Tuesday, 3 May 2022

TUESDAY, 3 MAY 2022

TUESDAY, 3 MAY 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): 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, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace and New Zealand. Amen.

List Member ELECTED

List Member ELECTED

SPEAKER: Members, I have received from the Electoral Commission a return declaring Lemauga Lydia Sosene to be elected a member of Parliament to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Louisa Wall from her list seat.

Members Sworn

Members Sworn

The Speaker administered the Oath of Allegiance to Lemauga Lydia Sosene, who then took her seat in the House.

LEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Ko ahau ko Lemauga Lydia Sosene e oati ana ka noho pūmau taku pono ki a Kuini Irahāpeti te Tuarua me tōna kāhui whakaheke e ai ki te ture. Ko Te Atua nei hoki taku pou.

[I, Lemauga Lydia Sosene, swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.]

O a‘u, o Lemauga Lydia Sosene. Ou te tauto atu, o le a ou faamaoni ma ou tuuina atu ma le moni, lo‘u loto atoatoa, i le tautuaina o lana afioga i le Tupu Tamaitai, o Elisapeta le Lua, faapea ona suli uma, ma i latou uma o ē suitulaga, ina ia tusa ai ma le tulafono. Le Alii e, ia e fesoasoani mai ia te a‘u.

Obituaries

Ian Brooks

SPEAKER: I regret to inform the House of the death on 20 April 2022 of Ian Brooks, who represented the former Marlborough electorate from 1970 to 1975. He chaired the Education Committee from 1973 to 1975.

I desire, on behalf of this House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to his memory.

Members stood as a mark of respect.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 10 to Minister, 9 February

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to an oral question.

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

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: In response to question No. 10 on 9 February, I answered that “60,000 military-style weapons, also known as E category firearms, had been removed from circulation as part of the firearms buyback.” It was actually 60,000 prohibited firearms that were removed, of which 15,037 were classified as E category firearms.

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

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

SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of 350 Aotearoa, requesting that the House ban the expansion and installation of all new fossil-fuel boilers in schools in the wider state sector

petition of Robert Forsythe, requesting that the House pass legislation allowing free transport to all school students

petition of Joe Miller on behalf of Grey Power Otago, requesting that the House pass legislation requiring the main arterial route through Dunedin to remain as a one-way system in line with the recommendation of Waka Kotahi

petition of Julia Lee, requesting that the House of Representatives pass legislation to create non-transferrable paid parental leave for fathers or for an alternative nominated support person in special circumstances.

SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. A paper has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill.

SPEAKER: I present the 2022/23 Draft Annual Plan of the Control on Auditor-General. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK:

Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill

report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2)

report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the briefing on the situation in Ukraine and Russia

report of the Justice Committee on the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill

reports of the Petitions Committee on the

petition of Ari Kerssens: Increase taxi subsidy for the Total Mobility scheme

petition of Citizens Advice Bureau New Zealand: Leave no-one behind - Campaign to address digital exclusion

petition of Malkiat Singh: Grant partners of New Zealanders on general visitor visa permission to enter NZ

reports of the Regulations Review Committee on the

complaint about the Fisheries (South Island Customary Fishing) Regulations 1999 (SR1999/342) and certain Declarations of Mātaitai Reserves

examination of COVID-19 orders presented between 31 March and 8 April 2022.

SPEAKER: The bills are set down for second reading, the briefing is set down for consideration, and the reports of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly recent milestones in the Government’s economic recovery plan. Yesterday, international tourism and business travellers from around 60 visa waiver countries were welcomed back as part of the Government’s reconnecting plan. Our tourism destinations are amongst the world’s best, and as thousands of passengers touched down yesterday on around 25 flights at Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch international airports, it is clear New Zealand is open for business. Our reconnecting plan is about even more than reuniting family and friends; it is a crucial part of strengthening our economic recovery, and I know we are all pleased to welcome our visitors back.

Christopher Luxon: Why, with inflation at its highest level in 30 years—raising an extra $12 billion in revenue annually—is the Government now expecting to delay the return to surplus by another year?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would point out to the member that even with a return to surplus in the year 2024-25, that brings us back into surplus within a shorter time frame than we saw under the National Government in the recovery from the global financial crisis (GFC). I stand by our economic response to COVID-19. It means that our economy is one of the strongest performers in the OECD. We have some of the lowest unemployment on record, at 3.2 percent. We have an economy that has a higher rate of activity than what we saw pre-COVID, and, yes, while we do see households going through the impacts of high inflation that is being experienced around the world, this is a Government who is focused on doing what we can to support New Zealand households. We got New Zealanders through COVID and we will get them through the economic recovery of COVID.

Christopher Luxon: Why has she opted for another year of deficits instead of reconsidering plans for the biggest-spending Budget in New Zealand’s history, which would help lower inflation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Well, firstly, I would question the member’s rationale on that last point. But I would also then ask the member the question: what was it of the support that we put into New Zealand families and businesses that he would choose to cut, because even with a return to surplus sooner than what we saw under National in the GFC—and yet the economic crisis we’ve experienced has been worse—the member seems to suggest that, instead, we should not have invested in businesses to keep them afloat with the business support scheme, that we should not have ensured that people’s incomes were covered through those income supports, and that we should not have had the extra support through the winter energy payment or benefit increases, all of which have contributed to the lowest unemployment we have seen in New Zealand, at 3.2 percent. So, instead, my question to the member is: what would he have cut? Because it would have left our recovery far worse.

SPEAKER: Order! I just do want to remind the Prime Minister that she can’t ask the Leader of the Opposition questions.

David Seymour: Can the Prime Minister name, or is she aware of, any country at any time in history that borrowed and spent its way out of high inflation?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, if I want to reflect on the periods where we’ve had inflation that has, for instance, outstripped wage growth, it was actually under National’s Government. If I also reflect on a time where we had a period where Government took on more debt because of economic crisis, it was during the GFC, and, again, I would reflect, at that time, that even then, as a percentage of GDP, we have taken on a similar increase in debt levels. When it comes to the impact that that extra spending has on inflation, the member well knows that it depends on the nature of that spending. If the member is arguing that income replacement—income replacement—was inflationary, that’s a matter for the member.

Christopher Luxon: In light of her answer, does she agree with her Minister of Finance that “The path for returning to surplus also puts downward pressure on inflation.”, and, if so, why is she committing to another year of deficits?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I do agree with the Minister of Finance. I also agree with the proposition he’s put around, for instance, talking about the longer term, the commitment we are making as part of the fiscal rules to ensure that over a period—a defined period—we are running surpluses but, at the same time, ensuring that when we are taking on debt, it is for investment in infrastructure that New Zealand desperately needs. We have for too long seen a complete deficit approach to investment and much-needed infrastructure like pipes for our water, preparation for houses to be built, hospitals and health services, and schools that we need. We have paid a price for that as a nation. We are still recovering as a Government with investment in those areas. The rules we’ve set out today return us to surplus but also ensure long-term investment.

Christopher Luxon: Will she rule out introducing any new taxes to pay for her Government’s record new spending?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We’ve already introduced our tax policy, and I note that the member has chosen to promote the idea of reversing it. Our tax policy included putting in a new top tax rate at $180,000, or more, of an individual’s income. The National Party has proposed dropping that. Just at a time when Kiwis are experiencing cost of living issues, he wants to ensure tax cuts for those at higher incomes—they’re at $180,000—and wants to reverse the work that we did to make the playing field more even for first-home buyers. A billion dollars’ worth of tax breaks for speculators—that’s his policy; it is certainly not ours.

Christopher Luxon: Is it still her policy that she will never implement a wealth tax while she is Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve said repeatedly, I stand by all my statements that I’ve made, and I made the statement in 2020. The question I have is: whether the member stands by all of his? In recent times when we’ve been talking about the experience of New Zealanders right now in a global crisis, we’ve heard that he wants to remove public holidays, no subsidies for public transport, raising the retirement age—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The Leader of the Opposition’s statements are not part of the Prime Minister’s responsibility.

David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister seriously arguing in her earlier answers that the Government which gave New Zealand KiwiBuild and the ongoing Auckland light rail fiasco are the right people to deliver quality spending on infrastructure?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: We are the Government that has invested in new school builds; that is investing in hospitals; that is investing in the infrastructure that we need in order to produce housing, including water infrastructure. So the proof of course is the fact that we ended up with a housing crisis because the last Government—supported by ACT—did not invest in those things.

Christopher Luxon: Does she accept that if her Government was more careful when spending taxpayers’ money, Kiwis today could have lower inflation, lower taxes, and better outcomes from their public services?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: By that assertion, I would assume therefore that he is claiming every single economy that is currently experiencing inflation therefore is simply down to that question. We know the OECD average right now is 7.7 percent, we know in euro its 7.5, in Germany it’s 7.3. In Australia, they’ve seen a more rapid increase than New Zealand in the last quarter. This is a global issue caused by the simultaneous recovery from COVID-19 of all of our economies, supply chain constraints, and now a war. What I can attest to is that on this side of the House, we are working through our 1 April changes and our 1 May changes to support New Zealanders. All I’ve heard from the Opposition is tax cuts for the most wealthy.

Question No. 2—Revenue

2. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by his statement on the tax system that “[many people] assume that the system is progressive overall. It isn’t”; if so, why is our tax system not progressive?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Yes. The effective marginal tax rate for middle-income New Zealanders is generally higher than it is for their wealthier co-citizens. Some wealthier New Zealanders pay very low rates of tax on most of their income. That is why the Government has supported Inland Revenue to gather information to inform the Government and the public on the effective tax rates that New Zealanders at different levels of wealth and income actually pay. It is important that discussions around tax, wealth, and inequality are informed by facts and evidence.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he consider it important to have a progressive tax system that can fund public services, provide people with livable incomes, and respond to the climate emergency?

SPEAKER: Any two of those four questions.

Hon DAVID PARKER: The four basic principles of any decent tax system are horizontal equity—people in the same economic position pay the same amount of tax—vertical equity, that people that are better off at least pay the rate that people that are worse off than them—should be progressive. It should be administratively efficient, for both the tax department and taxpayers, and it should minimise the distortions that are caused to the economy, or can be caused by improper tax systems. In respect of the principle that this most addresses, it’s the vertical equity issue.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Why, if the Minister believes that our tax system is not progressive while he also believes that it should be progressive, is he not urgently putting in place tax reform?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We set out our tax policies for the country in the 2020 election, and we have followed them. We are sticking to those commitments and I would repeat what I said in the first paragraph of my speech: “Those coming here expecting announcements of new tax policy will be disappointed. None are being made. We have no secret plan to introduce a CGT, nor a wealth tax, or a deemed income tax, nor others. The IRD is not doing any work to even develop these or other options.”

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he stand by his response, then, to my question in select committee that the Government may do “perhaps nothing”, even if the IRD finds that we have an unfair tax system?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’ve already said that we are sticking with our election policy of 2020, and it’s absolutely clear that we have been doing so. I think that answers the member’s question.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the advice from Treasury and IRD officials that more than 40 percent of millionaires are paying tax rates lower than the lowest earners still stand?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I haven’t had an up-to-date report on that, but it does highlight the issue that I find it absolutely incredible that some people in society say that we should not be conducting the information upon which to have a fact-based debate. That seems to be the position of Opposition parties.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with Treasury that “New Zealand’s tax system currently relies heavily on a small number of tax bases” and “there are many ways in which Governments could seek to raise additional revenue from existing and new tax bases”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of the first part of that quote, yes, I agree with it. But I re-emphasise that we are sticking with our 2020 manifesto promise which was in respect of raising the tax rate on people who had a taxable income of more than $180,000, and I would notice—the Prime Minister has—that some Opposition parties have already announced their tax party policy for the next election; we haven’t.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What announcements has the Government made on the fiscal strategy for Budget 2022?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): This morning, I set out new fiscal rules to ensure New Zealand continues to maintain our world-leading financial position. Our economy is growing at 5.6 percent a year, unemployment is at a record low of 3.2 percent, debt is substantially below that of the countries we compare ourselves with, and we are amongst a small number of countries which have maintained a triple A credit rating during the COVID period. As we move to a new normal post the peak of COVID, it is the right time to resume a set of fiscal rules to carefully manage costs while planning for the future. The first new fiscal rule is that once we reach our operating balance before gains and losses surplus as expected in 2024-25, the Government is committing to maintaining a small surplus in the range of zero to 2 percent of GDP over time. The range is based on advice from Treasury. That means that as we enter the new normal, the spending required to operate Government services won’t be adding to Government debt. There will be allowances for significant shocks, and it is an average percentage so as to allow additional investment in a particular year if required.

Dr Duncan Webb: How will debt be measured under the fiscal strategy for Budget 2022?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: New Zealand has a comparatively strong debt position, but we have been an outlier in the international community in the way our net debt is measured. I have accepted Treasury’s recommendation for a new net debt measure to be introduced to bring New Zealand closer in line with other countries. The measure is more reflective of the real state of our fiscal position so that we can accurately compare ourselves against other countries. Unlike the main headline measure that we currently use—net core Crown debt—the new measure includes a wide range of Government assets, such as the super fund, but also liabilities, including debt held by other Crown agencies such as Kāinga Ora. It gives a headline net debt figure about 20 percentage points lower than the current one but is far more comparable when assessing our fiscal sustainability against other countries. We will ensure that the Budget documents continue to publish the old measure alongside the new measure for transparency and the ability to make historical comparisons.

Dr Duncan Webb: What other fiscal rules are being introduced?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We will be introducing a debt ceiling that ensures New Zealand maintains some of the lowest Government debt in the world while giving greater room for investment in high-quality infrastructure. Under the old measure of net debt, the Treasury has recommended the ceiling be 50 percent of GDP; when we translate that to the new measure, and it is comparable with other countries, the cap is 30 percent of GDP. It is a limit rather than a target and it is, again, flexible enough to allow a buffer against short-term shocks while providing greater room for productive investment. The interaction of the two fiscal rules means that the additional debt cannot be used for day-to-day spending as that is limited by the surplus rule. This leads the debt ceiling to guide capital investments needed in infrastructure to keep our economy moving.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “The first surplus since the 2018/2019 year is expected in 2024/2025 … this is a year later than we set out in December”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I stand by my full statement with its context, which was—I quote myself—“Just as the previous National Government ran deficits and increased net debt following the Global Financial Crisis and Canterbury Earthquakes, we have done the same to protect New Zealanders from the effects of COVID-19. Add in the impact of the War in Ukraine, and the ongoing supply chain disruption as a result of continued COVID responses around the world, [and] we are faced with running five years of deficits compared to National’s six. The first surplus since the 2018/19 year is expected in 2024/25. The keen-eyed among you will realise that this is a year later than we set out in December. We are not alone in toning down some of our expectations as a result of the war and ongoing supply chain issues. The IMF has said that global growth will average 3.5% over 2022, down from the 4.4% it had previously forecast in January. All that said, achieving a surplus within the next three fiscal years—at a quicker rate than National did after the Global Financial Crisis—is something I am proud to be able to do as Minister of Finance.”

Nicola Willis: Why should New Zealanders believe he is spending their money as carefully as they would, when, despite introducing multiple new taxes and collecting billions more from income tax as inflation pushes people into higher tax brackets, he still can’t get the Government books under control?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, Mr Speaker, leaving aside some of the assertions in that question—

SPEAKER: Yeah, I should have ruled it out, but I’m being liberal.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —I am aware that the member concerned used to work with Bill English, and I’m sure he would be concerned that she’s trashing his record so significantly today, given that it took six years for the National Government to get into surplus after the global financial crisis (GFC), and we’re only going to do it in five.

Nicola Willis: How can New Zealanders have confidence in the Minister’s economic management when, even while they tighten their budgets as inflation bites, he is about to embark on the biggest spend-up in Budget history?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Once again, I take the member back to the National Government after the GFC when core Crown expenses reached 34.1 percent of GDP. For us, it’s reached just over 35 percent in the face of a greater financial crisis, and it is forecast to come down to 30 percent across the forecast period. We have invested in supporting New Zealanders through COVID-19 and we will continue to invest in supporting New Zealand’s economic recovery.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it unprecedented for a Government to take a year or two longer to get back into surplus than they might have earlier predicted?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, it’s not. And, in fact, I do recall the Hon Bill English, in fact, saying that it would be more challenging to get back into surplus—and he did so in what I imagine was a very well-written speech.

Nicola Willis: Does he stand by his statement in his speech this morning that “surplus means current spending is paid for from current revenues. … taking pressure off inflation”, and what impact does he think the Government’s spending will have on inflation in the current year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m confident that the investments that this Government will make will ensure that New Zealanders get the public services that they deserve, that will make sure we have a good health system, and a quality education system. I also know that the kind of spending a Government does matters a lot when it comes to inflation. Targeted spending that the Government is doing is important. Spending that the Opposition is proposing, which would see tax cuts to those on the highest incomes, is not targeted spending and would likely be more inflationary.

Nicola Willis: Will he rule out further tax increases to keep up with his projections of more debt and more deficits?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the Prime Minister has already indicated, we have implemented our tax policy. What I will rule out is adopting the member’s tax policy that would see the wealthiest in New Zealand get thousands of dollars a year in tax cuts, while those on the middle incomes get two bucks a week. I can rule that out.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has the Minister of Finance seen any suggestions over the last two years that the Government should have spent more on things like the wage subsidy and the COVID-19 response?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I have heard frequent suggestions from members of the Opposition that we should be giving more support to businesses, that we should be providing more things. I remember Andrew—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think both members know that donkey drops for that purpose are not allowed.

Nicola Willis: Has the Minister reassessed any of his spending plans in light of massive inflation, high tax takes, and plummeting business and consumer confidence, or is he determined to keep spending up large no matter what?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Every single Budget, the Government works across every part of the Budget to make sure that we are delivering value for money for New Zealanders. What I have assessed is that New Zealanders deserve a health system where the hospitals they go to work properly; where children have been educated in warm, dry classrooms; where we actually build State houses rather than sell them. On this side of the House, we are committed to a programme that lifts the quality of public services that New Zealanders get. What we’re not going to do is untargeted tax cuts that give the wealthiest New Zealanders hundreds of thousands of dollars while those on low and middle incomes are given $2 a week.

Question No. 5—Housing

5. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Housing: What action has the Government recently taken to enable housing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Last week, the Government announced that around 400 infrastructure projects in the Auckland suburbs of Mount Roskill, Māngere, Tāmaki, Ōranga, and Northcote will receive funding from the Government’s $3.8 billion Housing Acceleration Fund announced in March 2021. This new funding will directly enable up to 16,000 new homes on Crown-owned land—including public, affordable, and market homes—and create capacity for an extra 11,000 homes on surrounding privately owned land. The projects being funded include three waters infrastructure, including water main renewal and sewerage and stormwater system upgrades, as well as flood protection, footpath and road improvements, and site decontaminations.

Shanan Halbert: What further action is the Government taking to enable more housing in other parts of the country?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yesterday, those applicants invited to progress to the negotiation stage of the Government’s $1 billion contestable Infrastructure Acceleration Fund were notified. This will unlock new housing development across the country in the short to medium term. Thirty-five projects are being progressed through the fund, which could unlock between 25,000 to 35,000 additional homes, pending agreement of the final proposals. There are 14 proposals for developments in New Zealand’s major urban centres—the tier 1 councils of Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga, Wellington, and Christchurch—and the remaining 21 are in other areas throughout the country. Almost one-third of the applications going forward to the next stage are proposals that are co-led with Māori or have Māori as key partners.

Shanan Halbert: How will this investment in infrastructure improve the supply of housing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Decades of under-investment in housing infrastructure needed has created the national housing crisis that we are facing today. Investments of this scale in water, transport, and community infrastructure are vital to increase the pace at which we can unlock new homes where they are critically needed. Creating funding certainty for this additional infrastructure also works in tandem to deliver the infrastructure needed for intensification under the Government’s National Policy Statement for Urban Development and the medium-density residential standards. It also allows the Government to continue with its public house build progress, continuing to progress to date—such as the 9,000 public houses and 3,425 additional transitional houses we’ve already delivered—the largest delivery in many decades.

Question No. 6—Justice

6. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Justice: Is the Government committed to the principle of equal suffrage in New Zealand’s electoral laws?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Yes.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he believe every New Zealander of voting age should have an equal say in who governs them?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Government is committed to every New Zealander’s right to participate in our democracy on a fair and equal basis.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has he seen any advice on the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill which seeks to deviate from the principle of equal voting rights, and, if so, what actions, if any, has he taken?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I’ve obviously seen reports, since the Attorney-General has tabled his opinion on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act process that has been undertaken on that piece of legislation. The bill itself is a local bill; it is not a reflection of Government policy. I understand that the member in charge and the local government entity involved are taking a pause, given the opinion expressed by the Attorney-General.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with his Cabinet colleague the Hon Willie Jackson that “The nature of [our] democracy has changed”, and, if so, is a move away from equal voting rights part of the Government’s intended direction of travel?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I reiterate that the Government is committed to every New Zealander having the right to participate in our democracy on a fair and equal basis. That particular piece of legislation, as a local bill, has been through a select committee process and has had a vet by the Attorney-General. That particular local body entity has taken a pause, given the feedback given by the Attorney-General.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he not the Minister of Justice in a Government that voted for a bill that seeks to remove equal voting rights?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Yes, I am the Minister of Justice. We voted for the bill in order for it to have a select committee process. The Attorney-General has given his opinion, as the Attorney-General does with every piece of legislation. There have been some concerns raised by the Attorney-General, and it is up to the sponsor and the local body entity to deal with the challenges of that Attorney-General vet.

SPEAKER: Question No.—

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: Well, I thought from all the noise that the member’s colleagues didn’t want another supplementary.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Attorney-General that the bill discriminates against people not on the Māori roll, and, if so, why was this not obvious to him when the bill had its first reading a few weeks ago?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Can I say once more for the member, the bill is a local bill brought forward by the Rotorua District Council and sponsored by a member of the House who was in charge of that. Every bill goes through the Attorney-General process. The Attorney-General has expressed some concerns, which I believe that the entity responsible for the bill is addressing.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Has there been a previous example where the Attorney-General has recommended against a change to voting rights with regard to a member’s bill, where the Government of the day has voted in favour of that, such as when the voting rights from prisoners were removed?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I do recall that piece of legislation, which passed under the last National Government. There are positive things that this Government is doing in order to make sure that there are commitments to equality and fairness within our electoral system. That’s why we’re undertaking a full review—an independent review—of our electoral system. We’ve also made some proposals to Opposition parties around some things—policy changes—which we’d like to do before the next election. I look forward to a response from the member.

Rawiri Waititi: What is the Minister going to do about the racist legislation that locks Māori out for eight years from participating in the general elections every three years?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I think the member is referring to issues around the Māori electoral option. I’ve had meetings with that member and also with Opposition members about making sure that that particular aspect of our electoral law is fairer for those who are on the Māori roll. Again, I look forward to the Opposition coming back with an opinion on that proposal from the Government.

Question No. 7—Education

7. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to provide more resources to the front line and support all students to succeed?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Over the weekend, my colleague the Hon Jan Tinetti and I announced that, as part of this year’s Budget, a new regional response fund of $40 million is being established to help meet local educational needs. Funds will be provided through Te Mahau, or the education support agency, which works closely with sectors and communities to ensure that the support is getting to where it needs to be in the way that it needs to be delivered. Te Mahau was established following the review of Tomorrow’s Schools. The fund is going to have a strong initial focus on ensuring that students are going to school and are engaged in their learning.

Angela Roberts: What sort of activities on the part of schools will the new regional response fund be used for?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It’s really important that we get kids back to school and engaged in their learning, and the fund will certainly help to support that. It will provide an opportunity for schools to put extra resources into supporting those who are currently disengaged from their learning, and that will include the ability to work with family, with whānau, and with other community organisations to address any barriers to participation and to make sure that those young people who are currently disengaged are re-engaged. It will also help to ensure that schools are places where all of our young people want to be.

