Thursday, 10 February 2022

THURSDAY, 10 FEBRUARY 2022

THURSDAY, 10 FEBRUARY 2022

The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

karakia/Prayers

karakia/Prayers

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ā kāti, kia tau ano te rangimārie ki a tātou. Kia inoi tātou. E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kuīni, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.

[Well, let peace settle upon us all. Let us pray. Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the Queen, and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement will continue. We’re aiming to conclude that on Wednesday. Legislation to be considered will include the third reading of the Conversion Practices Prohibition Legislation Bill, and the further stages of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill, the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill, and the Commerce Amendment Bill. The House will consider a motion to approve COVID-19 orders. On the morning of Wednesday, 16 February, there will be an extended sitting for members’ business.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. I wonder if he could advise the Parliament whether or not it’s the Government’s intention to introduce urgent legislation to amend the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, which has been the subject of some public commentary in recent days.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): There is no such intention.

PETITIONS, pAPERS, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

PETITIONS, pAPERS, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

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

CLERK:

Petition of Bob McCoskrie requesting that the House allow the use of COVID-19 rapid antigen tests as an alternative way for unvaccinated people to access venues

petition of Melody Willis requesting that the House urge the Government to fund the transition of annual agriculture systems to plant-based agriculture, and

petition of Greenpeace Aotearoa requesting that the House urge the Government to support the creation of ocean sanctuaries across the planet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those petitions are referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Annual reports for 2021 of the Electoral Commission, New Zealand Green Investment Finance, Nursing Council of New Zealand, Report of the Registrar of the Environment Court, and WorkSafe, and

statement of intent 2022-26 for the Social Workers Registration Board.

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

CLERK:

Reports of the Health Committee on the 2020-21 annual review of Te Aho o Te Kahu, the Cancer Control Agency; 2020-21 annual review of the Ministry of Health; and the petition of Sue Haldane; and

report of the Regulations Review Committee on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Specified Work Vaccinations) Order 2021; the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Maritime Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 3) 2021; and the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Protection Framework) Amendment Order (No 2) 2021.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Regulations Review Committee’s reports are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.

CLERK: Paige Harris Birth Registration Bill, introduction.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Energy and Resources

1. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What action is the Government taking to support the Southland economy?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): In July 2020, Rio Tinto announced its intention to close the aluminium smelter at Tīwai Point by August 2021. In February 2021, Rio Tinto announced it would delay the smelter’s closure until December 2024. This uncertainty has been difficult for the people of Southland. Regardless of Rio Tinto’s commercial decisions, Southlanders deserve certainty about the future of their region. Major economic shifts are not easy for communities, and that’s why our Government has provided support to the Southland community to go through a just transition process.

This transition is an opportunity to create a more resilient local economy, develop new industries, and improve the community’s ability to manage change themselves, setting Southland up for a good future. We’re committed to work hand in hand with the Southland community to plan for and manage the uncertainty brought about by ongoing speculation on the future of the smelter.

Dr Liz Craig: How is the Government working with Southlanders to shape their future?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Our recently released just transition work plan for Southland outlines our commitment to support the community’s ambition of building a productive and sustainable economy, where workers have good jobs, and the region has long-term resilience. Southland businesses and workers are ready to enter new markets but could use some help along the way. The plan has identified that Southland’s transition will focus on the areas of clean energy, aquaculture, and innovative land uses. Recently, we’ve seen these plans start to come to fruition with the announcement of Datagrid, a carbon-neutral cloud computer data centre, to be established in Southland. In developing the work plan, we’ve worked closely with iwi, local government, unions, businesses, and the education, aquaculture, and community sectors to develop a shared vision for Southland’s future.

Dr Liz Craig: What has the Government done to include iwi aspirations in the just transition?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: This Government knows that delivering on Māori and iwi aspirations is key to a just transition. What is good for iwi is good for Southland. Iwi have been at the centre of this just transition process from the start. Officials are working closely with Murihiku Papatipu Rūnanga and the Murihiku Regeneration collective to ensure we manage the social, economic, and environmental impacts of economic change for the wider Southland community. We will continue to work with everybody to support Southland’s transition, regardless of Rio Tinto’s commercial decisions.

Question No. 2—Local Government

2. SIMON COURT (ACT) to the Minister of Local Government: Will she commit to making changes if the Three Waters Working Group on Representation, Governance and Accountability recommends that the governance structure should include more local representation; if not, why not?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: The working group are due to report to me on 28 February 2022. I can commit to listening carefully to what they say, but, obviously, I have not received their report and therefore cannot go any further in those commitments.

Simon Court: Will she commit to making any changes to the three waters delivery model proposed by the Communities 4 Local Democracy campaign, which represents over 1.3 million New Zealanders who have rejected her three waters proposal?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, when I met with the Communities 4 Local Democracy mayors in December last year, I invited them to present their views to the working group for consideration and they’ve done so, and I understand that the working group is considering their proposals alongside a range of other options.

Simon Court: When will she start listening and give local communities a say on the future of their water assets?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, the Minister has been listening and talking with local government bodies, communities for the last four years on these matters, and what she has heard from communities is that they want safe drinking water, they want to make sure their drinking water does not kill people, they want to make sure that there aren’t sewage pipes breaking out, or boiled water notices all around New Zealand. In short: they want a water supply that they deserve, and that’s what this Government will deliver.

Question No. 3—Prime Minister

3. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Nicola Willis: What does she say to New Zealand renters, for whom, on average, the cost of renting has increased a massive $140 a week during her time as Prime Minister, a 50 percent bigger increase than occurred in the full nine years of the last National Government?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, what I say to the renters of New Zealand is that we have now a Government that acknowledges that there is a housing crisis, unlike that previous Government. We have a Government that is overseeing a record amount of house building. We have a Government that is making sure that there are incentives to build homes that can be rented. In short, we have a Government that does care about renters.

Nicola Willis: Can she now see that her Government’s divisive attempt to “crack down on speculators” has backfired spectacularly, utterly failing to arrest soaring house prices and resulting in massive rent hikes for New Zealand tenants?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, no. What I can see is actually that the proportion of first-home buyers has been rising since those changes have been made, and we are seeing speculators leaving the market.

Nicola Willis: Is it seriously her position that it is a mere coincidence that average rents have increased a record-breaking $50 a week in the same year when the Government introduced new property taxes for landlords?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, this matter of what is the best measure of rental increases was covered in the House yesterday between the member and her question to Minister Woods. What I can say to the renters of New Zealand is that they have a Government that has moved to protect them, to make sure that they only have one rental increase a year, and to make sure that there is more support for them through all of the various income support measures. The member on the other side of the House needs to remember it is her Government that’s caused this housing crisis; we’re fixing it.

Nicola Willis: Well, does she recall the warning that the Government received from its own housing officials in this Cabinet paper [holds up document], in which they explicitly advised the Government not to remove tax deductions for landlords, saying, “It is likely to result in increases in rent.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, we received a range of advice from officials about what to do for housing. We could have sat and done nothing, like the previous Government did, or we could have done what we’ve done and made sure that we even up the playing field whilst continuing to support renters.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does she recall that Cabinet, on reading that advice, sought to put in place mitigations to alleviate the rental increase impacts, like allowing interest deductibility on new-build rental properties for 20 years to continue?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes. And in fact, the Government has made sure that not only are we dealing with short-term issues, but the long-term supply of housing is now being addressed through a record number of consents and incentives to build properties that can be rented.

Nicola Willis: Well, does the Prime Minister recall the warning in the same Cabinet paper that by going ahead with tax changes, even with those measures in place mentioned by the Minister of Housing, “There is still a risk to tenants, as some landlords, particularly those that are highly leveraged, may still increase rents or divest properties, displacing tenants.”; and what does she say to the New Zealanders who are now bearing those consequences in the form of higher rents, and a loss of secure housing?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I say to them is what I’ve said to the member in my earlier answers to this question: this Government has a plan for housing that is seeing a record number of houses being built; we are looking after renters and low-income New Zealanders in a way that the previous Government did not. On this side of the House, we recognise that there has been a housing crisis. We have solutions for it.

Question No. 4—Education

4. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What new action is the Government taking to support schools to provide learning environments for their students that are warm, dry, and fit for purpose?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): More good news. Today, I announced a $20 million funding injection to ensure the quick delivery of vital school projects in Auckland. At Auckland Normal Intermediate school and Onehunga High School we’re relocating classrooms and improving ground conditions. At Sir Edmund Hillary Collegiate we’re addressing all of its weather tightness issues, and at Mt Roskill Grammar the school’s significant weather tightness remediation project will now also include the rebuild of the school’s music block. These projects are part of a $150 million commitment made in Budget 2021 to support shovel-ready school property projects at schools all over the country.

Marja Lubeck: Which other schools will benefit from this investment?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In addition to the four schools I’ve mentioned, six other Auckland schools are benefiting from this investment, including Caldwell School, Somerville Intermediate School, Chelsea School, James Cook High School, Kauri Flats School, and Parakai School.

Marja Lubeck: Why is the Government making this investment at this time?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: These are projects that are ready to enter the construction market, but they needed an extra push so that we can get delivery under way in a challenging market. This extra funding won’t just ensure that these projects can happen faster, but in some cases it will also mean that we can do more. For example, at Caldwell School, in addition to the work that was already proposed, we’re also going to be replacing the caretakers’ and storage block. We’re committed to creating jobs and building better infrastructure, which will help to set the country up for the longer term. Our investment in schools is yet another way the Government’s making progress to make sure that New Zealand is the best place in the world to be a child.

Question No. 5—Finance

5. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions on inflation?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Hon Simon Bridges: How could he tell me yesterday that wages are rising faster than inflation when, on top of New Zealand statistics of inflation of 5.9 percent and wage growth of only 2.6 percent in 2021, economist Tony Alexander’s Spending Plans Survey just out shows “a collapse in people’s willingness to spend” across a range of areas, such as eating out, domestic travel, and clothing and footwear, which he says is due to a combination of Omicron, the high increase in our cost of living, and rising interest rates having sent us “deep into our shells.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I haven’t seen Mr Alexander’s report. However, I do note the first of the things he mentions there is Omicron; we are in a global environment in which inflationary pressures are common around the world.

Hon Simon Bridges: What, then, does he say to the ANZ Truckometer just released yesterday, which shows heavy traffic down this year, so that ANZ, just like Tony Alexander, expects “a slower pace of growth as consumers battle higher interest rates and a sharply higher cost of living”—why doesn’t he just acknowledge these factors?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have been acknowledging those factors. Everyone in this House knows that it is challenging for New Zealanders when there is an increase in cost of living. What the member was wanting to do is make the Government responsible for things that are happening in other parts of the world, where there are delays in shipping or where there are issues caused by supply chains. All of those things are things that the Government is well aware of, and we work to support New Zealanders through that. The member, however, cannot make the Government responsible for those things.

Hon Simon Bridges: Not all of it but a lot of it. How could he tell me, yesterday, “that broad-based fiscal stimulus will not now take place” when, in his Budget Policy Statement out at the end of last year, he makes it clear there will be $6 billion in new spend-up in Budget 2022, the highest new permanent spending in our country’s history?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This is where the member goes wrong, because a big chunk of that is making sure that we reform the health system so it delivers to New Zealanders the kind of health outcomes that they want. Clearly the National Party don’t think New Zealanders deserve better health outcomes, and again, Mr Bridges has a problem, which is he seems to believe that if we cut that health spending, it will somehow or other lower the cost of petrol. He just doesn’t get it.

Hon Simon Bridges: How is $6 billion in new spend in Budget 2022 even remotely consistent with the OECD and most commercial bank economists’ call to rein in spending now to avoid fuelling higher inflation and interest rates?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I repeat for the member: making sure that we invest in the long-term future of New Zealand’s healthcare system, making sure that we provide the public services that New Zealanders need is exactly what we should be doing in the Budget. And Mr Bridges and his colleagues have to explain what gets cut—because something gets cut, doesn’t it? And maybe it’s health spending, or maybe it’s spending on housing, but Mr Bridges can’t have it both ways.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why won’t he just take responsibility for the fact that his spending has and will cause New Zealanders to face one of the highest rates of inflation in the OECD as well as rapidly rising interest rates?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because the causes of inflation are largely driven by global issues, and Mr Bridges needs to explain to New Zealanders what things he would cut from the health budget, from the education budget, from the housing budget in order to do what he needs to do. On this side of the House, we will continue to take the balanced and careful approach to budgeting that is seeing New Zealanders get through COVID-19.

Question No. 6—Social Development and Employment

6. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent reports has she seen on main benefits?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The benefit statistics for the December quarter were recently released. The quarterly release shows a year-on-year fall of around 21,300 people receiving a main benefit in the December 2021 quarter. The number of working-age people receiving a main benefit, as at the end of December 2021, was 5.5 percent lower when compared to the December 2020 quarter. Benefit numbers as a proportion of the working-age population decreased to 11.7 percent, from 12.4 percent as at the end of December 2020. And the number of working-age people on jobseeker support decreased by 11.5 percent when compared to the December 2020 quarter. The 2021 December quarter was the highest number of exits into work for a December quarter since electronic records began in 1996.

