug and alcohol treatment, mental health treatment—and we do want to hold also that while we live in a country where our justice system very clearly has been proven over and over again to target Māori. Whether it’s for search and seizure, whether it’s for arrest, whether it’s conviction and, when convicted, sentences of imprisonment, we still have not fully taken account of what we know actually keeps communities safe. We know that the safest communities are not those that are very highly policed or very highly criminalised. The safest communities are those with access to secure, warm, dry, accessible housing, inclusive education, meaningful work, and, when people are not in work, with a social safety net that provides them the opportunity not just to barely survive but to thrive.

So we do want the Government to go ahead and regulate guns effectively, because gun violence is a blight on our society. But we hope that the pain and hurt of victims of gun violence is not used as a means to dog-whistle and to lean in more and more to policies that only make politicians look tough on crime without, in fact, keeping our communities safe. So that is the Green vision, but we do commend this bill to the House.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s nice to see Golriz Ghahraman return to the House after a lengthy absence. Welcome back—and there she goes. Madam Speaker, if you’ll forgive me, a very brief—she’s back. That’s great.

Golriz Ghahraman: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure if members are allowed to actually refer to whether or not other members are present in the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yes, it was on the margins. I heard and I listened, the member actually hadn’t gone anywhere. I think it was more in the nature of—well, I’m assuming—a throwaway aside. So thank you for bringing that to my attention.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you. You try to be gracious to the Green Party and that’s what you get back. Out of interest for the member, the Speaker’s rulings are not as specific as she might think; there are actually reasonable exceptions to that ruling and that would normally have been one. But, in any case, there you go, be gracious to the Greens, that’s what you get.

Madam Speaker, if you’ll forgive me one more indulgence before addressing this Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill. I’ve also just spoken to a journalist who has been prohibited by the Speaker from going outside to speak to protesters. I feel the need to put that on the record that, first of all, that’s an unacceptable breach of press freedom for the Speaker to, effectively, say the only way that journalists can report on events is from on high, on a balcony looking down. But, more importantly, it’s a tremendous own goal that only confirms some of the worst and wildest suspicions of those protesters. I think that needs to be recorded—that if that’s true, the Speaker I don’t think has acted well in those circumstances.

To turn to the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill, the ACT Party is very pleased to be supporting this piece of legislation. It represents a quantum shift in the quality of legislation that this Government and its predecessor bring to the House in terms of firearm control. Let me count the ways—there’s three things I really like about this piece of legislation. First and foremost, it is actually being done with due process, made the way that laws should be made. I’ve said in this House many times that if firearm laws are worth doing, then they are worth doing right. This piece of legislation has had prior consultation before being introduced, it’s been debated in the House now, it’s going to be referred to the Justice Committee—I would hope and assume from the indications we’ve had so far—for a full six-month consultation of the public and examination so that people can have their say and MPs can do their job on the Justice Committee to properly examine the bill.

That is a far cry from what we experienced in 2019, when this Parliament—with the exception of one member in Opposition, I might add—rushed through hasty knee-jerk and, ultimately, highly ineffective legislation banning select types of firearms for political theatre over public safety. So I have to congratulate the Government for actually putting some proper due process back into the way it brings firearms legislation to this House, and I look forward to people being able to submit to the Justice Committee and the Justice Committee being able to listen and, hopefully, make sensible amendments if needed, to add to the consultation that has already been undertaken. So that is a very big tick.

The second thing I like about this bill, and we like in ACT, is that this particular piece of legislation is focused not on the types of firearms, but on the types of people that have them. There are, basically, two approaches to firearm legislation. One of them we have tried over several decades, of trying to define exactly what sort of firearms people should be able to have. Now, within reason, that is actually not a bad thing. For example, people have never had, outside of collectors’ items, automatic firearms in this country. People haven’t had what are called assault rifles outside of collectors in this country.

To try and define exactly what is, for example, a “military-style semi-automatic weapon” has turned into a ludicrous array of court cases and arguments that ultimately turn on how many screws attach the stock of the firearm to the rest of the piece. That is an absolute folly to try and micro-regulate the types of firearms instead of the types of people. We saw it in the House just today when our hapless police Minister stood up and said 60,000 military-style semi-automatic firearms had been confiscated. She was asked whether she was sure about that and she stood up and she fumbled and mumbled and said, “Oh, I think I’ve been advised, but I don’t know. I’ll probably have to come back and correct it.” Even our police Minister struggles to know what types of firearms she’s talking about.

So having a piece of legislation that focuses on the types of people that have them is the second big improvement in the Government’s approach to firearms legislation behind actually having proper due process and consultation like this Parliament was set up to do. The important thing here is that we’re focusing on the criminals with firearms. You see, when we had former Mike Hosking panellist Stuart Nash in charge of firearm legislation, he was entirely focused on trying to make sure that the licensed, law-abiding, fit and proper firearm owners were criminals, and the only effect was that the criminals became firearm owners. He banned 60,000 firearms—we can’t ask the current Minister of Police what type they were because she doesn’t know—and yet there were actually 240,000. Let me get that right—he banned 240,000; he collected 60,000. Well, the gangs know where the other 180,000 went. For the first time in our country’s history, the majority of serving police officers want to carry firearms themselves because there are so many of them out in the streets and New Zealanders hear about their misuse each and every day.

So this piece of legislation that says, “If you are convicted of a select number of offences, the court can issue a firearms prohibition order and you may not have a firearm, be near a firearm, be on a premise such as a gun shop or licenced firearm owner’s home where firearms are not locked up.” It keeps the bad people away from firearms instead of the shameful, knee-jerk, ineffective legacy of trying to stop people who have shown themselves to be fit and proper from lawfully using firearms. So that is the second big improvement in this piece of legislation.

The final thing that I really like about this piece of legislation is that it’s not going to affect people the way it might have affected those who were simply in the way or in an unfortunate circumstance. Prior pieces of legislation introduced by other parties to this House would have made criminals of people who were inadvertently in the way of firearms, and that was wrong, it would have been difficult to enforce, and laws that don’t work are ultimately unsustainable.

If we want to prevent the kinds of terrible atrocities that sparked off the wave of firearm legislation that has occurred over the last two years, then we need to focus on making sure that the wrong people, the people who have shown their character to be unfit to have firearms, don’t have them. We also need to accept that firearms are present in New Zealand; that is a physical reality that can’t easily be changed by our laws. If we make it so difficult and lose the trust of the good, law-abiding people who have been deemed fit and proper, then we’re going to end up in a much worse space than we have been. That’s what the last two years have shown since Stuart Nash cavalierly banned a whole lot of firearms and ended up with more of them on the streets with the gangs, leading to the police wanting to be armed themselves because it’s got so bad. Instead, if we start targeting the people who shouldn’t have firearms, then there is some hope of good lawmaking, laws that are respected, and safer streets for New Zealanders.

I want to commend, again, this bill to the House, I want to thank the Government for coming around to a more sensible way of making firearm legislation, and I want to give my best wishes to the Justice Committee and all those who submit to it for a civilised, constructive exchange, which improves this bill further. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): People deserve to feel safe in their homes, and working communities, like Manurewa, bear the brunt of gun violence. That’s why I’m proud to speak to the first reading of this bill, introduced by a Government that is giving police the tools they need to crack down on serious crime and get guns off our streets, while, at the same, underlying causes of crime are being addressed.

When the Opposition say that this Government has not done enough to address gun violence, that ignores the work of police to implement the sweeping reforms that brought stricter gun controls at a pace envied by the rest of the world, with legislatures paralysed by inaction as gun crime grows globally. This is a Government that determined that the ability to own and operate a firearm is a privilege. That took thousands of semi-automatic, military-style guns off the streets. That made changes to the licensing regime to ensure that strict controls are in place to make sure that guns don’t fall into the wrong hands. That has resourced police with a highly specialised organised crime unit, and has set the ground work for a new, purpose-built firearms unit within the police to implement the reforms.

Firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) go that extra step again. They stop someone being able to be in the presence of firearms that are not owned by them. It also extends police powers needed to enforce that. How big that next step is seems to be at the heart of this disagreement. I’ve heard from the Opposition tonight that a disagreement arising from some disappointment that the Government did not support a National member’s bill that would have only applied to gang members.

But we are, in this House, mostly in agreement because we see a problem that needs fixing, so I will talk a little about the consensus here. It comes down to those rights which we are balancing, and as a fundamental part of our role as Parliamentarians, wherever we make changes to police powers, we think carefully about the rights involved, and the balancing of those rights. Firearms prohibition orders see the rights of a very small number, with a history of violent offending, restricted from being able to associate with people who own guns, then balanced alongside the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to feel safe at their local shops and their schools, and to be free from the threat of gun violence.

Government consultation began on this in 2019, because it’s vitally important that those communities who are most affected by this have their say on where to draw that line. That followed the recommendations of the Law and Order Committee in 2017 from its inquiry into the illegal possession of firearms, which recommended that FPOs be implemented. The committee noted that several submitters had raised the introduction of FPOs, pointing to three Australian states that had implemented them at the time, and I thank that committee for their consensus building in this important area.

These ideas have support from around the House, but it’s no surprise that a National bill proposed some of the changes in this legislation. However, that extensive public consultation for this legislation was not done for a member’s bill. The Government has also been able to deliver this proposal, which strikes a balancing of rights far better, and takes into account community voice, and doesn’t simply focus on gangs.

So what are those disagreements? The first is that we could have done this quicker, had we rewritten that member’s bill. I was a member of the Justice Committee which considered that member’s bill very closely. We made a number of changes, especially around things like penalties. But, in the end, it was premised on a different sort of restriction on who could not associate with people who did legitimately own guns. That National Party member’s bill before the House last year was, in my view, fundamentally flawed, and it’s not the way to implement a successful FPO regime. Their bill, as introduced by Brett Hudson in the previous Parliament, was a mess, and that remained the case despite the Justice Committee’s work. It would only cover gang members with convictions, leaving gaps about who would be covered, and it didn’t extend to people convicted of terrorism offences.

By contrast, this bill will include serious firearms offences, serious violent offences, and offensive participation in organised criminal groups, and terrorism related offences. It is not a smaller net, it is not a wider net; it is a more focused net, it is a more effective net that is captured here, and, therefore, a better balancing of the rights of the small number of people who cannot associate with others who freedoms are, in some way, impinged upon.

The second disagreement is that those offences are out of step, and I look forward to this committee really digging into the detail of the two-tiered system of offences, of penalties created by this bill, which, I think, strike a good balance between punishment and deterrence, in this instance.