Angela Roberts: Has the regional response been informed by experience with any previous initiatives?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes, this builds on the $50 million Urgent Response Fund that we put in place as part of our COVID 19-response. The Urgent Response Fund worked on a similar basis, allowing schools and communities to come up with initiatives that best meet their local needs. A survey of the Urgent Response Fund’s outcomes was completed by 871 of the recipients, and it found that the respondents reported that their learners were supported and that there were improvements in their re-engagement in learning, their wellbeing, and their cultural wellbeing. The vast majority of respondents considered that they had achieved, or would likely achieve, the intended outcomes for their learners as a result of the fund being there.

Erica Stanford: Does the Minister accept that the recent increase in youth crime of late is in part a consequence of the additional 20,000 children that have become chronically absent from school since Labour took office, and isn’t his Sunday announcement too little, too late?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: In fact, if the member looks at the statistics, what she’ll find is that in the first couple of years that we were the Government, we had arrested the trend that we inherited of downward participation in schooling. Unfortunately, COVID-19 has once again shifted the dial on that, and we do have a challenge as a country to get kids back to school, and that is what the Government is responding to. I would note that there are many reasons why kids don’t attend school. In fact, the entire community needs to play its part in that, and parents also need to play their part in ensuring that their children are going to school.

Question No. 8—Prime Minister

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

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, particularly the Government’s decision to implement the winter energy payment, which will help over 1 million families to heat their homes over winter. Between 1 May and 1 October this year, families with children will get an extra $31.82 a week, and single people with no dependent children will get a boost of $20.46 a week. This payment will help older New Zealanders and many of our low and middle income families to cover some of the costs, which can peak during the colder seasons. The winter energy payment provides support alongside a suite of income increases that took effect on 1 April, including increases to main benefits, New Zealand superannuation, Working for Families, and the minimum wage. We’ve taken a range of actions to lift Kiwis’ incomes that together will ease the pressure for many families.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her statement ruling out introducing a wealth tax on 14 October 2020, when she said, “I won’t allow it to happen as Prime Minister”, and, if so, what was the policy logic behind that statement?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said many times, I stand by all the statements that I have made, and, in fact, we have done exactly what we said we would do, which is implement the tax policy we campaigned on, which is the introduction of a top tax rate for those earning over $180,000—on income earned over $180,000. We made very clear at that time our view that that would create a fairer system. It did not put us out of kilt with other jurisdictions. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, the amount that is taken via tax is very similar to during the period that National were in office. I also stand by my ruling out the wealth tax policy that was put to me in 2020 for all the reasons I gave at the time. It was simply not our policy and is still not our policy.

David Seymour: Is she prepared to tell Parliament today that she will not introduce a wealth tax as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That’s exactly what I said in 2020, and I have stood by that statement. We have already implemented our tax policy. The debate we are having at the moment is whether or not the National Party, should they ever become Government with the support, for instance, of ACT, would remove that top tax rate, which would mean the wealthiest New Zealanders would receive a substantial tax cut whereas those New Zealanders who are on lower incomes would get a grand sum of $2 per week. We can only assume that, at the same time, they would get rid of—if they were supported by the ACT Party—a number of other Government supports that we have put in place to ensure that low and middle income earners feel an ease against the cost of living pressures they’ve experienced.

David Seymour: Does she stand by her Minister for Māori Development’s statement on Q+A that, “Democracy has changed.”, and, if so, can she explain what Willie Jackson might have meant when he said that?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I’ve not seen the entirety of the interview that the member is referencing, but as the Minister of Justice has already stated in this House, we’re very clear around ensuring that people have greater access to their democracy in New Zealand. Over many years, we’ve seen improvements to our system that have ensured that we have a much more diverse Parliament. That diversity is reflected here in this House, and I understand the leader of the National Party spoke today about the diversity that he hopes to see come into this Parliament as a result of his newly selected candidate in Tauranga, who, I notice, he said, “would bring new diversity”—

David Seymour: Point of order.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —as a result of his candidate being “highly educated.”

SPEAKER: Part of the problem is I have a point of order and I’ll hear the point of order. I’m going to find it slightly hard to rule on it because of the noise that was occurring at the latter part of the Prime Minister’s comments. I will also say to the Prime Minister that when I stand up she should sit down.

David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I’m trying to ask questions and get information about the Government from the Prime Minister. It’s clearly unnecessary and unparliamentary for her to be attacking another political party the whole time.

SPEAKER: Well, as I said before, there’s a bit of discretion around donkey drops. When they come from the Opposition, I think there’s more room for the Prime Minister to respond in a wider manner than it is—[Interruption] Who made that noise? Which of the two members on my left made that noise? Well, stand up, withdraw, and apologise.

Chris Penk: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Take your mask off first.

Chris Penk: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Has the Prime Minister finished? David Seymour.

David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I wonder if you could just humour us all and explain what you mean by “donkey drops”? I asked about a Minister—

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. A donkey drop is an old-fashioned expression about, sometimes in cricket like a lollipop, an easy throw, something that can be dispatched to the boundary, and that’s what’s been delivered on occasions in this House by both the Government and the Opposition.

David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I’m sorry, how does it help the order of this House for you to describe a serious question about a Minister of the Crown describing the nature of democracy as—what did you say—a whole lot of insults towards the question? How does that help you doing your job?

SPEAKER: No, no, I’m not attempting to insult the member at all. All I’m indicating to the member is that his question ended up being quite wide, and therefore there’s an ability to have a wider response to it. And I’ll also say that when there is loud interjection, the ability of the Prime Minister to respond to that is something which is quite clearly allowed in the Speaker’s rulings. So if the members don’t want that sort of response, they should be careful with the degree, the volume—and, frankly, the lack of wittiness—of their interjections.

David Seymour: Mr Speaker, I agree, I was a victim of loud and unwitty interjections. I wonder if you’d like to give the ACT Party some additional supplementaries?

SPEAKER: Well, the member with that point of order is almost certainly being disorderly, and I’ll contemplate how many I’ll remove.

David Seymour: Well, Mr Speaker, I hope you don’t trespass me—supplementary question.

SPEAKER: Well, the member does know that my rights within here are pretty much absolute.

David Seymour: Mr Speaker, that’s untrue; you have to follow the Standing Orders like all of us.

SPEAKER: That is absolutely right, and if the member reads the Standing Orders, he will know that I am responsible for order; deciding what’s disorderly; and especially deciding what’s grossly disorderly, which includes members who are deliberately being disorderly, as the member was.

David Seymour: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given the Prime Minister has said her Government is committed to inclusive democracy in her earlier answer to a supplementary question some minutes back, why did the Government decide to consult only select Māori groups about its plan to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and does she believe all New Zealanders have an equal interest in the future of their country’s constitution?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I absolutely agree that all New Zealanders will have an interest, and should have a stake, in whether we are upholding the obligations we signed up to under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The member is wrong to presuppose, or try and imply, that all New Zealanders will not be consulted—they will be, that is part of the process.

Question No. 9—Prime Minister

9. RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and decisions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes. In particular, I stand by this Government’s decision to establish a Māori Health Authority as a central element of our health reforms. For too long, Māori have disproportionately suffered poorer health outcomes due to a health system not designed to deliver to them. On average, Māori die seven years younger than other populations, and this is a situation that no one in New Zealand should accept. Progress has been swift; we’ve already worked to ensure the interim Māori Health Authority has identified $22 million in areas identified for funding to support Māori health services. With the Māori Health Authority recently receiving public backing from organisations like the Cancer Society, Hāpai te Hauora, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, the Royal Australian College of Surgeons, the Mental Health Foundation, and many more, we know, come 1 July, we can start delivering better health outcomes to our Māori whānau.

Rawiri Waititi: Does she stand by her statement on wealth tax that “I won’t allow it to happen as Prime Minister.”, or her more recent statement, when she was asked about the wealth tax, that “We have not worked on our tax policy for 2023.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by all my statements.

Rawiri Waititi: Was she made aware that her Government knows nothing about the amount of tax paid by higher net-worth Kiwi individuals?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As Minister Parker set out fulsomely, both in his answers in the House but also in his speech that he gave last week, it is clear that we, relative to other countries we would compare ourselves to, do not have the same data that you would expect us to have on the nature of tax paid in New Zealand. Alongside work we’ve done to create more transparency around these issues, my view is that by ensuring IRD have the ability to gather that information, all parties in this House—indeed, New Zealanders—will be better off by having greater transparency and more information.

Rawiri Waititi: Is she aware that 2 percent of New Zealand controls 40 percent of our total wealth, and is that the equal society that you want as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: You’ll already see, reflected in the policy that we have implemented as a Government, a view that we could see and should see more of a progressive tax system, given the fact that we introduced a new top tax rate for those earning over $180,000 or more. At the same time, you have seen us increase tax credits for families on Working for Families, you’ve seen us introduce the winter energy payment, create the child payment that we have through Best Start, increase Government support for those on benefits—all of those have been efforts to ensure that we have a fairer society and that all New Zealanders can flourish.

Question No. 10—Local Government

10. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcement has she made in relation to the Three Waters Reform Programme?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): On behalf of the Government, alongside the Minister for Infrastructure, we’ve responded to the governance working group recommendations on three waters reform. I’d like to thank the members of the working group for their sensible and well-thought-out recommendations to improve the governance representation and local voice aspects of the changes we’re proposing. We’ve accepted in full, partially, or in principle the majority of the recommendations, and, in doing so, we’ve listened and are modifying the exposure draft of the bill, and these improvements go a long way towards addressing the local government sector’s most significant concerns. Fundamentally, these reforms are about delivering clean and safe drinking water at an affordable price for New Zealanders. With the key issues now addressed, we cannot afford to wait any longer. The costs to communities and ratepayers are just too big to ignore, and we need to get on with fixing the problem that is waters infrastructure.

Tangi Utikere: What assurance can she give that local council assets aren’t being taken away from them?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Councils collectively will continue to own their assets under the three waters reform. The working group have helpfully recommended that this assurance be strengthened through a new public shareholding structure. The shareholding structure will allocate to councils, reflective of the size of their community, one share per 50,000 people in their area—so, for example, Auckland Council will hold 35 of the 40 shares in entity A, and smaller councils with a population base of 50,000 or less will secure one share. This share structure is a tangible expression of an ongoing connection for local communities and councils to their waters infrastructure. The shares will not deliver a dividend and cannot be sold or transferred. This provides an additional layer of protection against privatisation of water infrastructure alongside co-governance provisions.

Simon Court: Is the Minister aware of Treasury advice that $2.5 billion has been distributed to councils to increase goodwill and reduce political barriers for her three waters policy, and, if so, does she agree with reports that it is a bribe?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I don’t agree with reports that this is a bribe at all, and the member might not be aware that Local Government New Zealand, through its memorandum of agreement, agreed to the approach that we were taking, which is basically to ensure that there are incentives in the reform programme to acknowledge that no council will be worse off; in fact, they will be better off as we progress the reform programme.

Tangi Utikere: What benefits does she anticipate from co-governance for communities?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Let me be clear. Co-governance arrangements exist at the regional representative group level, where 50/50 governance oversight between councils and mana whenua is exercised for the broader wellbeing and benefit of the whole community by setting the strategic performance expectations of the newly created water service entities. As the working group has pointed out, the benefits of joint oversight mutually reinforce the sustainability of water management and keeping public ownership of water entities as a top priority, while prioritising the benefits to all communities big and small. I’d like to also emphasise that the regional representative group make appointments to the water service entity boards that will be based on professional skill and competency. Co-governance is not required at this level and never was.

Tangi Utikere: Which recommendations were not accepted?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Three recommendations from the working group have been noted but not taken forward at this stage. The working group recommended that the first piece of three waters legislation establish a water services ombudsman to protect consumer interest. We acknowledge the need to protect consumer interest; however, this is a matter we anticipate will be addressed with regards to the establishment of economic regulations. Also, recommendations 44 and 45 relate to funding as an ongoing role for the Crown. The Government will continue to review any need for Crown support for water services infrastructure reforms as we continue to progress our programme. The recommendations we have adopted do not change the fact that the appointments to the water service entity boards will be based on professional skills and competency. We’ve consistently ruled out co-governance at that level. In its totality, I want to acknowledge that the governance working group identified that all recommendations would need to be subject to a Standard & Poor’s test to assure that balance sheet separation can be achieved and that would best enable the advantages of scale and aggregation to finance three waters infrastructure and investment.

Simon Watts: Other than the ability to vote on privatisation, can she give one example of how her proposed shareholding schemes for local councils allow them to make decisions about their water assets?

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: The decision-making process that ensures that community priorities are reflected will be at the regional representative group level and also through the establishment of sub-regional groups. It will enable communities to prioritise what is important to them, what needs to be invested in. It will be reflected on in the strategic documents that will guide the water service entities. This is a recommendation from the governance working group that will improve the current legislation that was put in the early exposure draft.

Question No. 11—Police

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Police: is she confident that the police pursuit policy allows police to respond appropriately to ram raids, and, if so, why?

SPEAKER: Sorry, have another go.

11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: Is she confident the change in the Police pursuit policy has not led to an increase in ram raids, and, if so, why?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): The ram raid incidents we are seeing are shocking and incredibly distressing for those affected. I am confident the police are taking action by launching the new retail crime unit and by commencing Operation Pryor, which has seen over 110 arrests and more than $100,000 in stolen property recovered in the last three months alone. The pursuits policy was changed in 2020 following a number of evidence-based Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA) recommendations in the wake of 63 pursuit-related deaths within a decade. There is no evidence that shows the current police pursuit policy has led to an increase in ram raid incidents.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why has the percentage of arrests for fleeing drivers dropped from 41 percent in 2017 to 17 percent in 2021?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: While the police pursuits policy has changed, that does not mean that the police follow-up of those involved in those crimes has changed—it has not. Police do follow up where they have the evidence to do so. Can I just say that the change to the police pursuits policy is about saving lives, and it has worked.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very direct question—

SPEAKER: Yes, yes, and I probably should have ruled it out because it didn’t really relate to the question. It was a question about ram raids and the effect on ram raids.

Hon Mark Mitchell: No, the original question was about the—

SPEAKER: No, it’s not the original question; it’s the one that’s printed, which is the one that I’m talking about.

Hon Mark Mitchell: It relates to the police pursuit policy.

SPEAKER: And its effect on ram raids, not a general question about pursuits policy. If the member wanted to ask one of them, he should have.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she think that 83 percent of drivers who fail to stop for police who are not caught is acceptable?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: What I do think is acceptable is police taking the courageous view to accept the IPCA recommendations, which resulted in no deaths after 63 pursuit-related deaths in a decade.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Does she stand by her statement: “We have never had this situation where we’ve got young people challenging police in this way.”, and, if so, is this a result of her soft on crime approach?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: Can I say, let’s put this into context: youth crime has been trending down since 2017, ram raids make up about 1 percent of all retail crime, and six out of 10 times, it’s young people involved. That’s why we’re taking a targeted approach. We’ve put 109 more police officers into the youth space, we’re setting up the retail crime unit, and putting more funding into addressing school truancy. It’s easy to use throwaway lines like “soft on crime” in this space. It’s a very gendered statement that has been thrown out by not just that member but the Leader of the Opposition, who claims to be a feminist. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Both sides, please.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why have we never in this country had this situation before?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I beg to differ, and I would quote the Minister of Police in 2016 and her response to retail crime, when she said that we do not have enough cops. Now, that is why, as police Minister, I’m proud to say that we have funded record funding investment funding into the police: 1,400 extra cops; 109 are working with youth alone. If the National Party are to be believed, if they ever got their hands on the Budget, they would reduce police funding.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Well, does she or does she not stand by her statement that we have never had this situation before?

Hon POTO WILLIAMS: I stand by my statements, and I also stand by the police, which, clearly, that member does not.

Question No. 12—Tourism

12. JO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata) to the Minister of Tourism: What reports has he seen about the impact on our largest international airport of reopening the border to visa-waiver travellers?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): Yesterday, I joined representatives of Tourism New Zealand, Air New Zealand, and Auckland International Airport at a dawn event at the terminal to welcome the first air passengers returning under step four of our reconnecting strategy announced by the PM in February and alluded to by the PM in question No. 1. Auckland International Airport advises that from yesterday it was open to 88 percent of its pre-COVID markets. Thousands of passengers touched down on around 25 flights at Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch international airports yesterday as New Zealand opened up further for business to further spur the economic recovery.

Jo Luxton: What reports has he seen about the return of tourists and business travellers from our traditional Northern Hemisphere markets as aviation connectivity gears up?

Hon STUART NASH: Australia remains our number one market. Historically, it always has been, accounting for 40 percent of pre-COVID arrivals. But the reopening of visa-waiver travel taps into a strong interest in this country from our traditional key Northern Hemisphere markets. These include the USA, UK, Germany, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, Canada, and others who can now jump on a plane and come here. Tourism New Zealand advises that international flight searches to New Zealand are running 19 percent higher than pre-COVID levels. Our tourism destinations are amongst the world’s best. The industry knows there is a rebuild ahead. International travel will be very competitive and airlines will take time to build up their schedules and routes.

Hon Member: Well done, Minister.

Hon STUART NASH: Thank you.

Jo Luxton: What reports has he seen about international airlines restarting routes to New Zealand?

Hon STUART NASH: Auckland International Airport advises, that at the start of this year, there were 12 passenger airlines operating to 20 international destinations to and from the airport; by July, it expects there’ll be 17 passenger airlines operating to 31 destinations to and from Auckland Airport. Later this year, major international airlines like Emirates, Air Canada, Malaysian Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, and LATAM Airlines are restarting routes. Air New Zealand is also adding long-haul routes from San Francisco, Honolulu, Houston, New York, and Chicago. We have kept airlines flying here with an air freight subsidy scheme for exporters. The tourism sector can now build on that and scale up for the movement of people as well as freight.

David Seymour: Did the Minister see any reports of Kiwis of Indian, Chinese, or Sri Lankan origin welcoming their non-resident families, and how long will Kiwis whose families are from non-visa waiver countries have to keep waiting till they can have the same experience under his Government?

Hon STUART NASH: No.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1—Māori Affairs Committee

1. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee: When will the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill be reported back to the House?

TĀMATI COFFEY (Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee): That is a matter for the committee.

David Seymour: Is the member confident that the committee will be able to ensure the bill overcomes the objections raised by the Attorney-General in his section 7 report—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. That’s not a matter for the chair of the committee.

David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: These questions are very, very narrow, and the content is not the responsibility of the chair.

Question No. 2—Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill

2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Member in charge of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill: Will he discharge the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill; if not, why not?

TĀMATI COFFEY (Member in charge of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill): No, I haven’t discharged the bill, so as to allow time for the Rotorua District Council to consider whether possible amendments are able to address the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis. It’s important to note that I’ve publicly said that the bill cannot continue in its form.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can the bill be amended in such a way that doesn’t deviate from equal voting rights, given that is the entire purpose of the bill?

TAMATI COFFEY: That’s a matter for the advisers to work through, which is why we’ve given them the time to be able to work through that analysis and provide their final advice back to the Māori Affairs Committee—we’re in a process.

Question No. 3—Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill

3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Member in charge of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill: Will he be seeking support from the Māori Affairs Committee to suspend the hearing of submissions on the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill; if so, why?

TĀMATI COFFEY (Member in charge of the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill): As sponsor of the bill, I have publicly stated that I’ll be seeking the support from the Māori Affairs Committee to suspend submission hearings while possible amendments are considered, and I anticipate that the select committee will deal with that in due course.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why doesn’t he ask the committee to report the bill back immediately, recommending that it not proceed, given that it deviates from equal voting rights for all New Zealanders?

TĀMATI COFFEY: Because we are in a process, and I’d like the process to be able to go through its process for the relevant advice to come back to the committee and for us to be able to make an informed decision together as a committee.

Urgent Debates Declined

Disability Commissioner—Report on Support for Disabled People and Whānau during Omicron

SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Jan Logie seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, the release of the Disability Commissioner’s report inquiring into the support of disabled people and whānau during Omicron. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The release of a report may warrant an urgent debate, but this must be exceptional, especially when working through a report’s recommendations will take some time—Speaker’s ruling 208/6. The Government’s COVID response and the recommendations of this report cover several ministerial portfolios, an important one of which is health, and I note that members will have a chance to question the Minister during the annual review debate this evening. The release of this report does not warrant the setting aside of the business of the House today. The application is declined.

I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

Annual Review Debate

In Committee

Debate resumed from 13 April on the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. This is the debate on the financial position of the Government and the annual reviews of departments, Officers of Parliament, Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises as reported on by select committees.

There are four hours and 31 minutes remaining in this debate. New Zealand Labour has two hours and 34 minutes remaining; New Zealand National has one hour and 23 minutes remaining. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand has 16 minutes remaining. ACT New Zealand has 27 minutes remaining, and Te Paati Māori has 10 minutes remaining.

Members will recall that Standing Orders 356(2) and 356(3) have been set aside, so there are no sector-specific debates. All annual reviews are available for debate but only specific Ministers will be available each day to respond. The Government has indicated that the Minister of Tourism, the Minister of Housing, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Immigration, and the Minister of Health will be available today.

Each debate will be led off by the chairperson or another member of the committee that considered annual reviews most closely related to the Ministers’ portfolios. A motion to report progress on a bill must be moved on a call not a point of order—Speaker’s ruling 80/1. At the conclusion of the debate questions will be put, noting the committee reports on annual reviews and the provisions of the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill. There is no amendment for debate on these questions.

I’ll remind members that they’re able to participate remotely. If you’re on the Zoom and want to take a call, please type “call” into the chat. You should also use the chat if you wish to raise a point of order.

Finally, it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions, if they have them, of the available Minister during their call. We start with the Minister of Tourism, who is available for 30 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

When the Committee was last considering the bill, the question was that the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual final statements of the Government for the 2021 financial year be noted.

Tourism

NAISI CHEN (Deputy Chairperson of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to start off today’s debate and question the Minister of Tourism on behalf of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. As the deputy chairperson I have the pleasure of coming back to the Chamber and reporting to the committee about what we heard during our process.

Can I start by acknowledging every single business and every single participant in the tourism sector. We know that COVID has been tough for you. We know that the border restriction has been tough for your business and for your industry, and we want to acknowledge that, but at the same time we just thank you for your contribution to helping us keep New Zealand safe and for the sacrifices that you’ve all made to make sure that we had the best healthcare response so that now we can focus on our economic recovery.

I just want to note the progress we’ve made already and just look back on the time when we had our annual review with the Tourism Board, to even today where we are now open to all the visa waiver countries and especially Australia—a few weeks back now. Already we’re seeing that increase in volume not only through our airport but also in our tourism destinations, remembering this week that the Prime Minister had listed places like Wairarapa that have seen a really noticeable increase in their tourism numbers. So it’s great to be able to see and welcome back tourists.

During the review this year, we heard from the Tourism Board of New Zealand and we questioned them on many aspects of how they kept New Zealand’s brand alive overseas. We heard that even though we may have had closed borders, the New Zealand Tourism Board and Tourism New Zealand, which is the organisation they oversee, have worked really hard to make sure that New Zealand as a destination for tourism still stays at the forefront of our major tourism market. I was especially pleased to hear about the fact that they were still continuing training with our offshore partners, and they told us they had trained 15,000 travel sellers in China alone and that they had organised different kinds of online seminars to make sure that our partners overseas were still able to promote New Zealand as a tourism destination. We were really glad to hear that at the end of it 64,000 travel agents had been briefed by our tourism agency and they were still able to connect with us and upskill their knowledge on New Zealand as a tourism destination. We were also really pleased to hear about the fact that the “Do Something New, New Zealand” campaign had achieved great success in New Zealand and that our domestic tourism had reached unprecedented volumes during the 2020-21 year.