Shanan Halbert: What investments has the Government made to support people into work?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Over numerous Budgets, we’ve invested heavily in work-focused front-line case management. The specific actions we’ve taken include 263 new front-line staff in Budget 2019 to help people into work; we invested $150 million in Budget 2020 to help people into work; we invested a further $99 million into work-focused case management in services in Budget 2021; and invested $86 million to sustain the additional front-line work-focused staff we employed through COVID-19. The quarterly benefit figures show that our Government’s investment is beginning to deliver results and meaningful outcomes.

Shanan Halbert: How many people moved off main benefits and into work in 2021 on Auckland’s North Shore?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The member for Northcote will be pleased to know that main benefit receipt fell by 10.2 percent in two North Shore local board areas, Kaipātiki and Devonport-Takupuna, in the year to 2021. This 10.2 percent fall for North Shore was stronger than the Auckland region as a whole, for which main benefit receipt fell by 5.9 percent. This is thanks to a strong local labour market, Government interventions and investments—and is a good sign of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the economy doing what it needed to do following the pandemic.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Has the Minister seen any reports on the harm that the over-200 warrant to arrest sanctions applied to families with children in 2021 may be having on these children; if not, how is she confident that this policy isn’t causing harm to children?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: That’s a little far removed from the primary question. However, what I will say is that we have seen a reduction in sanctions applied through the welfare system. I think, in fact, since 2017, 10,000 less sanctions applied, and that is due to more constructive conversations between Ministry of Social Development staff and clients, a less punitive approach, and an approach that is about working with MSD clients to ensure that they are able to reach their potential, get the access to skills and training that they need, and get into employment.

Shanan Halbert: What interventions have contributed to these results?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We know that COVID-19 has been tough on a number of people, which is why we continue to be focused on paving pathways and creating opportunities for people to move into work. He Poutama Rangatahi has supported 7,047 at-risk rangatahi to overcome barriers to employment, education, or training; Mana in Mahi have supported 4,446 people into placements since 2018; there’s been a total of 11,193 flexi-wage placements; and our Apprenticeship Boost scheme to help employers retain apprentices and encourage more people to take up apprenticeships has already benefited over 40,000 apprentices. There’s still a lot more work to be done, and we have yet to see the impact of Omicron on the employment market, but there is a lot to be reassured about in these latest figures.

Question No. 7—COVID-19 Response

7. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: How many forward orders of rapid antigen tests have been consolidated into the Government’s stock, and how many tests that have landed in New Zealand have been consolidated into the Government’s stock of rapid antigen tests?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): No forward orders of rapid antigen tests have been consolidated into the Government’s stock, nor have any rapid antigen tests already in New Zealand and intended for other parties been consolidated into the Government’s stock. That’s been confirmed by our three primary suppliers of rapid antigen tests themselves, including Siemens, who confirmed to the ministry on 26 January 2022 that they were not reallocating any stock from other orders in order to fulfil the ministry’s order. Roche advised the ministry on or around 27 January that its orders had not been fulfilled at the expense of other industry orders. Finally, Abbott confirmed on Friday, 28 January that no yet-to-be-fulfilled orders by private sector entities were placed prior to those placed by the Ministry of Health.

Chris Bishop: Why did Dr Ashley Bloomfield tell a press conference that forward orders of rapid antigen tests had been, in his words, consolidated into the Government’s stock, which is the primary question authentication?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: My understanding from the conversation that I have had with Dr Bloomfield was that he was referring to the consolidation of the Government’s orders.

Chris Bishop: Is he aware of multiple instances of private companies who do not have rapid antigen tests that they ordered, after being told by their suppliers that the reason they can’t have those orders fulfilled is because the Government has requisitioned stock meant for them?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m aware of one example just this afternoon where there was an email from one of those companies that was sent to another company making that claim. That email was provided to a journalist who contacted that company directly and was told that that email had been sent in error and it was incorrect.

Chris Bishop: Have all companies that ordered rapid antigen tests that were due for delivery by now received those rapid tests?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I have no ministerial responsibility for that whatsoever. What I would say is that there is a lot of demand for rapid antigen tests. The companies concerned have all stated that they are fulfilling the orders in the order in which they received them, and the Government’s orders—in the case of the three companies that I just mentioned—arrived first. The member can continue to attack the integrity of those businesses, but I accept them at their word.

Chris Bishop: When will rapid antigen tests be available for sale in pharmacies and supermarkets for people who are keen to get tested?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Our priority at the moment is to make sure that those who most need access to the tests can get them. The member himself has just indicated that many of the businesses who are seeking to order those tests haven’t been able to get hold of them. It’s therefore the Government’s role in that situation to make sure that the tests that we have been able to secure are supplied to those who are most in need.

Question No. 8—Digital Economy and Communications

8. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications: What recent announcements has he made regarding Māori participation in the telecommunications sector?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister for the Digital Economy and Communications): At the end of last week, I had the immense privilege of leading a Crown contingent that signed an historic enduring agreement, recognising the critical role Māori can bring to the telecommunications sector. The agreement, designed in partnership with Māori Spectrum Working Group, includes the establishment of a Māori Spectrum entity to ensure Māori have a seat at the table for ongoing spectrum policy and allocation.

Arena Williams: How will this agreement support Māori aspirations in the telecommunications sector?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This agreement provides the ongoing allocation of 20 percent of future national commercial spectrum to the Māori Spectrum entity, as well as substantial funding to ensure the longevity and success of their mahi. In the words of Māori Spectrum Working Group convenor, Piripi Walker, this agreement gives Māori access to training, skills, and jobs, and it will drive much-needed innovation in the digital sector. These are exciting times for Aotearoa.

Arena Williams: How long has it taken to reach an enduring agreement with Māori on Radio Spectrum?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We’ve worked with Māori to break through decades of stalemate, ushering in a new era for not only the telecommunications sector but for Māori-Crown relations. This kaupapa generates the building blocks for the future and it would be remiss of me not to mention the Hon Willie Jackson, the Hon Kelvin Davis, and the Hon Grant Robertson, who have been staunch Government advocates for getting this agreement across the line.

Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment

9. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many more people were in receipt of a main benefit in the December 2021 quarter compared to the September 2017 quarter, as measured by the Ministry of Social Development’s quarterly benefit data releases?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The difference between December quarter 2021 and the September 2017 quarter was 90,952. However, the member will know that it’s better to compare the same quarters and that in the December quarter there is often a seasonal spike, largely due to students leaving study. When you compare December quarters for the same period, the difference is 78,384. The member will also know that at the beginning of the pandemic, Treasury forecast benefit numbers would peak at 487,500 in January 2021. Due to the Government’s quick actions to support businesses, through the wage subsidy and our investment in employment supports, the highest number of people receiving a main benefit was actually 391,227 in January 2021, 96,273 less people than forecast.

Hon Louise Upston: Why are almost 90,000 more people dependent on welfare today than when Labour took office four years ago?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I think it is fair to say that the pandemic has had a major impact on the numbers of people that have come on to benefit. It’s not the sole reason, though. As I’ve said in the House before, we do need to look at other figures rather than just the raw benefit numbers. If we look at the percentage of working-age population on benefit in December 2021, that was 11.7 percent. If we think about after the global financial crisis in December 2010, that was 13.1 percent.

Hon Louise Upston: Why are there 66,000 more Kiwis on the jobseeker benefit than four years ago, while at the same time Labour is bragging about low unemployment?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We’re not bragging. The reality is that the household labour force survey was recently released and it showed that our unemployment rate in New Zealand is 3.2 percent. That is one of the best unemployment rates currently in the OECD. We have also said in this House that there isn’t always a direct alignment between the unemployment figure and actual benefit numbers. However, what is really clear is that Treasury had forecast a much darker predicament with respect to benefit numbers. We continue to invest in employment and upskilling and training, because this Government is committed to keeping New Zealanders in work.

Hon Louise Upston: Why are businesses crying out for staff when there are now 116,000 people who have been on the dole for more than a year?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: One of the areas that was under-invested in when we first took office was actually upskilling and training for New Zealanders. So quite often where there is a gap with regards to the workers being able to step into roles, it’s because they don’t necessarily have the skills to be able to take up the jobs that are available. This Government, since we came into office, has been absolutely focused on investing in that space; that’s why we see that over 40,000 people have now taken up Apprenticeship Boost places. The numbers of people that have gone into Mana in Mahi, the numbers of people who have gone into He Poutama Rangatahi—it’s an investment that we wish had been done by the previous Government for the nine years that they were in, but we are focused on making sure that we do our bit.

Hon Louise Upston: Why are there now more people on benefit for longer when unemployment is only 3.2 percent?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: If we look at some of the figures—for instance, the numbers around those that have been on benefit between three to six months or six months to a year—we’ve actually been doing a relatively good job at turning around things so that people are supported into employment immediately. There are some people that have been on benefit for a longer period of time and National experienced the same thing. Our way of addressing it isn’t punitive; it is to try and invest in those areas where we can support them to get the skills and training that they need to be able to take up employment.

Question No. 10—Housing (Public Housing)

10. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing): Does she stand by her statement that “We will continue to keep a close eye on rent prices and will take further action if necessary”; if so, what specific further actions are being considered?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Yes. The Government has taken a number of actions to date. We have limited rent increases to once a year, banned rental bidding, and banned letting fees. This is in addition to our work to increase overall supply, including looking at how we can specifically increase the number of purpose-built rentals. While there’s no silver bullet to addressing the issue, there is more that we can do and that’s why we’re looking at what additional measures we can use to support our renters. While I cannot pre-empt any upcoming policy decisions, this Government is committed to providing more support for renters.

Chlöe Swarbrick: What does her officials’ advice say about how long those Government interventions just noted will take to start to have an effect on rental costs?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: While we haven’t analysed that impact as yet, what I can say is that we are looking at a range of measures. The officials will come back with a suite of measures for us to consider, to do what we can. We know it’s tough for renters, and we’re committed to doing the work to support them.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does she consider that a median nationwide rent of $525 per week is affordable for households on low or middle incomes?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: We know it’s tough. We know rents have risen. We know that people are doing it tough out there. That’s why as a Government we’re committed to looking at a range of measures to put in place to support our renters, but it’s not just about what measures we can do in terms of rent; it’s also about supply and I commend the work that Minister Woods has been doing to increase the supply, which has demonstrated the impact that that can have on rental prices.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Did the Government consider detailed advice on potential models to stabilise and reduce rental costs between her statements on 3 February and the Prime Minister’s statement on 8 February ruling out rent controls?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: There is evidence to suggest that rent controls aren’t an effective way to deal with renters’ issues long term. So the Prime Minister and I agree. This Government is committed to dealing with this issue. It’s tough on our renters and we are going to do something about it.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Will the Government at least consider freezing rents again, as they did in 2020, as the only immediate, urgent tool to provide relief to renters as part of an equitable response to COVID-19?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: While it was necessary to do that at a time of pandemic, to ensure that we didn’t throw people out of their homes when we were asking them to lock down, the Government’s made multiple changes to improve the security and rights of renters, including limiting rent increases to once a year. These measures were not in place during the last lockdown, but came into effect on 12 August 2020. The Tenancy Tribunal continued to operate during this time, in which time the tenants could seek rental reductions if they believed their rents were too high.

Question No. 11—Health

11. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made about contact tracing?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Contact tracing continues to be one of the key parts of our COVID response. It has served New Zealand well through the pandemic. The good work of our contact tracers is undoubtedly one of the reasons that the current Omicron outbreak has yet to see the rapid growth seen overseas. That’s given hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders the opportunities to get boosted. But we do expect case numbers to continue to grow to levels that we have not experienced in New Zealand previously. That’s why today, alongside the COVID-19 response Minister, I announced details of the close contact exemption scheme. The scheme is designed to keep critical supply chains operating by allowing some vaccinated close contacts to keep working if they return a negative rapid antigen test.

Dr Tracey McLellan: What kind of businesses will be eligible to participate in this scheme?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: From today, businesses and organisations can register online as a critical service if they think they will meet the criteria when we enter phase 2 of our Omicron response. Critical services include food production and its supply chain, key public services like health and emergency services, lifeline utilities such as power and water supplies, transport, critical financial services, news media, and social welfare. It also includes human and animal health and welfare. Businesses will self-assess to take part in the scheme and will need to declare that they meet the relevant criteria. In doing so, there needs to be an awareness that bringing close contacts into the workplace will come with risks, as rapid antigen testing sensitivity can range from 80 to 95 percent accurate, meaning it can miss some cases.

Dr Tracey McLellan: What will workers covered by the scheme need to do to allow them to continue to work?

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Businesses that decide to register will be issued with a letter that confirms they have workers eligible for the close contact exemption scheme. When an eligible worker is confirmed as a contact of a COVID-19 case, this will allow them to either use rapid antigen tests supplied by their employer or pick up free tests from a collection site. Workers will get enough testing kits to cover the period that they would have been isolating for and will be expected to remain in isolation outside of work hours. If one of their daily rapid tests returns a positive result, they would be required to isolate and take a PCR test. This scheme strikes a balance between continuing to keep people safe but also keeping businesses and services operating as smoothly as possible.