That’s why I’m proud to stand with this side of the House, which has made a difference in gun crime, which is protecting people, and which is making our communities safer.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you. Following on from a previous Government speaker, talking in this debate on firearms protection orders, who has just said that this Government has made a difference in gun crime, and that is true—they have made a difference—it’s increased by 50 percent in Auckland over the past 18 months. And it is part of the wider decline in general law and order and public safety in this country over the past couple of years under this Government’s watch. That’s a tragedy for many New Zealanders and their families and their communities, because people no longer feel as safe in their communities when they see a rapid increase in gang membership—increased by 50 percent—when they see a near doubling of serious violent crime since this Government took office, and that increase in gun crime. So that’s why there is so much interest in this and so much concern about law and order generally. So this Government has made a difference, but sadly it is not the difference that we want to see—they’ve made things substantially worse.

So this legislation, the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill, is introducing firearm protection orders that can be made against somebody who has been convicted of a serious offence under the Arms Act or the Crimes Act or various other pieces of legislation to ensure that they do not have access, lawfully, to weapons. People might say, “Well, why on earth is this not the case already?” And that is the issue. The problem that we’re trying to deal with is the fact that the Arms Act and its regulations are insufficient to prevent access to firearms for these sorts of high-risk individuals, because, while they might not be a fit and proper person to get a firearms licence, they can still access firearms and associate with people who access firearms or reside at or live in locations where firearms are held, and that’s what we’re seeking to deal with.

The reality is that this Government has been very reluctant to introduce this piece of legislation—the third already that National members have tried to get variations of this legislation through this House, and have been voted down by the Labour Party in the past. Changes could have been made but they weren’t. Despite many promises, it’s at the very end of the fourth year of this Government that this piece of legislation has been introduced. We will support it because it is a step in the right direction and we’re finally making some progress, although we do continue to have concerns around the limitations of what has been introduced. The need for better warrantless search powers for police to actually get the weapons and find the weapons I think is a missing piece, and we will be now looking to include that during the select committee process, and I do hope the Government has an open mind on that issue.

We also heard from the previous speaker, Arena Williams, and a number of other speakers around it being important to also focus on the causes of crime, and I couldn’t agree more than that. This piece of legislation, which hopefully will make it harder for some of our most hardened criminals in this country to get access to firearms and will give the police more powers to deal with those people, it will make a small difference. It’s not going to solve all the problems. It’s certainly not going to stop some of the most dangerous criminals in this country getting hold of firearms, and doing real damage, and killing people, and maiming people, and making lives miserable across this country. They will still carry on doing that. Hopefully more of them will be caught and punished for doing it, but it’s not going to solve all the problems on its own.

What we do need to do in conjunction with passing legislation such as this is to make progress on dealing with the deep-rooted causes of crime, and to enforce the law effectively today. And that’s why, again, if we were to criticise this Government on law and order, we could point to the absolute lack of progress on dealing with some of those long-term, deep-seated causes of crime, such as: there’s no better crime prevention strategy than ensuring that every child has a decent education. Yet, after four years, only 60 percent of kids are regularly attending school—making no progress on that. Or housing: 4,000 kids being raised in motels, alongside gangs and drug dealers and in a totally inappropriate place to be raised as a child, which is a direct result of a complete failure of housing policy. So when you talk about crime and crime prevention policy, and four years later, into the fifth year of the Government, we still have Ministers—

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

IBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s really naive to think that this Government is soft on crime, is soft on gangs. This Government takes New Zealanders’ safety seriously, and while we appreciate the support from the members from the other side of the House, I’d like to push back on some of the assertions that we are soft on crime. And I think they can’t get over the fact that the bill that they came up with last year was flawed, as my colleague Arena Williams alluded to. It was only going to target certain people, and leaving criminals basically roaming around, doing whatever they want.

Can I start with a quote from the Hon Poto Williams that “Owning a firearm in New Zealand is a privilege not a right.” I have no doubt this bill help to accelerate efforts under way to combat firearms and the crimes that are related to them. This bill aligns with the Government’s priority to keep New Zealanders safe and it delivers a key part of the Government’s commitment to reduce firearms violence to date. The Government has taken 60,000 military-style weapons off the streets, established the ministerial arms advisory group to assist in these reforms, and by June 2023 we will have a comprehensive register in place that will help fill a 30-year deficit of information when it comes to firearms in our community, and the list goes on.

This bill will enable the courts to make a firearms prohibition order (FPO) for any person over 18 years of age who has been convicted of a serious criminal offence, and the people who are subject to a FPO would not be able to be around firearms, stay where firearms are available, join or visit shooting clubs or ranges, or participate in any activity that involves firearms. These are significant restrictions, and I have no doubt that they will help reduce the crimes significantly. The impact of firearms offences to some communities is quite obvious, especially in our Māori whānau. It’s almost doubled in the last 10 years, and it’s about time that something is done about it.

Tonight, many of the victims of firearm offences or firearm crimes, crimes related to firearms, will be watching this debate with interest. This will include families of the 51 shuhada killed in the Christchurch mosque in 2019 and those who were left with injuries. By doing this tonight, we are sending them reassurance, telling them that never again will incidents of this magnitude happen in our country, and we’re telling the other victims of firearms that we’ve got your back. On this note, it’s worth mentioning that this bill also deals with terrorism-related offences under the Terrorism Suppression Act.

This bill is a good bill and it will play a significant role in reducing firearm-related crimes. I would like to commend the Minister for the hard work to bring this bill to the House. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I’ll just step in and announce myself. Oh, no—oh, jolly good, thank you, Madam Speaker. Ha, ha! Hey, look, thanks very much—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I knew the member was there.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh, jolly good. Thank you very much. Well, multitasking is a skill, I’m sure; it’s not one that I have. Hey, look, the National Party is supporting this, which won’t be a surprise, through to select committee. The primary reason, as other colleagues have touched on, is that we have been pushing for and putting forward bills over multiple parliaments for firearm protection orders. So this is a good step. I’d say it’s more of a whimper than a bang, and I might try to elaborate a little bit on that. But first and foremost, I think it’s an observation that the Government’s side has been incredibly defensive around all of this, failing to explain first and foremost why they have, effectively, voted down a number of previous bills and ideas put forward. They mentioned the likes of my good friend Brett Hudson and, of course, more recently, Simeon Brown put forward a very good piece of legislation. They—that is, Labour—threw it out, which is rather ironic because we get lectured in this House often about how we should, basically, just vote most legislation through at first reading without thought, so we can fix it up at select committee. But it is ironic, as I say, that that only applies to laws which of course the Government wants.

So they’re going to struggle, I think, and they have been struggling tonight—Labour, that is—to explain why they voted down firearm protection orders, particularly in light of the second defensive point coming from the Government. They’re very keen to say that they’re tough on crime, and as an excellent colleague of mine has opined to me this evening, Labour seems to believe that if they say something, it happens: that their words are efficacious, almost sacramental. They just say something and boom, it happens. “We’re going to fix child poverty.”—didn’t happen. “We’re going to solve KiwiBuild.”—well, that didn’t happen. And around firearms: “We’ll just say that the community’s safer.” Not really the case, is it? You go to any of our electorates—certainly come to mine in Tāmaki at the moment: crime’s up, violent crime’s up, guns are being discharged left, right, and centre. I will admit Tāmaki is pretty much one of the safest areas in the country, so that’s a great starting point, but this is even happening there now. It tells you this is a Government which has lost control, and we know that gang numbers are heading towards 8,000. I can tell you that within the Corrections portfolio, the gangs are in control in many ways, and yet this Government and its members tonight have the audacity to stand here and tell us they’re doing a fine job, because they took something like, you know, 60,000 firearms off legal, lawful New Zealanders, without forgetting the obvious point which this bill is trying to address: it’s the gangs primarily and other illegal people who have the weapons. But as I say, it’s a good bill, somewhat headed in the right direction. There’s some good elements to it, but there are two pretty fundamental weaknesses which we would like to see addressed.

First and foremost, we want the police to be able to proactively issue these. There’s no point in having these FPOs solely—you don’t want these FPOs or firearms prohibition orders only issued after there’s been an incident. There’s no point after someone’s been shot to then go in and take a firearm and the licence off a person. I mean, if that’s happened, yes, we want that power, but you also want to be able to proactively remove access to firearms. If the police, and we have high trust in the police, or others even—we could actually expand the law. It could be a court order—who knows?—to say, “You know what, actually? If a person acts, she shouldn’t have access to a firearm.” We want some proactivity in this space.

The second element—and other colleagues I’m sure have talked to it, but the Police Association, Chris Cahill and the team have also talked about wanting to be able to have, basically, warrantless searches, to be able to go into homes that they suspect have firearms and an FPO should be deployed. Again, it sort of makes sense if you’ve ever been on sort of an operational side, or have an operational mind. There’s no point in declaring to the person from whom you want to take the firearm off that you’re coming. We know from unfortunate experience that most of the times when police are raiding gang pads and the like, the weapons are gone. So what’s the point?

So, again, this is a good bill overall. It sets the right tone; it just hasn’t got the whole music score rightly laid out. So we’ll take it to—or we hope that the House votes it through. We can do a bit of quick math—we should get there. We’ll see it through to select committee, invite the public to have their say. It will be very welcome to hear their particular views, but as I say, at least two things from the National side of the House: a bit of proactivity powers being given to the police—and look, I’ll admit we’ll have to make sure we structure around that, but they want some proactivity. The other is actually that we can explore a little bit further the search warrant side of things.

So, overall, not bad. Could do better. But as I return to one of my opening themes, we on this side of the House do not buy—and I actually think New Zealanders on the ground do not buy—the rhetoric from this Government that they are somehow safer under a Labour Government. If you don’t believe me, one needs only go and look at the statistics, borne out anecdotally and quantitatively, to see that things are getting worse. So, yeah, we’ll leave it there. I think I gave that a shot.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): While guns came into New Zealand well before World War I, it was that large influx of ex-military guns that flooded into the country after World War I that really lead to the first structural response to regulating our guns. Over the years there have been times of crisis that have called for a focus on how we mature that gun law.

My colleague Golriz Ghahraman spoke to the events of March 15 and the horrific acts that happened, and that resulted in action being taken on this side of the House. The banning of semi-automatic firearms, magazines, and parts—as my colleague Ibrahim Omer mentioned, 60,000 military-style weapons being taken off the street. That might be baulked at by the other side of the House, but it is significant. Those are weapons that reload extremely quickly; they presented a huge risk.

Our Government is committed to reducing gun violence and to providing the police with the tools that they need to address gun violence in a responsible way. My colleague Arena Williams talked about the National Party bill that came in front of us—the Justice Committee—last year. It was flawed. We did try our best to fix what were, essentially, gaps within the bill but it was still incoherent. The previous bill that came before the House was not comprehensive. Again, as my colleague said, it would have only covered gang members with convictions. To be honest, it felt a little bit more like it was crafted for the purpose of a media release targeting a specific group as opposed to good law designed to help keep people safe.