I thought it was really nice to hear that people chose not to just sit on their hands but actually tried to remedy the situation to the best of our possibilities. And just this week, having opened to international tourists, we know that we have achieved our full potential in domestic tourism, and now I think is the time for us to open back up to the world again, and we are able to do that to the safest possible standard.

I’d like to hear from the Minister of Tourism about the investment he and the Government have made to the tourism sector, to Tourism New Zealand, and how that money has been used to keep our international branding alive and to keep us attractive as a tourism destination to overseas tourists, and how we’ve been able to keep that connection going despite all of the challenges of COVID.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and I’d like to reiterate Naisi Chen’s comments, saying that this is an industry where a number of participants have done it extremely hard, even those who managed to adapt to a market of only domestic tourists; it was still very tough for a number right across this country. But nor did Kiwis sit on their hands; they actually got on their bikes. In fact, one the great success stories was our cycle trails. The cycle trail numbers are up by over 10 percent, which translates into an over 30 percent increase in economic activity along these cycle trails—and over 2 million journeys, actually. Fantastic to see.

In terms of our investment into Tourism New Zealand, we’ve put over $100 million into Tourism New Zealand. Tourism New Zealand are our eyes and ears in international markets. They have done a fantastic job because they had to pivot from marketing campaigns to get people to come over here to a campaign to keep the brand alive. And, of course, they couldn’t tell people to come, because the borders were closed, and they did a very, very good job of creating aspiration.

I talked with the CEO, René de Monchy, and his team, and we decided that what we would try and do is ensure that New Zealand became one of the most aspirational destinations. People often forget that, in fact, we were open for a lot of the time when the rest of the world was closed. So, you know, we were on boats watching the America’s Cup in the middle of summer, having a really good time when there were many people across the developed world in lockdown.

What Tourism New Zealand was doing was building that aspiration so that when the borders opened, as they are now to visa-waiver countries, then people could decide, “OK, you know what, I want to go to that country. It’s highly vaccinated. It’s a fantastic place. It’s a warm welcome and it’s a safe place to come.” That was the role that Tourism New Zealand did.

But not only did they do that, they actually took on another important role. For the first time ever, they came back and they actually marketed New Zealand to New Zealanders. People will have heard the “Do Something New, New Zealand’ and, as Naisi Chen outlined, they did something new. Those who took their kids to the movies over the recess might have seen the new campaign for autumn, and it’s basically just “That’s autumn”—of course a play on words, it wasn’t made up. It’s quite clever. The campaigns are very good and I do take my hat off to the innovators and the marketers in Tourism New Zealand. They do a really, really good job of flying the flag. I think they did a fantastic job over the sort of two-year period when our borders were closed, and what they are now concentrating on is taking that aspiration and turning it into action.

As I highlighted in the question at question time, the international views for people who want to travel here are actually higher than they were pre-COVID. So the action stations, moving from aspiration into action, are well under way. Traditionally, it’s a soft time for tourism in winter, except for places like Queenstown of course. Again, Australians spend a lot of time in Queenstown. It’s a little-known fact that Australians actually travel for skiing more than any other nationality. So we’re hoping we’re going to have a whole lot of Australians into Queenstown, but then we expect things to pick up in October and hit the ground running once again. Thank you very much.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the incredibly hard work and the hard times that the tourism sector has been through over the last two years. It’s an industry that made a significant positive impact to New Zealand’s economy, delivering $40.9 billion—our largest export industry pre-pandemic. They have taken a huge hit for New Zealand so that New Zealand could protect itself during the pandemic, and now we’re seeing the first green shoots of being able to have people from visa-waiver countries and from Australia returning to New Zealand. That is a great positive.

I do want to ask the Minister: has he turned his mind to the issue of workforce, and is he advocating lobbying with his colleagues to solve this issue? I note that in the first 12 months after borders closed, four out of every 10 tourism jobs were lost. There was an average 40 percent reduction in staff numbers since New Zealand’s borders closed in the first 12 months, and the lower South Island saw the biggest workforce drop, down 53 percent.

I noted with interest the Minister’s speech to the Otago University Tourism Policy School on 25 March 2022, a few weeks ago, where he said “Our legendary hospitality in no small way helps to shape these positive impressions and we benefit from sharing our stories and places with these visitors in ways that are more than purely financial … Because if we don’t ‘live the brand’ we will never be the premier destination we desire to be. If we are mediocre in our service delivery, no amount of crazy scenery and breath-taking experiences will lift us above many other destinations around the world.”

Now, as the member of Parliament representing Queenstown and Te Ānau, I’ve seen first hand the impact on that industry. I’ve seen first hand the efforts that businesses have taken, and most of them small businesses, to try and keep going, taking mortgages on their homes, in many cases, and sometimes second or even third mortgages, to keep the doors open and keep their staff employed. They’ve been working very, very hard. However, the consistent message I’ve been getting is that they hear a message from the Government that they need to improve conditions, need to up their salaries, need to make it more attractive, and I keep on hearing “Well, that would be fantastic. We’re trying to do that, but the workforce just isn’t there.”

I note that we’ve got record low unemployment in New Zealand now, of 3.2 percent. In fact, there’s an article out in the Otago Daily Times today from the Hilton Queenstown general manager, who has said occupancy levels at the hotels are “being restricted across the board by accommodation providers because of a shortage of staff to service rooms … many hotels were not cleaning rooms for the duration of a guest’s stay.” He says “I’m not going to name names, but some of the five-star hotels are not offering a five-star experience — I can’t lie, [we’re] struggling,”. And he said “It’s not through a lack of salary, there’s just a lack of people. Salaries are going up and up and up, but there’s still a massive, massive shortage [of willing workers].”

I note another local business in Queenstown put a post up a few days ago where they said “Sadly, we were forced to close again yesterday due to lack of staff. If you know anyone keen to ski or snowboard this season, send them our way. We’re offering competitive wages along with a season pass for those willing to help us out. We need kitchen and front-of-house staff members to start immediately.” These are just two examples of many, many, many I’m hearing in my region, and I’m asking the Minister: what is he going to do to help this sector who desperately wants to offer a first-class experience for our international visitors but simply don’t have the staff?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I acknowledge that the member lives in, and represents, a beautiful part of the country, but I also acknowledge that it has been incredibly hard hit by the lack of international tourists. That is the reason why we did invest in the Tourism Communities: Support, Recovery and Re-set Plan, about $100 million into that part of the world—five districts down in that area.

There are a couple of things I would say. First and foremost, before I took on the role of Minister of Tourism, I had a perception of what working in tourism was like, and this perception is actually recognised by a number in the industry, and that is that there are low wages, long hours, and rather precarious employment conditions. Now that I’ve become the Minister of Tourism and now that I’ve seen what goes on in the sector, I know that there are just so many opportunities for young people who would like a career in tourism, would like to engage in tourism, and be part of the tourism offering both here and globally. But we need to change, first and foremost, the perception so we actually do get people considering tourism as a career, going forward. It’s one of the reasons why we set up an industry transformation plan on tourism, and the first thing that the industry transformation plan is looking at—and keeping in mind this is a partnership between the sector, between unions, between iwi—is workforce development, and what we need to do to ensure that we have a workforce and a career that is aspirational, and a workforce that can deliver on the brand expectations that a lot of our tourists coming overseas expect. Certainly, when you’re paying a lot of money to travel halfway around the world, you do have a very strong expectation of high service delivery.

In the short to medium term, I do acknowledge that there are worker shortages. My understanding is that we have signed off between 5,000 and 6,000 working holiday visas, so I expect that number of working holiday people will come into this country. The member’s marketing line that he said, I think, one of the tourism destinations was using to get people down here is a good one, but they need to live by that: if you want to ski, if you want to earn good money, if you want a great experience, go down to Queenstown. That may well be the case, but the bottom line is the industry has to be able to deliver on good terms and conditions, and good money, and a great experience. I’m sure they will. But one thing I will say is we do need to ensure that the service we are providing is good.

The last thing I’d say before I sit down, in response to the member’s queries, is that we recognise that a number of businesses in Queenstown were doing it incredibly hard—it’s why we offered $5,000 worth of business advice, and then another $5,000 to actually implement that advice. So what we did is we said to these businesses: hey, this is tough. I’ve been quite open about the fact that I don’t think tourism is going to return to where it was in the pre-COVID world, and the example that I have used numerous times is that, pre-COVID, there were 940,000 people down in Milford Sound. Now, that level of numbers down there—I mean, people used to describe it as a “camping van carpark”. We absolutely were not delivering on our brand promises when I would wager a bet that 50 percent of the posters around the world advertising New Zealand carried an image of Milford Sound or Mount Cook or a destination down that part of the world. We need to be able to deliver on our brand promises. That means an engaged, well-paid, well-educated workforce, and the industry recognises this themselves; it’s the reason why we’re working hard to achieve that.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I understand 5,000 working holidaymaker visas have been issued. Is the Minister aware that since that has come into place, only 438 working holiday makers have come to New Zealand? We have businesses as of today that are not open, because they can’t get enough workers. Is the Minister going to do anything to help those businesses today and tomorrow who need to be able to open their doors and who need staff so they can actually have the workforce available when the ski fields open and, hopefully, we have a lot more tourists?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): One thing I will say is when I was down in Queenstown last—and as the Minister of Tourism, I think I’ve been to Queenstown either six or seven times, so I’m well engaged with the community down there—what we heard and what the Prime Minister herself actually promised and what we are delivering on now is Immigration working with Tourism New Zealand. It’s sort of out of the bounds or out of the mandate of Tourism New Zealand, but they’re working with Tourism New Zealand to promote the working holiday scheme. We are issuing these visas. We want to get people in here as soon as possible. People want to come here as soon as possible. They’re not going to arrive today or tomorrow, but they will get here hopefully in time for the ski season.

One of the things we have done in terms of making sure that the people who come over here to ski get the best possible experience working with the sector themselves—there are a number of visas that were sponsored by Tourism New Zealand that Cabinet has approved for fast tracking, so those workers who pretty much spend 50 percent of their time in the Northern Hemisphere, 50 percent of their time in the Southern Hemisphere, working in the ski industry globally are here and can deliver on that experience for everyone who wants to come over.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to just get the Minister to elaborate on some of his answers just then, because it sounds like the tourism industry is going to be 100 percent relying on working holiday visas. There seems to be no other option. And, as the Minister has already pointed to, only 5,000 have been granted. Only 400 or so have actually arrived in the country. And I note that the Minister just said that he hopes more arrive. Well, that’s very nice, but pinning our tourism recovery on the hopes of the Minister probably isn’t the best response.

What I want to know from the Minister is: what discussions did he have with the Minister of Immigration or the Prime Minister or anyone else in his caucus or in his Cabinet around getting more of those working holiday visa holders here to New Zealand much sooner? We note that in Australia they said that if you come before a certain date, you can get all your fees back. In fact, they’re offering £10 flights to get to Australia from the UK. What are we doing to get people here? Because, actually, just saying we hope they arrive isn’t enough. There are a whole lot of options that we put out—things like allowing them to come if they’re a bit older, coming to have a second bite at the cherry—a whole range of options to attract more working holidaymakers here, but it sounds like what this Minister has done is just said, “Well, let’s hope they come.” Only 400 have arrived—that’s not enough across the whole country; it’s certainly not enough for the ski sector. I want to know what discussions the Minister had with the Minister of Immigration around making us a more attractive destination for working holidaymakers.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): I completely refute the assertion that the tourism industry is going to be built on the back of working holiday visa holders. In fact, I’ve been very, very clear that the tourism industry will not be built back on the back of cheap labour. You know, as I said in my initial answer, what we need to do, and what the sector recognises, is in fact they need to work really hard to build an aspirational career vision for those who want to enter into the sector. The sector themselves recognise the fact that the perception of the sector as a vocation is poor; the sector themselves have said, “We need to up our game in terms of attracting people into the sector.” And I completely buy into that vision, and we will do whatever we can to help them along that course.

But, you know, we have to remove the perception that tourism is low wage, long hours, and precarious—because it should not be and it will not be going forward, because it just can’t be, if we are to deliver on our global promises that we are making to tourists who we’re targeting. What I would say in terms of working holiday visas, you know, the ski season—and Mr Mooney will be able to tell me when the ski season starts in earnest in Queenstown. But, you know, there are 5,000-plus people who have signed up for a working holiday visa. No doubt they are waiting for their ski season to start, they are sorting out their affairs, and they will get over here.

It’s like what we have done, in terms of working with the ski industry themselves, to say: “What do you need to allow you to be able to deliver on the brand experiences that we are going out to global markets with?” They told us what they needed in terms of workers. We worked with the ministry of immigration and we’re getting those workers in here, exactly in a way that the industry said they needed. So what did I do? We had a conversation with the Minister of Immigration; the Prime Minister herself heard what was needed. The Prime Minister herself, when I was there, had a conversation with the head of Tourism New Zealand, and she actually asked the head of Tourism New Zealand, “Can you please work with the immigration department to see what can be done to better target working holiday visa aspirants so they can come over here and enjoy this country?”

The thing that we know—the thing that all the research is showing—is, actually, people do want to come to this country. We’re seen as safe. I mean, in Auckland, my understanding is about 96 percent of people in Auckland have had at least one shot—we’re seen as a safe place to come. I have absolutely no doubt that we’re going to attract tourists and workers that will be able to deliver on the type of experience that Tourism New Zealand spent the last 18 months building.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. The problem that needs to be solved for our tourism industry is how to make it sustainable, how to make it enduring, and how to make the experience a quality experience but also, importantly, how is it that New Zealand tourism businesses and operators can remain profitable and deliver the quality experience that we would like them to?

I’ll point to the issue of the Milford aerodrome and the Milford tourism operators. About 800,000 tourists arrived in Milford by road every year, prior to 2020, and about 50,000 by air, who landed at the Milford aerodrome. In 2020, this administration, under the Labour-led Government, announced a $3 million upgrade for Milford aerodrome because it was regarded as getting to the end of its service life and it needed better facilities, including, for example, a toilet.

But what I want to ask the Minister is: why has this project not been delivered to support the tourism industry; where has the money gone, Minister, that was allocated—the $3 million—for Milford aerodrome, which supports the tourism industry? Does the Minister agree with Save Milford Airport representative Mark Quickfall that the Milford Opportunities Project—which is their plan to close Milford Airport to fixed-wing aircraft—is out of step with the market place and the realities of tourism and is quixotic and utopian? Is he prepared to defend the rights of Milford tourism operators to fly into Milford aerodrome against the Milford Opportunities Project plan to close the aerodrome, which is supported by the Department of Conservation—Minister?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): A couple of things I would say. We’ve actually moved on from sustainability in terms of tourism and we’ve moved to regenerative. Sustainability is about not doing any damage or the old, “Take only photos, leave only footprints.” Regenerative tourism is about how tourism can actually add value to our communities, so that’s what we’re working hard on. In fact, what we’ve done is we’ve provided about $49 million—obviously, allocated across the regional tourism organisations—to allow them to develop their destination management plans around the regenerative tourism concept.

In terms of profitability, well, it’s not for me to say to a tourism business how to run their business; it’s for an operator to determine how they’re profitable and what they need to do to ensure they are. What I do know in tourism is there are a lot of people who are absolutely passionate about what they do, and in some cases—and I worked for one of these companies at one point in time—they’ve taken something which was a real interest and turned it into a business, and congratulations to them, and they show a very high degree of passion. But again, they will need to take a good, hard look at their business model; if, in fact, it’s not profitable or if there are variables that have changed markedly that will impact upon their business model going forward. And it is the reason why, as highlighted in my last answer, we provided $5,000 for these businesses to have business advice, and another $5,000 for them to implement that advice.

Back to the Milford Opportunities Project—

Simon Court: Point of order. Specific question which the Minister has not addressed—it’s about the Milford Opportunities Project.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): I’ll remind the member that the Minister can use his time as he sees fit. You’ve asked him a question; he’ll either answer it or he won’t, and you haven’t given him time to answer it.

Hon STUART NASH: I was just about to say, now, when it comes to the Milford Opportunities Project—I was getting there, but I want to provide the member with a full answer, hence I was answering the first part of his question first.

Look, I’m a huge backer of the Milford Opportunities Project. As I again alluded to in a previous answer, my understanding is there were 940,000 tourists who went into Milford Sound in the year before COVID. That is, in my view, not delivering on the brand promises that we were putting out to the world. As mentioned, I would wager a bet that 50 percent of all—probably more, actually—the posters that are around all our offices and all our advertising internationally had a shot of either Milford Sound or Mount Cook or an iconic—maybe Hawke’s Bay winery, of course, they’re right up there!—piece of scenery down there. Now, I’m a huge fan of the Milford Opportunities Project, and I’m one of the three Ministers responsible for oversight; there’s myself, there’s the Minister of Conservation, and there’s the Minister of Transport. One thing I will say, though, is there’s a lot of water to go under the bridge before final decisions are made. But one thing that I will also say is I think what they are looking at, certainly in their draft proposal, is something that is really innovative and in a way that will drive our economic vision around decarbonisation of the economy, that will allow us to tell stories that we haven’t been able to tell, and that will certainly allow us to deliver on the brand promises, whether that’s decarbonisation, whether it’s clean green, whether it’s Milford Sound, whether it’s whatever an international tourist has come to this country to see. But what I would say to Mark and to others is: keep engaging with the Milford Opportunities Project team.

No decision has been made yet, but one thing we do need to make sure we do is—and I’ll come back to this, and I will keep coming back to this because it’s part of what I believe in—we have got to be able to deliver on the promises we make. And pre-COVID, this was a campervan car park, as the member mentioned: 50,000 people coming into Milford Sound by aircraft, you had massive big cruise ships, you had a campervan car park, and you had planes buzzing. I do not believe that that was delivering on the brand promise for those who paid money to go to Milford Sound.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Why should New Zealanders trust the Minister of Tourism to spend public money effectively, when the Office of the Auditor-General’s report released on 31 March 2022 confirmed many of the concerns small operators raised when the $290 million Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme’s (STAPP’s) fund was allocated in 2022, including finding that Ministers handing the money out struggled themselves to define what a strategic asset was, some criteria being unclear, tens of millions of dollars being given to businesses owned by profit or parent companies when the money was supposed to support struggling businesses, ignoring official advice to halt the programme, and the Auditor-General concluding that limited documentation meant it was hard to determine value for money or to adequately explain their decisions made?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): One thing I would say is that, actually, what we’ve done—and I think very successfully—is given taxpayers’ money to businesses to allow them to make decisions themselves. In terms of the money I’ve just alluded to, the $49 million that went to the regional tourism organisations, I wrote them a letter of expectation around destination management plans and regenerative tourism, but it was up to them to determine how they in fact engage with their key stakeholders. In terms of the COVID-19 Short-Term Absence Payment (STAP), there have been a number of reviews done—Deloitte, I think, have done a couple—the only recommendation that came out of the Auditor-General’s report was a recommendation that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment take a look and determine whether what we wanted to achieve out of STAP in fact had been achieved. What we have got is an organisation, a company—I think they’re called Angus & Associates, I think that’s the name—to take a look right across the tourism sector to do an audit, to see how well that money was spent, and whether we achieved what we were out to achieve, and the impact it had. But that’s right across the tourism sector. But we certainly will deliver on the Auditor-General’s recommendation, and we’ll take a good hard look to see whether STAP delivered what we intended it to deliver.

One thing I will say though, when the STAP was put in place, we were at the beginning of a global pandemic. We had just closed down the borders. We knew that there were going to be no international tourists that were going to come to this country. We had to act really, really fast. There was no playbook, keep in mind, for how to manage a global pandemic. There are a number of tourism businesses that actually wrote to the Government and said, “If we do not have some form of support, we will close.” So Ministers had to act quickly to ensure that money got out the door and we didn’t see either the closure of these businesses, or what was also mooted, which was the sale to international interests.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Could I ask the Minister what is just a couple of quick-fire questions, a quick-fire round. What’s his understanding of why tourists from all countries can’t come to New Zealand right now?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Tourism): Well, we have Australian tourists, we have tourists from visa waiver countries, and we have countries that you have to have a visa to come into the country. We have not opened the borders at this point in time to tourists from countries that require a visa to come in.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, our time with the Minister of Tourism has ended. The Minister of Housing is now available for one hour to respond to members’ questions.

Housing

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Chairperson of the Social Services and Community Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. As the chair of the Social Services and Community Committee, it is my pleasure to lead off the debate for the social housing sector review for the 2021 financial year. In keeping with our whole-of-sector approach, the Hon Dr Megan Woods appeared before the select committee to discuss housing in total. I want to thank the Minister for attending this additional session to the whole-of-sector questions. I thank the respective board chairs, CEOs, and officials for appearing and responding to written and oral questions.

The three entities reviewed were Kāinga Ora—Home and Communities, with the Auditor-General giving an overall rating of good; the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga, which the Auditor-General issued a standard audit report of a rating of good—we were pleased to see the performance improvement from the previous year—and Tāmaki Redevelopment Company Ltd, which the Auditor-General issued a standard audit report, with a very good rating. Our select committee written report was split into four topics. Each topic was divided into subtopics, and I particularly want to thank the select committee clerk and team for their excellent drafting of our 27-page report.

We heard of the challenges of COVID-19, in particular in Auckland. We also heard of innovations to improve public housing delays due to the pandemic, such as modules and panels constructed off site, private sector labour and expertise, and multi-year contracts to ensure confidence in capacity and capability. We heard that there has been decades of underspending in infrastructure. We also heard about demand and supply and the Progressive Home Ownership scheme, which includes shared ownership, rent to buy, and leasehold wraparound.

We heard about Te Au Taketake, which is a Government housing package, and of the $3.8 billion allocated to accelerate housing supply with programmes such as first-home grants, extension of the brightline test with an extension on new builds, and extending the Apprenticeship Boost to further support trades training. We heard about the changes in rules to limit deductions on interest expenses and that the biggest contributor to renting pressure was supply. We were told that there is a multiplicity of challenges in the housing sector and that COVID-19 has significantly affected these challenges.

Tāmaki Redevelopment told us that they had created a whānau debt relief programme. They noted whānau in the Shared Home Ownership programme decreased debt by 74 percent and increased income by 33 percent and savings by 31 percent. We heard also about the Jobs and Skills Hubs and about partnering under the iwi Māori housing strategy, with Kāinga Ora and Ngāti Toa Rangatira using the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund.

Kāinga Ora told us about their large-scale projects which are regenerative for Auckland and Porirua. Kāinga Ora have increased residential spending to $2.5 billion. HUD advised us that it ensures that expectations and requirements of Kāinga Ora are clear and are actively monitored. We heard that Kāinga Ora has delivered a net increase of 395 homes in the 2021 year. The Minister advised us that gross build yields was much higher. There were 857 homes demolished, 11 leased, 277 bought, and 1,866 built. The Minister said that the Government has funded an increase of 8,861 public housing places since 2017.

We learnt that 21 percent of Kāinga Ora housing was compliant with the healthy homes standard and that 45,000 of the 68,000 homes will need to be renewed or replaced. The Minister updated us with the current figures and advised that Kāinga Ora continue to increase the pace of the healthy homes delivery programme. We also heard that Kāinga Ora has a current goal of 15 percent of its new public housing meeting universal housing standards. We also discussed topics such as feeling safe in public housing, community crime, addressing antisocial behaviour, managing construction providers and partners, the Public Service Commission investigation, and the Kāinga Ora debt profile.