Question No. 12—Police

12. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Does she agree with the Police Commissioner’s statement, “No retail worker or customer should experience fear or trauma when going about their day-to-day activities”; if so, is she satisfied with the level of crime at retail premises?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Firstly, can I ask all members of this House to congratulate our fantastic police on the magnificent efforts they have done over the last three days to keep us safe. In response to Mr Mitchell’s question, yes, I also agree with Commissioner Coster’s statement that we have heard Retail NZ’s concerns and see this as a real opportunity to work in partnership to address them. That is why New Zealand Police has announced the establishment of a National Retail Investigation Support Unit. The establishment of this new unit is in direct response to the concerns raised by retailers regarding the level of crime that they have been seeing. I’m satisfied that this initiative is a clear solution that will complement other front-line responses and prevention initiatives Police already provide. This initiative will complement the additional number of police we have on the beat, which has grown by 15 percent under this Government.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What is her response to figures released today under the Official Information Act to the Dairy and Business Owners Group that show that retail crime and theft has increased by 25.7 percent and 32.3 respectively since Labour came into office?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: That is precisely why the commissioner has put in place the National Retail Investigation Support Unit. It’s true that we have seen a rise in retail crime, and that’s exactly why we’ve launched the unit—to address the issue. We’ve also rolled out nearly 1,000 fog cannons in small businesses and put more police on the beat to prevent crime before it happens.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What is her response to comments from retailers who are saying that the situation is getting worse because police are so stretched that they’re unable to attend incidents?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I refute part of that question, because we have done a fantastic job on this side of the House to support and resource police. Let’s not forget that we’ve increased police by 15 percent under this Government. Let’s compare that to National’s record. Now, under National, police numbers fell. We are committed to putting more people on the beat, to work directly with our retailers to ensure that they deal with crime.

Hon Mark Mitchell: How does she explain a significant increase in retail crime, but a reduction of over 60 percent in arrests made since Labour came into office?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I can say is that the commissioner has launched a retail investigation unit to make sure that we deal with this issue. I find it absolutely astonishing that that National Party can be lecturing us on the work that we are doing to support the police. Let’s not forget the stat—the fun fact—that under National, they had an attrition rate of police of 5.3 percent—police numbers fell. The way to deal with crime is to have cops on the beat—15 percent more under us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. That came nowhere close to giving a straight answer to what was a very clear and succinct question: how does she explain a significant increase in retail crime, but a reduction of over 60 percent in arrests made?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe she addressed the question. That concludes oral—

Hon Simon Bridges: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I mean, I thought it was unbecoming. She gave us a “fun fact” rather than answer the question. Well, did you hear—it was a fun fact. She didn’t even try and answer the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, well, members can have their own opinions about the responses, but—[Interruption] We’ll move on to the next order of business.

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate resumed from 9 February.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): As we enter the third year of the global pandemic, I do want to take a moment to put some significant numbers in front of the House: 5,764,503—that’s the number of people on record, as of today, who have died around the world from COVID-19. Four hundred million people have been infected by the virus. And for those who think that the pandemic is over or that it’s coming to an end, here’s some other numbers that should be sobering: 23,765—that’s the number of people who died from COVID-19 on Saturday. The average number of people who are dying every day at the moment around the world stands at over 10,000 a day. We might feel like we’re over the global pandemic but the global pandemic is not yet over.

Simon Court: Well, it is in Australia.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: More people are dying of COVID-19 in Australia than were on the parliamentary forecourt. Each week, more people die in Australia of COVID-19 than have been standing on the parliamentary forecourt this week, and the ACT Party thinks that it’s over in Australia. The seven-day average of people dying in Australia is 57 people per day—dying in Australia. And they think it’s over in Australia! Well, it’s not for those 57 people a day and the people who care about them. In New South Wales today, 1,795 people are in hospital; 121 people are in the intensive care unit. Across Australia, 3,801 people are in a hospital, and 721 people are in Australia. The pandemic is not over.

Our Government will continue with a carefully balanced plan for dealing with COVID-19. We want to keep New Zealand moving forward whilst also protecting people as much as we are able to. We are entering into a new phase of our COVID-19 response, one where the response will be a more devolved response, but people will be needing to take more individual responsibility for keeping themselves safe from COVID-19. Businesses will be making more decisions at a local level about how they continue to operate as we see an increase in the number of cases.

The best thing that New Zealanders can do in this environment, to adapt with these changing circumstances and to keep themselves and their families as safe as possible, is to get themselves boosted. Accept the offer of booster vaccinations—most New Zealanders can get them now. I encourage all parents with children between the ages of five and 11 to take up the ability to get their children vaccinated. We can protect each other if we stay home when we are sick. Please don’t soldier on. It is one of those things about the Kiwi culture, that when we get sick—we get a cold; we get the flu—we have a culture of soldiering on and working through it. Please don’t. Go home and stay at home until you are feeling better. Wear a mask and stop the spread of COVID-19. The public health measures that we have in place are designed to give the virus nowhere to go, and the fact that we continue to have the lowest case rate in the OECD, the lowest number of deaths in the OECD, shows that the public health measures that we have in place are working.

In our economy, our position as a Government has been, from the beginning of this pandemic, that the best public health response is also the best economic response. Let’s look at the evidence of that. Despite the fact that there has been significant economic disruption as a result of COVID-19, we have the lowest unemployment rate on record. We have done well at keeping New Zealanders in work. Our GDP growth, if we look at the annual rate to September, before we had the Delta outbreak, was 4.9 percent. The annualised rate of growth in New Zealand before the Delta outbreak was 4.9 percent. It’s interesting to note that the highest it ever reached under the last National Government was 4.1 percent. So, despite a global pandemic, we have kept the economy moving and we have kept the economy growing. You have to go back to the early 2000s to see a rate of economic growth that is higher than that. I note the new Leader of the Opposition was saying that the best thing that we can do for the economy is to have a growing economy. Well, the facts on record will show, if you want the economy to grow, you’re more likely to get higher economic growth under a Labour Government than under a National Government, and the statistics over time prove that out time and time again. So, if Kiwis are looking for a growing economy, they’re more likely to get it under a Labour Government than under a National one.

For those New Zealanders at home, though, who are watching the new Leader of the Opposition and thinking, “Gosh, I’ve heard some of this before.”, they’re right, because it wasn’t that long ago that we had the National Party promising to tackle the cost of living, to close the wage gap with Australia, to tackle the underclass—remember the talks about that?—and to lift productivity and be aspirational for New Zealand. Well, how did all of that turn out in the nine years that followed, when they were in Government? What did we see? Well, their biggest answer, it appears, to the rising cost of living was to increase GST and increase the cost of everything. We had a flag referendum in a housing crisis!

And let’s talk about the housing crisis for a moment, because it’s important to think about the historic trends that have contributed to the housing situation that we have at the moment. It took New Zealand just over half the time to grow from a population of 4 million to a population of 5 million as it did to grow from a population of 3 million to a population of 4 million. And the majority of that growth happened during the tenure of the last Government, the last National Government. Did they build the houses to cope with that? Did they build the infrastructure to cope with that? No, they didn’t. What we saw was this optimistic complacency under the Key Government where things were going to get better as long as the Government did nothing about them, and it was proven to be a failed strategy. So, instead, we saw a running down of our health and our education systems, and we saw the emergence of a housing crisis.

We can do better, and New Zealanders know that we can do better. The Government is committed to a recovery for all New Zealanders, one that helps us to rebuild our essential public services like our health system; like our education system; like Oranga Tamariki, who deal with the most vulnerable children; like the Ministry of Social Development, making sure that they have the people that they need to do their jobs effectively; and what are we hearing from members on the other side? That they would go back and cut all of those things. When they talk about more bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education, which they were doing just as recently as this morning, they are fundamentally wrong. The biggest increase in staff employed by the Ministry of Education are front-line teachers. They are teachers who work with children. These are the people whom the members opposite—and the leader of the ACT Party in particular, who I saw on Breakfast TV this morning—are calling bureaucrats and officers. They’re not. The teachers employed by the Ministry of Education are working with the kids who need the support the most. They are the ones that are on the front lines doing the work to deal with the children in our education system who need that extra support in order to be able to achieve. And they are the people that the National and ACT Opposition are proposing to cut from their jobs.

So I want to end today with some words of thanks, and I start, first and foremost, with our health workers, knowing how much they have done to serve New Zealand so honourably over the last two years and knowing that there are still some big challenges ahead for those who work in our health system. We thank them for what they’ve done, and we thank them in advance for what they are going to do.

I want to thank our teachers and our education workforce for keeping young people learning in some of the most challenging circumstances our education system has experienced in generations. And I want to acknowledge all of those who have sat in their living rooms whilst they have been isolating at home and have supported children to continue their learning. I say thank you to them.

I thank in particular our border and our managed isolation and quarantine workforce, who, for the last two years, have selflessly put themselves on the front line of our COVID-19 response, who often found themselves the subject of a lot of unnecessary abuse. They have done that with great dedication, and we thank them.

I want to join with the Minister of Police in thanking our police officers for the work that they have done during COVID and the work that they are continuing to do to keep the entire New Zealand community safe.

I want to finish with my last words of thanks to the 1 million in our team of 6 million New Zealanders, who aren’t actually currently in the country, and recognise that the border restrictions that have been in place out of necessity have had very real consequences for a lot of Kiwis and for a lot of Kiwi families, and we look forward to being able to welcome them home very soon. The border restrictions have contributed to us having the lowest COVID-19 death rate and case rate in the OECD—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —and we acknowledge those who have sacrificed for that.

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): This Labour Government is failing an entire generation of young New Zealanders, a generation who were promised so much by Prime Minister Ardern and who have been failed so badly—a generation of young New Zealanders who have now given up hope of buying the home Labour promised them; who are now paying more for their rent than ever in New Zealand’s history; who watched that rent go up on average $50 a week in the past year alone. They are a generation of young New Zealanders who are facing a growing cost of living that hits them in the pocket every time they go to fill up at the pump, every time they go to put groceries in their supermarket trolley.

This Government is failing a generation of young New Zealanders, whose wages are not keeping up with those increasing costs; who have less money in their bank accounts now than they did last year; and who have given up on the hope of being able to save the deposit to buy a home. This Government has failed a generation of young New Zealanders, who, under this Government, can’t see how it’s going to get better; who have watched their friends in London, in Sydney, in Melbourne who wanted to come home for a family funeral, to see their friends, denied that opportunity—a generation of young New Zealanders who look overseas and see young people like them getting ahead, earning more, and getting better jobs. I don’t want the future for young New Zealanders to be that they look overseas to see where success is. I want them to see success here in New Zealand. But this Labour Government just can’t deliver.

Here we have a Prime Minister who got up, in the Speech from the Throne, and promised that this would be the Government that would solve the housing crisis. That’s what Labour campaigned on in 2017. They said—and there he is right now: Phil Twyford, the man who promised the 100,000 KiwiBuild homes. Well, how’s that going, Mr Twyford? Last time I checked, you’d only built just over a thousand KiwiBuild homes. So, for the hundreds of thousands of young New Zealanders out there who had the good faith to believe you, to believe the Prime Minister, to believe Labour when they said, “We’re serious about housing. There’ll be 100,000 homes.”, well, they now know that was wrong, that was misleading, that was a broken promise.

This is the same Government that said they’d make life better for renters. Well, how’s that going? Tell the renters of New Zealand that when they have experienced under this Government, on average, a weekly increase in their rent of $140. The members opposite are looking at me and nodding their heads—no?—because they’re getting the emails from their constituents, saying, “I thought you said you were going to make it easier for me, but you have made it so much harder.” I want to remind the members opposite because I’m not sure that Grant Robertson and Jacinda Ardern are being completely honest with these backbenchers. Under National, rents didn’t increase like that, my friends. Under National, the increases were far, far lower, because we took a careful, prudent approach before adding costs.

This is a Government that, in their first Speech from the Throne, said, “We will introduce a rent-to-own scheme.”, and renters in New Zealand pricked up their ears and thought, “Great. I’m going to have the chance to pay rent and get myself my own home.” And how did that go? How’s that going for Labour? Well, 54 people got into a home through their rent-to-buy scheme—54 families. You would have more chance in this country of winning the lottery than getting a house through Labour’s rent-to-own scheme!

Then Labour said, “We’ll be putting homes within reach of all first-home buyers.” What’s happened since then? Under National, the ratio of house prices to incomes was 1:6. So what’s it now under Labour—because they were going to make it more affordable. Is it 1:5? Is it 1:4? Is it 1:3? No. It is 1:9. It is demonstrably, statistically, by every measure, harder to buy a home in this country under Labour than it was under National, and young New Zealanders know it. They feel betrayed, they feel let down, and every member opposite is responsible for that, because they promised KiwiBuild when what Bill English was saying, what National was saying, was, “Do you know what you have to do? You have to increase the supply of houses, and, actually, the best way to do that would be to reform the Resource Management Act so that we get rid of the barriers.”

So what did Labour do last year? Well, after four years of mucking around with policies that didn’t work, they came to National and they said, “Hey, could we steal your homework? Actually, it turns out you were right all along.” And they did the one really good thing they’ve done for housing, which is, with us, introduce a bipartisan housing supply bill. Well, it shouldn’t have taken four years, Labour. That’s too little too late.

Then, what did they promise to vulnerable New Zealanders? They said, “We’re going to reduce homelessness.” So how’s that going, Labour? Why is it today that there are four times as many New Zealanders in such housing deprivation and at so much risk that they’re on the State house waiting list? That is 25,000 New Zealanders who used to be able to afford a home in the private rental market but are now squeezed out, pushed out, on the State house waiting list. And how long do people on the State house waiting list wait for a home under Labour?

Chris Bishop: How long?