By contrast, this Government’s bill will include serious firearms offences. I won’t go through the definitions. I won’t go through the scaled penalties—my colleagues have done that. I would just say that as a member of Justice Committee, I do look forward to listening with open ears, receiving the advice that we’re given from officials, but also considering the steps that other countries have put in place in Australia, in Canada, in the UK. There is a fascinating breadth of experience in the firearms prohibition order space. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill be now read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill, the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill, the Commerce Amendment Bill, and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, the House in committee on the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill, the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill, the Commerce Amendment Bill, and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.

Bills

Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come first to the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. The first debate is on Part 1.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I thank you for the call and acknowledge this important piece of legislation for our rainbow communities. Can I acknowledge the House, who had the opportunity of a second reading. I think, from the vote last night, it’s clear to see that this bill will soon become legislation. I want to acknowledge our party—the Labour Party—for making it a policy at the 2020 election, and our rainbow caucus, Rainbow Labour, and our Young Labour advocates, who made sure that this policy was a priority to make sure that this piece of legislation was followed through.

Part 1 is probably the most substantive part. It is the part which I understand all of the eight Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that have been submitted on this piece of legislation are party to, and so I would like to begin by addressing some of those. Can I begin with the two that are under the name of Nicole McKee, for the ACT Party. Two SOPs: the first one is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 120, which requests a review after the commencement of this piece of legislation at the three-year mark, and a subsequent five-year review after that—very nice and early in the piece.

Can I respect the contribution that Nicole McKee made yesterday, but we do not believe that it’s necessary to include a statutory review provision within this piece of legislation as, as with all pieces of legislation, the impact of the new legislation is regularly monitored. We know that the Human Rights Commission will want to take a function around the civil redress system and the police will, obviously, collect data on complaints, investigations, and proceedings, and also the Ministry of Justice will, obviously, be reviewing the outcome of this piece of legislation. So we do not believe that that SOP is necessary, and therefore the Government will not be supporting it. But I do acknowledge the argument that Nicole McKee made around some concerns that some submitters had had at the select committee stage.

SOP 121, also under the name of Nicole McKee, looked to insert a new paragraph into clause 5(2)—paragraph (ea), I believe—which added to the list around the behaviours excluded from the definition of “conversion practice”, so that any conversation between a child and their parent or guardian would not be considered a conversion practice. The Government also believes that this is unnecessary and actually undermines the purpose of the bill, which already sets a high threshold for what is considered to be a conversion practice. The bill as it is set out is not intended to capture conversations, exploration of views, or expressions of opinion, and that is already set out in the bill as it was first introduced and as it has been sent back from select committee.

There are, I think, three SOPs in the name of Paul Goldsmith, again, to clause 5 of the bill. They were to, I think—if I can recall—add examples to the piece of legislation that would point out what is not a conversion practice. To save time for the House, again, we believe all of those three SOPs in terms of the suggestions for examples are unnecessary, because we believe the bill as it stands makes it clear that those situations are covered within the bill as it stands.

Also an SOP that Michael Woodhouse may have tabled recently, around the third bullet point example within clause 5, removing the phrase “prayer-based practice” from the example, we also believe it is unnecessary. The list as stands is not exhaustive, and I think it’s clear from the history, the concerns of the bill, and some of the submissions on the bill that certainly some of the conversion practices that we have concerns about have happened in a faith-based setting. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable for that particular example to be included within the example within clause 5 as it stands.

I believe there are two other SOPs that I want to address. The first one is in the name of Elizabeth Kerekere from the Greens, which was looking to insert definitions of “sexual orientation”, “gender identity”, and “gender expression” into this bill. Those already exist in other pieces of legislation such as the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act, the Sentencing Act, and also the Marriage Act. While not fully defined in those pieces of legislation, we don’t believe tackling this issue within this bill is the right way to do it. In a wider-ranging review of the Human Rights Act, we believe that a precise definition around sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression can be found at that time, but, as it stands, we don’t believe it’s appropriate to insert that in the bill as it stands.

I’m just trying to find the last SOP. That is also—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: It’s in Part 3, anyway.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Pardon?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: It’s Part 3, not Part 1.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I want to go through all the SOPs—if it’s OK, Madam Chair—as it stands. That one is in the name of Michael Woodhouse, which I believe would—I’ve got it. It’s SOP 126. I’m just trying to flag very early in this debate that that would depart from the current practice as it is within legislation and within case law. I believe Mr Woodhouse, through that SOP, wants to ensure that if there is to be the likes of medical treatment or puberty blockers sought to be used, that has to be done with parental consent up to the age of 18—am I right there? The law as it stands allows 16-year-olds to independently make decisions around medical treatment by themselves, so I think that would dilute the law, or the rights of young people as they stand now.

The other issue that I think we may have is—and maybe a medical doctor may want to stand up and give us some reality of what this might be—that if you prevent a young person who has made a decision that they do want to undertake treatment or be prescribed puberty blockers from doing that after puberty has taken hold, I think that the treatment that will be required once they turn 18 and they want to make that decision independently of parental consent would be much more invasive than puberty blockers themselves. That’s the medical assessment.

But also, if you have an individual who has made a decision about what their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender orientation is at an age before that, you’re essentially disenfranchising them of a decision to do what they want and trapping them until they turn 18, and this piece of legislation is not designed to take away any parental consent. The purpose of this bill is actually to encourage the conversations in order for people to make wise and informed decisions about their own sexual orientation and gender identity, and I believe that in that SOP we would make things worse for young people who are wanting to explore their own sexual identity, by preventing that from happening if there has to be parental consent up until the age of 18.

I believe that around New Zealand, those conversations are already well and truly happening in a very healthy way, but the very purpose of this bill is that we know that there are examples of that happening in a very unhealthy way that have caused physical and mental harm to New Zealanders who know who they want to be but have been prevented or convinced that the way that they feel about their identity is not right. I would stress that again to Mr Woodhouse around the fundamental human rights argument but also the medical argument and the current right of people at 16 to make their own independent decisions around their medical treatment, and making sure that that happens in a healthy environment. I believe that that SOP does not go to that and goes against the purposes of the bill. I look forward to the questions through the rest of the debate.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the Minister for his explanation. I’m disappointed that he seems to have ruled out his party’s support for the three Supplementary Order Papers I’ve introduced, and I want to ask him a few questions about that.

The starting point, as we’ve started this discussion, was certainly my personal opposition to conversion therapy as a practice. I think it’s an outdated practice that is not something that we support or defend in any way, shape, or form. The question is not so much the practice that we’re debating; it’s the piece of legislation before us that we’re debating, and what it does and doesn’t do.

So we have this situation where we have a rather broad definition of a “conversion practice” and some concerns about what uncertainty that will create in the minds of parents, of health practitioners, and of people as they work to navigate their way through what are some difficult discussions and issues within families, particularly in relation to the broader issue of gender identity, and particularly teenagers wanting to make the lifelong decisions that will affect them and their bodies and their health for a very long time.

So the first question I have for the Minister is: the select committee did extend the definition of a “conversion practice” substantially, from a practice that is directed at an individual that is performed with the intention of changing or suppressing, and that’s been extended to “any practice, sustained effort, or treatment that—… is directed towards an individual … and … is done with the intention of changing or suppressing”. So I’d be very keen to get an understanding from the Minister as to whether he thinks that has broadened the scope of practices that will be captured by this legislation or narrowed it, or what, because one thing we do recognise in all legislation every time we as members of Parliament come to this Chamber with a new piece of legislation that potentially sends people to jail is that sending people to prison is a very harmful practice in itself. It’s not a good thing that we look forward to. The possibility of sending people to jail is a significant one, and so we want to get a very clear understanding of what that expanded definition means.

Also, not just in relation to the criminal side but also to the civil side, where, for a lower threshold, people can be brought before the Human Rights Commission. Again, in many cases the process of that happening can be the punishment in itself, and that has impacts on peoples’ behaviour.

So the first question I have for the Minister is: does he think that changed definition broadens the scope of what might be considered a conversion practice or not?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, to the member, I believe, given some of the submissions at select committee, that the changes that the select committee has made don’t broaden it but certainly clarify the definition of activities that are caught or captured by the definition in Part 1. We know that some submitters on the bill suggested that what was intended to be captured by “any practice,” could be improved by further clarification. They pointed out in the submissions that “practice” is capable of meaning both an action rather than a thought or idea, and something that is usually or regularly done, often as a habit, tradition, or custom. So, to make that clear in the definition that Mr Goldsmith is referring to, that could cover both a one-off and practices over time. The committee recommended that “sustained effort, or treatment” be included in that definition alongside “practice,” in clause 5(1) to clarify the definition, as opposed to expanding it as the member has suggested.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, coming to the question of the Supplementary Order Papers that I’ve introduced, starting off with the first one, this bill is a slightly unusual one in the sense that it criminalises an activity, which is the conversion practice. Just for people to understand: if it’s performed on somebody under the age of 18, it’s just the mere conversion practice that leads to the potential for imprisonment; over the age of 18, it needs to demonstrate serious harm being done by that practice.

Because the definition of what exactly a conversion practice is quite broad—you know, is it a prayer-based thing, or somebody having some sort of exorcism or some sort of other practice—we’ve had this long list of things that are not included, so the law is trying to clarify things that are not included as conversion practices. Then, through the select committee process, there was the introduction of another list of things that are conversion practices. So we’ve got this piece of legislation that’s reasonably vague, and then having this long list of things which are and aren’t included to try and give some guidance to, presumably, potential prosecutors and judges and juries if they’re required to understand exactly what Parliament’s intention is, which some people might regard as a bit of an alarm bell.

But, having included three examples of conversion practices to give guidance, my logic was: well, would it hurt to include a few examples of things that are not conversion practices just for clarity? So the first one I want to talk about is Supplementary Order Paper 123, which would introduce as an example of an act that is not a conversion practice a parent or a caregiver withholding consent for medical intervention in relation to gender transition for what they consider to be the child’s best interests. I’m wanting to clarify this, because all the advice we’ve had from officials is that, yes indeed, that situation is not intended to be captured by this bill. A parent, by not giving consent—an act of omission—would not be doing something that could be construed as a conversion practice.

Now, some people reading the definition of conversion practice, which is to say a “sustained effort,” directed at somebody to supress their gender identity, might think that it’s a parent not agreeing to something that a 14-year-old or a 15-year-old says: “I’m not the gender that I was born in. I’m different, and I want to start on medical interventions that might have”—or will have very serious long-term ramifications. So we believe that it is important that parents are not prosecuted for withholding consent.