Our select committee review was extensive, and we look forward to hearing more from the housing Ministers today, and thank you, Mr Chair.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank very much, Mr Chair. There’s a range of issues I want to canvass with the Minister of Housing—I see she’s supported by her plethora of housing Ministers behind her.

I suppose the right starting point is what the Government itself said was the starting point for their housing policy, all the way back in 2017 when the Government came to office, which was KiwiBuild. It’s the programme that dare not speak its name recently, but we need to remember that this was the fundamental building block for all of the Government’s housing policy. In fact, it was going to be—in 2017 at least—the only thing that the Government really campaigned on when it comes to housing. And so here we are in May 2022, and 1,300 homes have been built that are KiwiBuild homes: zero in December 2021, zero in January, eight in February, but zero again last month—in March, or at least two months ago. So it’s a genuine question, and I know that there was the KiwiBuild reset when the current Minister took over from the former Minister, but it’s a genuine question, which is: what is the future of KiwiBuild?

Is it still Government policy to continue to roll out KiwiBuild houses, and, if so, how many can we expect in the next 18 months before the next election? And if it’s not Government policy to still stand up and support KiwiBuild, then wouldn’t it be better for the Government to put the programme out of its misery and redeploy some of the resources that are going into KiwiBuild into other things, and we can have a debate around what and where that resource should go. But it’s a genuine question around what the future of the KiwiBuild policy is, because that was meant to be the Government’s flagship housing programme.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to ask the Minister whether she believes it is still acceptable that $30 million was spent from the Land for Housing Programme for the land at Ihumātao and yet there are still no homes at Ihumātao, and can the Minister let taxpayers know when we would expect to see the first signs of development at Ihumātao?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I’ll introduce some general comments and I’ll address the two specific questions that have been put by the Opposition spokespeople for housing.

There are few things more important to New Zealanders than having a safe, warm, dry, secure place that they can call home. That’s why this Government sees housing policy as critical to what we need to do to achieve our wellbeing objectives. We have a housing crisis that is decades in the making. Not only have we not invested in the critical infrastructure that is required throughout our towns and cities to build houses but we’ve also had a sell-off of our State houses in the decade preceding this one. We haven’t had that ongoing commitment to building public housing, or indeed building housing per se and that kind of investment.

We know how we got here. The question is how we get out of this, what we need to do to address our housing crisis. Now, there is no one single, simple fix to our housing crisis that we face today. Instead, what there is is a commitment from a Government to have a suite of policies that work together. So that is why I am so pleased to be joined by my Associate Ministers of housing, who are all playing such critical roles in how it is that we have a multi-faceted approach to addressing a housing crisis that is decades in the making.

First of all, we have to make sure that we strengthen the system now and in the future. We have to increase the housing supply. That is something that we are immensely proud of as a Government that we are seeing start to happen. We have to provide immediate support to our most vulnerable, who are the victims of inaction by successive Governments on the issue of housing. And that is what we are also committed to: that what we do know is that this is decades in the making.

It is going to take time to turn it around, but we are starting to see the green shoots of change coming through, and we can look at some of the evidence points around us. We can look at public housing: there’s 9,075 more net public housing places since when we took Government in November 2017. Of those, we can see that there are new builds—they’re a substantial proportion of those new places: 7,313 of those new public housing places.

We then can look at what we’re doing in the issue of transitional housing. When we came into Government in 2017, there were 1,198 transitional housing places. And this is why we have a homelessness problem. We did not have adequate investment in transitional and emergency housing from the previous Government. I am pleased to report that today, there are 5,143 transitional places in New Zealand—that’s 3,424 that we have added in the 4½ years that we’ve been in Government and something that we can look to.

Progressive homeownership—that we have started for the first time at scale, rolling out a way to help New Zealanders who wouldn’t otherwise have bought a house—and, yes, I’ll come back to that. KiwiBuild—it’s not a programme that dare not speak its name; it is actually delivering at a rate that the previous Government’s eyes would have been watered by, given the special housing areas only delivered 100 affordable houses over a period of nine years. I am pleased to say that what we have is 1,304 completed KiwiBuild houses in the period and the time since we’ve been in Government; 917 are currently under construction now.

One of the Opposition housing spokespeople asked the question around “What is the future for KiwiBuild?” Well, I think, as we face the headwinds of a construction industry that is going to see it harder to get developments off the ground, that a Government that has a commitment to countercyclical tools like KiwiBuild is incredibly important. To hear one of the Opposition spokespeople say it’s time to pack it in and use that money in different ways, I’m interested—genuinely interested—to hear how he proposes to spend that money differently. I think that is important that we start to hear what the Opposition’s plans in housing are, because I’ve been waiting 4½ years and haven’t heard that.

So KiwiBuild does have a future. KiwiBuild certainly does have a future with this Government. But what we do need to do is ensure that we are backing young New Zealanders into homeownership. Now, with KiwiBuild, we had the courage to do one of the more difficult things in politics: to say that, actually, we needed to step back, we hadn’t got it all right; that there were some critical elements missing that allowed us to have KiwiBuild reach its potential. And one of those was the fact that we simply did not have the infrastructure in place in many of the places where we would look to build at an affordable typology, which is in terms of intensification. So if I look at Eastern Porirua, if I look at parts of Mount Roskill, if I look at parts of Māngere, the infrastructure that was laid down when those suburbs were built only allows us to build back one for one. And that is why this Government has committed $3.4 billion to investing in infrastructure, so we can get the intensification, we can get that density, and with it will come affordability. It is the burying of the head from the previous Government when they were in Government, that just did not look at what was required if we were going to have affordability built into our housing system—that is one of the things that we are still grappling with today.

The other housing spokesperson for the Opposition, from the ACT Party, asked me whether or not we stood by our decision of using the land for housing appropriation to buy the land at Ihumātao. We say, “Absolutely, we stand by that decision.” What we had in the stand-off that was happening at Ihumātao was a legacy of the failure in housing from the National Government. This was part of Nick Smith’s last-minute attempt to try and do something that just went horribly wrong. So the number of houses that we were going to get under the current settings at Ihumātao was precisely zero. As a Government, we are committed to taking the time to ensure that we can get some housing there, and to working with partners, and to ensure we don’t get bogged down into that stand-off again.

So the other area that I’d just like to touch on in terms of the green shoots that we’re seeing from our Government’s commitment to a suite of housing policies is a place-based approach. We’re saying there is no one-size-fits-all for New Zealand—that, actually, some of our regional centres are suffering some of the biggest housing deprivation that we’re seeing. We have to take a more nuanced and a more sophisticated approach to our policy settings here. So I look with great pride at an area like Hastings, that has had so little attention in housing for decades. I look at March 2021: a total of 108 Kāinga Ora public homes delivered to date, 117 currently under construction, 52 in feasibility, and 19 in procurement. And the Hastings District Council is developing council-owned land, which will deliver 150 affordable homes for locals that live there.

I’m sure that the Associate Minister responsible for Māori housing will take a call at some point and elaborate on this—we are incredibly proud of our Māori housing strategy, our MAIHI strategy; we simply had to do something to address the issues that stretch the housing continuum from homelessness through to the inability to get into homeownership for Māori. And we are trying things for the first time as a Government. These have never been tried in New Zealand before. We have a programme of work, we have the commitment as a Government, and we are doing things that have never been done before. So I look forward to, through the course of this debate, answering questions, but finally also hearing some detail from the Opposition about what they would do.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): As-salamu alaykum, and Eid Mubarak to all of our Muslim brothers and sisters today.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Salaam alaikum, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for her remarks to the committee, and, actually, there’s quite a bit I agree with her on. We do need to do better density in New Zealand and we do need to grow the number of homes that we build, and planning is all about that and infrastructure is all about that as well.

But I have a few more questions that I would like her to address. The first is in response to what she said around KiwiBuild. The Minister has told us that KiwiBuild will continue, and that’s fine. That’s a question for the Government and a legitimate policy decision. The question is just simply: what is the target for the future of KiwiBuild? Are there any targets? We’ve done 1,300 homes since KiwiBuild started and 917, I think the Minister said, are under construction now. Are we going to rattle along at a thousand homes a year for the foreseeable future, or is the plan for KiwiBuild to grow, and if so, how much? I think we deserve to know as a Parliament exactly what the targets, in broad terms, are for KiwiBuild, and we look forward to that being addressed.

In relation to infrastructure, I for one agree with the Minister that a critical part of enabling more housing is the infrastructure that underlies it, and that’s why I am so pleased to have both shadow portfolios for the Opposition. So my question would be in terms of working with local government—is the Government doing work on any policies to incentivise councils and local government to be in favour of growth? One of the underlying problems with New Zealand’s housing issues is that councils are at best ambivalent and at worst hostile to growth. There have been suggestions from some commentators and some experts in the area that one way around that is to change the planning rules and change the financial incentives upon councils so that new subdivisions and new density is not regarded as something to be pushed against and something to be angry about and worried about but something to be welcomed.

We need to go for growth. Growing cities are good things. Cities that grow reflect cities where people want to live, and I for one don’t want to live in a city where growth doesn’t happen and the city just stagnates and inertia takes over and populations age and stay the same. I don’t want to live in a country where that happens, either. If you don’t grow at the same time that your population grows, you end up in a situation like the Minister rightly talks about, where we have some of the most unaffordable housing in the developed world and we have 26,000 people who can’t afford market rents and are waiting on the social housing wait list and we have 4,500 kids growing up in motels. I don’t want to live in a country like that. The Minister is completely right—no one in this Parliament does. The question is how we solve that.

So my question is: is the Government looking at incentives for local government to be in favour of growth so that we can partner as central government with local government and make sure that when it comes to council planning decisions, the prevailing attitude in local government is not, “Oh, here we go again. This is central government telling me I have to build more homes without providing funding and infrastructure to deal with it, and I’m going to have to do all this work.”, but instead is, “Awesome, let’s go for it. We can provide housing for our ratepayers and get on with growing our cities and our regions.”?

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you, Madam Chair. Question: will there be funding for these excellent iwi prototypes like Ka Uruora from July 2023? Are Māori limited to the $780 million Whai Kāinga Whai Oranga funding, or can they apply for part of the $3 billion to meet the needs of their houseless whānau? If iwi prototypes like Ka Uruora are successful, will they be used for other investment like economic investment for whenua Māori? Māori make up over 50 percent of the waiting list for social housing; how many Māori will be placed in social housing this financial year? How many social houses will be constructed, completed, and let out this financial year? If the average house price is $850k and the bank requires a 20 percent deposit at interest rates for repayment pegged at 6 percent, how many Māori will be able to buy a house? Does the Minister acknowledge that the State subsidisation of market rents of up to $2.6 billion per annum distorts the true state of social housing provision? How many private speculated dwellings are subsidised by the market rent subsidy? Given the Minister’s answers to the market rental subsidisation, why should this form of speculation not be taxed? Is the Minister aware that Aotearoa is one of the few countries in the OECD that has no capital gains or wealth tax?

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. More and more New Zealanders are feeling unsafe in New Zealand—unsafe in their communities and unsafe in their homes. I would like to ask the Minister whether she is concerned that the number of tenants in Kāinga Ora homes are feeling more unsafe. More people who are living in Kāinga Ora homes are feeling unsafe than they were in the past. Does the Minister recognise that as a landlord, like all other landlords in this country, there is a requirement under law to make sure that tenants do not interfere with other tenants’ right to quiet enjoyment? And yet people in Kāinga Ora homes are feeling unsafe because of other tenants in their areas, because of Kāinga Ora policy that they will not kick out people for repeated antisocial behaviour. So my questions are to the Minister around safety. Does she think it’s acceptable that people in Kāinga Ora homes are feeling less safe? Does she believe it’s acceptable that there’s a policy that is different for the Government as a landlord rather than all other landlords around this country? And will she change the policy, or will she ask Kāinga Ora to change its own internal policies, to make sure that tenants have a right to a peaceful, safe environment if they’re in a home?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Housing (Māori Housing)): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair, and thank you very much for this opportunity to contribute to the annual review debate. What I’ll do here is I’ll just take some short time to lay a bit of context more broadly around Māori housing, and then address directly the questions that were offered by the Māori Party in this debate.

We’re proud on this side of the House of our contribution to Māori housing and the support for Māori housing aspirations. The Government committed to the vision of whānau and iwi in making sure that we have healthy, affordable homes with secure tenure across the Māori housing continuum.

The national Māori housing strategy, MAIHI Ka Ora, puts into action what was already built with our strategy to make sure that we can get Māori housing initiatives off the ground and supported. One of the key tenets of that is making sure in the first instance that the relationship is there. We know that iwi, hapū, and, in particular, Māori land corporations for the most part have been locked out of any housing solutions that this country is looking towards. Resetting that strategy was important, and over the past 12 months, we’ve done a fantastic job to bring together our strategy, but, more importantly, it’s to make sure we have actions that will equal homes and amount to outcomes for our whānau and our hapū and our iwi, wherever they might be.

As a result of that, we, as a Government, invested $730 million into our Māori housing aspirations: $380 million of that is for Māori housing and $350 million of that is for infrastructure, as has already been mentioned here in the debate. So with that $730 million combined, we look forward to continuing to grow Māori housing outcomes across the entire housing continuum. Now, that’s really important as I look to address some of the questions very shortly by the member from the other side of the Chamber.

So of our commitment in last year’s Budget of $730 million, we had a target of 1,000 homes, and, to date, I can say we have approved 378 homes to be delivered. We also had a target of 700 homes for repairs and maintenance. To date, we have approved 257. Of the 2,700 homes requiring infrastructure support, we have enabled approximately 411. We’ve supported 11 Māori iwi and Māori groups to build capability to accelerate housing projects and support services.

In direct answers to the questions that have been offered, the answer is yes, Māori housing iwi and hapū and incorporations that are currently involved and looking towards Māori housing aspirations can access what we’d term the general fund, if you like, for housing in general. So the answer to that question is yes.

The $730 million that I’ve already spoken to was quite specific and targeted. I’ve already given the numbers, and I’m looking forward over the coming weeks to sharing with that member and the rest of the House some more of the great initiatives that we have. What I’m proud of too, given where I know the member who asked the question comes from, is also our focus on our regions. We have spoken already about some of the urban centres, but we know that in places where the member comes from and even where I come from, in Te Tai Tokerau, housing is abysmal, and we want to make sure that we can support those housing aspirations.

Just recently, we announced—on Friday last week—Ka Uruora, which the member referenced in his contribution today, and I’m proud of that particular kaupapa because that sees us supporting a tribal collective spanning from Ngāti Rungi, which is in the north at Ōhākune, and Tūrangi, all the way down south to southern Taranaki, to places like Stratford, and everywhere in between. It would have been easy just to simply walk into Ngā Motu, or New Plymouth, to say, “Here we go.”, but what we’ve gone and done in partnership with iwi and those who are involved in Ka Uruora is we’ve identified families and opportunities in places like Ōpunake. When I was speaking to the local mayor from Ōpunake, he said, “Oh, the only thing people build around here are holiday homes.”, and we’re saying, “No, we are here to build family homes for people in Ōpunake.” We also spoke to the local mayor for southern Taranaki, and he said, “You know, Stratford hasn’t seen any new homes for families in some time.”, and he was proud that we will partner with them to make sure that we can meet those aspirations.

I will leave it there for now, but I suspect that I might get the opportunity, hopefully, again to continue to contribute to the debate.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)): Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to my colleague Mr Waititi, I also wanted to pick up on the kaupapa Māori - led response to homelessness, which is an incredibly important part of our work across our ministerial colleagues, and as Minister Woods said, we are very clear that not one person living without adequate shelter is acceptable to any of us. The vision for the Homelessness Action Plan is that homelessness for anybody is rare, brief, and non-recurring. We also know right now that we have some work to do towards actually achieving that vision, and we are committed and this is a different way of Government responding to the issue of homelessness.

So as we know, homelessness, in particular, has been decades in the making, but we have a shift in responding to homelessness. So the 18-month review of the Homelessness Action Plan was able to point to good progress in particular areas that I did want to highlight, including in ensuring that a housing-first approach here in Aotearoa is specifically prioritising a kaupapa Māori - led response, a tangata whenua - led response to homelessness. I know my colleague Mr Waititi is very genuinely concerned on how we also respond to and prevent homelessness. My colleague the Hon Peeni Henare already outlined the support and the importance of preventing homelessness from happening in the first place. This is the Māori supply, the Māori-led housing development, that we are going to start to see more and more of around the regions, and it has a direct impact on the unacceptable disproportionate rate that Māori experience homelessness in particular. And, as we have heard from our providers, it is unacceptable more so because this is our home in Aotearoa as tangata whenua.

So I did want to highlight that important work to the House, and in response to my colleague. I also want to go on to say that the progress includes action across the entire immediate 18 actions in the Homelessness Action Plan. It included—I wanted to also talk about this—new accommodation places for women leaving prisons and new accommodation places for young people leaving the care of Oranga Tamariki. Making progress on those and many other important areas are nothing to be scorned and are leading in terms of our valuing of who we need to be caring for as Ministers in this House.

Now these are prevention actions as well. The Sustaining Tenancies initiative is about helping people to keep their tenancies in the first place, to stop seeing more people from becoming homeless. Right now, I’m proud to say that we have got 1,063 households currently in that programme. We also have 4,435 households accepted into Housing First. These are important, every single one, but we know that we want to see more work done in those particular spaces as well.

I cannot sit down without acknowledging that through all of the homelessness work that we alone as Government cannot do, the community sector, the iwi, Māori, and marae sector, and the NGO sector has been critical—even through COVID, where they have been on the front line of having to deal with COVID and homelessness and a housing crisis at the same time. I cannot sit down without acknowledging their absolute commitment in the face of the incredible challenge and burden that has fallen disproportionately on them. They were literally the groups and the communities who were needing rapid antigen tests for their residents, who were needing the health services to come directly to their residents and their sites.

I have to give a shout-out. It was only because of them that we are also able to have achieved the actions, and especially the immediate actions in the Homelessness Action Plan. It is good progress. We absolutely need to be doing more. This is why I’m also pleased that the 18-month review threw up some new focus areas, including a highlight on youth homelessness, a highlight which we have never had in Governments before, including a highlight on the mental health and addictions support that we must acknowledge: the health support that goes hand in hand with addressing homelessness, and finally, including a kaupapa Māori focus and leadership for responding and preventing further homelessness. Thank you.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Thank you, Madam Chair, and it’s a real pleasure to be able to take a call in this debate. I do want to respond to the member from the ACT Party Brooke van Velden’s question with regards to safety for tenants. Regardless of their situation, everyone should feel safe in their home, and I don’t think that we have any other expectations that that should be the case.

What I do want to push back against is the notion that people who have the opportunity to live in a Kāinga Ora home are somehow more violent or unsafe than others, and I want to absolutely refute that. The people in Kāinga Ora homes are people who are great neighbours, great tenants, and great contributors to their community, and long may we champion them. I have to say that Kāinga Ora provides housing for those who may find it difficult to find housing in other places. It may be because they have health concerns, mental health concerns, drug issues, or other challenging life situations. That does not mean that they do not deserve to be housed in homes that are warm, dry, and affordable, and are able to take part in their communities like anyone else.

I do have to say that this has come about—there are issues where some antisocial behaviour has occurred, and there has been quite a lot of work done with Kāinga Ora in order to address those issues. Because, as I say, all tenants deserve to be safe, and where concerns are raised about those who are in Kāinga Ora tenancies, Kāinga Ora has acted. You may recall that towards the end of last year, there was quite a lot of discourse in the public arena around antisocial behaviour—that happens across all of our neighbourhoods, not just the neighbourhoods where Kāinga Ora tenancies are. But Kāinga Ora has taken the decision to ensure that we do everything we can to provide the support and what needs to go in place to make sure people sustain their tenancies. It is a policy that started under the National Government where we were faced with thousands of people across the country living in cars, and at that time—and it’s a policy that we have continued with; it’s about finding the solutions for people to sustain their tenancies, but acknowledging that there are times when that behaviour is at a level where Kāinga Ora must act.

So at the beginning of this year, they instituted a policy whereby if there were three significant antisocial events around a tenancy within a period of 30 days, the intensive team would step in and help to resolve that issue. Now, that doesn’t mean that tenancies were ended; it means that there may be issues around health or other kinds of challenging life concerns where some support can be provided to keep people in their homes, because at the end of the day we want to try and do that. But if we’ve exhausted all of those opportunities and we’re still unable to resolve the significant issues, then Kāinga Ora may look at exiting that person from that tenancy. That’s at the very end of trying to resolve these issues, because as I say, they do their upmost to keep their people in their tenancies—that is what we do.

But it is also for us to acknowledge that we have a role to support our whānau who live in Kāinga Ora homes to feel as welcome as they can be in their communities, and I absolutely refute some of the assertions in this House that to be in a Kāinga Ora home means that you are, by the very nature of the fact that you are a Kāinga Ora tenant, to be less safe than others. And that is completely, completely wrong—they are fantastic tenants, they build fantastic communities, and from time to time they need a little extra support to stay in those tenancies, and I for one am completely supportive of the fact that Kāinga Ora has done that. Significant issues they may have to deal with, but if you are the landlord of a last resort—which they are—you will do everything you can to keep people in their whare.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. It was interesting to hear the Associate Minister for Housing (Homelessness) take a call in this debate. It was interesting what she didn’t say, which was the Green Party’s call for economically illiterate rent freezes, which I note is a policy that she is happy to write open letters about to the Prime Minister. But the Minister, an Associate Minister of Housing in this Government, is noticeably silent about and that, I suspect, is because she knows in her heart of hearts it’s a dumb policy. But anyway, I do want to ask the Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness), given she’s here, about the Homelessness Action Plan, because she spent quite a bit of time in her speech talking about that, the 18-month review. And unlike the Minister, I have gone and read the Homelessness Action Plan—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: For goodness’ sake!

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, the Minister of Housing says “Oh, for goodness’ sake!” But the actual numbers in the Homelessness Action Plan bear no resemblance to the rosy picture painted by the Associate Minister of Housing. I’ve got the numbers here in front of me. She said, “Oh, things are getting better and the Homelessness Action Plan shows real progress.” Well, one of the 11 measures in the Homelessness Action Plan shows improvement—one; one of the 11. Eight are worse.

Let’s run through them. The number of tenancy tribunal applications is up. The number of distinct clients receiving their first emergency housing special needs grant has continued to rise since 2019. The number of applicants on the public housing register has increased since March 2019. There has been an increase in the proportion of applicants on the housing register who identify as Māori. That is one of the measures. The number of distinct clients granted an emergency housing special needs grant has continued to rise since 2019. The median number of days to house an application from the public housing register has been increasing, getting worse. The average number of weeks spent in transitional housing is getting worse. The average number of consecutive weeks spent in emergency housing is getting worse as well.

So of the 11 measures in the Government’s own Homelessness Action Plan—this was the world-leading revolutionary plan to make life better for the homeless in New Zealand—eight are worse. So my question to the Associate Minister for Housing (Homelessness) is: how can she credibly stand up in Parliament and say that the action plan shows progress when I’ve just read out at least six or seven measures, all of which are getting worse?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): There’s a number of questions that have built up, and I’ll just seek to address a few of those. First of all, the question was asked from Te Paati Māori around the number of social houses that will be constructed this year. Given the numbers that we have, happy to give an update on that. This financial year to date, the net number—and it’s really important that we understand the difference between the net and the gross number here. There’s been 721 additional public houses added to the system. Now, within that, one of things, and why I say it’s so important to understand the interplay of the net and the gross number here—that net number of 721, if we look at the Kāinga Ora (KO) builds, it’s been 546 new builds that have been added by Kāinga Ora this financial year. There’s been four new leases. There’s been 122 buy-ins. There’s been 16 leases that have expired, so that comes off the total. But, of course, in order to maintain the momentum in our public housing programme, there’s also been demolitions.