NICOLA WILLIS: They wait for more than six months. And how long did they wait under National? Fewer than two months. So are things better or worse for people in need of State housing under Labour? The numbers don’t lie.

How are we going with the motels? I remember, and Phil Twyford will remember—he got up in Parliament and said, “It is outrageous, it’s appalling, that we’re spending $79,000 a day on motel bills for people without a home.” Well, what’s that bill today? Is it $100,000? Is it $120,000?

Chris Bishop: What is it?

NICOLA WILLIS: It is $1.2 million. And, if anyone wants to tell me that that is the best way to solve the housing crisis, spending $1.2 million a day paying the bill for motel rooms, then there is something very wrong in this country, and I will tell you who it is most wrong for. It is wrong for the 4,000 children who are now being raised by their families in a motel room, living week to week with gang members next door, drug dealers on the other side, seeing violence, intimidation, and threatening behaviour, and it’s happening on this Government’s watch—the same Government that said they would make things better. The truth is that what they’ve actually done is they’ve made things worse.

Last year, it got politically uncomfortable for them, didn’t it? Everyone was saying, “I’ve given up hope in New Zealand of buying a home. What’s the point of working hard under a Labour Government when I can’t even buy a home?” So the Government said, “Look, don’t worry. We’ve found someone new to blame. We’ll blame speculators.” Actually, it’s the fault of awful, awful landlords providing a housing service! So the Government said, “We’ve got this really clever plan: we’ll throw some extra taxes on them, remove their interest deductibility, and extend the brightline test, and then, by doing this crushing, punitive stuff and being big tough guys, it will all get better.” Well, what has happened since then?

Hon Mark Mitchell: What’s happened?

NICOLA WILLIS: Since then, Mark Mitchell, housing prices in New Zealand have increased an additional $160,000. So the big talk that this was going to put pressure on house prices—that didn’t work.

But can I tell you what else happened—and Labour were warned about this; there’s a pile of Cabinet papers this high, warning them. They were warned that this would make it harder for renters, particularly vulnerable, low-income renters. And so it has proved. We have seen the biggest annual rent rises in New Zealand’s history. We have seen more vulnerable New Zealanders turfed out of their homes because they can’t afford the rent anymore and there aren’t enough rentals on offer. The thing that makes me sick about that is Labour were warned and they were told, and they went ahead anyway because they thought they could pull the wool over New Zealanders’ eyes and say, “Don’t blame the Government. Blame the landlords.” Well, the landlords were never to blame.

So this is a Government that has promised so much to New Zealanders, and I would say to every young New Zealander in this country: never forget that that Prime Minister was prepared to stand up in an election campaign and promise that she would solve the housing crisis and get you an affordable home when she had no real plan to deliver that. And the result of that—

Dr Duncan Webb: What’s your plan?

NICOLA WILLIS: Her plan was called KiwiBuild, Duncan Webb, and you campaigned on it too, and it was an utter shambles and disaster, and the consequence now is that things are worse than ever. It’s time for a National-led Government to put action into this issue and actually resolve it with substantive policy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired. I understand this is a split call. I call the Hon Phil Twyford.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and speak in the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement.

There isn’t a country in the world that hasn’t been tested by the pandemic, and we’ve faced very difficult decisions on a daily basis with no playbook, but as a country we have done well, and that is a fact: the lowest mortality rates in the OECD year on year since the pandemic started. The Australian thinktank the Lowy Institute recently rated New Zealand as No. 1 for its COVID response. How often do the Australians throw us a bone, eh? Unemployment at 3.2 percent and impressive wage growth. The Prime Minister has delivered a masterclass in leadership: compassionate, clear, putting people first, and always with science and good policy front and centre.

Now, we haven’t got every decision right and, of course, there will always be things that could be done better. But to get the big calls right in responding to a global pandemic, an event that the world hasn’t seen for a century, is surely an impressive effort. And I reckon that the proof lies in the collective wisdom of the public, who we’ve been able to take along with us as each tough decision is made, and whose effort and sacrifice has been absolutely essential in keeping us all safe.

I want to acknowledge, in particular, the efforts in my own electorate in West Auckland: the Waitematā DHB has 95 percent fully vaccinated, including 93 percent of our Pasifika population and 88 percent of Māori—it’s a brilliant effort. I want to give a shout-out to two outstanding organisations who work on the ground in West Auckland, getting vaccinations up, working with their people—it’s been nothing short of outstanding—and I’m talking about Te Whānau o Waipareira and The Fono. They’ve really done the hard yards, they’ve been tireless and innovative, and they’ve got results.

In the middle of COVID, Labour has been getting on with nation building: a massive reform agenda that includes the redesign of the planning system; building the low-carbon economy; futureproofing the public health system—thank you, Andrew Little; a massive reform agenda in housing; the immigration rebalance; three waters; rapid transit in Auckland; the revamp of vocational training; fair-pay agreements to tackle the scourge of low pay; and, now, Grant Robertson’s social unemployment insurance scheme.

This is what the public elect Labour Governments to do. We are the party that New Zealand looks to in times of change and challenge. It’s not always popular, and sometimes it will be decades before the full benefits are felt, but there are too many times in this country when we lament the inaction of previous Governments, where short-term political expediency has taken precedence over what’s right for our country. And that makes it all the more amazing that National is still happy to be known as the party of the status quo, interested only in the exercise of power.

The Prime Minister mentioned in her contribution, in this debate, the free-trade agreement with the United Kingdom—and Damien O’Connor has worked tirelessly to nail this down—and I’m sure we’ll see more progress in this area as the Prime Minister leads trade delegations overseas this year. I’m looking forward to contributing in the trade area, in my responsibilities in relation to PACER Plus—the trade and development agreement that brings together 10 of our Pacific partners—and we are looking forward to a big year of progress on that.

Labour embraces change and challenge. We always look for opportunity and progress for New Zealand. In contrast, the National Party has in record time set the bar so low for itself that another leadership change has given rise to the mistaken idea of some kind of renaissance on the Opposition benches. It is the party of false dawns; we’ve seen it five times in the last four years, and I’m sure we will see it again. It epitomises National, a party that never saw an opportunity that they didn’t want to pass up. They couldn’t be a Government for this country at this time if they tried, but, thankfully, Labour is.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): When I listened to the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday, I was encouraged. We’ve heard a lot about the ambitious plans, and there are many of them with this Government. This Government, despite all of the challenges of the last couple of years, has plans. It has ambitious plans for our nation, to protect us and keep us moving forward. Not only am I encouraged but I am really confident, because I know from the last couple of years that we are able to plan, look at the evidence, take action, and we can deliver.

So that confidence partly comes from looking at how we have responded and what we did to be in such a strong position with regards to not just COVID but our economy and what our communities have done over the last couple of years. To be honest, less than a year ago, as we were rolling out vaccinations, Taranaki was described as being a little slow out of the blocks, and we really had to think hard about how to make sure that we looked after our communities, and so what did we do? The leadership across our community rose to the challenge. They collaborated—the DHB, our primary health providers, iwi, our Māori Women’s Welfare League, NGOs, good old rural support, local government, and a ton of volunteers came together and built a response. We were nimble and effective, and we got a vaccination programme that has helped us catch up, and we’ve made it across the finish line and we’re doing well. They made sure that every person could find a trusted face and a trusted place, whether it was Tui Ora down at our local Whakaahurangi Marae, iwi, the local rugby club rooms, our schools—I don’t know how many times I was in a supermarket car park having to walk around flags—pharmacies, doctors surgeries.

The outreach was effective. Every arm counts, and it felt that way, whether it was the Taranaki basketball team turning up to make sure our young people felt like they were in a trusted place, whether it was rural support who worked for the DHB to go up the driveways of our most vulnerable and isolated rural community members. Every arm counts not just for vaccinations but for providing a safe place where those in our community who were feeling really vulnerable and had really valid questions could take the time and were given the respect to have them answered by professionals. They felt safe and they got vaccinated. Hayden Wano, CEO of one of our local Māori health providers, Tui Ora, recently described that team as being “match fit”. That collaboration, that maturing of relationships, was one of the wonderful things that has come out of what has been a terrible couple of years.

So we’re “match fit” not just to deliver boosters and support the vaccination of our children but as we progress the building of our unified national health service, as we roll out our influenza programme this year, as we go to pass the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. We have the mature relationships to co-construct with the health workforce, with iwi, with our NGOs who are on the ground and working with our communities—again, like I say, like rural support—with patients and with communities. We know that as a nation, when we collaborate, when we work together, when we look at the evidence, and when we have all the different worldviews in the room, we can realise our ambitious plans, and we can keep this nation moving forward.

I’m excited that we have learnt so much from the last couple of years that have been so hard on so many of us and that we are going to be stronger and we’re going to be able to face the challenges that come in front of us. This Government has proven to not only meet the challenges but be really good leaders in times of change. And so, on reflection of what the Prime Minister laid before us yesterday, I am confident that as a community we can rise to the challenges, be ambitious, and make sure that we realise the dreams of every New Zealander and we make sure that we keep going and we’re better off this time next year as well. Kia ora.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call. I call Ricardo Menéndez March—five minutes.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise reflecting and thankful about the collective effort so many people in the community have undergone to protect us from the pandemic. I’m also thankful for my parliamentary colleagues from Labour, Te Paati Māori, and the Greens who resisted the consistent right-wing “let it rip” approach to managing the pandemic, which would have seen a devastating loss of life.

But it is not about saying there were no faults in the response to the pandemic. The pandemic should have been an opportunity to address those inequities that have existed for generations, which have made it challenging for people to respond and to stay safe. Ending poverty should have been part of our public health response; making sure that those responses we saw in the welfare system that supported people temporarily—for example, doubling the winter energy payment—should have been permanent measures that lifted people out of poverty. So I also see the recent approach as a missed opportunity to ensure that our communities are not just surviving but, rather, thriving. The Greens have always been clear, since the pandemic started, that we should seize the moment and ensure that everyone has a safe home to live in, has enough income to stock up when they need to in order to self-isolate, and that we end the punitive approaches in our welfare system that mean people still feel scared to reach out for support when they need to.

I’m a little bit tired of hearing the discourse back and forth on the lowest unemployment figures, as though that tells us the whole picture of the inequalities that we face in Aotearoa. The truth is that the figure we should be looking at how many people are living in poverty. Does everyone feel like they have enough to thrive, like they can reach out to Work and Income? Why haven’t we fully individualised our income support system so that, when people need to shift jobs, they’re well supported? We know the Government realised that benefit levels were not good enough, and that benefits should have been individualised, as we responded to the pandemic. They put in those temporary measures that saw people actually having enough. Why not make them permanent?

I also want to reflect on another group that has been impacted by the inequities in our response. I think of our migrant communities, who have often been left out, without adequate income support. I note the Prime Minister thanked our healthcare workers for their mahi in helping us keep people safe, and I echo that gratitude, but the truth is that many of those healthcare workers are migrant workers who continue to have no pathway to residency. And, in fact, many migrant workers who were at the front lines of our pandemic—whether they’re supermarket workers or managed isolation and quarantine workers—who just simply happened to be on the wrong visa are missing out on a one-off residency opportunity that would have granted them the security and certainty that they deserve. I’m thinking, as well, to the many split migrant families who continue to be affected by an inequitable response to our border reopening plan. We had an opportunity to ensure that we do not entrench global inequities that may mean we start seeing tourists from the UK arriving before people from places like India are able to be reunited.

It is never too late to look at the streets, to look at the communities we’re supposed to serve, and to put in place solutions that will ensure that everyone is supported. In our migrant communities, we continue seeing discrimination towards disabled people. Even though I’m heartened by the mahi that has been done in Parliament, through the petition of Juliana Carvalho, to put in really solid recommendations to review the current discrimination that disabled migrants face—one of the groups that are most at risk from the pandemic—policies haven’t changed. We haven’t seen changes to the way partnership visas operate to make them culturally appropriate despite this being a Labour Party campaign manifesto promise.

So I think about the Prime Minister’s words, and I encourage her to be a lot bolder, to look at those transformative solutions, not incremental change, so that we can reach an Aotearoa where everyone thrives, not just survives. Kia ora.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora e te Māngai—ki a koutou. While listening to the Prime Minister’s statement, I started to reflect on the concept of mauri. Now, mauri is the life force that we all have. Unlike wairua, that exists beyond death, mauri is something that’s just particular to us. It is our strengths, our skills, the things that we care about. It’s how we present ourselves in the world, whether through our dress, our hair. It’s about the pronouns that we use. So, when someone’s mauri is recognised, that life force glows. When someone is valued and they know that they’re an important part of their whānau, of their communities, of the world, those communities, the mauri of it starts to glow. When it’s not recognised, it starts to fade, and our mental health statistics show all of the people who have decided that it was the time to let that spark go out for ever.

So I thought about who was recognised in this speech, whose mauri was recognised in this speech: absolutely our Māori and Pasifika health providers; our communities, who have been working so, so hard in this pandemic; our border workers; all the people who have pulled together across the country; people with disabilities—and the new ministry that’s been set up is really exciting. For me, in the portfolios I hold, I noticed that, of the nearly 3,000 words that were in that speech, none of them were about rainbow communities. The Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act was amended last year; trans people can now self-identify their gender on their birth certificates much, much more easily, and we’re working on a process for people who were born overseas. That is very exciting. Conversion practices—second reading. I know that some people have really focused on the fact that there were some National MPs who voted against that. I would like to mihi to all of those who voted for it, because actually that’s where the movement is, that’s where the progress is. That is the thing that gives surety to our communities that, with the next change of Government, suddenly all those rights aren’t going to disappear. So I am thankful for that. We were given an assurance last night that some of those basic things that are important inside rainbow communities—around what gender identity means, what gender expression actually means, and what that looks like inside our law—would be done when we amend the Human Rights Act; so we’re very much looking forward to that.