So what I want to get a very clear answer from the Minister is on: does he agree that a parent or caregiver withholding consent for medical intervention in relation to gender transition for what they consider to be the child’s best interests, is not an act of conversion practice in the bill, as he understands it; if so, why on earth would we not include this as an example?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): As I said in my opening remarks to Part 1 around the examples given in clause 5, they’re not exhaustive. While the member has suggested three possible bullet points to add as examples for clause 5, we believe that the exclusions or exceptions that are set out in clause 5 make it very clear about what is not included, or what practices will not be considered as conversion practices, yet the select committee thought, and we agree, that it would be helpful to have a non-exhaustive list of those that would be—and which are—in the bill as it has been reported back.

In relation to the specific question that the member has asked in terms of withholding consent for a medical intervention, in the circumstances it would be an omission and not an action. Therefore, we don’t believe it would be a conversion practice. I think we need to make it very clear that conversations, explorations of views, and opinion are not captured within this piece of legislation—I’m trying to pre-empt where I think this debate could go. I think we’ve made it pretty clear that the three Supplementary Order Papers that the member has put on the Table to include these examples are unnecessary, and therefore the Government will not be supporting them.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I think we can conclude from that that the Minister does agree that the bill is not intended to capture a parent or caregiver withholding consent for medical intervention. I mean, I think it’s actually good to get that on the Hansard, and it may well inform the legal process when, indeed, these sorts of cases go to court. I would be happier if they would include it, but at least we appear to have a reasonable amount of clarity from the Minister on that issue.

The other one—yeah, there were two others. One is around the expression of any opinion, and, again, the Minister has made very clear his view that the expression of any opinion is not to be captured by this bill and it could not be construed as some sort of conversion therapy, even if it was a sustained effort to direct it at somebody to suppress—I still can’t understand how that logic flows, but maybe he can clarify that more clearly.

But the other example I just wanted to get a very clear answer from the Minister on was in relation to a “health practitioner”. This is, again, dealt with in the legislation where a conversion practice does not include any action that a health practitioner takes when providing a health service if they comply with legal standards, and one of those legal standards is requiring informed consent before any medical intervention takes place. So we have a reasonably high level of certainty that this is not meant to be captured. But I suppose where I come from is the point that, as is intended, laws have an impact on people’s behaviour, and when people are faced with the possibility of imprisonment if they get on the wrong side of the line or are being hauled before a Human Rights Commission, they tend to react very conservatively. The risk is that people hang back from confrontational conversations and fail to ask some of the real questions that need to be asked, and in this context—in the context of teenagers making very significant medical decisions about their lives—the most fundamental question that should be asked not just once but perhaps a number of times is “Do you really want to do this?”

My only concern is to ensure that those important, basic medical questions continue to be asked, and that’s why I want to have it very clear from the Minister that an example of an act that is not a conversion practice includes a health practitioner frankly outlining the risks, consequence, and merits of medical intervention in relation to gender transition. I thought including that as an example in the legislation would be helpful, but I’d be very keen to hear from the Minister some clarity on that issue.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member for the question. This is one area where I think that the Justice Committee made some extremely good amendments to the bill to make it tidier in terms of clarity for health practitioners. I would note I did manage to see a submission to the bill from I think it was the Nursing Council, who were very comfortable with the bill as it stood at first reading and as it arrived to select committee, but I think they would welcome the changes that the select committee had made.

To the question that the member posed, I think that would not be an unreasonable question to ask. Asking “Are you sure that you want to do this?” would be perfectly fine within the realms of the bill as it stands because I think those who are acting in accordance with their legal, professional, and ethical standards in a situation with someone who might be exploring such treatment or a procedure would ask a question like that. If it were to go outside the bounds of their legal remit, their professional practices, or the ethical standards of their body—all of which, I believe, in the medical profession oppose conversion practices—would get them into trouble with the bill as it stands. But I do believe that the question gets asked nearly always about making sure that people are comfortable, informed, and want to go through with a procedure if they have made this decision. It would happen now, and I believe the bill as it stands allows that to continue to happen.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope to take just one call tonight in explanation of my Supplementary Order Papers. If I go over five minutes, I trust you’ll indulge that.

This is my first intervention on this bill. I haven’t spoken to it on first or second reading, and, basically, I’ve kept my head down, and I think the response to me and to those who voted against this second reading on social media and in other forums is a pretty good indication of why. It has been a very hostile response. A colleague of mine has been told that that person has a very punch-able face. I’ve never seen the “C bomb” dropped in as many memes as I have in the last 24 hours, and this is one of the milder ones: “You should be ashamed of yourself. It’s 2022. Gay conversion is disgusting and cruel. Maybe you should experience it before agreeing to support it. God, I hope you don’t have kids, and if you do, for their sake, I hope they’re squares like you.”

Now, I’m not affected by that. I know it’s a pugilistic democracy we live in, and on one level I welcome it. But I do feel sorry for the colleague whose loved one has been harassed and bullied and contacted her in tears, fearful of going out because of that associate’s vote last night. None of us that I know of deviate from this very strong point, and that is that we all condemn conversion practices unequivocally—the end. Only the bill strays into areas that make it very difficult for me. I came to this House with just one bottom line, with probably a reputation for being far more socially conservative than I am. But I had one bottom line, and that was that any legislative change that undermined Kiwis’ freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom to worship whatever deity they deem was a line that I wouldn’t cross.

Now, I’ve heard the Minister talk, and—indeed, probably outside of the bill more than in the black letter law that we’re considering—providing reassuring comments about this, and my amendments, I think, are kind of more belts and braces if what the Minister says is what will happen after the bill is passed.

So I speak to my first amendment, I think it’s Supplementary Order Paper 126—no, it’s Supplementary Order Paper 127. Now the new clause that talks about the examples that have been given do talk about two hideous religious practices that I condemn: exorcism and deliverance, I don’t even know what deliverance is—I hear banjos and guitars!—but I bet it’s not safe, and it certainly does not affirm the right for people to live their best lives free of unfettered interference from the State, which is my mantra.

But in that same clause is the word “prayer”. Now, prayer is a channel between an individual and their deity, however loudly or however individually or collectively it is done, and I simply can’t support a piece of legislation that cuts across an individual’s right to pray, for whatever. What worries me about that is that for 99.9 percent of the rest of the bill I’m supportive of it, but that is a bottom line for me. I think it undermines a fundamental human right, and that is the right to religious worship in whatever form and of whatever belief. A prayer is, I say, a channel between one person and a deity. It may harm even if that’s not the intent, or even if it is the intent—it’s a kind of a sticks and stones moment. So I worry, and I think we have an opportunity to clarify that that’s not the intention of the Government by supporting my amendment to clause 5.

Now, although it’s not in this part, the Minister has at length discussed my other amendment, SOP 126. I think it’s in those clauses that it won’t be an offence for someone to refuse consent to treatment, albeit the use of the term “parent or guardian” I don’t think is actually referenced. The Minister talks about people over the age of 16. It’s a slightly ambiguous—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Just if I may interrupt the member, the member’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 126 really refers to a proposed change to Part 2. While the Minister did refer in an overall sense to SOPs—[Member stands] If the member would like to resume his seat while I’m—

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Sorry, you weren’t on your feet.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): While the Minister in his opening comments did refer to SOPs which were in other parts of the bill, I think the substantive, detailed discussion of SOP 126 does belong in Part 2.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, in that case, Madam Chair, I will have to take two calls tonight. I was hoping to do this once and once only. I’ll come back to you later.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I acknowledge the comments that the member Michael Woodhouse made at the beginning of his contribution. The purpose of this bill and the overriding intention of this bill is to make life better for New Zealanders, and I understand that the debate has been heated. I understand that debate has also been hyperbolic. So we may have situations where emotions run high, and I can understand how that can happen, but comments of that nature I don’t support. I think our intent in this House is to have this piece of proposed legislation become law and for the rights of those who are in this community to be shored up. So I just wanted to make sure I acknowledge that with the member.

I won’t go into the debate around Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 126—we’ll leave that for Part 2—but I did want to make sure that I addressed the question that the member had around the example of the third bullet point in clause 5, which goes to SOP 127, that he has put forward.

I understand that there has been a freedom of expression and a freedom of speech debate running quite thickly through the debate around this legislation, but, as has been said on many occasions, the freedom of speech or expression is not absolute. In this instance—and I’m trying to be very careful about how I say this, because the member used the phrase “sticks and stones”. But words do hurt people, and whether they are part of a prayer-based conversation or whether they’re not a faith-based conversation, there was clear evidence and anecdotes through the select committee of harm that is done, and, as I may have said at the outset too around the member’s SOP, there is clear evidence that a considerable amount of damage may have been done to individuals in faith-based settings.

Clause 5, as it stood when the piece of legislation was introduced and as it stands now, has clause 5(2)(f), which clearly states that “the expression only of a belief or a religious principle made to an individual that is not intended to change or suppress the individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.” is not a conversion practice. There are some opinions and beliefs of people in faith-based settings that I agree with, then there are some opinions and beliefs of people in faith-based settings that I 100 percent disagree with, and this bill does not limit anyone expressing their beliefs or their opinions, whether they be faith-based or not. What it does protect is that if you’re going to try and use a religious argument with the intent to try and use a conversion practice to stop someone expressing or changing their lifestyle or having a lifestyle decision around their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender orientation—that doesn’t pass muster.

I spoke to religious leaders before the introduction of this bill, and many denominations have submitted to this bill in support of banning conversion practices. So I believe, pan-faith, that there is quite a lot of support for this practice. What I don’t think they would want to happen is faith being used as a shroud for the hurt to continue to happen.

This bill very clearly sets out that you can have your religious beliefs and express how you believe or you see the world around people’s gender identity, their gender orientation, or their sexual orientation—if you’re going to use that against that community, I send the very clear message that this Government disagrees with that, vehemently, but you still have the right to express that. But if you’re going to use that to continue the harm that has hurt many people through the decades, then this piece of legislation says that that is not OK.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the Minister’s comments. I agree about the sticks and stones comments—actually, that wasn’t quite what I was intending to do. There is no doubt words harm, and the Minister and I may have a different view at the margin about where the border between offensive but lawful speech and words, and the margin of unlawful speech might be. We’ll have that conversation later in the year, probably, when the work on freedom of speech issues is debated further in the House—

Hon Kris Faafoi: Meetings—meetings.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —or maybe next year, or the year after. Soon—very, very soon, as the Minister of Immigration would say. But what I’m doing is a bit kind of theological. It is a distinction between a—and, paradoxically, I’m more worried about the pulpit speech, which could be more harmful, than I am about prayerful consideration. But we have made no change, really, in substance from the bill as it was introduced, and I draw the Minister’s attention to the full regulatory impact statement on page 22, where the officials told him the method or form of the practice is not material to the definition, and the prohibition would not be effective if certain methods such as prayer were excluded.