So we report our numbers as the net number, so that actually nets out to Kāinga Ora only adding 106 houses this year, but we can see within that that there’s actually been 546 new builds, but because we don’t want to overplay the hand and report the gross number to try and make ourselves look better, we report the net number. So, net, there have been 721 new public houses added, but I think it’s really important to understand there’s also been 711 transitional housing places in addition to the public housing places that have already been delivered this year. There’s a further 2,560 KO houses that are currently under construction that have been begun or are in the pipeline. The CHPs—community housing providers—have a further 382 houses that are currently under construction, and then there’s a further 1,129 transitional houses that are currently under construction.

In terms of the total number we deliver this year, I’m currently working that through with both Kāinga Ora and the CHPs. Of course, our building programmes are bedevilled by the same headwinds that all of the construction sector in New Zealand is facing. This is a financial year particularly where a lot of our house building programme is taking place in Auckland, where there was a substantial period of lockdown and the impact that that lost time will have on the overall delivery numbers. What we’re seeing across the industry is probably three to six months as the window of delay for a number of construction projects, but we’re working through in a very systematic and a very detailed way with the Kāinga Ora board and management team around what those delivery numbers realistically look like for this year. But we do imagine we’ll see a shortfall in delivery this year. It’s inevitable, and it will be like that across the construction sector.

I was asked by the spokesperson for the National Party what the KiwiBuild targets are. Well, they’re as many as we can as fast as we can, as we stated when we reset the programme. To ask what the target is, I think, shows a lack of understanding of the potential of KiwiBuild. The answer is we do not know the extent of the counter-cyclical measures that we’ll need to put in place to deal with the headwinds that we’re about to face. There will be developments where KiwiBuild is a lifeline that keeps the development able to be delivered, and I think that to put arbitrary targets in place does us no service if we are going to set a target. What I can reassure that member is that it will be substantially more than the 100 houses over nine years that the National Government delivered in affordable housing when they were in Government through their special housing areas. I’m happy to give that reassurance and stand by it.

The National Party spokesperson also asked whether or not we would be introducing growth incentives for councils. The answer is absolutely. It’s called the $1 million contestable Infrastructure Acceleration Fund, of whom the 35 successful to negotiation were notified yesterday. That’s a billion dollars in infrastructure that we have not seen the likes of in New Zealand in generations. It’s not since the 1970s, you could argue, that you’ve seen central government investment in infrastructure like this. But not only are we incentivising; we’re also requiring it. We’re a Government that put in place the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, where we say to councils, “How many houses are you going to need for your population growth, and where are they going to go, and we’re going to put some requirements in place for you to have it?” Nine years in Government, the National Party did nothing to address these issues around growth, and I’m very pleased to say that in Government, we’ve been able to address it.

If what the member is referring to and what I’ve seen some parties in this House talk about is an inducement to councils, a flat fee of, say, $50,000 to put in place to say to councils, “For every house that you consent, we’ll give you $50,000.”—we examined this a few years ago to think about whether or not this was the way to do it, but we found that there are a number of failings with this approach. First up, the funding comes too late. For enabling infrastructure, you need the investment up front. You don’t pay it on a piecemeal, individualised basis like an incentive programme like that would suggest. It also fails to recognise the variability of infrastructure costs by saying there’d be a flat fee that would be applied.

I know in some of the large-scale projects and the investments through shovel-ready that we’ve put through, we’ve had substantially less than $50,000 per property when you do an area-wide approach to this in terms of the infrastructure investment that is required in brownfield setting. Also, the other problem with this is $50,000 flat fails to appreciate the difference in infrastructure costs between brownfields and greenfields investment. Of course, we’re a Government that is serious about meeting our climate targets and ensuring that we’re building climate-resilient cities, and brownfields development is inherently more expensive on the surface—and I emphasise “on the surface”—than greenfields development. You have to address existing infrastructure, and sometimes you have to buy up houses and bowl them. So this is expensive infrastructure investment.

So a crude tool like just paying an untargeted flat fee is certainly not what we’re investigating. Instead, we’ve gone for a far more nuanced approach that actually looks to address the area-wide issues that we have and that will finally see the investment in infrastructure that we need in this country.

Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Associate Minister of Housing (Homelessness)): Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick response to the member in relation to the Homelessness Action Plan. Firstly, acknowledging that on this side of the House we’ve shown that we can play very mature politics when the Ministers, neither of us, are responsible for what any other member of Parliament says, including the co-leader of the Green Party. Now that is a mature response; it’s a mature way of doing politics. I am quite clear that that member is highly capable of mature politics, at some stage.

So, from there, I’d like to say that I was very clear: there has been progress in the immediate actions of the Homelessness Action Plan. There has been progress and, if we want to hear more about it, it actually includes, for example, a local innovation and partnership fund. That’s about local initiatives who respond to homelessness. It includes, for example, pilots to support people leaving acute mental health and addiction patient units. There are many more, but I was clear that progress has been made on the actions. Absolutely, more needs to be done to truly, authentically reach the vision of homelessness being rare, brief, and non-recurring, and I have made no argument—and none of us have made any argument—that that’s where we still need to get to. That is still work to be done. That cannot be achieved in 18 months of a Homelessness Action Plan, but we are absolutely committed to doing more work to achieve that. Thank you.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. And I take what the Minister of Housing said in relation to infrastructure incentives—I take that seriously. And I suppose my question as follow-up on a related note is in relation to the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020, which, as the Minister will know, was work started under the previous National-led Government and passed into law two years ago, obviously—2020 Act. I’ve had a lot of feedback from people in the development community, local councils, and others in the house building game that that Act, which I’m pretty sure I’m right in saying it passed the House unanimously, has proven—as a few people actually said at the time, and their fears have been realised—very complicated, and has proven burdensome to implement in practice. Now, there were high hopes when that Act was passed, and I think we all want to see new, innovative forms of the financing of infrastructure to facilitate new housing. So my very simple question to the Minister is: has she received similar reports to what I’ve received? And is she intending, if she hasn’t already, to kick off a review of the Act through her officials, with a view to potential reform; and, if not, why not?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I’ll quickly address that question. The Infrastructure Funding and Finance Act certainly is a tool that is going to be useful in a number of situations. Discussions are currently under way with councils that are interested in using this tool, but it is inherently a new approach and it is one that has to be worked through with care. One of the things I think that the previous Government—one of the legacies that we had to deal with is, I think, there was a belief that this was a tool that would enable the funding of infrastructure in areas where it was not suitable. So, for example, it’s my understanding there was an understanding that this could be a tool that could be used in Porirua to address the vast infrastructure work that was required to get any form of density and intensification in there. When we looked at that as a tool, we did not see it as a suitable tool for that area. What we wanted to do was ensure that we were building back in a way that allowed existing communities to stay in their neighbourhoods and for that to be in an affordable way.

So the infrastructure funding and financing tool certainly is an important part of the tool kit, but, as I said in my opening remarks, there is no simple single fix for us to address housing, and that includes infrastructure. And we’ve found, like most areas of housing policy, there was way more work to do from what we were left behind.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I thank the Minister for her answer. On a related note, which actually touches on the area of Porirua, but also my own area in Lower Hutt, is the whole issue of what is the Government policy when it comes to growing the community housing sector. The charge that some would accuse the Government of is the view that to grow social housing in New Zealand or grow community housing, the Government’s position seems to be that it has to be Kāinga Ora only. And, actually, as many members in the House will know, we have a whole range of different community housing providers up and down the country—typically closer to their tenants by dint of their smaller scale, their nimbleness—who provide a fantastic service for the communities that they look after, including a range of wraparound support mechanisms, some of which Kāinga Ora doesn’t provide.

The question for the Minister is: what is current Government policy when it comes to growing the community housing sector by way of capital grants, for example? Because there would be a view expressed by some that one of the most effective ways the Government could provide new houses in New Zealand—the new social houses, community houses in particular—is not just to provide money for Kāinga Ora to expand, and I note in saying that that Kāinga Ora built one net new house in the last quarter, but actually to provide money to the community housing so they can grow. And it’s not a binary either, it’s not Kāinga Ora can never build and can never expand—clearly they are going to have a role to play, they are the country’s biggest landlord. The issue is whether or not the Crown, with its large funding base and its large resources, can do more to help the community housing sector grow. And so the question for the Minister is whether or not the Government is looking at that, and what its Government policy actually is towards the community housing sector?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I encourage the member to look at the detail to understand our Government’s commitment to the community housing sector. So if I have a look at the number of new places that community housing providers (CHPs) have provided into the public housing sector since we came into Government, that’s 6,077 since 2017, and 615 this financial year alone.

We have made a number of changes in regard to CHPs since we came in, one of which is, as part of our Māori and Iwi Housing Innovation strategy, we’ve worked to ensure that, actually, we have some Māori providers in this space with by Māori, for Māori solutions. We also have an active programme of work in the Pasifika sector as well, ensuring that we grow our sector in that area.

One of the conversations that we had early on with CHPs is that we were different, as a Government, in our approach to public housing. Our approach to public housing wasn’t the way in which you grow the CHPs sector by selling off the State houses to them. We said we actually wanted to see everybody working together to solve the housing crisis. That involved Kāinga Ora building new houses, and that also involved CHPs building new houses.

Now, at one point, under the previous Government, I think it got as high as something like 67 percent of the new delivery by CHPs was buy-ins. That benefited no one and did nothing to solve a housing crisis. That’s why we changed the settings and have put this very much, squarely, around additionality. That’s why we’ve worked really hard to ensure that when CHPs are providing new places, they are new builds.

If we have a look at the new builds that our CHPs have delivered since we’ve come into Government, of those 6,077, 3,703 were redirects—and, to be fair to the CHPs of the legacy of the previous Government’s sell-off of State houses, still some of those contracts with redirects are in play, so that flogging off is still with us today—and 1,472 of those 6,000 are new builds. I want to see more of that proportion from our CHPs being new builds because building houses is how you solve a housing crisis—in the same way that we’ve put that requirement on to Kāinga Ora to ensure that it is ensuring that new builds are the priority.

We’ve also had to make some other changes to unleash the potential of CHPs, particularly CHPs outside of our urban settings, because what we found is that the settings were very much only focused on CHPs being able to deliver in our main urban centres. So we’ve done a couple of things: we’ve raised the market rent maxima, and we’ve done that outside of the urban centres. The market rent maxima, of course, pertains to the income-related rent subsidy (IRRS) and the top-up that the community housing provider gets between the 25 percent of a tenant’s income and what the market rent would be. It was set very low in regional New Zealand, and it’s one of the reasons why, under the previous Government, not only was Housing New Zealand not building and selling off in the regional centres but the CHPs weren’t either because that rent maxima wasn’t set at a level that made it economic for our CHPs to build in those areas. We have addressed that; we have changed that. It’s why, once again, we are seeing the building of public housing, both by CHPs and by Kāinga Ora, in our regional centres, where we have not seen work happening for decades.

What we’ve also done is early stage Operating Supplement funding. We’re doing 25 years of contracts with upfront funding which allows those CHPs to capitalise and to be able to build. It’s these kinds of initiatives which is exactly why our CHPs sector has been able to grow by over 6,000 in the four and a bit years that we’ve been in Government. But, fundamentally, what it’s taken is a commitment by this Government to commit to increases in the operating funding through the income-related rent subsidy. I’m still waiting to hear what the National Party would do in Government in relation to the IRRS because that is the constraint on growth, whether it be through Kāinga Ora or a CHP. What we can see is it’s nearly a quadrupling of operating funding that’s going to CHPs under our Government compared to the previous Government. So I think the CHPs have a lot to celebrate by having a Government that has a commitment to public housing in power.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we have about three minutes left in this session.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Oh, right, well, I thought the time was up, but, given we have extra time, I have a very simple question for the Minister, which is more of a local matter, which is: when will there be housing built on the land in Wood Street, Wainuiōmata, which the Government said would be built on in mid-2019, and here we are in May 2022, and not a single house has been built on the land.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Happy to take a call and address that. We are working through with the locals on that. Of course it was opposed by the then local MP for Hutt South, Chris Bishop, before he was voted out, who led a community against having transitional and public housing on the land at Wood Street. So that kind of thing isn’t helpful. But we have seen a number of National Party MPs opposing having public housing built in their communities, so it comes as no surprise to me that we get this from a party when they get the Treasury benches: they flog off public housing.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): What were the 1,681 new employees at Kāinga Ora doing in the last 4½ years since September 2017 if they were not engaging with the community of Wood Street to try and build housing here, which everyone in the street, including the former local MP, supports?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): What those increased employees are doing is finally building some public houses in this country. Actually, what I invite the member to have a look at—a very detailed look at—is the cost of construction per employee under the previous National Government of Housing New Zealand compared to what it is at Kāinga Ora. It is of magnitudes different in terms of the much less cost. Of course, Kāinga Ora has also had to hire more tenancy managers because we’ve added to our housing stock, not decreased it as the previous Government did.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, that concludes our one-hour debate on Housing. We now move on to Agriculture, and we have the Minister the Hon Damien O’Connor in the chair to answer questions for 30 minutes.

JO LUXTON (Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to lead off the committee stage at the annual review for the primary sector as the chair of the Primary Production Committee. As other committees have done, we have considered the primary sector as a whole. Can I acknowledge my select committee colleagues across the House. We are a really hard working, collegial select committee and I want to thank them for the work that they have done with regard to our annual reviews, and work that they do among other matters as well.

The committee met between 18 November 2021 and 31 March 2022 to consider the annual reviews. We did a lot of those meetings by Zoom, as have many other select committees conducting their annual reviews. We considered the annual reviews for the following entities: the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), Landcorp Farming Limited, AsureQuality Limited, Animal Control Products Ltd, Orillion, Crown Irrigation Investments Limited, New Zealand Walking Access Commission, and Quotable Value Limited. Many entities to cover off. This year we held hearings with MPI, LINZ, Landcorp, and AsureQuality as well as hearings with the Minister of Agriculture, for Biosecurity, and for Land Information, the Hon Damien O’Connor. I’d like to thank the sector entities that we heard from, and the Minister for also appearing before the committee to answer our questions.

There was a lot of information from these hearings which will be difficult to cover off in the short time that I have, so I’ll just touch on a few things and I’m sure my select committee colleagues will cover off other things during their time. Minister O’Connor acknowledged the Ministry for Primary Industries and their response over the last two years with regard to COVID-19 and he mentioned there is a forecast $50 billion in export revenue for the primary sector in the 2021-22 financial year. The Minister mentioned that he was also looking forward to progressing New Zealand’s free-trade agreement with the UK, and the committee notes that since our hearing, New Zealand and the UK have signed a free-trade agreement.

The committee heard that in 2020-21 the Ministry for Primary Industries had a surplus of just over $73.5 million against a budgeted deficit of just over $82 million. The surplus was a result of COVID-19 restrictions delaying projects, and a reduction in the cost of the ministry’s Mycoplasma response. Mycoplasma bovis was of interest to the committee as has been the case since it was discovered here in New Zealand in 2017. We heard that since the programme to eradicate bovis began in 2018, over $216 million has been paid to farmers. In 2020-21, $18,000,971 was paid out in compensation and ex-gratia payments. The committee heard that there were currently 50 claims still to resolve and that the average turnaround time for processing claims was 20 working days. We know that M. bovis has had an impact on our farmers and their mental health, and so we were interested to hear about what support has been offered to farmers that have been affected by the outbreak.

The ministry acknowledged that there was a lot of anxiety amongst farmers due to uncertainty and a perceived loss of control of their farms. We heard that the ministry has been providing support in a number of ways, such as providing relief, farm managers for farmers to be able to take leave. They’ve also been working with industry groups like DairyNZ, Beef + Lamb New Zealand, and Federated Farmers to provide assistance, particularly in areas with less access to mental health.

We also heard that National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) compliance has increased. At the start of the 2019-20 financial year 70 percent of NAIT animals were correctly registered. And as it 30 June 2021, this is now at 91.5 percent. The committee was aware of the issues regarding the workforce in the primary sector and so we specifically asked MPI about this. The ministry informed us that Cabinet was soon to make decisions related to rural contractors, halal workers, dairy workers, etc. Noting that our reviews were done in November and March, I’m only highlighting the things that we heard at the time and not taking into consideration any decisions and announcements that have been made since then.

As mentioned earlier, there’s a lot of information from the entities we heard from, plenty happening in the agricultural sector. Again, can I thank the members of the committee, the committee clerks for their work, and the entities and Ministers involved in the annual reviews for agriculture.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Chair. We have a short time for an industry that’s worth billions, and it would be nice to have more time but we don’t, so I’m actually going to direct my questions to the Minister in one call, and, hopefully, we can get the answers to those.

Now, the chair, Jo Luxton, who, by the way, is a very good chair, mentioned mental health, and I want to make a comment about a working group with Dairy NZ and others that was mentioned in the annual reviews. I’ve got some information about that working group, which says there are two separate considerations for mental health. So we’ll go to the second one first, and that’s the way we organise and support our mental health services, but the first is described as “matters beyond mental health, which includes drivers such as workforce pressures and the speed, scale, and coordination of regulatory change”. I would like to know, from the Minister, what role he believes the Government has had in the mental health of the farmers, including workforce shortages, public perception, and too many regulations. So that’s my first question.

The next one was around contractors, and I’ve just been informed by my colleague Erica Stanford that of the 200 contractors that were promised prior to Christmas urgently—for our contactors and contracting farmers out there—we actually got nine. I want to know if the Minister’s happy that that’s a good enough number, because nine out of 200 is a pretty poor strike, in my view.

The third question is around the meat industry. On 10 February, we asked Minister O’Connor about what he was going to do for the meat workforce, particularly in light of the fact that it was going dry in Southland—and it’s been particularly dry—but all around the country, and there was big excitement and flap that morning because, finally, after about a year of the National Party’s Chris Bishop asking for rapid tests, this was about to be announced. Interestingly enough, in April, in the AgBrief, issue 14, volume 22: “Meat processors losing millions in value-added products as they attempt to get ahead of a backlog in cattle processing in Southland that may not clear until September.” So I’d like the Minister to comment on that.

I would also like the Minister to comment on this: we talked, in the process, around methane, which is obviously one of the big issues that we have to solve in agriculture. There are a number of solutions on the horizon, and there are a number of solutions that are used in other parts of the world, and one of them is more suited currently to housed animals, but they are working on solutions for New Zealand. Just wondering what the Minister has done in terms of looking at opening up regulations so that when the technology expands in that particular methane inhibitor, we can start bringing it into the country as soon as possible.

The fifth one is around soil carbon. We reached some agreement on the day, Minister, that we both felt that there was more depth in the ability to be able to sequester carbon in our soils. You said at the time—sorry, Madam Chair. The Minister said to me at the time that we agreed, and he agreed with me, so I’m wondering what work the Minister is currently pursuing around soil carbon and its sequestration that will allow some mitigation for the agricultural industry. Thank you.

TEANAU TUIONO (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. My question to the Minister is really based around the work that he should be doing, if he’s not doing, around helping our rural communities and our farming communities adapt to climate change and in their farming practices as well. And I would like him to reflect on that on the recent New Zealand SeaRise report that came out, which indicated that, actually, time was even shorter than we thought. The time that we thought we had we don’t have. So my question is around about that urgency, because one of the things that I’ve noticed about this House in my short time here is that we’re easily distracted, we’re easily unfocused. Some of us have been distracted and unfocused and focusing on the Groundswell, when, actually, we should have been focusing on the sea swell.

So in that context, I wonder if the Minister could also focus on that new urgency: whether he will ramp up plans to help our rural communities, farming communities, to transition to regenerative agriculture and to organics as well, because we can’t wait—Napier can’t wait. At the latest they say 20 years, but the earliest in 10 years, it’ll be hitting Ōwhiro Bay out there on the coast, Nelson, Napier as well, so action is urgent.

And on that, I wanted him to reflect on the place of organics in that as well. One of the things that I do like about organics, if you’re going to get into those international markets, you’ve got to measure up. And with measurements—and when you can look at those kinds of baselines, things that they require in order for you to get into those markets—it actually makes it a lot easier because you can use that data to actually see while they’re doing things. And on that, could he talk to us a little bit about where the state of the Organic Products Bill is at? Any ideas around the support policies that will be needed to support those producers and growers, and also other related aspects? Thank you.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, if I may, I just want to touch on what the aforementioned member Barbara Kuriger was talking about—methane mitigation. I believe that $23.52 million has been spent on methane mitigation. Where is it in terms of it being commercially available? I think Barbara Kuriger alluded to the fact that so much of that technology is currently locked offshore, notwithstanding, Minister, that the public—i.e., the farming public—is weighing in on an emissions trading scheme or He Waka Eke Noa. Arguably, many in the industry will see that as a guillotine or a noose scenario, as that technology is not commercially available. We know we’ve got short-term gas in terms of its rate of decay and its emissions, and we seem to be, as the rural sector, front-footing that conversation.

Minister, if I can, and the question I do pose to you, is: when do you see it being commercially available, given that a Minister outside of Cabinet but in Government has said that he agreed with your statements when asked by me in select committee that the national herd size didn’t need to be reduced? You and I agreed. He then agreed and then flip-flopped on that position. So is it not a case that we have a tax before technology and this is a back-to-front conversation?

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I just want to ask you a question about whether you and your Government have turned your mind to food security. Now, the World Bank has noted fertiliser prices have surged in March, up nearly 20 percent globally since January 2022, and almost three times higher than a year ago. High fertiliser prices pose serious threats to food security, as they will impact food production in the next production cycle. In fact, last month the heads of the World Bank Group, International Monetary Fund, United Nations World Food Programme, and the World Trade Organization called for urgent action on food security. They said the world is shaken by compounding crises, and the World Bank estimates that for each 1 percent point increase in food prices, 10 million people are thrown into extreme poverty. The rise in food prices is exacerbated by a dramatic increase in the cost of natural gas, a key ingredient in nitrogenous fertiliser. And I note that surging fertiliser prices, along with significant increases in global supplies, have important implications for food production in most countries. They’ve called on the international community to urgently support vulnerable countries, including by increasing agricultural production. Only yesterday, Edmonds flour in New Zealand advised that due to poor wheat-growing conditions in the South Island this year, they’re no longer able to source enough New Zealand - grown wheat for Edmonds flour, but thankfully they’ve been able to get it from Australia. So my question is: has the Minister turned his mind to food security? Is he turning his mind to how to support the farm industry both for our economy, for our food security, and for our obligations to provide food to other countries?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Mr Chair, thank you very much, and I appreciate the opportunity to answer a number of the questions raised here. I have to firstly lay out and thank the primary sector for what has been an outstanding performance through some really tough times. We had over $50 billion a year in export earnings, which has never before been achieved in this economy. I want to thank all those people from the top of the country to the bottom who in any way, from the farm right through the production system through to the shipping, have shifted this offshore and who have produced the wealth for our country. It’s through meat, fish, dairy—the whole lot, in fact—and the prices at the moment are very, very good. It’s in part because we produce high-quality goods, but international conditions are squeezing things. We’ve heard about inflationary pressures, and they were starting to occur prior to the Ukraine situation, but they have been exacerbated by that, and I just want to thank the people.

At the same time, while producing that, they have been focused on better environmental management. There are 170 catchment groups supported by the Government out around the country focusing on better water quality, better nutrient management, and better biodiversity protection. This is a good-news story, but there are fewer and fewer farmers on the land as we’ve become more efficient over a number of decades, and so there is a larger number of people in New Zealand who don’t understand some of the good work that’s going on. None the less, there does need to be improvement in some areas.

Intensive winter grazing was one area where we saw some horrific images. We’ve put out some proposals, and we’ve adjusted and amended those proposals to be now really pragmatic to ensure that farmers can look after their stock through the winter. We don’t have measurements for pugging. We just want people to replant when they can, and we do want them to plant on not such steep country so that we can reduce the sediment load.