We’re very proud, as this party, as part of this House, to be looking at what does it mean, then, for who we prioritise in the funding that we give out. I’m very much looking forward to what the Budget brings this year, of all the Budget bids that went out. But I just want to always think about how we can work together, even when we disagree at the edges, because, when we’re talking about people’s mental health, when we’re talking about communities that are discriminated against in particular ways, and very different ways—that we think of their mauri but we’re also considering their mana and what is needed for them to express their needs, either through the select committee process, through the different ways that we reach out to community, in the way that we do our work. For me, it’s really important and really something to think about every time we have this chance—the very limited chances that we have—to speak in this House, and the platform that we have. Whose mauri is upheld and whose maybe is diminished just a little bit more because we exclude them?

So I echo my colleague’s comments. I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to be anywhere else in the world through the course of this pandemic. Omicron—the numbers are not as bad as we thought, and that is absolutely due to some of the systems that have been put into place. So the very last comment I want to make is that, when we’re looking at health, when we’re looking at the reforms, a lot of things have been stopped and affected by this absolutely necessary but all-consuming focus on COVID. When we’re thinking about mauri, it’s the health of all the other people that also matters here. Kia ora.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call. I call Dr Gaurav Sharma.

Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Whare. It’s my great pleasure to speak in the House today in reply to the Prime Minister’s statement, in our first sitting week of 2022. I want to start, first of all, by wishing everyone a happy New Year, and also by thanking those of you who sent your well-wishes last year when I had some health issues. Exactly one year ago yesterday, I stood in this exact spot to give my maiden speech in Parliament. I was surrounded by friends, family, my former school teachers, and medical colleagues, along with volunteers, supporters, and mentors in the gallery.

I started that maiden speech by asking, “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.” What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people. And this is the question that every single member of the Labour caucus and this Government ask ourselves each and every day. People are at the heart of every policy, every decision this Government and the Prime Minister has made over the last four years. Throughout the pandemic, the Government has worked relentlessly to save as many lives as possible and to protect jobs and cushion the blow to the economy.

At every turn, the Government’s goal has been to do what is right. We have acted early and decisively to prevent the worst impacts seen elsewhere. And this approach has worked. We have a very highly vaccinated population, with over 95 percent of Kiwis double vaccinated, 60 percent of people have now had their boosters, and over 40 percent of children have now had their first dose. Our confirmed cases, hospitalisations, and deaths have been the lowest in the OECD for each of the last two years. As a former medical doctor who worked in the local community as a GP in Hamilton, I’m incredibly proud of this Government for what it has done in achieving for myself, my family, my patients, and my community in keeping us safe.

I know the Opposition likes to criticise the Government’s response for the sake of opposition, but I can’t fathom where the country would be if the National Party and their friends were in charge. Every time the Opposition had a new leader, their policy on COVID changed drastically. One day, they wanted the borders open; and the next day, with a change in leadership, they wanted the border to be closed again. But this isn’t a pattern in their COVID policy only. One day, the National Party was in Government and they denied the housing crisis, the climate crisis, the looming transport crisis due to significant underinvestment in public transport; and the next day, they’re in Opposition and all their policies and stances have changed.

The Opposition now criticises this Labour Government on the pandemic response, but one of the issues we do have in New Zealand is that sometimes we can forget how well we have done collectively, as a team of 5 million. It is very easy to ignore the death and destruction that we have been able to avoid, which has wreaked havoc around the world. The Lowy Institute has just ranked New Zealand No. 1 in our pandemic response. Not a day goes by when I don’t receive a text or a call from someone overseas who reminds me of how well the New Zealand Government has done when compared to the rest of the world. And the credit for this goes to the Labour Party, to the leadership of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her Cabinet, as well as the 5 million Kiwis who have played their part and not been distracted by the Opposition’s changing rhetoric every time they change their leader.

Thanks to our front-line healthcare workers, who have stepped up to keep all of us safe. These front-line workers include not just doctors, nurses, public health specialists, and contact tracers but also supermarket workers, cleaners, and managed isolation and quarantine personnel, amongst many others. This Government has provided stable, united leadership throughout the most challenging times New Zealand has had to face in modern times. The path ahead is still challenging with Omicron, but I know that under the leadership of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, and the watchful eyes of many New Zealanders who have put their hopes and faith in us, we will be able to stand up to our next lot of challenges with the same determination, focus, and empathy that we did through this global pandemic.

This Government has a plan that keeps us moving forward. This Government has acted in the last two years, which has kept us moving forward. Hoake tonu tātou. [Let’s get moving.] Let’s get moving.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. In the Prime Minister’s statement, she talked about what got us through what was and has been a very challenging year. She talked about the countless gestures of kindness, comfort, and care; the service of our volunteers, teachers, health workers, border workers, and our police—and I’ll underscore their service today. She talked about our Defence Force, the hard graft of our businesses and exporters, and she also mentioned the patience of every parent across the country. And, as a parent myself, I think several of us have been exhaling these last few weeks. It has been a challenging time to parent this last year, and I’ll always remember one of my sons asking me as we went into the level 3 lockdown last year, “So we’re going into level 3. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?” And I said, “Yes, it was the right decision.”, but it was incredibly challenging.

While we were in lockdown, I spoke to principals, to teachers, to early childhood educators, and to parents in Upper Harbour, and there was fatigue, there was concern, but there was also creativity in how schools responded. There was humour, there was collective support, and most importantly, in so many conversations, there was an affirmation of what is the most important thing to families, to schools: the health and wellbeing of those children and of our families. There was resounding support for how we had approached the COVID response, and now that we do have high vaccination levels and we have a paediatric vaccine, we are committed to keeping our schools and early childhood centres open, with closures only used as a last resort, a measure when there might be a community or a school outbreak or other issues that might make it unsafe for a school to open.

For me, one of the highlights in what was a challenging year in many ways was seeing a photo of Minister Faafoi in a turban. Sure, it was photo-shopped, but it didn’t matter. The speed at which that image travelled around the ethnic social media circles was unparalleled. It was a bit of a cheeky but warm thankyou from the members of our ethnic communities to the Government and the Minister for their leadership in announcing the 2021 pathway to residence. In a year awash with challenging times, that announcement was and is life changing for so many families—for 165,000 people. It’s been a privilege to hear those stories, including many that touch on my electorate as well.

I know that that pathway hasn’t been available to all, and it’s not possible to put into words the level of grief that some have felt, not just here in New Zealand but across the world, as families have been separated due to COVID. But equally as hard have been those conversations with people who have lost family in other countries; people who have lost family because, in their country, efforts weren’t made to slow the spread, to enable a high vaccination rate. And because of what we’ve done, now we’re ready to reopen and to not only tackle the challenge which Omicron will bring with it but to tackle the other big issues that are coming our way: to establish the emissions budgets for the next 15 years; to roll out our progressive homeownership scheme; to build into our history curriculum stories about New Zealand—New Zealand’s stories; and to engage with the world in trade, diplomacy, and in human rights on the issues that are important to us all, because we know that issues that need to be addressed for all need to be owned by all of us.

I want to finish just by talking about service, which I think has been the underlying principle of how we’ve responded to the pandemic, and by “us” I don’t mean just the Government response; I mean the community response. Phil Twyford mentioned earlier the work of our West Auckland health providers, who have really pivoted. The Fono team have been extraordinary in how they’ve responded to this. The same is true of the north-west community centres who provided those locations on the ground. It is that spirit of service that will also see us through into a successful 2022. Kia ora.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand on behalf of the National Party this afternoon and respond to the Prime Minister’s statement. Some of what was in here was rather amusing, but the speeches in the House from the Prime Minister’s backbench MPs this afternoon have been nothing short of comedy, actually.

When I think back to when this Labour Government took office and we had the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister said, “We will be a party that will govern for all New Zealanders.”—that was the first part of the joke. There has not been government for all New Zealanders. Ask the farmers, ask the small-business owners, ask all the people out there who have tried to get family members through managed isolated and quarantine, ask the million people who actually can’t even get back into their own country. Is that called governing for all New Zealanders? I don’t think so. When I listened to the Prime Minister’s statement here the other day, I actually listened in disbelief to some of the things in there, and all that comes to mind for me is the Bee Gees song “It’s only words, and words are all I have to take your heart away.” And, actually, I’ve got news for the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister’s words are not taking the country’s heart away any more; it’s actually breaking people’s hearts.

As I look through some of this, I just wanted to start off by noting a media release that I saw today. So, prior to this Government, we actually had a previous coalition Government that actually instigated an oil and gas ban. And every time I mentioned it as the energy spokesperson, and it’s pleasing to have Stuart Smith here, who is now our energy spokesperson, we were told anything to do with coal, anything to do with anything going wrong, was not Government policy. Well, today, I read that households and businesses using piped gas could face substantial bill increases under proposals put forward by the Commerce Commission because of Government energy policy. The regulator said it is reasonable that the four gas pipeline businesses should be able to earn more money in the coming four years, because the likely life of the infrastructure will be shortened as climate change policy squeezes out the gas sector. Climate change policy—how did that go? Shall we talk about Indonesian coal? Say no more. We were heading to 90 percent renewable energy back in 2016; we struggled to get to 75 percent at times this winter. And, while the power outage last winter on 9 August was actually a communication outage, Stuart Smith, just watch this space, because if the lakes don’t fill up—and we might have been lucky to have a boost of rain just recently—we’ve got a problem.

So, in the Prime Minister’s statement, it says the Government has committed to working with small-business groups and the rural sector to develop better support for mental health needs. Wow, partnering with small business—it’s not a word that we would use. And the rural sector would say to this Government, “Rather than actually being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff”—and we all need good rural health and rural mental support services—“the first step would be to stop causing it.” As our fantastic leader, Christopher Luxon, says, farmers are standing there and it’s like you’re in a game of tennis and there’s ten balls coming over the net at you and you’ve got no idea which one you’re going to hit first. It’s just been a barrage of bad, unworkable regulations. Farmers are out there; they’re just absolutely wanting to do their best. They are, in fact, some of the best farmers in the world.

And that’s no excuse to say “We can’t change.” and “We can’t do things better.”—because we have to, and there’s some work going on at the moment to have a look at ways that we can improve our climate responsibilities—but, in this statement, the Prime Minister’s actually indicated that she’s going to lead trade delegations and trade supporting visits. Well, I’ve got a document that I think the Prime Minister should read before she leaves, because the Prime Minister’s always waxing lyrical about the world and “the best in the world”, and if anything goes wrong, it’s the world’s fault. Well, in this KPMG document, Net Zero Readiness Index results, it actually says that New Zealand is ninth in the world for net zero readiness; however, for agriculture, it is the most ready country in the world for net zero readiness. So I would suggest that the Prime Minister pick up a copy of this document, take it on every trade trip she goes on—trade is important—and make sure that she sells the story of our farmers truthfully and in a way that works.

So I think the other thing, as I went through this document in disbelief—I mean, I couldn’t actually believe that I heard the Prime Minister thank the farmers; it’s probably the first time in a long time. I know that Grant Robertson does it on a regular basis, because he’s the finance Minister, so he really knows where the money comes from; it makes a difference. Everything in this document uses the word “will”. So it says, “New Zealand has sustained itself through sustaining others for decades, and our customers expect us to do this sustainably. The Government will continue to work with the primary sector to respond to changing customer expectations. We will work together to improve the sustainability”—you go out there and ask any farmer out there about how much work the Government’s actually been doing standing beside them. Most of it’s been blasted at them from out of Wellington. They’re out there doing their best every day, and actually 90 percent of the answers are out there. All this Government has to do is get up and go out and talk to them, because they actually know how to do stuff. So less of the “working with”—you know, this is words; Government has been not “working with” the farmers. “We are working with farmers on the delivery of a national integrated planning framework. We will work with industry through He Waka Eke Noa partnership.”

Now, I acknowledge the industry leaders that are working through this process, and I do also thank the Ministers who have given an extra month for consultation, because it’s pretty tight under the red traffic light system and farmers have got a lot of catching up to do with the discussions that have been had, and we look forward to those conversations. But, actually, farmers are in this place because the Government actually said—the industry went to Government and said, “We don’t want to be in the ETS; it’s wrong. We don’t want to be the only country in the world. It’s not a way to fix the problem. Tax will not fix anything. Let’s sort our own issues out.” So less of the “work with”, and actually “We’ve issued you an ultimatum. You make this work or else.” is what the Government is about.

It says, “The Government will support more farmers to adopt existing measures and technologies to reduce on-farm emissions”. Well, do you know what? That tax, that ute tax, that money that’s coming off farmers—for what reason when there’s no alternative vehicle?—that was the biggest joke of Fieldays 2021, and let’s hope Fieldays goes ahead in 2022. That is money. It’s all very well to stand there and go, “We’ll put money into R and D.”, but, actually, that is money that farmers would be using on their own farms every day if they didn’t have to pay a stupid ute tax that is going to go into the Government’s coffers and not make one bit of difference to climate change. And, anyway, if they could buy an electric ute, they’re going to be out there putting it on a charger, actually feeding it with coal-produced electricity. So, you know, actually consequences is the one thing this Government never thinks about—consequences.