So right from the get-go, prayer would be unlawful, and that’s my bottom line. I think it’s misguided, I think it’s sometimes ridiculous, that old theological norms sit uncomfortably and are misplaced in a modern environment, but that’s not the point. The point is: are people free to hold those views, to worship whatever deity they want to worship? The answer for me is yes, and, as I say, that prayerful channel is one between them and their deity. We’re getting in the way of that, and I don’t think it’s necessary. I’d rather be banning tub-thumping sermons, frankly—they’ll be more harmful—but we’re not. We’re saying that’s OK.

So it’s misguided. I think it’s misaligned. So I agree with the goal; I just don’t agree with the method.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora e te Māngai. Thank you, Minister, for your remarks. We have no doubt that the Government cares about rainbow people and that it’s wanting to put in legislation that will serve our needs, but having seen the weight of submissions you received, you will know that many people will be disappointed with the bill as it stands.

I decided with this Supplementary Order Paper 125 to focus on just one thing, and that was about definition. You stated that gender identity and gender expression were not fully defined but contained in other legislation. Rudimentary, but I did just do a quick search in that rainbow legislation that you mentioned, and I would say that, actually, these are quite new terms in the way that they’re being used in terms of conversion practices.

I was part of the select committee process, and so I agreed that it was very important that we actually put examples in here about what conversion practice is. I look at key words like where a particular type of practice, a sustained effort, or treatment that uses shame or coercion because of same-sex attractions or non - gender-conforming behaviour, where gender orientation, gender identity, and gender expression are seen as a defect or a disorder, and where prayer, a deliverance, or an exorcism is used to change or suppress. I’m not sure how the law or the police can interpret that, or, if we’re leaving it to the Human Rights Commission through their civil redress process, how they are meant to then interpret whether those things are happening and that people understand that they’re happening because of reasons that are not defined in the law.

“Gender expression” is a relatively new term in our communities, but there’s certain language that gets used that’s very consistent. What the Human Rights Commission proposed is what is kind of standard now. That’s used at the UN, and as that language is standardised, then we use it across rainbow communities. It seems odd to me that you would say, “Here are the examples of the type of practice.”, but you then don’t define what is the nature that that practice is supposedly being used to change, suppress, coerce, or shame.

We have other quite common terms like “health service” and “health practitioner” which are in here, and they are identified as having the same meaning as a particular other piece of legislation. So I would be very happy as an alternative, as a compromise, to have those terms in here and actually specify what definition in some other part of legislation we’re using when we’re talking about it. Kia ora.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. The ACT Party understands how sensitive discussions are around people’s identity and we support the bill at this stage, with some reservations.

Thank you, Minister Faafoi, for acknowledging the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 120 submitted by ACT MP Nicole McKee. In fact, we have two. One SOP seeks to modify the bill to require a review of how the Act operates. Because of the very sensitive subjects that the bill deals with, the way that people observe religious practices, the way that family members communicate with each other—particularly dealing with young people at a time where they are vulnerable and need support—that is why the ACT Party believes it’s important to have a review of the way the Act operates and anything that Parliament can learn from how the Act has operated over a five-year period.

It’s true that there were many submissions that were seeking, actually, to have a lot more strict interpretation and definitions included in the bill, as the Green MP Elizabeth Kerekere alluded to before, and so there may well be much to learn once the bill is put into place as an Act of Parliament and then implemented. So that is why the ACT Party is seeking a formal review of the operation of the Act after five years to consider whether any amendments to this Act are required or desirable, to report the review findings on the operation of this Act to the Minister, and, as soon as practical that the Minister has that report after a five-year period of operation, to present a copy of that report to this House of Representatives and then discuss that with elected members and then talk about how the bill might be improved.

The ACT Party believes it’s important that conversion practices which are harmful are outlawed and that they do not continue, because people have suffered real harm. This is new territory for New Zealand lawmakers and for those who will be asked to interpret the law and then enforce the law but also it’s new territory for families, for schools, for counsellors working with young people, for their GPs, and for religious communities. That is why ACT believes that it is absolutely vital that there is a review of the operation of the Act included.

I know the Minister has in his opening remarks acknowledged this Supplementary Order Paper and said that the Government declines to take it up. However, I would ask the Minister to reconsider. There is time, there is still time for changes, and if the Minister were to seek advice from officials as to what the scope of a review and the implications and, potentially, the potential costs and benefits are, I am confident—the ACT Party is confident—that a review clause would be entirely appropriate and would give a great deal of confidence, particularly to those parents, caregivers, school counsellors, people in religious communities, GPs, and all of those who support young people as they go through that wonderful journey of learning about their own identity and finding out their own purpose in life. We should make sure that any laws that affect them are very carefully crafted, particularly ones where there is such a great deal of emotional sensitivity around them.

Young people at the moment are having a real struggle, particularly those of school age and moving from school into work and study, because there is so much pressure on them, whether it’s from social media or having to succeed at school. With the repeated COVID lockdowns and other controls that have forced them to in many cases lose a lot of the social cohesion that they get from spending time together at school and from interacting and testing out their ideas on each other, which is one of the wonderful things about being a young person, about being a teenager or a “tweeny”—that you go to school and you talk about the things that you’ve seen or read, or that you’ve heard friends and family members talking about, and you test your ideas out on other young people.

Sometimes it turns out that when you go home and you talk to mum and dad about those things, they say, “Oh, that’s a load of rubbish!”, or sometimes they might say, “Your friend’s really on to something. You should find more friends like that one. They’re really sensible people.” I think a lot of parents are concerned that the conversations that they want to have with their children in a family home, in a loving home, will be somehow chilled or stymied by a nagging concern, whether it’s justified or not, that this bill would stop them having those really important conversations with young people in their lives: family members, workmates, and so on.

Young people who go out to work outside of the family home and outside of what can often be a rather cloistered school environment, if they’re just going from home to school every day—going out into the workplace. That’s where I first met people who I thought, “Well crikey, these are really different from the people in my family and my friend group. What on earth makes them tick?”, and that’s when my eyes where opened to all the different types of characters and identities and the way people think, and also how they like to express themselves and their love for others.

In many ways, that’s what this Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill is attempting to do. It’s attempting to protect, particularly, those young and vulnerable people who want to express their identity and their love for others, and we should protect that and we should protect them from being subjected to abuse and harm. But we should also protect the rights of parents and families and counsellors to engage in respectful discussions about really important matters that may well affect somebody’s life if not permanently, then in life-changing ways that cannot always be reversed.

That is why ACT has submitted another Supplementary Order Paper: Supplementary Order Paper 121. This is another amendment proposed by ACT MP Nicole McKee that any conversation between a child and their parent or legal guardian should be excluded from those definitions which would somehow criminalise or make those conversations about the young person’s identity potentially a criminal offence.

The ACT Party believes it’s very, very important to protect the rights of those people who are vulnerable, who want to express their identity, and who feel that if they do that, they will suffer harm in some way, whether it’s psychological harm or physical harm—hopefully not, although we have heard some awful testimony about that. But the conversations between a child and their parent or legal guardian, we believe should be protected and we believe that everyday New Zealanders would agree with the ACT Party that that’s a very important delineation between the purpose of the bill and protecting those very special relationships in the family home.

The ACT Party asks the Minister and those who support the bill and will vote for it to please consider incorporating the amendment proposed by Nicole McKee which protects any conversations between a child and their parent or legal guardian from being mistakenly incorporated into the definition of what might be harm. Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Mālō e lelei, Madam Chair. Can I thank both Mr Court and Dr Kerekere for their very thoughtful contributions to the debate.

Can I begin by addressing Dr Kerekere and Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 125, as I did in my opening remarks in this debate. We do believe that getting definitions for those three aspects is very important, but we do believe, given that we think they need quite a bit of attention, that we’d do that in a very full way and that we could undertake that as part of a wider review of the Human Rights Act. So I guess, in very plain English, we’d want to do that with a “measure twice, cut once” approach, as opposed to trying to undertake that effort as part of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill that is before us, which we obviously want to make sure was passed through this House in order for the protection of the rainbow community to become law as soon as possible. So I hope that the concerns that the member has which have seen her put forward the SOP is on the radar of the Government to make sure that we address those definitions long term.

Can I acknowledge Mr Court too, who was speaking to his colleague’s SOPs, the SOPs in the name of Nicole McKee. While it was Mr Court addressing the committee today, can I acknowledge Nicole McKee. Whenever we have debated in this House, I have found her very thoughtful, and her suggestions—while we may not agree with them—are always delivered in a way that I think is always designed to try and make a piece of legislation as good as it possibly can be.

While I can’t please the ACT Party in this instance, I would note in terms of the SOP around trying to put in the bill a review that—I again stress that bills become law and can change. The Human Rights Commission through its function through the civil redress system, the New Zealand Police through statistics and other data it can collect and other qualitative things it can collect, and also the Ministry of Justice through its stewardship process of making sure that our laws are appropriate will be able to undertake, essentially, a review of the legislation. We want to make sure that it works for the very same reasons that the ACT Party does, and if I am reading the tea leaves correctly, while they may have concerns which has led to these two SOPs, it sounds like the ACT Party will probably support this piece of legislation further. I don’t want to presume or assume that, but I acknowledge their support up until this point as such, anyway.

The other SOP in Nicole McKee’s name is around conversations between parents and children. Can I again reiterate and reinforce clause 5(2), which, through subclauses (b) to (e), goes to the very heart of what is not a conversion practice, and actually goes to the heart of what Mr Court was outlining—again, in a very thoughtful way—because the purpose of this bill is to ensure that we are promoting respectful and open discussions regarding sexuality and gender. I think we all collectively want to agree to that, but through clauses 5(2)(b) to (e), in terms of those conversations that pertain to the SOP, there are certainly protections within this bill to ensure that those conversations continue to happen in an open and a respectful way.

In clause 5(2), “(b) assisting an individual who is undergoing, or considering undergoing, a gender transition; or (c) assisting an individual to express their gender identity; or (d) providing acceptance, support, or understanding of an individual; or (e) facilitating the individual’s coping skills, development, or identity exploration, or facilitating social support for the individual;” are all carved out in the bill as it stands as things that are not a conversion practice. Again, I think that goes to give confidence to some people who may have concerns—and certainly there were submissions to that end—that those conversations can happen and they can happen in an open and respectful way to assist people who are going through these issues and who need support, and who will be safe to do so in the knowledge that this bill carves out that for them in a space in order for them to do that.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Minister, and thank you for acknowledging the good work of ACT MP Nicole McKee, who has heard many of the submissions in person and who brought her thoughtful approach back to the ACT caucus. That enabled us to take a unified and principled stand on this bill. But, Minister, you actually have raised further concerns. You have identified the Human Rights Commission, which some people call the “Human Wrongs Commission” because of their hard-core, left-wing manifesto, an organisation which has donated to the Mongrel Mob and which, despite repeated calls to investigate Pharmac and DHBs for failing to supply much-needed care to people in dire need. The Human Rights Commission doesn’t sound like the kind of organisation that New Zealand families and religious organisations would be confident to put their trust in.