So there are areas of challenge, and one of the questions raised, of course, was around methane and how we might reduce that. It is a big challenge internationally. There is a focus on livestock protein production and a view that it’s contributing in a negative way, and it is contributing in a negative way. Well, that’s up to us to prove that it’s not negative. Yes, there will be emissions, but that will be with high, concentrated protein through systems that do protect the environment as well.

I’ll work through, if I can. As I say, I could go on about all the good things that we’ve done. Progress on M. bovis is better, as it was referred to by the chair, and I’d like to acknowledge Jo Luxton. She’s chaired a really good committee. The cooperation and the points raised in questions are, I think, indicative of that level of cooperation to support the key drivers of economic wealth creation in this country, and that’s great.

Can I just go back—I’ll work through things as I can—to the one on DairyNZ. They’ve put out a report based on mental health, and there have been stresses. It’s been stressful for pretty much everyone across our economy. There have been advantages in the primary sectors in that while there’s been a shortage of labour and there’s always pressures from adverse weather events, generally, people have been able to continue with their businesses and have often had better incomes than they had prior to COVID because of international prices. Look, that’s a plus. It doesn’t mean to say there aren’t pressures in the system, and we do have to do better to ensure people have access to support.

We’ve put more money into rural support trusts, we’ve funded the responses to adverse events, and we’ve had people on the ground. We’ve done all we can, and I think, generally, it’s been accepted that it’s the right level of support from central government, while depending upon people on the ground to deliver that help directly to individual farmers and to their families, and that’s the best way. We can’t do it from Wellington, but we can support the organisations like the Rural Support Trust to do that, and so we acknowledge the stress.

But, again, I’m reminding people who get into business on farms that there are many variables in a farming operation and they have become more acute with the weather events, so you’ve got to build some resilience into the system. The bank may want to provide a bit more money, but I’d suggest that people hesitate to add another $100,000 or $200,000 to your debt loading, because you do need a bit of headroom for those times when there might be impacts on your income. So reducing the financial stress is also part of that.

Can I come back to one of the points raised, and I’ll work through them. The contractors: there was an allowance for 200 contractors at the end of last year, and, indeed, maybe only nine came through. That was in part because the contractors chose to delay bringing those people in and took the lower-cost option of bringing them in later in the season. Look, I know it’s been hard and people have worked long hours, but we’ve managed to get through, and I guess there are many other parts of our economy where people can say, “Actually, we haven’t managed to get through.” So we’re ahead of the game across the primary sector in many, many areas.

Look, there are many other areas of the economy that have faced bigger challenges and haven’t been able to find a way through as the primary sector has, and in spite of the shortage of workers because our people haven’t been able to come in and out of the country, we have picked most of the fruit, we have processed most of the meat, and we’ve got the milk to market, and that’s, as I say, a credit to the people—not just farmers but people driving the tankers and people picking the fruit—who have done that little bit of extra effort.

Our summer fruit, for example, down in the member’s area—you know, we’ve had some crises. We heard it was really tough two years ago. This year, they managed to make do. I’m not saying it was easy for them, but they got through and I want to thank them for their efforts. So hopefully, now, with the borders open, some of that labour pressure will be relieved.

If I can move on to a couple of the other questions and points raised by people, the nitrate inhibitors and the challenge around through He Waka Eke Noa—this is the industry - Government - Māori collective looking at the challenges and progress that we can make—we have a target of 10 percent reduction of methane in agricultural emissions by 2030. I think we can get there, and while we have limited access to technology at this stage, there is quite a lot in the pipeline. We’re working internationally across about 60 countries to come up and share the technology—things like bolus, things like nitrate inhibitors. But as we saw with dicyandiamide, we’ve got to be cautious about how we use these things so that we don’t end up with traces in our products offshore. So that caution is justified; none the less, the challenge of actually reducing our emissions from agriculture remains in place. We’ll work with the industry, we’ll listen to their advice, and I’m sure we’ll put in place a workable solution to that.

If I can just go on to where, I guess, the Greens have followed on and raised some points around adaptation. Many of the most productive areas in this country, like the Hauraki Plains, are actually in low-lying areas. They are the most productive areas because, in fact, the nutrients have flowed off the hills down into the valleys and created these nice, flat, fertile plains, and it will be a challenge. There have been some across the primary sectors for years who have denied the impacts of climate change. I think that’s pretty much disappeared as we have seen more frequent events and more severe events affecting people on the land.

So we are going to have to work together to try to adapt to the new world that we live in—again, building resilience into our farming systems, building it into our business models—so that when an event occurs, it doesn’t tip someone over or create huge stress, and so that you are ready for this. Maybe there will be withdrawal required from some particular areas. I can’t make that judgment, but I do know that, actually, people in the primary sectors, like most Kiwis, are pretty innovative and pretty adaptive, and I think we’ll get through this. But we can’t deny the fact that the world is changing and the environment within which we work is changing as well.

Organics—yes, we need to get that bill through the House to give some consistency, and there’s division within the organics sector as to what we should do. I’m committed to get that through, offer certainty, and I think we’ll grow, as the EU has committed to have 25 percent of their production in organics; I think it’s by 2030. But none the less, people are more conscious of what they eat, and we will be producing higher-value products. Organics will be part of the mix. It won’t be all of it, but I welcome progress in that area.

The ACT Party raised a question around the spending on methane mitigation. Again, there’s been quite a lot of money being spent on R & D here. We have through Sustainable Food and Fibre Futures, in fact, spent money on new initiatives. The important thing is that we’ve changed this to make sure that we have open access to that information and it’s not captured and retained by an individual company. Usually, it’s a fifty-fifty or it’s a joint venture, so a company involved in some of this new innovation wants to have some returns—fair point. But, actually, if we discover something that is good for us and good for the world, then we have a moral obligation to utilise that technology and that knowledge to help reduce emissions across the globe, particularly when it comes to biogenic methane. It’s not simple. We can’t turn off the cow’s system, but there is a growing number of technologies that we will develop.

So working with He Waka Eke Noa and how they want to incentivise uptake of that technology on-farm is really important. They’re working through some challenging areas there as to how we get the funding to put into the technology, and then how we distribute that among the farming sector to get uptake as quickly as possible to meet—[Time expired]

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, if I could just change tack very quickly, the M. bovis programme, which you’re acutely aware of and have just previously mentioned, is an ongoing expenditure—this, notwithstanding Five Star Beef feedlot, which I know you’re intimately versed in, was first notified of infection on-farm in 2018. Now, I’m cognisant of the fact that there’s an exorbitant sum of money that’s probably going to be spent on its depopulation and then its compensation. This notwithstanding, I am sure there is disease mitigation from the property that’s ongoing in terms of cost through the programme. Can you please explain to every member in this House what the money will be. I know you and I have had several correspondences on this. There has been no money allocated. There’s been figures thrown around between $40 million and $200 million, notwithstanding there’ll be an inflationary cost to that because, as I say, the property was first notified in 2018 and now it’s 2022. Of the $886 million appropriated, I believe, for the programme, how much of this will directly go to Five Star feedlot?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Look, thank you very much. It’s a fair question. We’re making good progress on M. bovis, as the member has spoken of. The Five Star Beef lot is a challenging situation. They are the recipients of animals from across the South Island. A lot of them are off beef herds or have come through dairy, and so it was probably almost inevitable that they ended up with M. bovis. Ultimately, if we are to make real progress, we have to clean that operation up.

Look, I can’t and I’m not going to refer to the figure. Ultimately it will be a fair negotiation. I guess we’ll want to pay as little as possible and they’ll want to get as much as possible, but somewhere in the middle—somewhere in the middle. And there’s a lot of work still to be done on that, because it is a vertically integrated operation and it runs right through into the marketplace. The Prime Minister and I went to the restaurant that they have in Tokyo, where some of the fine product is sold and enjoyed by people over there. The point is that we understand it’s a challenge. We’ve got to make sure that when we do clean up the Five Star Beef lot there’s a very low likelihood of it being re-infected again, because clearly, when it goes into that operation, then it spreads through. But it’s not contributing to the wider spread of M. bovis at all, and that’s useful.

Very quickly, before I sit down, the one on food security raised by the member over there—look, we are very aware of that. We, in total, produce enough food for about 40 million people. So, unlike the Ukraine, which is a huge contributor to food security across the globe, and that’s been obviously impacted, we’re aware of the flow-on impacts which in the short term mean more money for what we produce. That doesn’t help with food security. In fact, you know, affordability, of course, is a lot harder for many people across the globe. Generally, we don’t supply those people. I guess people are paying more for our food, but none the less, we have a moral obligation to contribute and that’s through the sharing of information. And what people are learning is that the interruption with the fertiliser supply chain means that the fertiliser that we have, we should use more astutely, more efficiently.

There have been times where we’ve taken those inputs for granted; we’re not now. And so while we had access to large amounts of gas across the globe and it was producing urea for very low cost and you just poured it on, with the impact on the environment, now, the cost of urea has gone up. So people will have to revert back maybe to legumes, which was the basis on which we built our pastoral system, and those clovers that contributed the nitrate from the atmosphere into the ground for the grasses to be taken up and utilised were the efficiency that drove our success in the international marketplace. Now, that’s been pushed to one side as we’ve had cheap urea and poured it on and blown the clovers out of the sward. Now we’re going to have to go back.

Now, the fact that we know how to do that gives us an advantage in what is a challenging world of insecurity with some of those input components. So we have an obligation to go out and share our knowledge to actually build more food security in other nations as well. That’s where selling our services, where people will be prepared to pay for our knowledge, is an opportunity, an export opportunity for us. So it’s not just the food we sell, it’s the services and the knowledge that we should share. So in that way New Zealand will contribute to better food security across the globe, not by providing the food but providing the knowledge. In that way New Zealand will be the best country for the world.

Hon Members: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’ll take some guidance from the members. It has come time—the Minister’s half-hour is up, but if the Minister’s willing to stay I’ll take another call.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, we got some good, long, expanded answers there, but they weren’t really to the questions that I asked. There were two questions that I specifically asked, and it was the first one about mental health. And we had a good description about what happens on-farm, but the question I asked: the drivers around workforce pressures, the speed, scale, and coordination of regulatory change; whether the Government felt some responsibility in all of that. And the second one was around methane inhibitors. I actually asked—I know there’s a whole lot of things going on out there, but I asked what work the Minister had been doing around regulations that allowed those methane inhibitors that we currently can’t use into the country. Thank you.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Very briefly, thank you, Mr Chair. On the methane inhibitors, look, there is an issue of definition of them. And the methane inhibitors used offshore have usually—or some of the ones that have been deemed effective—been fed on a regular basis during the day to animals that are housed indoors. But, actually, there’s an unknown outcome from feeding it for pasture-based systems. So therefore, if you were to feed a larger volume of that in one hit—whether that would then result in residues in the meat or the milk, that would then block us. So officials are working very carefully as to the definition of it under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act, whether it’s a fertiliser or whether it’s a veterinary medicine.

So those are tricky issues, and we do have to move more quickly—although I suggest that, actually, the investigation of those technologies in the pasture-based systems have to be fully tested. They are being tested, I understand, in South America—unclear results. We’ll have the advantage of that knowledge when we move through to start the testing here. But I don’t know how long, but I’ll have to say, like dicyandiamide, we have to ensure that when we use it, we don’t put our exports at risk.

Can I come back to the regulations one? Look, I think we’ve given the primary sector plenty of notice around methane, around our commitment—in 1997, in fact, we committed to include agriculture in our emissions reduction obligations. It’s taken us a while to get there; we’re getting there working with the industry around water. Clearly, we put some water regulations out there; we’ve listened, we’ve adjusted them. So there’s still some time, and I think most people are working through to adapt to the new requirements, which is better water outcomes, lower nutrient wastage—and I think they are good outcomes that enable us to stand proud in the world market and say that, actually, we’re running the best farming systems in the world.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, our time with the Minister of Agriculture has ended. The Minister of Justice is now available for 30 minutes.

Justice

GINNY ANDERSEN (Chairperson of the Justice Committee): Thank you, Mr Chair. As the chair of the Justice Committee, it is my privilege to speak, briefly, in terms of what the committee heard as part of the 2020-21 annual review of the Justice Committee.

Right, first up: members were very eager to hear about law enforcement and what work was being done particularly in that space. And it was very interesting to hear from Secretary of Justice Andrew Kibblewhite that incarceration on its own mainly just leads to further incarceration. The Secretary for Justice stated quite clearly that he believes that better outcomes could be achieved within our justice system in the long run by shifting the system’s emphasis towards lowering crime, noting that was addressing the causes of that crime, and, in particular, having greater services in the space of mental health support, drug, and addictions treatment that run right across the board. Those approaches, those rehabilitative training and drug and alcohol treatment programmes, are those that address those underlying causes of crime and, in the end, drive down our incarceration rates in New Zealand.

We also touched on some of the improvements that have been made to the Family Court. It was noted that there have been concerns with some of the delays that have been occurring in this space. The ministry stated that in 2020 and 2021 it implemented the recommendations from Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau: The final report of the Independent Panel examining the 2014 family justice reforms. To date, the ministry has recruited new kaiārahi, the Family Court navigators who inform people considering applying to the court about resolution and support options. In addition to this, they have supported faster resolution of cases by working within the judiciary to develop a new role to make the process more straightforward and to make those tasks within the court system more straightforward for those participating. And, finally, under those changes, they’ve also supported the progress of legislation to enhance children’s participation within the decision-making process about their care and to provide children’s voice in that process, which previously had not been there.

The committee also looked at how the Ministry of Justice was supporting Te Ao Mārama. Te Ao Mārama is a programme, is a vision, for the District Court to be a place where all New Zealanders can seek justice, regardless of their ethnicity, culture, finances, or ability. It draws upon the lessons of solution-orientated therapeutic courts and tries to involve the community in that process. The two pilot courts for Te Ao Mārama were the Gisborne and Hamilton District Courts, but officials also noted that Porirua’s Young Adult List court is resulting in better compliance with bail conditions. There were also examples provided of Te Whare Whakapiki Wairua ki Kirikiriroa, the Waikato Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Court, which opened in Hamilton. The ministry has supported the judiciary in consulting with local iwi as well as other groups in these communities.

I’d like to also touch on the outcomes that are being seen through the joint venture. The Ministry of Justice is one of nine Government agencies in the joint venture for family violence and sexual violence, and the ministry hosts the business unit, which provides the venture’s governance secretariat. A three-year policy work programme that has been outlined by the ministry seeks to normalise therapeutic solutions for family violence and also sexual violence in District Court. It’s important to note that it employs process which involve, again, the community and iwi, and, if court process chooses to do so, also the victim. The work programme seeks to promote access to services, support workforce capability, and improve data and evidence. The programme is also aligned with Te Ao Mārama.

We also looked at the rising number of concerns around violent crime, and also there were some examples given of the changes to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, which the ministry is leading. In 2022, the ministry will also work with police to review the Search and Surveillance Act of 2012, and that review will consider in detail the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry on the terrorist attack in Christchurch, as well as the 2017 recommendations to improve the Act made by the Law Commission and the ministry.

It was a thorough and enjoyable session with the Minister and those officials, and all members had some good information about what’s going forward. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. My pleasure to speak on this debate and inquiry, as it were, into Justice—the billions of dollars that the Government spends on our behalf in order to keep New Zealanders safe. Now, there are a number of issues we want to work with the Minister on to get a better understanding from. Of course, a lot of New Zealanders are very concerned about the rise in violent crime that we’ve seen across communities of New Zealand over the last few years, with a more than 20 percent increase in violent crime. And, of course, all New Zealanders are well aware of the appearance of young kids ram-raiding and running amok in our cities in the small hours of the night.

So the obvious question to ask the Minister is: what is the plan, if anything, to restore law and order to our streets and our nights to hold those young offenders—repeat young offenders—who are stealing cars, driving them through windows into malls, stealing stuff, and driving away? What is the plan to hold them to account in some way, more effectively than inviting them to a group conference repeatedly? And what is the plan to ensure that they are caught and held to account, and that the people who are just trying to run their businesses and stay safe are kept safe, and that their businesses are not trashed on a regular basis, and so that New Zealanders can feel safe in their communities and their homes?

When I look at the Government and its justice approach, given this situation, given the violence on our streets, given the rise in violent crime, what is the one message that the Government seems to be sending? Well, actually, that we’re too tough on the criminals. And that’s why their legislative priority is to do away with the three-strikes legislation, aimed at holding our most serious repeat offenders to account. So given what’s going on all around the country, the rise in violent crime, why is it this Government’s message that the priority for the legislation is the fact that we are too tough on criminals and we need to reduce and do away with the three-strikes legislation? And related to that is, well, what actually is the plan to deal with the rise in violent crime in our communities right here, right now?

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I would like to ask you a set of questions about hate speech laws, thanks. Is it still the Government’s intention to introduce amendments to hate speech laws before the next election? Of course, a lot of the country are waiting to see what the intent of this Government is.

If so, does he intend to take any further papers to Cabinet? And, if you do intend to take papers to Cabinet, when can we expect clarification about Cabinet’s direction or decision on whether to continue with hate speech laws in this term of Government? Thank you.

RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, we’ve diddle-daddled around this subject for a while now. We’re talking about the Māori electoral option, and we just want some hard answers tonight on the electoral option. As we know, the last electoral option was in 2018; the next one will be 2024. So the voting preference for Māori will be 2026, which, like I said, is an eight-year lockout. We’ve talked about suffrage, and I’ve heard suffrage mentioned in this House quite a bit lately, but this actually doesn’t reflect suffrage, does it? That Māori are locked out for an eight-year lockout on the roll of their choice.

The other part of this is that I believe this is probably one of the most racist laws of the electoral law here in New Zealand. We’ve got the Māori roll and we’ve got the general roll, and so why is it called the “general roll”? Because it makes the Māori roll the “other”. And then we call it the “general elections”, which actually really solidifies that particular way of thinking. So the Māori roll and the Pākehā roll makes sense to me. Māori roll and non-Māori roll—that makes sense to me.

So I have a private member’s bill that will remove these barriers. Will he adopt the key changes in my bill by allowing Māori to change between the Māori and general rolls at any time? For suffrage in local and central elections, change the requirement to redraw electoral boundaries to a set date two years after each general election? Set a legislative requirement that if someone stipulates they are Māori when enrolling, but doesn’t choose an electoral roll, they are automatically placed on the Māori electoral roll. Change the name of the general electorate district to “non-Māori”, or to “Pākehā roll”—simple.

So the three questions that follow, Minister, is that: do you agree that our electoral system locks tangata whenua out from fully participating in our democracy? Does he support a Tiriti-centric Aotearoa? To that end, will the Minister commit to supporting my member’s bill, and will he vote for continued breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the marginalisation of tangata whenua?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank members for the questions. I might work backwards, if that’s OK, and address the questions around the Māori electoral option from the Māori Party first. I think it’s clear that we asked the Ministry of Justice to undertake some consultation with stakeholders around some of the concerns that we have around the current system with the Māori electoral option to ensure that there is fairness and equality in terms of that particular roll and the general roll. I set out the principles and the values during question time that this Government holds true to our electoral system.

As you can imagine, the Government would like to see some change, I think, to ensure that there is equality and fairness. We’ve got some suggestions. As I said during question time, we’ve consulted other political parties on that, and we await to hear the response about that, as to whether they’re actually committed to the equality and fairness that they espoused during some debates. We’ll see if that pertains to other parts of the electoral system.

As I may have said to the member in a meeting that we’ve had on the multilateral option, we believe that the Government is pursuing the substantive issue that he is concerned about. So our preference is to follow our path as opposed to the path that the member is proposing via a member’s bill. But I think it’s fair to say, given the discussion and the debate since our meeting that there would be a lot of alignment in what the member has suggested needs to happen to ensure equality and fairness for all voters in that particular department.

Can I also address the questions put to me by ACT member Nicole McKee in terms of hate speech. I think it’s pretty clear, and I’ve been pretty frank in this House, that the response that we got to the discussion document outlining proposed or suggested changes to the Human Rights Act came back with a force of fury. There were 19,000 submissions—I think 15,000 of them from the hate speech union, so you can imagine what they were—all relatively form. I have said publicly that this has obviously touched a nerve amongst New Zealand, but we have committed from the royal commission to make sure that we deal with this issue, so we don’t see the type of tragedy that we saw back in 2019. So I am, and the Government is, committed to making sure that we get this process right. That means making sure that we honour the victims of that particular tragedy by making sure that we go through a process that doesn’t make things worse—in the process making things worse—and coming to a conclusion, in terms of our hate speech laws, which means it keeps everyone safe, and there’s unity around that, around those proposals as well. We are still going through that process in terms of how we do that because I do think that when we released the discussion document, that a nerve was touched and a debate was started that, I think, probably put the people who are vulnerable in those situations more at unease than we should have. So again, we are proceeding with caution but we are absolutely committed to making sure that we meet our commitments under the royal commission of inquiry.

Just in the short time that I’ve got available in this call, addressing Mr Goldsmith’s contribution in terms of violent crime and youth crime, we have seen the numbers of youth crime decrease markedly over the last 10 or so years. I think off the top of my head, it’s somewhere around 65 percent. So that is not bemoaning the current situation, which obviously there is a spike in youth offending, of which there are a number of reasons why that might be happening. The issues around young people’s home environment, whether they have a home, is obviously an issue that can contribute to the spike in youth offending, which we believe is happening now. Also, I guess, post-COVID to be disengaged from education is an issue, and the Government made some announcements on that at the weekend. Obviously, I think, social media has a part to play here as well. The level of offending that is going on being posted on social media, let’s try to egg other people on or trying to reach notoriety, is a concern. All justice agencies, whether it be justice itself, police, and other agencies, are working extremely hard to make sure we can continue the good work that is bringing down youth offending.

But at the moment, we do have an issue over the last nine months, which needs to be addressed, and the Government is addressing that, primarily via the police and making sure that we investigate and prosecute where we can, which would go against the perception that the Opposition is trying to paint: that youth crime as a whole is increasing, which, as a trend over the last 10 years, is not necessarily the case. We will work hard to make sure that we protect people and businesses from the spike that is happening now. We can do that because we have committed more resources to the front line than any other Government in the last 15 years.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well, of course, it was very interesting to hear. The Minister came up with a lot of reasons or excuses as to why there’s been an increase in violent crime, but not much in the way of solution, other than spending more money. I suppose a question I have is: is the money going to be more usefully spent—or actually spent? If we look at a couple of examples from previous Budgets, the 2020 Budget, which announced with great fanfare a $20 million fund for helping strangulation victims and to aid with prosecutions, two years on, has delivered very little: fewer than 70 cases where they’ve helped people, rather than 800 a year. Big announcement, no follow through. If we think of the $3 million victim support fund announced in the 2021 Budget: big announcement, no follow through; nobody collecting from the fund more than 10 months after it was announced. So we just look forward to—rather than announcements of spending and announcements of good intentions, what are the actual outcomes?

The second issue that I’m very keen to get a clear sense of from the Minister is what his plan is to deal with the massive backlog in courts across the country, where we are seeing people’s access to justice denied, lives on hold as people wait for years and years. We’re seeing the 238 percent increase in time, since 2000, of cases taking more than 16 months for serious offences to be heard in the court: gone from 922 to nearly 3,500 cases waiting for more than 16 months to work their way through the system. We’ve seen the District Court times for criminal cases increase from 100 to 159 days on average—lives on hold. We’ve seen the High Court period extend from 340 days to 404 days. We’re seeing coronial matters taking a long time to be reported, we’re seeing the Environment Court—everything has ground down.