Now, I did have a little bit of a giggle to myself at one line, going back to the Taranaki situation, “Construction will begin on Mount Messenger bypass on State Highway 3 in the New Zealand upgrades”—there’s some other upgrades announced. Now, Mount Messenger was a project that was announced by John Key and Simon Bridges in January 2016—so we’re looking at six years ago. And I realise the Resource Management Act has some responsibility in that, which is why we need to fix it quickly. It’s not all the Government’s responsibility, but actually it’s very bold and brave to stand up here and say, “We’re doing this.” when, actually, John Key and Simon Bridges announced it six years ago.

So we’re hearing a whole lot today from the back benches about the Government plan and the Government this, and all the rest of it. We can’t see a plan. There is no plan. But guess what? Game is on and we’re a Government in waiting. So thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s been my pleasure to respond to these words today. Thank you.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

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

Bills

Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 February.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to the second reading, actually, of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. In doing so, can I acknowledge Minister Michael Wood and the leadership that he has shown in this particular space. I know at first reading that the former Minister the Hon Julie Anne Genter was acknowledged, and I want to just note that as well.

This is an omnibus bill. It’s a bill that makes subsequent amendments to a number of pieces of legislation. I won’t go through all of them, but by my count, it’s at least four Acts and at least one set of regulations. When we take a look at the broad policy intent, it really is around achieving a reduction in the carbon dioxide emissions and doing some work in that particular space. There are two particular areas of focus that I’d like to touch on. The first is particularly in the area of emissions from light vehicles that are imported into New Zealand—that’s the first one. The second is that any reduction—and I would hope that members all around the House would agree with this particular point—needs to be rapid in nature. Some would say that that’s very ambitious. It is ambitious, but we all know on this side of the House that we believe that it is the right thing to do.

When I reflect on the Minister’s contribution, when he spoke at second reading in the House recently, he talked about the success that the Government’s changes have already had. He talked about that since 1 July, looking at the initial parts of the Government’s clean car package, that discount or subsidy coming into effect, that the average emissions of new vehicles coming into New Zealand had decreased by 15 percent across the fleet. He compared that to prior to 1 July 2021, and that it had taken eight years to achieve the same level of reductions in the country’s emissions for vehicle fleets previously. So that in itself is a clear indication to the community that it is a good thing to do.

But when you delve deeper into the bill, it looks as though it more specifically will achieve change in terms of the reduction of emissions in three particular areas. The first is a focus on the supply considerations of low-emission vehicles or zero-emission vehicles by setting a standard. We know this as the clean vehicle standard for those who import new and/or used light vehicles into New Zealand, so a bottom line in terms of what the regulatory standard would be—that’s number one.

Number two is that it creates an incentive for purchasing these vehicles by providing a rebate or a discount scheme, which we know out in the community has seen an increase in the demand for those vehicles. It’s important to note—and I know that the Minister touched on this at his second reading speech—that New Zealand had been lagging behind other global trends in terms of the uptake of electric vehicles (EVs), sitting around 50 percent, or less than 50 percent, other countries having that as a criteria. So the tide is turning. Again, ambitious—the right thing to do. So that’s number two.

Number three is, I would suggest, around transparency, so that New Zealanders actually will be better informed in terms of the decisions that they make around their vehicle emission levels, the levels of rebate and charges or fees—it might be fixed or payable as well—and ensuring that there is an adequate level of associated labelling. I note that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee touched on that as well.

The introduction of these incentives and changes is very clearly aligned with the independent advice that has been given by the Climate Change Commission—Ināia tonu nei: a low emissions future for Aotearoa. As a member of the Environment Committee, I’m pleased to see that the commission’s work has been transferred across the work of this House and of other committees, because it doesn’t just lie within the environment sphere or space, and it doesn’t just lie within the transport and infrastructure space as well. It is much more global and broad in that sense.

But in that particular report and advice that was given back in May of last year, they stated that fiscal incentives to lower the upfront costs of EVs are a matter of urgency. So we have an independent commission that is providing that advice and we have a Government that is intent on delivering outcomes that will achieve that advice.

I want to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the chair, Greg O’Connor. Actually, I was able to hear Mr O’Connor’s, I think, considered contribution in the House the other evening, identifying the position that many members—well, parties, and particular members within this House—have taken historically. We are certainly hopeful that perhaps they will return to those true roots in providing support for this bill.

But the select committee working through that process—and they clearly had a number of submissions and submitters to consider—they were able to identify some changes and suggest to the House some changes that I understand have been reflected in the bill. They are around things like a review option but also ensuring that the Minister initiates a review timetable and undertakes that after considering appropriate parties. So I’ll leave my contribution at that. I’m delighted to be able to commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Matt Doocey—five minutes.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a real privilege to rise in my new spokesperson role of associate transport. I’m looking forward to getting into this new role because, as we know, every New Zealander is a transport expert. I am looking forward to ensuring that people who are transport experts, from their armchair, and who do enjoy getting into their car and driving on a road, get their views heard up here in the beltway of Wellington.

The Government is very clear. Each year they have a year of something—the year of the vaccine. Well, it’s very clear this year is going to be the year of inflation. So we’ve got interest rates going up, we’ve got petrol prices going up, we’ve got rent going up, and house prices, and what do they want to do? Bring in a ute tax. That’s what this bill is going to do. It’s going to tax hard-working Kiwis who can’t drive an electric vehicle (EV)—farmers, tradies, those who have large families and need a larger car, those who can’t afford an EV. And it’s very clear, a Labour Government, when they run out of money, they come after yours. That’s exactly what this bill is about.

The Minister crowed at the start of his speech in the second reading, “Oh, this policy’s working already.” Well, no wonder it’s working already; they’re doling out free money. Of course it’s working. Oh, Labour 101—use the taxpayers’ money. And when they’re doling out that free money, it’s driving up the price of EVs so now EVs are more expensive. And, yet, what they’re doing is they’re stripping that money off hard-working Kiwis, farmers, and tradies, who now have to pay a ute tax to afford this Government blowing their money on, let’s be honest, fairly affluent people who want to buy an EV, and in the first week of the sitting year for 2022—the second kick in the guts for regions of New Zealand, because that’s where this policy is going to be the most hard hit, is in the regions.

The first kick in the guts was the Prime Minister’s statement. Nothing about regional roads, especially if you’re in the South Island. I challenge the transport Minister to come down to North Canterbury and explain this policy to hard-working north Cantabrians, because I do note that not one transport Minister has come to North Canterbury in four years of Government. And Duncan Webb knows why, because they’ve cancelled vital roading projects when they first came into Government in 2018, after the National Government announced the Woodend bypass as the next roads of national significance. Because let’s be very clear: whether it be electric, whether it be hydrogen, you’re going to need a road to drive that car on. Aren’t you? And here these guys are, they won’t build a road in regional New Zealand, especially in the South Island, and, yet, they’ll tax hard-working tradies and farmers who have no other option.

This side of the House stands behind increasing the number of EVs in New Zealand. Greg O’Connor—in fact, I thought he was going to cross the floor with his speech. He greatly outlined the legacy of the National Party in developing and incentivising EVs, and he gave a great history of it, and we’re quite proud of that. But what we’re not going to do is go out and kick hard-working Kiwis in the guts because they don’t have a choice. This is nothing but a tax on our farmers, on our tradies, on people who have large families and need larger cars, and for those, quite simply, who can’t afford an EV.

You know what? In the old days, Labour used to stand up for working people. Now it’s nothing but chardonnay socialism. This Government is a failed socialist experiment, and this law is another example of their socialist failure.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Naisi Chen—five minutes.

NAISI CHEN (Labour): Tonight, I rise in this House as a proud Labour member, because we are forward-thinking; we actually think about the next generation. I’m here, and I actually asked for this speaking slot because I want to publicly on the record thank the Minister of Transport for this amazing piece of legislation. I am now the proud half-owner and driver of an electric vehicle. Why only half of it? Because I don’t need my car for all seven days of the week. But, this is the first car I have ever bought with completely my own money. And when we and my flatmate went in to make a decision about the new car that we were going to buy together, we had a choice. I love the Wrangler; that’s my little confession to make. I love cars that are square. Then we looked at all the other options that we could have had for the same price or less of a Wrangler. And do you know what? A Tesla Model 3 was cheaper than a Wrangler. And that is better for the environment as well.

In my generation, not everyone can afford a new Tesla or half a new Tesla. Many of my friends have come to me and said, “Naisi, why are there no electric vehicles (EVs) in the second-hand car market?” I’m reminded constantly, whenever I get asked that question, of the Chinese proverb that the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second-best time is today. And that’s what we have had to do. This is what we’ve done because we have to plant the tree today. I mean that by all meanings of that proverb, because this is for our planet. The reduction in carbon, the reduction in our footprint on this earth, is why we’ve put in this bill. Today, and here with this bill is a way that we’re not only going to support the next generation to make better choices about their car buying, but this is also a chance to really help our environment.

I did a bit of research before I got up to speak. The first electric car was invented in the 1800s—the 1800s. But why are we only starting to drive EVs now? It’s because the market has failed. It’s because big carmakers wanted to make money from petrol; that’s why they’ve blocked all mass production of electric vehicles. So it takes a Government as progressive as we are on this side of the House, as forward-thinking as we are on this side of the House, to really make the market be influenced by the right choice.

Can I just add, it is not just about high-end EVs as well. Hybrid cars are also really good for the environment. And can I encourage those who cannot afford a brand new EV at this moment to consider the hybrid vehicles that are, fortunately, a lot more popular in our second-hand car market at this moment, because every single decision matters, and we can all make a change. And on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very happy to be speaking on this Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. Why am I so happy to be talking about this? I was not fortunate enough to be on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee considering this bill, because I am on the mighty Environment Committee that meets at the same time. But it is because we are so concerned on this side of the House, and I know many members of the other as well, about climate change.

This is one of the many, many, many things that this Government is doing to address climate change. We have this aim that was instilled in legislation in the last Government to reduce our emissions, and we’ve got our “net zero by 2050” target. All parties in the House at that time, apart from the ACT Party, voted for that in that commendable bipartisan initiative. And I thank everybody who was in the House in the last Government for doing that, because it set in place a whole lot of work that we are now looking at in this Parliament.

Now, to reduce emissions, really, the low-hanging fruit in New Zealand is our transport emissions. Forty-seven percent of our carbon comes from transport and there was a 90 percent increase between 1990 and 2018. So in that whole time that people have been talking about climate change and saying that we need to reduce emissions, we have in fact been getting in more and more cars and not making a great use of public transport, and, of course, we’ve not done very well on electric vehicles (EVs). And I say this: I was very lucky—I’m embarrassed to say I can’t quite remember when, but some years ago, maybe about five years ago—to travel to Norway where my sister-in-law was getting married, and it was amazing to see all the EVs that Norway had at that time. I was very hopeful that New Zealand would soon follow suit. That has, unfortunately, not happened at this point, because New Zealand has under 1 percent of our vehicle fleet, our private vehicle fleet, that are EVs.

We do have this target of 30 percent of EVs by 2035, so we’ve got to do a lot to get to that point, given a very low starting point and our late starting point. And, of course, we do have an abundance of renewable energy, which is why the PCE, the former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, said that one of the things New Zealanders could be really doing to reduce their emissions is to invest in an EV.

I live in Dunedin, a beautiful place to live and many Dunedinites have taken up this challenge with a second-hand Leaf. These are imported from Japan and people have really embraced them. When I first drove one, you used to wave to the other people driving them, but, then, you know, you’re going to get repetitive strain injury or something, because there are so many of them, and well done Dunedin. But these Leafs, in winter they really only drive for 100 to 200—well, in winter an old one will only really go for about 100 kilometres. If you have a good summer, which doesn’t happen every year, it’ll be about 200 kilometres.

Of course, now there are more and more fancier EVs coming into the market, and that is what this legislation will encourage. I was very pleased to see today on one of my social media feeds of a rural person actually in your electorate, Madam Speaker, who’s about to do the Kathmandu Coast to Coast. He’s driving there in a Hyundai Kona—it’s a 64 kilowatt an hour—and normally it goes for about 400 kilometres, he says, but he’s going to have two kayaks on his roof and a bike on the back. He’s planning to charge at the wonderful charging infrastructure we have at Hokitika, Arthur’s Pass, and Christchurch. That’s so pleasing to see this uptake of EVs. And, of course, the climate commission, as my colleague has mentioned before, has endorsed what the parliamentary commission report said many years ago about the importance of moving as much of our fleet as we can to electric. Of course, that’s not going to be everyone at every time, but we can do so much.

We know that our public procurement of light vehicles is changing and we have the goal for central government to be carbon neutral by 2025. So, obviously, there’ll be some uptake of EV purchases there. But that is not enough to really get the secondary market up so all the people that the Opposition have been so worried about can then afford some sort of EV as a second-hand. So we do need to incentivise these EVs coming into the country and people purchasing them first as a new vehicle and then as a second- or third-hand vehicle.

This bill will create a standard, the discount scheme, and assist with labelling it as well. There will be many regulations from new section 167A, inserted by clause 5, and if anybody is interested, I would really recommend having a look at clause 5 of the bill that spells out all the criteria that the Minister must be satisfied with before making regulations that set these fees and charges.