That is why the ACT Party firmly believes that our proposed amendment that conversations between a child and their parent or legal guardian should be explicitly provided for in the primary legislation, and not left up to a hand-picked group of appointees at the “Human Right all the Wrongs or Wrong all the Rights Commission”.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Are we abolishing the UN next?

SIMON COURT: Actually, the Green Party member Chlöe Swarbrick makes a good point that the Human Rights Commission should be abolished. I think she agrees with ACT leader David Seymour on that, but that’s a matter for another night.

If we’re going to put our trust and faith in people, at least if the clause that the ACT Party is seeking to amend that protects the conversations between parents and children—that should be in primary legislation, and then if there is a decision, on which it would be a very difficult decision for the Attorney-General to actually advance prosecution, that would be up to a judge to determine whether a crime or an offence had been committed, not some hand-picked academics with agendas who should really, if we’re honest, be putting their hands up for selection as Labour Party candidates in the future. It’s not for those people to decide whether a conversation between a parent and a child or between a caregiver and a child should be subject to criminal action. This must be in the primary legislation.

If we’re thinking about the review, so often legislation is passed by Parliament where there is a no-review clause. The costs and benefits we’re always promised by a Minister will always be on the benefit side. All of the terrible things that people might say will come to pass—they will never happen. The officials who might point them out to the Minister, or the stakeholders or the people affected by laws, are told, “That’ll never happen. Don’t worry. This Minister, he’s a soothsayer. He can see the future and that will never ever happen.”

So that’s why ACT believes that this legislation, because it’s new and groundbreaking, it steps into the relationship between parents and children in a way that I’m not aware of in any other legislation. We must have a review of operation of the Act after a five-year period to see whether the genuine concerns raised by stakeholders, parents, caregivers, and legal guardians, or religious organisations, counsellors, and GPs actually have manifested into poor outcomes and whether, therefore, the legislation should be amended by this House in the future. We think that the Minister should put his trust in the people of New Zealand to give that feedback, and to try and live with this law, but it should come back to the House in five years’ time with a recommendation for any reviews and changes, Minister.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): Point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise. I’m just seeking your guidance, particularly with regard to the recording of events in the House as true and accurate. My point to Simon Court, the honourable member who has just seated, is that the Greens do proudly, in fact, support human rights. My point was a flippant heckle, perhaps captured in the masks that we’re all of course required to wear, that if they were seeking to abolish the Human Rights Commission, perhaps the United Nations could be next on their list.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be now put.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Dr Elizabeth Kerekere’s amendments to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 125 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 12

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

Noes 80

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 5 (Bishop, Goldsmith, van de Molen, Willis, Woodhouse); ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Nicole McKee’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 121 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 31

New Zealand National 21 (Bridges, Brown, Brownlee, Goldsmith, Grigg, Hipango, Kuriger, Lee, McClay, McKelvie, Mooney, Muller, O’Connor S, Penk, Pugh, Simmonds, Simpson, Upston, van de Molen, Watts, Woodhouse); ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 79

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 2 (Bishop, Willis); Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 122 to insert an example of an act that is not a conversion practice be agreed to.

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

Ayes 34

New Zealand National 24 (Bridges, Brown, Brownlee, Dean, Goldsmith, Grigg, Hipango, Kuriger, Lee, McClay, McKelvie, Mooney, Muller, O’Connor S, Penk, Pugh, Reti, Simmonds, Simpson, Smith S, Upston, van de Molen, Watts, Woodhouse); ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 2 (Bishop, Willis); Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 123 to insert an example of an act that is not a conversion practice be agreed to.

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

Ayes 34

New Zealand National 24 (Bridges, Brown, Brownlee, Dean, Goldsmith, Grigg, Hipango, Kuriger, Lee, McClay, McKelvie, Mooney, Muller, O’Connor S, Penk, Pugh, Reti, Simmonds, Simpson, Smith S, Upston, van de Molen, Watts, Woodhouse); ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 2 (Bishop, Willis); Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Paul Goldsmith’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 124 to insert an example of an act that is not a conversion practice be agreed to.

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

Ayes 34

New Zealand National 24 (Bridges, Brown, Brownlee, Dean, Goldsmith, Grigg, Hipango, Kuriger, Lee, McClay, McKelvie, Mooney, Muller, O’Connor S, Penk, Pugh, Reti, Simmonds, Simpson, Smith S, Upston, van de Molen, Watts, Woodhouse); ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 2 (Bishop, Willis); Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 127 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 16

New Zealand National 16 (Bridges, Brown, Dean, Goldsmith, Grigg, Hipango, Lee, McClay, Mooney, O’Connor S, Pugh, Reti, Simmonds, Simpson, van de Molen, Woodhouse).

Noes 87

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 2 (Bishop, Willis); Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.

Abstentions 2

New Zealand National 2 (Kuriger, McKelvie).

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Nicole McKee’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 120 to insert a new clause 5A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 41

New Zealand National 21 (Bridges, Brown, Brownlee, Goldsmith, Grigg, Hipango, Kuriger, Lee, McClay, McKelvie, Mooney, Muller, O’Connor S, Penk, Pugh, Simmonds, Simpson, Upston, van de Molen, Watts, Woodhouse); Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 67

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 2 (Bishop, Willis).

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Part 1 stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 111

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.

Noes 7

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

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Offences and civil liability in relation to conversion practices

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now come to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 8 to 13, “Offences and civil liability in relation to conversion practices”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair—I’ll get it in the right order. I’m very pleased to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 126, in my name.

I firstly want to acknowledge the Minister’s correction of my error. Quite rightly, section 36(1) of the Care of Children Act does mean that a child can consent to a medical procedure independent of their parents or guardians. So my question really is, for the purposes of this discussion, had my amendment talked about a person under the age of 16, rather than under the age of 18, would the Government be inclined to support it; and if not, why not?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I hate to start this with disappointment for the member, but no, because the current framework around the Care of Children Act, and also the framework for medical treatment for those who are under 16—which I believe is quite well based on a foundation of case law—we believe is a solid foundation for this piece of legislation as well.

I’m not sure if the member was alluding to the fact that the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in his name, as it stands at 18, probably shouldn’t stand as it is. But we believe that the current framework around the care of children, which allows children or young people who are 16 and over to make a decision independently, again, doesn’t exclude the respectful and open conversations between a youngster and a parent from happening; it’s just that the law clearly sets out that, quite independently of the parent, they can make their own decision based on law.

Now, I think, in reality, when these conversations happen in a healthy way, there is a healthy conversation between a youngster and a parent. In fact, I know of many instances of that happening. Depending on the age and the understanding of the youngster below 16, this is a situation that is faced by the medical practice and medical sector day in, day out. In conjunction with health practitioners, parents and guardians, and the youngster involved, you can usually, nine times out of 10—or probably more than that—come to a conclusion where all parties are happy.

The fundamental right here, that we are both trying to protect and express, is that an individual has a right to their own decision and agency around their sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender orientation. So that’s why we oppose the SOP in the member’s name as it stands, because it does not match the foundation of what is currently in place with medical treatments.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Minister—in which case the next few minutes will be an academic discussion rather than a substantive one. I agree with most of what the Minister said. We don’t make law for the nine times out of 10. We are not actually making law for the times when respectful, loving conversations are held between parent and child, engaging with a medical practitioner about what’s possible; we’re talking about the exception. And I do speak with some experience here, because, as a former chief executive of a surgical hospital, we had very strict policies around the granting of consent.

The case law that the Minister references, which he describes as a solid foundation—I would say that it’s rather less solid than he portrays—does start out of the well-known case in the UK courts of Gillick, and the principle of what’s known as Gillick competency. Now Gillick was a case where the procedure went ahead against the wishes of the parents, on the basis that the courts found that the minor was mature enough to make those decisions of their own accord. Our own laws are a bit hazier than that, and the case law is—as it should be—actually situational, and I’m indebted, actually, to the commentary from YouthLaw, who says about this, “Can doctors overrule my guardians’ decision to not go ahead with medical treatment for me?” And the answer is: “If your parent, guardian or next-of-kin refuses consent, the medical professional must not go ahead with the medical treatment.”

Here’s the “but”, though: however, if you’re under 17, and the medical professional thought that the person refusing consent was deliberately trying to harm you by refusing consent, they can seek support from Oranga Tamariki, and potentially the Family Court, to make a guardianship order. That’s a very, very rare—but occasional—thing. I have to say, in my time as a surgical chief executive, we never allowed a procedure, regardless of what it was, to be undertaken on a child without the child—a mature child; so a teenager usually—you know, when we felt that it was necessary and appropriate for them to have a say about what’s going on. And that’s almost all cases, apart from babies. If the child consented and the parent consented, we’d go. If the parent consented, but the child did not consent, we didn’t proceed until we had those ducks in a row. And vice versa: if the child consented, whether it was a tonsillectomy or breast reduction or augmentation, and the parents didn’t consent, then further conversations would need to be had. That is the overwhelming clinical practice.

The Minister made a comment, in his opening remarks, about my Supplementary Order Paper, around the maturity and ability and knowledge of oneself as a minor, which is slightly contradictory with the bill, and, frankly, with reality, because the bill actually has more punishments for conversion practices for people under the age of 18—accepting, as I do, that they are more vulnerable, that they are more prone to confusion and anxiety and depression, and all of the sequelae that goes along with what must be a traumatic journey to identity. But many loving parents will support the idea of “watchful waiting”, which is a term that’s used, and may well come to the conclusion that it is not appropriate to consent to procedures that could have long-lasting and, in fact, irreversible effect. The Minister talks about puberty blockers. There was a fascinating and actually quite uplifting profile of a young person going through puberty blockers some months ago, on TV, and it was a remarkable insight into what “good” looks like, actually, in this situation.

So, if the Minister is right, and if YouthLaw is right, it may be that my amendment isn’t necessary anyway. But I have to record that parents do have a say in this, and I’m not sure—I can’t remember how old the Minister’s children are. They may not quite be in those teenage years, but they are fraught even if gender expression and gender identity is not part of their adolescent journey, and I think parents do have a say, and if that determination is to pause, is to wait, then they should.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Certainly, the advice I’ve been given around the age threshold for the independence of 16-year-olds to make their own decision—but there are aspects of the member’s contribution that I do agree with, and the purpose of this bill, again, is to encourage open and respectful discussions. We’re doing that by banning the harmful and hurtful conversion practices but making sure that we carve out the space to have those open and respectful discussions. So my hope is that we can acknowledge the punitive and the criminal and civil redress system and encourage the works of the likes of the Human Rights Commission and of those other non-governmental organisations, schools, and counsellors to make sure that they know now that they don’t have to worry about—well, that there is a protection from conversion practices itself, and another facility to encourage discussions, and healthy ones, between parents and young people, as the member has suggested should happen.