Now COVID has aided to that, no question about it, but these court delays were building up before COVID, and continue to build up. As a result, you’ve got a very large increase of prisoners on remand, which is they’ve gone to prison, often in Auckland in Mt Eden Prison, where they are not able to get any kind of rehabilitation around drug and alcohol abuse. They wait for the trial. It takes so long for the trial to occur that by the time they actually have the trial and they are sentenced, the sentence has already been served because they’ve been in remand the whole time waiting for their court case to come up. They get no rehabilitation. They’re put back out onto the streets.

And what this Minister actually achieved in terms of trying to get on top of those delays in the court system? What is the plan and why, given all the $60 billion or more spent on the COVID response, was so little of it put in the way of actually getting better audiovisual facilities in our courts so that more of the work could have been done during these long periods of lockdown? That’s one set of questions I’ll be very keen to hear from the Minister.

Secondly, I want to get some clarity around our constitutional position. We heard in the House—the Minister said today that he was all in favour of equal suffrage, that every New Zealander should have equal voting rights. And yet his Government, the Labour Government with the Greens, voted for the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill, which undermines and deviates from the idea of equal suffrage. So no wonder people are confused. He says he’s for it; his party votes against it, and then the sponsor of the bill, Tāmati Coffey, even after the Attorney-General comes along and says it breaches the Bill of Rights and it is discriminatory, today says he still hasn’t withdrawn the bill. He thinks he can change it somehow. But the only purpose of the Rotorua bill is to drop or deviate away from the idea of equal suffrage, otherwise there would be no point for the bill. So I tried to get some clarity from the Minister on actually whether he genuinely does support equal voting rights for all New Zealanders.

The third question that I want him to look at and perhaps give us some guidance from is his responsibility for the Independent Police Conduct Authority, to which his Government has allocated $3.5 million to do an investigation into the riots that took over Parliament and disrupted central Wellington, for more than 20 days, trashed Parliament buildings, and led to a violent melee at the end. Now, how does he justify spending allocating $3.5 million to a study that only does half the job because it doesn’t look into the actions of the Speaker and Government Ministers; it only looks at the actions of the police. And as we’ve seen from the actions today of the Speaker, where he’s seen fit to ban a former Deputy Prime Minister of this country from the House—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! E noho. The member well knows that if there is an issue about the Speaker that there is a correct way of addressing it. Doing it during this debate is not the way to do it.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Mr Chair. I am just asking the Minister to justify $3.5 million for an—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, you commented on an earlier procedure during the House, and that is out of order.

Hon Kris Faafoi: Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, the—oh no, your time’s run out. The Hon Kris Faafoi.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Well, can I just start with some basics for the member, it’s called the IPCA because it’s Independent Police Conduct Authority, and they will look at the conduct of the police. So it is my responsibility to make sure that they’ve got the resources to undertake their job, and we did that. They will look at the conduct of the police and the operation here, and that is the right thing to do. So if the member thinks that I should’ve used my position to direct them to go any further than that, then he’d be in here complaining about that, too. So get the basics right, Mr Goldsmith. It’s an Independent Police Conduct Authority, and it is their job to look at the conduct of the police and no further.

There were a lot of police here. It was a controversial police operation. They are looking into the conduct of the police and no further. If you think it should go further, then you put in a bill saying that the Independent Police Conduct Authority should go further than looking at the remit that it does now. But get the absolute basics right, because that is poor form from the Opposition justice spokesperson. If you think it should go any further, then make that National Party policy, because it’s not, and you didn’t do that during the last term, because it shouldn’t—because it is the IPCA, and that’s the job that it’ll look into. So get the absolute basics, right.

I’m very proud that this Government put $50 million into making sure the delays that came about because of lockdowns were done in the 2020 or 2021 Budget to make sure that we could introduce more judge resource and the support around that to make sure that we are dealing with the backlog of cases. That has been exacerbated by subsequent lockdowns. But I want to take my hats off to the Ministry of Justice staff, to the judiciary, to the legal profession, and others in the sector who congregate in our court rooms, to make sure that they have operated our courtrooms in a safe way, to make sure that we can maintain access to justice and justice can be served. It has been a challenge.

A couple of weeks ago, I visited the Palmerston North District Court and walked through with some of their senior staff members about what they did to make sure that jury service could be maintained and jury trials could continue to be held. When they empanel a jury they have to call about 120 people, and maintaining safe distance and public health provisions is difficult in those situations. So I actually want to take my hat off to those people who have made that work: the Law Society, some of the staff who are to my left, and senior justice officials have maintained the operation of our courthouses around the country under very challenging circumstances. We’ve resourced them that, and they are committed to making sure we can deal with the backlog that has come about because of the disruptions of the last two years.

I want to take my hats off to them. Because of the 24/7 effort that they’ve put in, we’ve been able to get through as many jury trials as we have more recently. We obviously have a dip when restrictions—COVID restrictions—were high. But when we were able to hold jury trials, our ability to go over and above what we would usually have to make sure we can get through the likes of difficult and logistically resource-heavy jury trials, I want to take my hats off to all the staff involved, to the judiciary involved, and also to the law profession.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Minister, just going back to the hate speech law, thank you for your answers to my questions. I just wonder if you could answer whether or not hate speech is going to come back in this term of the Government before the 2023 election.

And further to the honourable member Paul Goldsmith’s questions to you about delays, I also have one regarding the delays: during the recent court safety legislation bill that was passed in the last sitting block it was discovered that nearly 30 of our courts do not have access to audiovisual equipment in order to be able to conduct judicial proceedings remotely. So, just wondering, when you’re talking about what it is that we need to do to get rid of this backlog, is there any indication that these courts will be able to operate remotely to be able to get that backlog down?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Thanks for the two questions. To the first one, Cabinet hasn’t made final decisions yet, so I don’t want to pre-empt that; that would be rather career limiting. But as I say, the intention is still there to make sure we respond to the royal commission of inquiry recommendations.

There was a debate during the kind of final passages of that bill around audiovisual link (AVL) systems. The genesis of that debate didn’t necessarily lie in fact. The numbers that were being bandied around, from my understanding—is those are courtrooms that have fixed AVL facilities within them. But a rather large majority of those that was being said that they don’t have any AVL actually have portable monitors that can be used in different spaces within a courthouse and that they do have a capacity. I don’t have the numbers on me. I think it’s as little as nine may have little or no AVL facilities at all, but a vast majority of our courthouses and other facilities that we use that require AVL do have it. It might not be fixed, it’s mobile, but they certainly have the ability to hold audiovisual link proceedings in order to make sure that it’s as efficient as possible.

CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, and to the Minister for the opportunity to engage. I do want to ask a couple of questions about legal aid. He’s no doubt aware from various members of the profession, including to the highest levels, that they’re very worried about the legal aid system. I should acknowledge that there are longstanding issues over successive Governments, but I think it’s also fair to note that the issues have been getting worse. You know, in the time that I’ve been the courts spokesperson for the Opposition, and therefore the Minister and his colleagues have been in Government, it has been getting worse generally and then exacerbated by COVID as well and a number of other factors.

So my questions for the Minister are: whether he first acknowledges the depth of the problem with the legal aid system, first of all, and, second, what steps he has taken, if any—and if not, then what steps he intends to take—to reverse the very serious difficulties that we’ve heard outlined, even to the point that the whole system is facing collapse, with very few practitioners willing and able to undertake that work; the inability to have juniors to assist with those files; and the age, frankly, with all due respect, of some of the practitioners who are doing that work—and good on them, doing the lord’s own work in that space, but the inevitable result that they won’t be available in a few years. So, any comments the Minister can make in this space would be appreciated.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Thank you. Just to Nicole McKee, the number is 11, not nine. Close but not quite precise. So they are the number of facilities that don’t have audiovisual facilities available to them. But stressing the point: the vast majority of the courthouses at other facilities do. So, again, I think for efficient justice that is good to have those resources there.

To the question here, yes I do acknowledge the issue. I do acknowledge that it is longstanding. I’m not making that as a political point, but I do think the momentum of a long-term issue has meant that I think it’s quite precise now. I acknowledge it’s been raised as an issue probably for the last five or six years by the profession. I’ve spoken to the Chief Justice about it. The outgoing or the former president of the Law Society strongly advocated for it in her time as the president and, as my time as the Minister of Justice, obviously undertook that review or the survey that showed just how difficult it was and how much voluntary time lawyers were putting into it.

So, being an annual review, I can’t look too much further forward, but I do acknowledge that it is an issue, and also, I guess, in retaining and attracting capacity to legal aid within the legal service. I’ve heard many a story from district law societies around the country about how challenging it is to make sure that they can staff legal aid rosters, and I guess as far as issues go, it’s right up there in the top three to make sure that we’re aware of the demands.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, it’s come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. When the committee resumes at 7 p.m., we will have the Minister of Immigration in the chair.

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

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members, the House is resumed in committee. When we rose for the dinner break—look at everybody so keen! I’m not just quite ready for you, but we’ll get there. When the House rose for the dinner break, we had just finished with the Minister of Justice and now the Minister of Immigration is now available for 30 minutes to respond to members’ questions.

Immigration

NAISI CHEN (Deputy Chairperson of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. Indeed, I am very eager to get up and make my contribution to this part of our process in terms of reviewing our Budget and our whole entire scrutiny over the finances of our Government. Can I start by once again thanking all the officials that have worked with the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee. It gives me great pride to once again take a call in this House as the deputy chair of that select committee. I know we’ve just recently had some changes in personnel, so I do want to say thank you to Glen Bennett as well for his contribution to this select committee.

But the immigration portfolio is a very interesting portfolio, whereby the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee oversees MBIE—so the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, so hence we get to scrutinise over the Vote of business, science, and innovation. However, our colleagues who sit on the Education and Workforce Committee also have oversight in this matter as well. So I do want to thank that select committee as well for the other piece of work that you’ll be doing at the beginning of the Budget cycle in terms of the appropriations reviews, so we do kind of do a bit of a tag team in this sense.

So we heard from the officials from MBIE, and recognising that they too have had a really, really tough time during COVID—so we thank them here in the House and we thank them for their contributions and for their persistence through all of this as well. During the select committee process, we had heard—obviously, I think, to no surprise of anyone—a lot and we asked a lot of questions on the resident 2021 visa (R21). We had been really cognisant of the full effect that COVID had had on this whole entire immigration application process, and knowing that this visa means a lot to many people in our community, especially many who have weathered COVID with us—many of our essential workers as well who have really been at the front line. And I think that is a real chance for us to thank them for their contribution and to, I think, permanently welcome them to the Aotearoa family. So I think this is a very important time for us to make sure that we roll out R21 visas and the whole entire application and the grant process in the most efficient way possible.

When we did the review with MBIE that was at the beginning of seeing a couple of cases in the community for Omicron, and we knew that Delta had been really disruptive for the Immigration office. So we had asked a lot of questions about whether this time Omicron would be any different, whether it would be any different in terms of the delay in processing times, whether it would be any different from the way that the officials worked in terms of immigration officers, and whether they would be able to work from home. And I think we were really, really happy to hear about the digitalisation of this whole entire process, and that most of the applications can now be all done online, so that if our immigration officers had to work from home, then they would be able to access most of this information from online and from the safety of their own home, instead of having to worry about taking confidential information home in a paper based form, or when back in Delta they weren’t able to basically take much home, and many of our Immigration officers actually had to go into the office to work on essential and very urgent applications. So we thank them for their continued revamps and continued innovation in this area to make sure that we are able to serve our applicants in the most timely way possible.

Obviously, we had a few concerns around the target of meeting 80 percent of the applications by the end of 2022—so December in 2022. And we had a lot of assurances from the officials in that they have now allocated 105 staff members to processing the phase 1 applications, and then they were also training 100 additional staff for processing phase 2 of those applications. So that’s really reassuring to be able to hear that from all the officials.

Also we note that there’s the working holidays that Immigration New Zealand has been working on, and all of the other broader phases, including for our international students as well. So on that note, I’d like to thank the officials once again, and I’d really like to thank all my colleagues on the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee for working with us through this process.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. It’s really nice to be joining you in the House, rushing in from the launch of a report, actually, called Safe Start. Fair Future. Refugee Equality, which outlines some of the barriers that asylum seekers and conventional refugees face. I was really struck by a line from the Associate Minister, from that event, who talked about how everybody should have equal access to human rights.

So I wanted to ask about the acceptable standard of health policy, which discriminates towards disabled people, and ask about the application under the period that we’ve reviewed. I wanted to get an understanding from the Minister whether that policy has been applied to convention refugees; if so, how? I wanted to also understand whether trans people are being subjected to this policy and potentially facing barriers to access their visa due to, perhaps, immigration officials assuming that they may want specific medical procedures which may have a cost. I wanted to also understand what barriers asylum seekers may currently be facing, or what feedback the Minister’s received from asylum seekers around the challenges they may face in accessing Government support. Because one of the things that we heard during this launch is that, for example, people are struggling to access adequate support from Work and Income that they’re legally entitled to.

So in light of the comments by the Associate Minister, I’d be keen to understand, as well, whether he’s got any intentions in the current review of the acceptable standard of health policy to ensure that disabled people are part of that review.

Just moving on to a separate topic, I would be interested in understanding what he expects the future to be for people who have missed out on the resident 2021 visa (R21) visa. Currently, we do have a large number of Indian and Filipino nationals who are earning below 200 percent of the median wage, and 150 percent of the median wage. So while we have heard, time and time again, that people will have a pathway outside of the R21 visa, currently it feels like many people will not have any pathways. In light of the well-reported wage gap amongst our different ethnic communities, I am particularly concerned that the current processes that have been put in place with the accreditation scheme may end up disadvantaging groups that are already affected by a wage gap. So I would be keen to understand: what are his plans to ensure that migrants have realistic pathways to residency?

I’m also interested in his views around the fate of migrants who have been stuck offshore throughout the pandemic. We heard from officials that some of these workers could end up having a pathway to come back if they find employment. But the reality is that many of these groups who are stuck offshore because of the border closures currently have no job—some of them, their visas have expired. So I would be keen to understand what he sees the futures for these migrants to be. Should they just go on another pathway that has no guarantee? I’m also interested to get a sense of whether the prospect of replacement visas were ever considered, particularly in light of the fact that visas for almost 20,000 working holiday visa holders were renewed. I’m interested to know what levers were used to activate that renewal, and whether there would be more consistency in ensuring that people who previously held a visa and were affected by the border closure have a pathway to come back.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister some questions around the very slow border reopening that we have this year and also the wait times for all visa categories that have blown out. I want in particular to draw the Minister’s attention to some of the written questions that I asked and the answers indicating that his spend in Immigration has increased by 50 percent since 2017. He’s spending an extra $150 million more. He’s employed 500 more staff, yet 100 fewer staff are processing visas than there were in 2017 and only processing a third of what they were pre-pandemic, yet visa processing times have increased. A permanent resident visa took 20 days. It’s now taking 180 days. A visitor visa, 21 days; now five months—just to give you two examples.

How can it be that a Minister is spending 50 percent more, $150 million more, has 500 more staff, only processing a third of what we were doing pre-pandemic, and yet we still have to wait till October because the Prime Minister has again, yesterday, said in her post-Cabinet stand up that the reason for the slow border opening is the fact that Immigration is unable to process visas? How can it be that he’s doing all of these things and yet we’re still not able to open our borders until October and our wait times have blown out so significantly?

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I’ll just get straight to it. Starting with the Accredited Employer Work Visa scheme, can the Minister say with absolute certainty that the scheme will launch on 4 July 2022? Furthermore, does the Minister think that the scheme will help fill staff shortages in hospitality and tourism, with reports that it could take at least 18 months to make up for the jobs lost during the pandemic and that 60,000 New Zealanders could be heading offshore, and with one employer stating, “Filling those roles with New Zealanders is absolutely great; there’s just not the interest.”?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Thank you. Can I thank the members for their questions. As I did with Justice, I might start with the last questions first. To the first question, from Mr McDowall, yes. Despite attempts to try and get us to bring the time frames for the Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) forward, we can say that that will happen on 4 July. I think employers needed to have certainty about that, and I think it’s also a very useful tool for them to be able to bring migrant workers in with accreditation of an employer, with a job check to make sure that the domestic labour market is tested, and to make sure that there is a job check for potential migrants to come into New Zealand. They will still have a very structured and efficient means of being able to bring skilled workers to the country. So, absolutely.

I do note some of the challenges that the hospitality and tourism sector have faced because of traditionally low wages for some of their workers, and we’ve certainly had some discussions and feedback on that, especially in relation to a transition to a world of the AEWV, and we’re mindful of that and having further discussions with them on how that might work.

I might move to some of the questions that were posed by Mr Ricardo Menéndez March. Obviously, the event that you’ve just been to and the release of a report that we undertook into asylum seekers I think shows that there is definitely some legislative work and policy work that needed to be done in those areas. The likes of Amnesty International raised with us about a year ago particular concerns that they’ve had with the detention of asylum seekers, and we undertook to make sure that those issues were looked into. Minister Twyford, who is taking the lead on that given his interest in that area, will make sure that those particular issues are addressed by the Government.

I know that there’s been a common theme from the member who posed the question about acceptable standards of health levels. We are working with the Ministry of Health on a review of those levels. I would like to move that faster than under the current time frames, and I asked the questions to be able to move that work along earlier this week, because for some time I think there’s been some frustration at the way that that has been assessed. I think the member himself has expressed that, and a lot of the pressure that we’ve had because of the COVID outbreak and dealing with that has meant that not all agencies had been able to forward us sufficient bandwidth and resources to that, but I have asked for that to be moved faster in order to address some of the longstanding issues there.

Can I also move to some of the comments made by Erica Stanford. We don’t have $150 million more. The Government, at the last Budget, made up for a deficit because of the revenue that we could not get because of the border closure in order to make sure we could continue to shore up and have an immigration processing system. So I just want to put the record straight there. At the same time, there’s been significant work done on the processing of the likes of critical purpose visas in order to allow 23,000 people into the country via that process, the border exceptions process, where we have let thousands of targeted workers into the country, and all of that work needs to get done by processing staff here in New Zealand.

I’d also note that we’ve obviously had to take decisions with our offshore processing officers during that time too, and in order to deal with the closure of some of our offshore posts, we’ve invested in technology, which is the Immigration Online system, which is in its very early stages. But also, in order to make sure that we’re processing the likes of the 2021 resident visa, we’ve been able to bring more staff on to replace the offshore processing capacity. As we continue to open the border, it’s obvious that we’re going to need to continue to build up capacity in terms of the resources.

So I just want to set the record straight there: that we’ve got the same amount of funding going into immigration. What the Government did at the last Budget was make sure it continued to have a constant level of funding so we could keep the capacity there and make sure that we’ve got the likes of critical purpose visa applications being processed.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister why it feels like he’s playing catch up. Suddenly we are hiring and training more staff, when it was obvious to everyone that we were going to need to process visas this year to get our borders open. The fact that the Minister for COVID-19 Response and the Prime Minister have consistently said the only reason for our slow border reopening is the fact that we are unable to process visas. It is the Minister’s job to make sure that we have staff to process visas. We are processing two-thirds fewer visas than we were pre-pandemic. How can it be that we are unable to process visitor visas to get those people who are in stage 5 processed earlier in the year?

The biggest handbrake on our economy right now is his department’s inability to process visas. We can’t get the tourists in until the end of the year. We can’t get split families together till the end of the year. I want the Minister to explain why it was that he hasn’t increased the capacity of Immigration New Zealand to be able to do these simple things so that we can actually truly be open to the world, like the Prime Minister says, and not actually wait until October till they can apply. And goodness knows how long it will be till they actually get their visas—probably not until early next year. As I said, this is the single biggest handbrake on our economy right now, and I want to know why these steps weren’t put in place earlier to make sure we had the resources we needed to open the borders fully.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Madam Chair, I know there were some questions I didn’t address in the first round, and I just wanted to make sure I came back to members. In terms of refugee health, they are screened for travel offshore before they get to New Zealand and, once they arrive, they are obviously put in touch with healthcare here in New Zealand. The discussions that we’re having with health around the acceptable standard of health review does include disabilities and, while we haven’t come to final decisions on that yet, I hope it’s heartening for the member to know that that is certainly a consideration.

Again, just pushing back on some of the assertions made by the National Party member of Parliament. If we had a crystal ball, then we would have been able to make sure we’re preparing for time frames to make sure we have processing capacity. Again, I push back on some of the assertions in terms of the time frames of visa processing, but we have invested quite heavily in the Immigration Online system. When that comes to full fruition, I think people will find the likes of applying for a visitor visa offshore will become a lot more efficient, and they’ll understand exactly where their visa application is—not just for visitor visas but all types of visas. I think one of the perceptions or customer frustrations we’ve certainly had in the past is that when an application goes in—because a lot of applications are very much paper based—it’s difficult for applicants to know exactly where things are. The new Immigration Online system that we’ve invested in will help there.

I’d just like to reiterate to the member that, in early February, the Government outlined its five-step plan to reconnecting and, at that stage, the Government said, “This is the worst-case scenario but we are committed to reopening the borders”. To date, every step has happened ahead of schedule, because, I think, of the Government’s focus on reopening the border in a managed and safe way. I think New Zealanders appreciate that. We saw scenes of joy at the airport yesterday morning, as those from visa waiver countries and others could arrive in the country, and we are looking forward to being fully open and, if you look at the track record of all the five steps that we announced in February, we’re ahead of schedule. Hopefully, we can commit to that for the final step, and, hopefully, that isn’t too far away.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate the Minister Kris Faafoi’s comments regarding wanting to push forward the review of the acceptable standards of health. I’d be keen to seek just clarification on the answer he gave regarding convention refugees, and just more specifically whether the acceptable standards of health policy is applied to convention refugees to screen them from potentially accessing any type of visa. I also would like clarification as to how trans people are impacted by the acceptable standards of health policy, if he’s got any insights on that.

Additionally, I’d be keen to also get an understanding of what he perceives to be the outcome of people coming in who were on post-study work visas who were kept away because of the pandemic, and they understood the sacrifice they had to make. But now that they’re coming here—the ones who have managed to come and whose visas haven’t expired—some of them have given feedback to me that, for example, they only have a couple of months left on their visa. And again, considering that almost 20,000 visas were replaced, those working holiday visa holders, I would want to know whether any consideration has been given, or is going to be given, around extending the visas of those people on post-study work visas so that they’re able to set foot back in Aotearoa and to find employment in a way that is safe for them, and also that works for employers as well.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to ask the Minister, when people from non - visa waiver countries can in theory re-enter the country, how long will it actually take for their visas to be processed, and will people in New Zealand with family members offshore in this situation see their loved ones before Christmas? Furthermore, the Government has often spoken about the need to focus on “high-quality tourists”, and given the staged reopening of the border, does that mean that non - visa waiver people—does the Minister believe that those people are low-quality?

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to just go down a slightly different route and ask the Minister some questions around the 2021 resident visa. In the paper he took to Cabinet, the figures that he used—that Cabinet eventually settled on—were 110,000 applications representing 165,000 people. That’s a multiplier of 1.5. There isn’t a single person in Immigration New Zealand who will tell you that a resident application represents 1.5 people. In the history of this country, it’s always been around 2.2, 2.3. I want to know why the Minister didn’t use that multiplier.

Because what’s happened is, as predicted, the numbers have blown out. We are already well over the 165,000 that he took to Cabinet—we’re at 187,500 people included. And by the time you extrapolate that out, we’re going to have an extra 60,000 people getting their residence. Now, the reason that this is important is that this represents, obviously, a lot more than the Cabinet signed off, even though it was an approximate figure. But I’d say approximate doesn’t account for an extra 60,000 people.

I want to know where the Minister got the advice to use 1.5, given that that has never been an indicator of people to applications in the past. I want to know what work he did in that, because there are a lot of people who are now including their partners and dependents, offshore, who—especially in terms of those dependents, what work did he do in terms of finding out how many dependents offshore would likely be included in this? Because they’re all going to have to go to school.