This is one of the very many measures this Government is doing to combat climate change, to do our bit for the world, for the Pacific, and for our country so that we can export all of those rural products that we were hearing about before. So thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I’m certainly going to want to have a couple of things to say about comments from my colleagues—previous speakers across the House.

Look, once more, this is a Labour Government doing harm to the very people that they purport to represent, middle and low income New Zealanders, and at a time when they can absolutely least afford it. National, of course, is supportive of a transition of New Zealand’s light-vehicle fleet to lower-emissions vehicles. Heaven knows the poor farmers have been taking flak from this Government on carbon emissions for long enough. All the while, there has been virtually no progress on reducing the country’s transport footprint.

We don’t support this legislation because it is not practical, but that’s never stopped a Labour Government before. It will do more harm than good—again, that’s never stopped a Labour Government before—and it is working against industry instead of with it, and there are no surprises there with a Labour Government. It will add cost to the vehicles, the very vehicles, that middle and lower income New Zealanders buy—the humble Suzuki Swift, the good old Toyota Corolla, and the hybrid RAV4—even though one of the previous speakers from the other side suggested that people should be buying the hybrid vehicles. Perhaps you should have a look to see that they will also be hit.

I sat on the select committee for a number of the submissions on this bill. The Motor Industry Association are absolutely frustrated and have withdrawn their support for the Clean Car Standard. They’ve calculated that the increase in prices of cars from these standards will be 15 to 20 percent. They believe that Government has ignored well-thought-out and considered advice from the industry. Absolutely no surprises there. This is what this Government has got a reputation for.

The bill deviates from standards that are being implemented in other countries. The rate of reductions is so steep that it will only be able to be met by those distributors who currently are supplying solely battery electrical vehicles at the moment. So why is this Government introducing something so impractical? You’d have to think it’s because they think if they say something can happen, it can happen regardless of what the worldwide situation is, regardless of what industry tells them. The reduction targets are greater than any other jurisdiction in the world. They are setting us up for failure. We don’t produce vehicles, we can’t get ahead of what industry is doing. We are a tiny player in this market, so we don’t get to call the shots on industry. When industry can’t meet the targets, they will be fined. So who will bear the cost of these fines? You can be absolutely certain it will be the consumer.

You’d have to wonder, and I’m sure there are plenty of people out in the country at the moment wondering just how much more does this Government want to increase the cost of living and hurt average New Zealanders? We’ve seen the housing market go absolutely haywire. Petrol—people having to pay over $3 a litre. Food—cauliflowers over $9 each. And now they want to increase the cost of cars by 15 to 20 percent. Where do they think the average New Zealander is going to magic up the extra money to pay for these things?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Norway.

PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, as my colleague says, “Norway.” Well, that was a delightful intervention. The previous Labour speaker spoke so glowingly about Norway’s electric cars. Does she not know Norway’s wealth came from their vast oil reserves? Goodness me. It just is an embarrassment to hear that given as an example.

This Government is absolutely allergic to performance indicators. They do not like to be measured on anything, but gosh they should have put their hand up to be measured on making the cost of living higher, because they would have excelled in that performance indicator.

This legislation is also punitive. It attacks the very people that make money for this country: the rural people, the tradespeople, and those that need utes and light commercial vehicles to operate their businesses. The Government knows very well there will be very few options for low-emissions alternatives for light commercial vehicles before 2030. They might again stand up and say, “Oh no, they’re coming.”, but it must be embarrassing when over and over the industry says they won’t be here—they won’t be here in the supply that is needed, at the price that is needed, by people who need these vehicles for their businesses.

So Government is penalising farmers and business people again. They simply don’t care about anyone running a business and about anyone in the rural sector. But that will be no surprise to farmers after what they have got from this Government. It will be no surprise to business people for the costs that have been added on by this Government, and it will be no surprise to the tradies.

I wanted to give an example—and I will give this example, although I was terribly tempted to give the example of a Dunedin relative of mine, seeing as the previous speaker, Rachel Brooking, talked about how many second-hand Leaf vehicles there were running round Dunedin. She’s right. A relative of mine has one. He can’t come down to us in Southland for Christmas because he can’t get down and back. But I’ll give you the example of the roofers in Southland that regularly go to Te Ānau daily for their roofing work. That’s 155 kilometres each way, carrying materials, equipment, and a number of staff. Two hours’ drive each way, eight hours’ work up there, and perhaps the Government thinks they should just stop for half an hour each way and have a coffee to make it possible for them to do this. Do you not wonder why tradies laugh at the impracticality of this Government and the sort of things that they are bringing in?

This Government needs to talk to—or, even better still, listen to—some of the real people out in the country doing real jobs and making money for the New Zealand economy so that they can understand how impractical this legislation is that’s to be implemented. We oppose it because it is not practical. It will do more harm than good, particularly to those people who can least afford it. It is working against industry and it is punitive to the business people and the rural people who make money to keep the economy of this country going. This Government needs to start listening to people instead of just talking, because their talk doesn’t mean it can happen. Thank you, Madam Speaker. National opposes this bill.

ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): It is my privilege to stand and take a final call on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. Yesterday, we heard the National Party say that they are ready, but despite all of the evidence and the mahi on climate change to date, despite saying—and we’ve heard it again today—that they are supportive of the transition to a low- and zero-emissions light vehicle fleet, they have offered no alternative proposition, nothing, to accelerate the growth of our low-emissions fleet that we need. Nothing. We’ve been listening very, very carefully and very, very patiently.

In contrast, this Government is a Government of action. The Opposition may not be ready, but New Zealanders are. The goal of this bill is to improve both the supply and the demand, as well as improve the variety of zero- and low-emission vehicles. We were told moments ago that the clean vehicle discount scheme wouldn’t work. Well, you know what? It is working. We’ve heard numerous numbers, numerous statistics, from various speakers about how impactful the scheme has already been. Way back in September, we had our highest ever number of light vehicle imports: $53 million, 6 percent of all of the imports—6 percent—and that was way back in September. The National Party may not be ready—may not know what’s going on, may have no plan—but New Zealand importers and consumers are.

There are flow-on effects of such a commitment to a cleaner fleet. The certainty that this bill and these propositions provide to the market means that it makes it easier for those who are importing to access appropriate vehicles for New Zealanders. It has also seen significant investment in the infrastructure that we need to support our light vehicle fleet. Electric vehicle (EV) charging stations: the Nats aren’t ready but our provincial communities are. I need to make a shout-out to The Lines Company, who have had ongoing investment across the King Country and Ruapehu districts: Te Kūiti, Piopio, Ōtorohanga, and Waitomo. Even Mōkau, which has no petrol station, population 117, has an EV charging station conveniently located outside the Mōkau Museum. So not only can you stop for a coffee but you can also get a little bit of local culture and history.

I need to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. They engaged, they listened, and they adjusted the bill to clarify and strengthen both the clean vehicle standard and the clean vehicle discount scheme. The National Party might not be ready, but with the rules that provide more robust information about emissions and the vehicles that we are importing, it means that we will be better informed and consumers, who are ready, will be even better prepared. There are amendments that the select committee brought in—many of them. Amendments that include rules about reviews and consultation, and ensuring the targets—because we do have targets; somebody obviously hasn’t read the bill—are consistent with the Climate Change Response Act. This will ensure that these two schemes remain relevant, that future changes will be responsive and effective. As so many other countries are also seeking to do, we will be able to continue to renew our targets following COP26. We can continue to be ambitious for our country.

This Government is prepared to act and to keep moving forward, and we’re doing it now to balance what is possible and what is needed. I know that sometimes we stand in this House and we revert to type, and I think that, given some of the misunderstandings, we need to have a little NCEA level 2 economics lesson about flow-on effects. We keep hearing that this Government doesn’t understand the impact on working people. Well, actually, this Government understands all too well that most of us cannot afford a brand new vehicle. Most of us are relying on the fact that there are others, because of the subsidies, who will be able to increase the vehicle fleet that is available to those of us who need to look at a second- or third-hand vehicle in a few years’ time.

When I replace my four-wheel drive, and I need one because I live in a rural community; I need a tow bar and I need a vehicle I can rely on—unlike some have suggested, it won’t be a new one, and I don’t do it every year—a hybrid will be an option, and maybe even electric. But I will have a more affordable fleet to choose from and a greater variety of vehicles, so that I can choose something that is appropriate for my family, for my job, and for where I live, as we build on our second-hand fleet. This Government is about evidence-informed planning, about execution, about implementation that means we will make progress. We are ambitious for this country in making sure that we can address the climate change challenges ahead of us, and I am very, very proud to commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Maritime Powers Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: I present a legislative statement on the Maritime Powers Bill.

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the Maritime Powers Bill be now read a second time.

I want to start by thanking all those who made submissions on the bill for their time and efforts, and also to thank the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee for its very careful consideration of the bill. The committee has recommended a number of changes that, in my view, are going to improve and strengthen the bill.

The bill is designed to close gaps in New Zealand’s domestic law which create uncertainty when enforcing our criminal law in international waters, which are the oceans and seas beyond the 12 nautical miles from our coast—an area which includes our exclusive economic zone. The bill provides a clear statutory basis for New Zealand and its agencies and authorities to exercise enforcement powers in international waters in order to enforce New Zealand’s criminal law—essentially extending enforcement powers that New Zealand agencies already have on land and in New Zealand waters into international waters. Addressing these gaps is critical for New Zealand because there are increasing threats within our extensive maritime domain, including trafficking of humans, drugs, arms, and wildlife. Such threats have the ability to seriously harm New Zealand’s people, economy, wildlife, and environment.

Importantly, New Zealand already has the right in international law to exercise enforcement powers provided for in the bill, but the bill simply implements into our domestic law and properly recognises it so there is no doubt at all that those rights we already have in international law can be exercised by our various agencies.

Turning now to the committee’s work, the committee received an overwhelming seven submissions on the bill and one submitter presented an oral submission. Of the seven submissions, four expressly supported the bill—so that’s a majority at least. The other three submitters did not take a position on the bill, so we now have an overwhelming majority of public support for the bill. No submitter expressed opposition to the bill progressing—an even more compelling reason why the House should eagerly embrace it and its contents.

Some submitters made suggestions for improvements to the bill, and a few raised concerns with particular clauses in the bill—and I will cover some of those off now. Two issues raised in submissions relate to the bill as a whole, which the committee carefully considered. The first is whether the bill should be amended to clarify that the Bill of Rights Act—or the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as it is properly known—applies to the exercise of powers in the bill. It isn’t necessary, of course, for an Act to include a clause for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to apply, because, on the face of that piece of legislation, it already does. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act applies to the powers in this bill, in accordance with the relevant sections of that Act, and accordingly the committee did not recommend that there should be an explicit clause stating that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act applies.

The second issue raised by submitters is the bill’s approach to warrants. Consistent with existing domestic legislation, which confers comparable powers in international waters, the bill does not require warrants for the exercise of its powers. This recognises the unpredictable nature of the maritime environment, where there is always a risk of evidence being destroyed or made irretrievable, usually by tossing it overboard. This recognises the unpredictable nature of the maritime environment, where there is always a risk of evidence being destroyed or made irretrievable—sorry, but it also reflects the unique challenges of exercising enforcement powers in international waters, in particular, the need to obtain the consent of the flag state in the case of foreign ships for the exercise of those powers, and that, of course, is not always easy. For these reasons, the committee did not recommend a change to the bill’s approach to warrants.

The committee did recommend a number of minor amendments to improve the bill, including clarifying the purpose clause to reflect that the bill has been designed to ensure consistency with international human rights law. The committee also recommended adding examples to illustrate the types of offences that are within the scope of the bill, and to reinforce that the bill does not create any new substantive offences or expand the jurisdiction of any existing offences. The committee also recommended a number of useful technical improvements to the bill, which relate to terminology—clarifying the limited situations where consent of the flag state is not required to exercise the powers of the bill—and ensuring the powers in the bill are exercisable in respect of persons charged with a serious offence against New Zealand law who then abscond into international waters.

Once again, I want to thank the committee members for their work they’ve done on this bill. I believe the bill is a positive development which will enable us to better secure our extensive maritime domain from increasing threats, such as transnational organised crime, in a fair, reasonable, and proportionate way that is consistent with international law and our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This will support the wellbeing of our communities and advance our security and shared prosperity and our economic interests. On that basis, I commend the bill to the House.

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

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): It was obviously a rare moment of clarity that the Government was taken with when they decided to introduce this bill. There is no doubt that New Zealand needs this legislation. We have one of the largest territorial seas of any country in the world, and, of course, before anyone can come into those territorial seas, there are vast stretches of international water. It is clear that the security of New Zealand, the integrity of our, you would say, prohibitions on prohibited products are threatened by the way in which some of that product and some of those threats can be transported through those zones. So I agree with the Minister when he says that it is important to extend existing powers in New Zealand on land and in our territorial sea into that international jurisdiction.

So the National Party will be supporting the bill. We look forward to the committee stage, where there should be a decent discussion about the changes that the select committee has recommended. And while there were only seven submissions on the bill, the committee did take quite a bit of time in discussion with the legal team from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), so that we properly understood where the gap was between New Zealand domestic law, and where the gap was between our territorial seas responsibilities and right of jurisdiction and those of international waters. I think, in the end, we were quite comfortable that extending the law, as this particular bill does, will leave our enforcement agencies in a good position.