And you’re right: we don’t legislate for nine out of 10; we legislate for 100 percent. As a result of this legislation, I would hope that we have protection for 100 percent of the rainbow community now, who have been vulnerable to these conversion practices and seen no ability to redress. So I’m not assuming that this is the last contribution to the Part 2 debate in this House tonight but, again, am acknowledging the pride that we have on this side of the House that this has come from a commitment at the election to make sure that the fundamental human rights of the rainbow community are protected.

KAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to make a few observations on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 126, from Michael Woodhouse, in regards to medical procedures without parental consent. I understand where Michael Woodhouse is coming from. As a parent of four children myself, I understand the responsibility and the burden on our shoulders as a parent to make the right decisions for our children as they’re growing up. When they’re young, those decisions are left up to us. I agree that, under the age of 16, parents should have the right to make that decision, but I think the age of 18 is going a little bit too far. This is going against other laws we have when it comes to medical practice. Our children over the age of 16 have the right to privacy with their GP, they have the right to make decisions about their body, and about what they want to do with their body.

So, whilst I agree with the intent of what Mr Woodhouse is trying to achieve here, I think just the age of 18 is going a little bit too far. If this was to state the age of 16, I would be more inclined to support the full bill, because, as I have said, parents have a huge responsibility to make sure our children are well cared for, well looked after, and make informed decisions; and children under the age of 16 are still the responsibility of us parents. I feel that this SOP has just missed the mark a little bit in regards to age.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): A very brief intervention to acknowledge Ms Chhour’s contribution and just to reiterate that she’s right and, indeed, if time permitted and there was value in doing so, I would withdraw this amendment and re-table it with the age of 16, not 18. But, given the Minister’s comments and my own explanation of it, I think I’ll just leave Hansard to record that my preference now is for 16, accepting that it’ll be defeated in the vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Michael Woodhouse’s amendment inserting new clause 13A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 126 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 25

New Zealand National 15 (Bridges, Brown, Dean, Goldsmith, Grigg, Hipango, Lee, McClay, O’Connor, Pugh, Reti, Simmonds, Simpson, van de Molen, Woodhouse); ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 77

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 2 (Bishop, Willis); Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.

Abstentions 2

New Zealand National 2 (Kuriger, McKelvie).

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 111

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, Stanford, van de Molen, Watts, Willis); Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 7

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

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 Amendment to Human Rights Act 1993

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now come to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 14 and 15, “Amendment to Human Rights Act 1993”. The question is that Part 3 stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 be agreed to.

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, 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, Reti, Upston, Woodhouse).

Part 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1 Transitional, savings, and related provisions

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the schedule stand part.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now come to our final debate, clauses 1 and 2—the debate on the title and commencement of the bill. The question is that clause 1 stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

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, 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, Reti, Upston, Woodhouse).

Clause 1 agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 111, Noes 7.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that clause 2 stand part.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Bills

Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we now turn to the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. Part 1 of this debate is the debate on clauses 3 to 40 and Schedules 1 and 2, amendments to Land Transport Act 1998. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I’m very pleased to take a brief call on Part 1 of this important piece of legislation. As members of the committee will know, it’s a piece of legislation that has been cooking away for some time. It deals with a very significant issue in our land transport system which is the increasing problem of people who consume substances—which may be licit or illicit—whose driving is affected by that and who potentially can cause significant amounts of damage and pain. The estimates are that potentially up to 100 fatalities in recent years, per year, have been caused by people who have these substances within their systems.

I want to acknowledge the previous Associate Minister of Transport, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, who, in earnest, began work on this piece of legislation in the previous term and advanced the bill significantly. There are very challenging issues to work through in this piece of legislation, a number of which are captured in Part 1 of the bill. But the process that the Government worked through in the previous term, I think, has stood us in good stead to have a piece of legislation that can be both effective in terms of reducing the harms that can be caused by drug-driving but also does balance some of the complex rights issues and technical issues that have to be worked through in order to have a fair and robust piece of legislation.

The core technical issue to overcome is the fact that the blood tests that we are used to in the drunk-driving regime, which give a high degree of precision, cannot be easily transferred to oral testing, in terms of the degree of accuracy and a direct comparison. The Government took the wise step, I think, last term in dealing with this issue of setting up an expert panel which was led by technical experts across toxicology, pharmacology—people who know this area and how it works better than anyone in New Zealand. And it’s that panel who have recommended both the infringement limits and the criminal limits that are set out in this legislation.

We’ve carefully designed a legislative regime around that, that ensures that there is fairness built into the system. People who are asked to be tested by a police officer will initially be asked to conduct an oral fluid test. If that results in a positive outcome, a second test will be undertaken, and it will only be if the two tests both return a positive result that an infringement offence will have been committed and a ticket issued. And that’s an important point to make: that, at that point, it’s only an infringement offence. A criminal offence can only occur if a subsequent blood test is undertaken and that a higher limit that is set out in the legislation is reached through that blood testing process.

There are a range of complex issues that sit around this in terms of how the legislation describes the powers, how it deals with the limits. I’m sure that we’ll have a good discussion about that across the course of this committee stage debate. I do want to thank members, actually, from around the House, and also the select committee, who, I think, have engaged in this issue well. These are complex issues but they’re important issues and, if we get this right, we will save lives. So I look forward to the rest of the debate in the committee that occurs this evening.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the Hon Julie Anne Genter and on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to contribute to this Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill.

As members of the committee will have heard from the former Associate Minister of Transport and the Green’s transport spokesperson, the Hon Julie Anne Genter, there is a lot to weigh up when we come to building new infrastructure for how we go about ensuring that we have harm reduction, particularly pertaining to harm reduction on our roads. We fundamentally agree that driving impaired by drugs is a serious hazard to safety on our roads, and we agree with the objective of the bill, which, of course, is to try and deter people from driving while impaired. But we remain concerned with a key issue as raised by submitters, particularly during that select committee phase that the Minister referred to, that there is currently a lack of evidence that the approach may result in a reduction in impaired driving. There are also concerns that persist that it is difficult to establish a relationship between a given level of a drug in oral fluid or in blood with a specific level of impairment and that this could harm any intended deterrent effect. There are also substantial concerns, as floated in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, that this regime could disproportionately and harmfully affect Māori and Pasifika.

Now, coming to this with my sensible drug-law reform hat on as well, we all know—and I’ve wasted a lot of this—well, I’ve tried to contribute constructively in this House—the fact that a lot of drug policy is made against evidence and on the basis of moral panic. The thing with this law is that it is currently being made in a bit of a vacuum of evidence. Of course, importantly, all of us in this House seem to agree on the very basis that we want to prevent people from driving under the influence. The problem remains that there is a difference between a substance registering in somebody’s system and whether that person is in fact intoxicated or impaired. It’s nowhere near as straightforward as the science that we have well established with, for example, alcohol.

For that very reason, there are two Supplementary Order Papers in the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s name. The first is a sunset clause. That sunset clause will insert a new clause 2A to require that there is a repeal of the Act at a point of five years after the date on which the Act comes into force. The rationale behind this is to require that we are constantly looking at whether this law is fit for purpose, because it is a new area of law on the basis of evidence that is yet to come out in full concrete force. It also requires that that proactive step of repealing clause 2A, were it to be ineffectual, ultimately means that we do not continue to have laws that are ineffective or not quite meeting their purpose as stated on the books. If I may add, the Misuse of Drugs Act is a perfect indication of just how easy it is to leave flawed pieces of legislation in place.

I’d also just refer to the point as raised by the Minister around expert advisory groups. We’d love to hear more from the Minister on this in particular, because we do know, and we do have experience in drug law, how expert advisory groups can end up being self-referential or unnecessarily constrained in their ability to recommend harm reduction. So, for example—I believe it was in the early 2000s—there was an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act which established an expert advisory committee with the power to look at different substances and where they may sit in relation to harm from other illicit substances. In doing so, they were simply to decide where they sit on the illicit class register—and therefore what criminal penalties were to be ascribed to them—not necessarily what public health measures could be put in place in order to reduce that harm. So we’d appreciate that clarification from the Minister.

The second Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Julie Anne Genter relates to a review—an independent review, in fact—of the efficacy and how this legislation would be working. There are a number of specific considerations that have been requested to be included in that review, including the impact of the amendments; importantly, the reliability of oral fluid tests and blood tests in measuring a person’s impairment; whether appropriate thresholds and impairment levels have been set; and whether the amendments have been appropriately implemented by the New Zealand Police and by other relevant entities. Of course, this remains of fundamental importance when we’re talking about drug law, which is so often empowered by moral panic, but, of course, noting that there is shared consensus within this House of the need to seriously arrest and address this issue on our roads. There is also a call for whether the amendments have had a disproportionate impact on Māori and Pasifika; the extent to which, if it can be assessed, the number of people driving while impaired by drugs has changed since the amendment came to force—which, of course we would hope, if it were effective, it will have—also whether further amendments should be considered; whether any of the amendments should be repealed; or if there are any other matters that the Minister considers to be relevant for that independent reviewer. That review would be required to be completed and presented to the House within 12 months of commencing.

As far as the Greens are concerned, these are really, really important amendments to ensure that we have a law that is fit for purpose, especially as we are developing new criminal offences and new tests for which the evidence—as displayed at the select committee and by experts both domestically and internationally—is still out. We have an opportunity to develop a law which is fit for purpose and which can be world leading, but we can only do that if we remain open-minded to the evidence as it develops and we continue to update the law so that it remains as effective as possible and doesn’t just sit on the statute book as a hallmark of something that we wanted to do but aren’t necessarily quite achieving.

That is the Greens’ position, and we are hoping to hear some points from the Minister on that expert advisory committee or panel, but we are also hoping to implore other members across this Chamber to continue to review and to think about how we can make sure that what is noted in this legislation that will be put on the statute book continues to be updated as the evidence continues to unfold, because that is the only way that we can make effective law in this area.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Madam Chair, thank you, and thank you, Minister, for bringing this bill to the committee tonight so that we can explore some of the merits and also identify some opportunities to improve it, because the ACT Party supports the intent of this legislation. It’s important that people operating motor vehicles and heavy equipment on the nation’s roads are not impaired and that their driving is not affected by either illicit substances, illegal drugs, alcohol, or medication that they may have been prescribed and which might clearly say “Don’t drive.” When your doctor gives you this medication, it might say it on a big sticker on the side of the packet you get from the pharmacy. But some people either ignore those warnings or don’t realise the danger that they’re putting themselves and other road users in.

So it’s important that there is a mechanism where people who are using the road know that they can be tested and assessed. When it comes to pharmaceutical prescription medicine, there is evidence that people do become addicted and/or choose to abuse pharmaceutical-prescribed medication. When we’re thinking about the purpose of the bill where we would want to know are people impaired, well, for substances that have been through an approval process—a Medsafe or an Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration assessment or a United States Food and Drug Administration assessment—you could be pretty confident that when somebody takes a pharmaceutical product that causes impairment there would be quite a bit of information about that. We would know, say, the level of a drug, what it does to somebody physically, because it’s been tested in a laboratory. It’s been tried and tested and tried and tested. And there will be reports, stacks of reports that tell people who want to make decisions about impairment and whether you take your medication, whether you’re safe to operate a digger, whether it’s safe to drive a truck on the road or a private car on the road; there’d be plenty of information about that.

But that’s where we run into the problem with this legislation. Because many of the drugs that this legislation proposes to test for are illegal, there is little or no information that enables lawmakers, people writing the regulations, those who are tasked with detecting people with drugs in their system on the road—the police. Very, very difficult, in the absence of any good data, to actually establish a testing regime that links a substance, an illegal substance somebody took—whether it be cannabis or methamphetamine or LSD or magic mushrooms, whatever that substance is—with impairment. Now, it may be some of those substances have no safe level. But there are actually therapeutic treatments being delivered in New Zealand at the University of Auckland’s medical school using psilocybin magic mushrooms and LSD to treat anxiety. It may well be that, in the future, drugs like that, which for so long were stigmatised and which were regarded as the tune in, drop out culture of the 1960s—it may well be that, in the future, those substances actually play an important therapeutic role. So the ACT Party and the Green Party have expressed a differing view about this legislation where we express reservations that the testing regime as it applies to illicit drugs in particular—there is no evidence base to link the level of a substance in somebody’s system with impairment. Does that actually mean it’s not safe for them to operate a motor vehicle, or a truck, or a digger, for example?

Now, we could overcome this lack of information by setting up experiments and getting people to take these substances and then say, “Drive in a simulator.” That’s called Grand Theft Auto. Or, potentially, send them around a racetrack. But because of New Zealand’s health and safety laws, I don’t think that anyone who owns a racetrack would be prepared to have people who are under the influence of illegal drugs operating on their racetrack. And because these drugs are still illegal, it would be next to impossible to establish a trial—a medical trial—that met ethical standards—

Simeon Brown: I’m glad you’ve thought about it.

SIMON COURT: —that met ethical standards, Mr Brown, even though people are trialling these substances every day around New Zealand. I’m talking about a medical trial, a controlled trial that met ethical standards where doctors and scientists could test what is the safe level to take a substance that may one day well be therapeutic, like magic mushrooms or LSD, and then to operate a motor vehicle. The limit may well be zero. It may well be you can’t take any of that and then drive, but we don’t have any evidence.

That is why the ACT Party supports the amendment proposed by the Greens member the Hon Julie Anne Genter to include a review date in this legislation. After about three years of operation, when the police will have conducted what I understand will be thousands and thousands of roadside tests, they will have started to develop an evidence base from which to determine: are fewer people are driving under the influence and coming to harm or harming others? Are we detecting far more people than we thought above what’s called the “threshold levels”, and, if so, what else do we need to do to intervene peoples’ lives in a way that minimises the risk to themselves and others from consuming these substances and then driving their motor vehicles? That is why the ACT Party supports the amendment to include a review of the legislation and its operation performance after three years.

What the amendment asks for, and Minister, I know that there has been a lot of evidence provided by the Medical Association and others expressing their reservations about the operation of the Act, not the intent. The intent is to keep New Zealand, New Zealand drivers, and those who use the roads safe and to prevent harm from motor vehicle accidents. But even the Medical Association has pointed out that actually, the reliability of the oral fluid tests and blood tests to test a person’s impairment is not accurate enough and that where appropriate thresholds and levels have been set for different drugs—and whether the amendments proposed here have actually been appropriately implemented by the New Zealand Police and the testing authorities. Right now, while just about every medical laboratory in New Zealand is swamped with COVID tests, in a normal time those laboratories test for a wide range of substances—medical, all kinds of fluids—to see what people have been taking, what’s ailing them, and also, if they’ve been in an accident or an incident, what things they have taken that might have been a contributing factor to an accident or incident that caused harm.

It’s really important that we get this information and that it’s presented back to Parliament in a way that the elected members of this House of Representatives at that time, three years from now—they won’t all be the same people who are sitting here today, I can guarantee you that—have an opportunity to review the data and whether the legislation is working.

The ACT Party will support the amendment proposed by the Green Party. We share the Green Party differing view that, in fact, while the legislation is laudable in intent, there must be a check and a balance in terms of a review after three years so that we can actually find out where the legislation is working. Imagine that! Passing a law in New Zealand and then establishing a test and a time frame for whether the law that a Minister of the Government said would work—and then that Minister having to come back to Parliament and tell us honestly: did it work or did it not? No Minister should be afraid to say, “It didn’t work. We can tweak it.”, because that’s what New Zealanders expect of their Government, actually: to be flexible, to be agile, and to respond to facts and evidence. Minister, thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very happy to offer a contribution in response to comments from both of the previous two speakers, Chlöe Swarbrick and Simon Court.

First, in response to some of the questions and concerns posed by Chlöe Swarbrick, I do wish to provide real confidence to the committee that this legislation has been developed very carefully, and it most certainly doesn’t arise out of a moral panic about this issue. I would just put to the attention of the committee a number of supporting facts that sit behind my saying that. The first is that the evidence is on the table that there is a real problem to be solved here. Now, moral panics classically are situations where there isn’t actually a real problem to be solved—they’re situations in which people in legislatures and communities whip themselves up into a lather about something they don’t like, but perhaps something that isn’t actually a problem. The evidence on the table is very clear in New Zealand, that we have a problem. We have a lot of people every year who die on our roads who have these substances in their system. And while at that unfortunate point it’s not always possible to draw a direct link between the consumption of that substance and the accident that has been caused, there is a very strong and reasonable supposition that in many of those cases there is a strong link. And that’s not to get into the serious injuries that are also caused.

The numbers are significant, and let me just take members of the committee through them. In 2020, 101 people who died on our roads—out of a toll of 320—had illicit substances in their systems. In 2019, it was 111 people out of 350 roads deaths. In 2018, it was 98 people out of 378 people. It is a large and growing proportion of our road fatalities in which people have these substances in their system. So I have no doubt, and I’m very comfortable saying to the committee, that this is a piece of legislation that is founded on a real policy problem that causes immense pain and suffering in our communities, and we need to solve it.

Now, that’s not to say that it’s simple. Both members who have spoken point to some of the complexities, and I referenced them in my opening comments, that while we would know that it’s not good for someone to be driving a vehicle with these substances in their system—most of us would not want ourselves or our children to get into a vehicle with a person who had these substances in their systems—the relationship that we can draw between certain levels and a level of confidence that impairment is occurring is a complex one. And because we’re dealing with a wide range of different substances, this piece of legislation is even more complex. It’s not like drink-driving where we’re effectively dealing with the effect of one substance—alcohol—on the human system and the responses and the reaction times that it has. We’re dealing with, under this legislation as it stands today, 25 different substances. Each of them affect the human body in a different way—the way in which impairment occurs, occurs differently if it’s a sedative, or an opioid, or methamphetamine, or a prescription drug. So we have to account for all of those.

Returning to my point—just to provide assurance to the committee in response to Ms Swarbrick’s concerns—this is the other area in which I would say I think she can have confidence that this isn’t a moral panic about the youth smoking weed: this is a piece of legislation which is inclusive of both illegal and legal substances. It is focused on the harm that is caused by substances if people use them before driving. It isn’t focusing on one particular substance or one particular demographic. The likelihood is that some of those substances will be more likely to be consumed by some demographics, and some of the other substances will be more likely to be consumed by others.

The final point in response to Ms Swarbrick’s concerns that I would just come back to is the one that I did mention, and this has been the role of the Expert Advisory Group. I just actually want to acknowledge them here. Dr Helen Poulsen, who is the chair of the Expert Advisory Group, Dr Sharon Kletchko, Andrew McGlashen, Professor Ian Shaw, and Associate Professor Malcolm Tingle. These are amongst New Zealand’s leading experts in pharmacology, toxicology, and the effects of these substances on people’s bodies. They went through an exhaustive process and produced three reports that have been published—they’re up on the Ministry of Transport’s website and I’d encourage members who are interested to look into these—and they did a number of the things that Mr Court said should be done. They looked through the scientific literature, they looked at thresholds and other jurisdictions where these regimes have often been operating for some period of time, and they looked at local data on the concentration of substances in people where there had been fatal crashes. So, effectively, they’ve compiled all of the different and credible pieces of evidence that are out there.

Then, in a very exhaustive way, for every single substance that is considered under this legislation, they have set limits which relate to, firstly, the infringement offences, which is a limit that is comparable with the recent use of the substance, and then limits for the criminal offence which are higher, which are limits where we have a high degree of confidence based on the expert opinion that there is a level of impairment in place. I really would request people that want to engage in this discussion, do have a read—between now and the next stage of the committee stage debate—of those reports. Because they are very thorough and I think they can give all members of the committee confidence that this has been a robust process.

The final point I’d like to make in response to both speakers relates to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 96, which is the SOP that seeks a change to the legislation to put a review in between three and four years after implementation. And the happy comment that I can offer is that the Government will be voting in favour of that SOP. I was approached by the Hon Julie Anne Genter about this proposal some time ago. We worked through the text of that SOP to a point of satisfaction. I’m pleased to see the ACT Party is now on board; that’s a very unique alliance of political parties. I don’t know if we’ve had such a vote with the three of us lined up on any issue in this term of Parliament, but I’m very happy to lend the Government’s support to that SOP. I think it’s a practical measure. This is important. I have confidence in this legislation, but I acknowledge that we’re moving into new territory, and that there are complex issues, complex intersections of rights here, and so I do think that a review of that nature, as is crafted and agreed in that SOP, is appropriate, and the Government will be very happy to support it.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I report progress on the bill, I need to correct a vote on clause 1 of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill. So the correct vote is: the Ayes are 113 and the Noes are seven. The Ayes have it. I will now report progress on the previous bills.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill is set down for third reading next sitting day. The Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill, the Commerce Amendment Bill, and the Māori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill are all set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. Members, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.