The one thing that we were a little concerned about, though—or some members, I should say—was the extension of those powers to a range of officers outside of what we might normally expect in New Zealand. So that would give powers of arrest, search, and seizure to rangers and conservation and endangered species officers. They would have the same powers as police and customs officers, and that is an extension of power that in the past the National Government has been a little wary of. We don’t believe that sometimes volunteer rangers on land should have those particular powers. But at sea, quite clearly, it’s a different thing, because they’re most likely to have been accompanied by, perhaps, military forces through the navy or through the police. Those sorts of other protections, or layers of protection, are there, and this provision, therefore, simply gives protection to someone who is participating in an interception-type activity.

The bill addresses that lack of adequate maritime power, as we’ve said, particularly in international waters. I think it’s appropriate that the New Zealand Government does have a mechanism through its various organs to respond to offending in those areas and to any security threats that might arise. One of the things that the committee looked at, among a number of them, was the clarity of purpose in the bill, and we’ve made some recommendations that I’m pleased to hear the Minister say will be picked up, presumably in a Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the committee stage of the House.

But alongside that concern, there were also concerns about the interaction of the Crimes Act, the Convention of the United Nations—or the UNCLOS provisions—the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Hon Andrew Little: Convention on the sea.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, the Minister knows what I’m talking about, which is a good thing, because he’ll be writing the SOP. So I’m immediately encouraged by that interjection.

There is also, we thought, a need to clarify, too, the issues around pursuit of a vessel without interruption of communications, and that will be further tested out. There is the exception to flagged State vessels. That would mean that if a vessel is carrying a flag of another State, then there would have to be agreement from that State that the enforcement action could take place, and that’s not a big break on the whole deal here. It is obvious that New Zealand enforcement agencies work internationally, particularly in the pursuit of those who are moving illicit drugs around the globe.

Then, of course, we also, as quite an aside, heard from the New Zealand Customs Service this morning about the extent to which they are frequently now having to engage in the long-term tracking of illicit product that’s coming into New Zealand. They’ve had some extraordinary successes. But if there was the capacity, or the capacity existed within New Zealand law, for them to be able to intercept some of those shipments further out from New Zealand territorial waters, perhaps with the assistance of other countries, then that would be a particularly good thing.

There is also a need, we thought, for greater clarity around the powers to detain persons. Remember that this bill, in part, is concerned about the ever-growing problem of human trafficking all around the world, and quite often through the waters that surround New Zealand. So there needs to be quite some clarity about who can be detained in those circumstances, and absolutely no confusion about those who might be victims, and those who might be perpetrators.

Also, we thought the bill could be a little bit enhanced by looking further at the issue of who can execute a warrant for arrest. It comes back to that point I said before about some of the powers that will be, in this bill, granted to rangers and conservation enforcement officers. That needs to be very, very clear. There are provisions in the bill that could make that even clearer.

And then there is an issue around the consent of the Attorney-General. We need to know exactly what it is that the Attorney-General would be required to consent to in any of these activities.

Finally, the issue of warrantless search powers. This is becoming quite a prevalent thing in New Zealand law. We support this with some reluctance, I have to say, but, none the less, if it can be specified exactly where those powers could be exercised, and the law is tight enough, then it may well be reasonable. I note that Parliament yesterday, or last evening, passed a bill through another stage which also granted warrantless powers to police, particularly with regard to firearms. It seems reasonable, then, that there should be similar powers if someone is known to be importing illicit drugs or other materials into New Zealand.

Our enforcement agencies do a good job, in this country, with the tools they have available to them. The Customs department do a fantastic job of trying to protect our borders as much as they can, but our borders are vast. We need to have a range of tools available to them that meet the needs of today and that enable them to engage in the sort of international collaborations that they’re increasingly seeking to do on our behalf for the benefit of the people of New Zealand.

So we will support this bill progressing in the House. We’ll look eagerly towards the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that the Minister might bring. I think, given the level of support, it’s appropriate that it is a Minister’s SOP that makes the substantially technical changes to the bill that will give a greater degree of surety to those who might have some concerns about some of the powers extended in this bill, effectively extending the domestic powers of many enforcement activities in New Zealand into international waters as well.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Like that previous speaker and perhaps the gentleman next to him, Mr McKelvie, many of us grew up on an understanding of the limits of New Zealand law and territory. I refer to, of course, Radio Hauraki, New Zealand’s first pirate radio ship. I see the Speaker nodding herself, so—I would have thought you were too young, Madam Speaker, but obviously you were in that era yourself. We all understood that at a time when New Zealand music was changing, and when perhaps banjo music was more popular in some parts of the country than others, that The Beatles and other bands crept into New Zealand, but the licences to play that music weren’t available. So the ship—I understand the Tiri, the first one, and the Tiri, the second one. Both of them, I seem to remember, ran aground on Great Barrier Island at some stage. They were actually able to operate outside New Zealand territorial waters. I say that just to give some context so that people—who have been around this House a little bit longer—will understand what this bill is about.

We live in an era where organised crime is very well organised. Now, that seems something of an obvious statement to make, but sometimes I don’t think we quite understand how well organised internationally these people are. So anything that is international immediately needs an international response, and it means that we must give our authorities the ability to operate outside the traditional borders, which they do. The spectre of people racing for the mythical 200-mile limit—economic limit, or New Zealand’s economic zone or just New Zealand territorial waters. Those opportunities are removed in this situation because organised crime—traditionally, we’d like to think of them as drugs, maybe robberies and cars, various other things, but their activities extend way beyond that. Wildlife—essentially anything that is illegal that you can make some money out of, they will be into. That’s why, of course, the wildlife aspect of this has been placed in it. It’s extremely lucrative, where you get rare species who can be exported, or, indeed, imported. I see, also, even reference to the use of rare animal materials in various substances. I think the rhino horn might have been one of the ones that was brought up—again, something that may be of interest to some members across the House.

With that organised crime, another very important aspect of this is that we now have increased—in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, one that the previous speaker was actually part of passing here. It was something that was designed to update the search ability, because as crime and criminals have advanced, as their methods of being able to secrete or hide the various substances which they are involved in have evolved, so it is important that the law and those that are enforcing those laws be able to so operate. So, again, this bill, as I look through it, certainly does ensure that those domestic search and surveillance powers that were granted to the New Zealand authorities are extended into that international zone.

There are the usual protections you will have because, again, I note that it’s not a fishing expedition as such, whereby the authorities can go and pick a ship and say, “Well, we think something might be going on there.” The real protection, like there is in all these pieces of legislation, and particularly around the search and surveillance, is that there must be a reasonable ground to suspect. Of course, these are the types of things that later on, if there is a court case—and there is obviously intended that there would be—those officers that used these powers would have to prove that they did have a reasonable ground to suspect that an offence had been or will be committed on board that vessel, and, again, we can go back to the people-smuggling aspect of that, in particular. There are different thresholds because we then go to what is a slightly higher threshold, which is reasonable grounds to believe that there is evidence on board a ship of serious criminal offending.

That may seem like semantics, but through case law and precedent, both of those phrases have been well extrapolated, and, again, as I say, through precedent, they have been well defined. So it’s not as though we’re going to be—and I say to those who fear that somehow we’ll be letting our authorities out there to stop any ship that’s passing at any time of the day that that certainly won’t be happening.

This is, again, a very important piece of legislation. I think we’ve become aware that there’s not many pieces of legislation that come before this House where there’s not some sort of COVID aspect to it that is highlighted. One thing COVID has done is I think it’s highlighted an understanding of how our world operates, and supply chains and supply lines have become a very important part of that. As we lament the lack of shipbuilding around the world and lament the lack of container building over the years in recent times, that is certainly impacting on us here at this end of the world. We do certainly understand that everything that we have here will most likely have had some sort of component which we have to bring into New Zealand, and so it is with the criminal fraternity. Much of what they operate with and much of what they make their livings out of comes through those supply chains.

Also, with our increased surveillance powers, often with the intelligence received it will be a matter of knowing something is going to be coming to New Zealand and knowing that it’s on a certain ship, with evidence that that merchandise is actually on those ships that are coming here, and the closer they get to our coastline, the more difficult, often, it can be to detect the offending. You can imagine the difference of having a ship 150 kilometres out, where we have sufficient evidence and good cause to suspect that there is contraband on that ship or offences being committed—imagine how much easier it is to actually ensure that we isolate the crime scene, if you like, or even reduce the opportunities for them to drop the goods than if they are coming into Tauranga Harbour, for example.

There are many police operations and customs operations that have taken place where ships have been coming to, particularly, Tauranga Harbour, as it seems to be becoming one of the main areas to import much of our goods because of infiltration of organised crime, as I’ve spoken about before, at various levels of the supply chain. Once those ships are in the harbour, you can imagine the opportunities there are for goods to be dropped off where there is so much shipping and small boats. We’ve just heard this morning how many small boats there are operating in places like Tauranga Harbour since COVID, again, simply because those who would normally have spent their money overseas are now spending it on those small boats.

So this is a very, very good piece of legislation. It’s surprising that we haven’t had to deal with it before. Again, it’s a tribute to how well our law enforcement agencies are working that more and more they are aware and are working with foreign agencies and working with foreign police forces and customs, and are getting the information so that we are better equipped to try and stop the flow of illicit substances coming into New Zealand and stop the flow of people-trafficking coming into New Zealand, using the international networks that we have. So to be able to effectively police what is an increased information flow on these issues without the sorts of powers that are allowed and permitted by this bill would have, in fact, been really to hamstring the very authorities that we rely on very much to be keeping us all safe. So it gives me great pleasure to stand here and commend this bill to the House.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It’s a pleasure to take a call in the House. It’s the first time I’ve been allowed in the House this year, and I’m pleased to be back down here where the air’s rare and the heat’s not quite so great. It’s a pleasure to be able to take a call on the Maritime Powers Bill. Isn’t it lucky that I’m following Andrew Little, who knows all about the law; the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who knows all about foreign affairs; and—I was going to say the Hon Greg O’Connor, but I’ve jumped the gun; he’ll get there one day, maybe—Greg O’Connor, who knows all about enforcement. I know nothing about this bill other than the fact that I was the spokesperson for fisheries for a while, and it’s a very interesting topic and it does have some relevance to this.

But having listened to those three speakers, I do in all seriousness realise the importance of this bill to New Zealand, and whilst I was around in the days of the good radio station that Greg O’Connor was talking about—and I do remember it quite well. It’s ironic, isn’t it, when you think that we’ve come such a long way as a country that you can now set up a radio station in Parliament and broadcast to whoever you want almost, whereas in those days you couldn’t.

This bill is an important bill, and I was a bit interested in some of the clauses in it because if you think about the fishing industry, for example, there is a lot of illegal fishing that goes on in the world, and to actually catch those boats that are out there fishing illegally and get them before they get out of our territorial waters, which is what happens to us at the moment, is almost impossible. So this bill will have quite an impact on that. And it wasn’t that long ago that we had a boat from North America fishing for toothfish in the Southern Ocean getting back there and getting into port before it was caught. So the ways that you catch the people involved in what can only be described as criminal activity are quite interesting.

Some of the things that interested me in this bill were the issues that the select committee dealt with, and I think they will be dealt with again, as Gerry Brownlee said, in the course of the committee of the whole House. I was just imagining some crim jumping overboard and the Lady Elizabeth chasing him around in the Southern Ocean. If I was a crim I don’t think I’d be that keen to take the sharks on. I think I’d rather take the Lady Elizabeth on, than the sharks, but it does show the lengths to which these people go to escape. The other issue that I think will be challenging for New Zealand—and it relates exactly back to the fisheries issue I talked about a few seconds ago—is the fact that we have to contact international countries and partners to get permission to effectively board their flagged ships, and I think that will not be forthcoming in a lot of cases, and it will be not forthcoming in the cases that we really need to get involved in. So I think that will be a bit of a challenge for New Zealand, and it might be able to be managed through further discussion or even through a Supplementary Order Paper brought forward by the Minister.

I think that is a challenge for us because there are plenty of countries in the world that aren’t that friendly and even whose income comes from some of those illicit activities that we’re trying to intercept before they get to New Zealand and preclude from getting here. So there’s some challenges in this piece of legislation, which sets out to enable us to intercept, as Greg O’Connor so aptly said, a whole lot of people and a whole lot of illicit goods, whether it’s fish or drugs, or whatever it might be, before they get here. So for us to have the intelligence—and I mean this sort of intelligence, not that sort of intelligence. I mean the intelligence that tells us where things are, where they’re coming from, and where we need to get to to intercept them is quite important to New Zealand. So I think there are a lot of things in this bill that will add considerable powers to what goes on in New Zealand, and it gives our law enforcement agencies, our rangers, and people like that, who have authority in this area—fisheries officers—to go out there and do what they’re required to do. One only has to look at what’s going on in front of this building and the extraordinarily difficult challenge that the police have in order to see the job they’re required to do sometimes—and in this case in international waters, far from New Zealand, and in probably what could amount to quite dangerous circumstances.

So I’ve got no problem in supporting this bill. It’s a place that I’ve not really had a lot of practice in speaking on—foreign affairs, or this sort of territory. But I do think that this bill will add a whole lot to New Zealand, and I fully support it going forward in the House, and I look forward to the discussion that happens during the course of the committee stage.

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

The House adjourned at 4.57 p.m.