And I want to know what work the Minister did in figuring out the amount of people that are going to be able to get this visa and then potentially how many offshore will be using our school system. That matters because there are so many more people included than the Minister ever took to Cabinet, ever talked publicly about. I want to know the reasons for not using a multiplier that Immigration New Zealand has traditionally always used in the past, and I want to know what work he’s done on those offshore children who are now going to be turning up to our schools.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Quick-fire answers to those, first to Mr Menéndez March. In terms of convention refugees, the acceptable standard of health process isn’t applied, and in terms of post-study work visa holders that have expired since the border’s been closed, no, there hasn’t been any consideration with that. In terms of why we looked at working holiday visas, if you look at the kind of sectors that we wanted to assist first, the likes of horticulture and hospitality and tourism, they’ve traditionally hired a large number of working holiday visas. The profile of working holiday visas are kind of obviously younger people, which we believed were more likely to travel, as opposed to any other cohort other than working holiday visas.

To Mr McDowall, we hope that once we open up to non - visa waiver countries, we’ll be able to process those visa applications in under 20 days. And to Erica Stanford, when we took that Cabinet paper through, the multiplier of 1.5 was based on what we knew, and that was on those people who would be eligible and in the country, and that’s why that multiplier was used.

I think, as I’ve said in this House during question time, it’s very difficult to understand exactly the number of dependants or a partner for someone who has applied as an individual for a temporary work visa, because obviously they’re not putting that on the application for a temporary work visa. That was something that was made clear by the officials when we put that piece of advice to Cabinet together. The best estimate we had at the time in terms of a lockdown number was what we knew was in country for eligible temporary work visa. We’ve obviously been watching that closely, because it is nigh on impossible to go through the number of people who are eligible—110,000 in total—and understand what dependants or what partnership status they may have.

What we knew at the time was that we wanted to make sure we were supporting those temporary work visa holders in New Zealand who were either skilled, scarce, or settled, and also making a commitment to them, and also guaranteeing for the employers that are hiring those workers, who, obviously, were feeling the pressure of the borders being closed, that things would not get worse and that we would secure the workforce of those temporary work visa holders who were eligible. Again, we believe 110,000 eligible work visa holders onshore, but a lot of those applicants had partners and dependants offshore that we had almost no information on because they obviously weren’t part of an application when that individual first put their temporary work visa application in.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Members, our time with the Minister of Immigration has ended. Members, the Minister of Health is now available for one hour to respond to members’ questions.

Health

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Chairperson of the Health Committee): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a real pleasure to take the first call in the annual review debate on health. This year the Health Committee reviewed a large number of entities. We reviewed the Ministry of Health, Pharmac, the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, the Cancer Control Agency, the New Zealand Blood Service, and nine DHBs in depth. We also heard from the Minister of Health. So last sitting block, we reviewed the aspects of the health response that related to COVID-19, and in today’s debate we’re going to be considering all of the remainder of the health sector’s work. Given the number of entities that we reviewed, I’ll just focus on a number of the highlights from some of them.

So with the Ministry of Health we discussed the health reforms and the work that the ministry was doing to make sure we had a smooth transition. What the ministry said was that it was working closely with the transition unit and also the interim Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority, which it was hosting. We heard that the time frame for implementing the transition was sufficient, because there was really good national governance and oversight in place, and they were working well with DHBs and with other stakeholders. But also they were saying that services wouldn’t be compromised, because the agencies providing the services would be the same.

We also discussed mental health and particularly the mental health crisis call-outs and co-response services with the police, and we discussed whether these should be funded by existing DHB budgets or whether the Government’s $1.9 billion mental health investment should be used to fund these. And what the ministry said was that He Ara Oranga had highlighted the need for a wider range of services in primary care in the community. So what they wanted to do was make sure that those primary care services were available so people didn’t reach the point where they needed crisis services. So this was an important aspect of the Access and Choice programme. They also highlighted the role of the helplines that were available to people in that point as well.

So with Pharmac, we discussed the interim observations from the independent review of Pharmac and asked what progress that Pharmac was making towards addressing some of those issues raised. So what Pharmac told us was that they were seeking more consumer engagement at an earlier stage in its processes, that they’d established a Māori advisory rōpū, and had increased Māori and Pacific representation in its consumer advisory group and other statutory committees—so, basically, a real focus on engagement. In terms of the criticisms that it was reluctant to share information with shareholders and the public, what Pharmac pointed out was that a lot of commercial agreements with suppliers had confidentiality agreements, but it was able to develop processes that allowed it to provide data to the review panel without breaching any of those agreements with suppliers.

For the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission: we discussed their first year of operation, and the commission said it was very much about establishment. They said that COVID had delayed some of their work—so, for example, the board was appointed about six months later than expected, but it was up and functioning well at the time of the review. We also discussed the commission’s independent monitoring role. While the commission said it had taken some time to develop its wellbeing outcomes and service monitoring frameworks, it felt that those would be crucial to that monitoring. It also said that in addition to their watchdog role, they would also like to act as a guide dog in highlighting areas where things were performing well.

So Te Aho o Te Kahu, the Cancer Control Agency: with our review there, we discussed the effects of COVID on delivery of cancer services, particularly through the nationwide lockdowns in March 2020 and August 2021. They talked about, basically, how treatment services had been largely maintained through those lockdowns, although some of the diagnostic services had been delayed—and that was much less impact in the August 2021 nationwide lockdown. I think the conclusion that they’d reached was that the health system appeared to be learning how to safely deliver cancer services in the context of COVID-19.

We also reviewed the New Zealand Blood Service and discussed the transfer to Organ Donation New Zealand. We also reviewed nine DHBs in depth.

I’d just like to finish by thanking all of those that worked in the health sector in the entities we reviewed for all the work they’ve done keeping us safe from COVID-19, but also delivering all of those other services that we need as a country. So thank you to all of those people out there working at the coalface on our behalf.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak to the annual review of the health enterprises and to address the DHBs, the Ministry of Health, and the number of agencies that, as have been described, came in front of us. I have a number of questions which I’ll ask in the first tranche.

First of all, we were interested in the financial position of DHBs. And so the first question is: what is likely to be the collective deficit of all DHBs at the end of the financial year, with and without the Holidays Act—we were very concerned with the Holidays Act—and will any ongoing deficit simply be absorbed at the end of the financial year by the Crown? So a question there around collective DHB deficits.

We had a lot of interesting discussion around health workforce, and this second question talks to pay equity and the concern that this seems to have stalled. It’s a question to the Minister around what is the progress on pay equity, and certainly around the point of discussion around purported back-pay agreements.

The third question, which extends health workforce, is the grave concern I have around the aged residential care workforce, which is breaking in front of our eyes. Should a pay equity agreement proceed, it’s been explained to me that the delta between what aged and residential care nurses get and what DHB nurses get could start at about $22,000 and go up to $30,000. Should this be the case, there are several questions: does the Minister acknowledge that this is an urgent risk for us right now? And if pay equity for DHBs does proceed along those lines, what does he think will happen to aged residential care nurses if there’s that big a difference between the aged residential care sector and DHBs? And then, thirdly, what is his plan to address pay parity between the DHB sector and aged residential care, community nursing and primary care nursing?

My fourth substantive question will be: will Pharmac provide and administer cancer medicines to children who are newly diagnosed with cancer in the public hospital system for free? There is an ongoing question we have.

Then, last question I have in this tranche, and we did scrutinise the cancer agency Te Aho o Te Kahu, and so the question becomes: what is his response to the recent damning report comparing the access to chemotherapeutics between Australia and New Zealand and the 18 preparations that are funded in Australia but not in New Zealand. What is his response to that? Has he had any response to Pharmac, and how do we address it? Those are my questions in the first tranche.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member Dr Shane Reti for his questions, which canvassed a number of issues, so I will respond to them as, indeed, he has asked them and in that order.

First of all, in terms of the financial position of DHBs, the member asked what the collective position is forecast to be by the end of the financial year. I think the member is right: one of the challenges for the DHBs for a significant period of time has been living within their means and sticking to their budgets. In fairness to them, they’ve been struggling with growing populations and a comparatively suppressed level of funding. It is true to say, however, that at least in this financial year, by comparison, their financial performance has been better than in the last financial year and, indeed, in the year before that. But at this stage the forecast for the consolidated deficit across all DHBs will be somewhere between $350 million and $500 million. Now, it could indeed be a little more than that, and I don’t disaggregate the accrued liability for holiday pay. That amount alone is quite significant, and it may well be that when the work is completed on auditing what the shortfall is, which goes back many, many years, that liability alone could in in the order of $1 billion. But that work isn’t completed yet.

On the second question the member asked, about health workforce and pay equity, what I can say to the member is agreements have been reached with the Public Service Association (PSA) and the Nurses Organisation for DHB nurses. That was due to go out for a vote to nurses. The Nurses Organisation withheld the agreement to go out to ratification, and they are now deciding whether that goes to their members for a decision about whether the members contest it in the Employment Relations Authority on the grounds that the terms of settlement reached are in breach of the pay equity legislation, or whether they actually proceed to a ratification vote.

In terms of other pay equity settlements, the pay equity settlement done for the admin and clerical workforce, which also concluded at the end of last year, is due to go to a vote to the PSA members at some point. I’m not quite sure what the timetable for that is now. They have indicated that as a consequence of the position the nurses have taken on their pay equity agreement, they may take a pause for a while.

We are currently in negotiations with representatives with DHB midwives—that’s the Midwifery Employee Representation and Advisory Services—for a pay equity agreement for midwives, but that is under negotiation, and there are foreshadowed pay equity negotiations for the allied health workforce. Their collective bargaining is in process at the moment. An issue there is the process for the pay equity claim they’ve got, but the pay equity part is yet to be negotiated.

The member raised a question about back-pay agreements. I am confident and satisfied from the documentation that I have seen going back to 2018 with the New Zealand Nurses Organisation that there is no agreement on back-pay for nurses. There was an expressed intention in 2018 by both parties, and the language was that the parties intended that the pay equity negotiations would be complete by the end of 2019, and that that would have been the basis of an implementation date. Of course it was a good intention, but the job was way harder than people thought, so that intention was not realised. I’m satisfied, as I say, from the documentation I’ve seen that there is no final agreement—no agreement at all—on back-pay, but nevertheless the Nurses Organisation has taken a position.

The third question in the set of questions the member asked is in relation to the aged residential care workforce. The member characterised it as the workforce or the sector, I think, breaking in front of our eyes. I know there were some pretty dramatic language used by one of their representatives on the radio yesterday that the sector was collapsing. I reject that. It is a sector under pressure, like all parts of the health sector, because of staff absenteeism because of COVID and a range of other issues. It is a sector under pressure, but it is a sector where people every day are turning up to work and providing the care that is needed.

The member is correct that once the pay equity agreements are finalised and concluded and implemented, there will be a gap, a reasonably significant gap, in pay rates between those in the DHB sector—or the public hospital sector, as we will call it—and the funded sector: aged residential care, primary care, and others. There are negotiations at the moment with the employers in the primary and community care sector and they will start to address those issues, but the reality is that there is difficulty in our collective agreement negotiations framework in the health sector—particularly for the funded sector—where the employer and the employee parties meet, but the funder isn’t there. We actually need to find a model where we can bring all relevant parties together to talk together about some of these big issues, and I’m doing some work at the moment with the ministry and others to work out a model that we can have to do that.

I have to say, talking to employer representatives in the sector, that they are very keen to find a model that means they can have a better discussion so that we can more effectively address these issues. In terms of any plan for pay parity, I think what I would say to the member is that I am acutely aware that we do need to see progress in terms of closing that gap, but we have to find a way to do that that is going to be effective for all parties.

In terms of the fourth question the member raised, which was about Pharmac and whether Pharmac will continue cancer treatments for children in hospital, my expectation is that they will. They’ve done a review about the funding of cancer medicines for children as a consequence of a ruling by another body, but I can tell you that this Government remains totally committed to the existing regime of cancer treatments for children and that they are free in our public hospitals.

Finally, the member asked about the Te Aho o Te Kahu report that came out last week on cancer treatments. I don’t share the member’s dramatic view of that report. I don’t think it was damning; I think it gave us clarity about what the gap is, at least, between New Zealand and Australia. It was a piece of work of the sort that we expect the Cancer Control Agency to be doing—that’s why we set it up in the first place—so we can get good information on cancer treatments, cancer diagnosis, cancer screening, and the performance of cancer services across the country. So this report gives us good information about what the gap is between the New Zealand treatments and Australian treatments, and what we might reasonably expect. I think that report would be very useful to inform both the Government and Pharmac in its future decisions about what we can and should be doing. I see it in that light, and I’m very keen to pick up the report and work with the other Government agencies to make sure that we see that through.

Dr SHANE RETI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister, for those answers. A quick question: what was the comparator for pay equity with nurses? Which profession, which career, was the comparator? As I recall with the TerraNova case, I believe Corrections was the comparator, but I’d just be interested to know what the comparator is for that pay equity.

A further sequence of a few questions: how does he explain a “D” investor confidence rating from the Treasury in the Ministry of Health, which he leads—the worst rating the ministry has ever had? My third question then would be: how many fulltime-equivalents are predicted with the health reforms? So on day one, we know that it’s a straight transfer from those in DHBs to Health New Zealand. I understand that. What is the future prediction of fulltime-equivalents under the proposed health reforms?

My fourth question becomes: how does he explain—other than COVID, which can be a convenient excuse for a whole range of things, and some I understand are legitimate; some I wonder that they’re just a convenient excuse—delays in implementation of the safer nursing accord, the CCDM model—the Care Capacity Demand Management model? I’d be interested to know some answers to that.

And then, finally, in this tranche: what is his plan to reduce waiting lists, which have ballooned both due to legitimate COVID reasons but actually, leading up to February 2020 when we started to go into lockdown, the waiting lists were substantially increasing anyway? So I’m looking for a plan for that. Thank you.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I thank, again, the member for his questions. I’ll see if I can rattle through these. The comparators were nurses in the pay equity agreement. I’ll say to the member that there were a number of comparators. I don’t recall the precise detail but it included, for example, detectives in the police force. It included management accountants. It included a range of different occupations and professions, some for senior nurses, others for registered nurses who are not senior nurses, and some for mental health nurses. So there was a range of comparators, and in the nature of the exercise, having worked out relevant comparators and the skills and responsibilities, then you sort of quantify the difference. There’s then a negotiation about how to make sense of that data and come up with the rates that were eventually agreed upon.

To the member’s next question about the “D” investor confidence rating: as I understand it, the reason for that is that the Ministry of Health has a demonstrated track record of, shall I say, being very cautious and deliberate in the implementation of its capital decisions. So I have to say, in fairness to the ministry, not assisted by a number of requirements placed on them by Treasury, particularly for significant investments that’s, you know, maybe reasonable from a public finance point of view—but the reality is, and to the extent that people criticise the length of time it takes to get investment or capital investment decisions implemented in the health sector, there doesn’t seem to be an inordinate amount of time taken and there’s a number of hurdles to get through.

I’m confident that Health NZ, once legislated for and in place, will—in fact, I know they are committed to exploring exactly why it is that there is this lengthy process and these lengthy delays, and we’re, in a sense, facing the consequences of that because projects that were priced two or three years ago now are facing material cost escalations just because of current circumstances. That is the price of delay. And we’re going to have to look carefully at the implications of that.

To the member’s next question about the number of fulltime-equivalents and the health reforms, what I would say to the member is that I expect there will be a shift of nature of roles. So we know, across the 20 DHBs, there’s a significant chunk of what I would call corporate services roles necessary in any large organisation, but the reality is when you consolidate an organisation, you can strip out some of those roles. But my expectation is that what that will mean is that what is saved from those roles can then go into front-line health services. That’s what we’re trying to achieve here, is to ensure that the dollar that we are spending on health is used to the best effect. And the more that we can see spent on front-line health services, then the better for New Zealanders looking at and in some cases waiting for their healthcare and the better for the health system.

To the member’s next question about delay in the implementation of Care Capacity Demand Management (CCDM), I mean, it’s an interesting question because the reality is the commitments to CCDM were first made in 2007 and 2008 following a review in 2005 and 2006. It was the Government in office in 2009 that made the initial commitments, set up the original pilots for CCDM, and three DHBs, including Taranaki District Health Board. It was a surprise to me—after the final deadline set for full implementation of 30 June last year that wasn’t met—in the review that I commissioned for it, to see in that review that Taranaki District Health Board, who started in 2009, were classed as one of the laggards in terms of completing implementation. I would say that there simply was not enough political drive given to CCDM between 2009 and 2017. This Government recommitted in 2018 to see the programme through. We did that. We still didn’t meet the deadline. We’ve done a review. We’ve got some good recommendations and commitment from nurse leaders and the nursing workforce to now see that fully and properly implemented.

And then the final question the member asked in that tranche is the plan for waiting lists—very timely. There’s been a bit of work—quite a bit of work, actually—gone into that, and I’m due to make some announcements tomorrow on the approach we will take to deal with those waiting lists. I can say to the member that if we did nothing else, if we just relied on kind of past practice, the projection is it would take us between three and five years to clear the current backlog. That’s not acceptable and tomorrow I’ll be announcing an approach we will take to deal with it.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora koutou. My first question is: we note that the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission report on the access to care for disabled people to health and support services—we noticed those recommendations are very, very similar to the ones in the report from January 2021, so we’re just wanting to hear from the Minister of Health about how you plan to address those recommendations.

And our second question is: given the discrimination faced by people with diverse genders, sexualities, and sex characteristics in the health sector, and the lack of a rainbow strategy proposed in the Pae Ora legislation, how does the Minister propose to provide pathways to gender-affirming healthcare, to dealing with the issues of gender-normalising surgery faced by intersex infants, and a range of other healthcare issues that, although they might be addressed in some of the locality plans—how does that connect up with needing to access services which are only available in certain places? Kia ora.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member Elizabeth Kerekere for her questions. I’m just looking round to see whether my colleague the Hon Ayesha Verrall is here—she’s not. On the second of the member’s questions in relation to any possible rainbow strategy or pathways to healthcare for gender diverse people, I can say that has been a priority piece of work for this Government, and in particular for Dr Verrall. We have stepped up, particularly in relation to gender-affirming surgery—we’re now seeing a commitment to that that we hadn’t seen for a long time. So a record number of procedures performed last year, we’ve been having a little bit of difficulty getting traction this year, but the numbers of cases being considered, and candidates for those procedures entering the appropriate therapeutic pathways, those numbers are increasing, which I hope will be encouraging to the member.

On the member’s first question about the Human Rights Commission report on the access by disabled people to support and care during the COVID pandemic, I want to acknowledge that report and the findings of that report that reflected that there has been difficulty for disabled people, and their whānau, supporters, and carers, to make sure that they’re getting good information, and in some cases good care. I can say to the member that even before the report had concluded, and the recommendations were evident, changes were already being made. I think, in fairness to those who have been running the COVID response, a lot was done very quickly, and I think that might justify some haste. And, you know, far from ideal practices in the early stages, but I think—as I understand from the member—the justified concern about the latter stages, particularly last year, when we then had another nationwide lockdown in August and then with Delta, that put a lot of pressure particularly on the northern part of the motu. And then the Omicron outbreak that, I think, caused a lot of concern and anxiety. By that stage, we ought to have had effective communications or channels in place that we didn’t harness. I’m confident now that those issues have been addressed, that we now have good engagement with representatives of the disabled community, and they are making sure that when it comes to putting together strategies and practices that we’re doing better by that community than we have in the past.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. A good choice, I believe. Can I start by acknowledging Dr Liz Craig, with her recent announcement—I see via email—of her promotion to Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Health, I believe it is. Sadly, it sounds like she’ll be leaving the Health Committee and chair. I’d just like to acknowledge the great work that she’s done over the course of what must have been several years as chair. So, congratulations.

We are reviewing years 2020 and 2021, and I think what we learnt from bringing the DHBs in front of the Health Committee was further insight to ballooning waiting times in our mental health services, despite what’s been announced as a considerable investment. So if we take a couple of examples: Taranaki District Health Board, for their Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS), wait times have gone from 22 days in 2016-17 to 52 days. That’s an increase of 30 days now that young people in Taranaki are waiting, under this Government. Another one was Waitematā District Health Board, where their wait time for CAMHS in 2016-17 was 17 days; now it’s at 31 days. And I think, for those who will read the summary report, it’s fair to say that level of direct increase in waiting times was across most of the DHBs.

So I’d like to hear from the Minister of Health why he thinks that his increased investment into mental health has not worked, why we are seeing skyrocketing waiting times, and what plans does he have in place that we come back to in the next annual review—which won’t be of DHBs, of course, because we’re abolishing them, but of the new entity—to make sure young people, especially in the time of COVID-19, are receiving timely access to mental health care.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): In relation to mental health services, can I just say that this is a Government that has not spent its time in Government completely and utterly ignoring the mental health challenges that are evident in this country—by comparison to the previous Government, which spent nine years ignoring an emerging health crisis. And so I’m very proud to be part of a Government that has invested, starting in 2019, $1.9 billion to address the single biggest gap identified by an independent review in our mental health services, which was the primary healthcare end of mental health services and for people with mild to moderate mental health issues. I’m very pleased to report to the House that we now have 337 GP practices, covering roughly 45 percent of the enrolled patient population; roughly 900 fulltime-equivalent roles, new roles in the front line of mental health, providing support to those with mild to moderate mental health issues—and there are people who are getting that support, getting that help, every day, right across the country. And, of course, we are part-way through the programme. We are about 2½ years through a four- to five-year programme. We’ve had a few delays as a consequence of COVID-19, so we have a wee ways to go yet and that work is progressing.

We have some challenges now in the acute and specialist end of mental health services. What the figures show, generally speaking, is that across the country, wait times have not significantly changed, on average, across the country, but there are isolated areas where there have been major challenges. In Taranaki, we know there have been major staffing issues with their mental health services, that that DHB is in the process of getting on top of.

Across all these services, new investment has gone into facilities, because that’s another area that was left completely neglected and run down. It turns out a lot of our acute mental health facilities are no longer suitable therapeutic environments for people needing to recover from serious mental health issues.

I want to add, too, the next big challenge I think we have, because I know members opposite sometimes think that we’ve just got to add more beds to acute mental health services. The challenge that leaders of the acute mental health facilities tell me isn’t that we need more beds at that end of their mental health services; there are people in our mental health units who, were it for better community-supported facilities, would not be in those acute facilities. The need is not at the acute end, in terms of bed space; it’s actually in community facilities with decent support—the sort of work that is happening with Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and their facility that they’re in the process of setting up, which is a peer-supported facility for those with lived experience supporting those being discharged and helping them get their lives back together in the community. And that’s, I think, where the next big challenge lies.

But one thing I can assure this House is that we don’t ignore serious problems. We see the serious problems, and we work with clinicians, with professionals, with others to address those problems. We don’t fix them overnight, because we want long-term and enduring solutions, but we do fix problems and we take time to do it properly.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I would like to thank the Minister for his time tonight, taking us through his approach and especially he did mention in-patient care. It was interesting thinking about the drivers of getting people in in-patient facilities out into the community. But I would ask, why is the focus not on just getting shovels in the ground to build these new facilities? Because when you look at the annual reviews, each DHB pitched up with the same story of a new facility announced two or three years ago.

If you look at Capital and Coast DHB last year and occupancy in their in-patient facility, Hutt Valley DHB was from 82 percent to 99 percent occupancy. Capital and Coast was 92 percent to 110 percent occupancy. What we’ve got to remember is clinical patient safety guidelines is 85 percent occupancy for patient safety. So here we have all our in-patients blowing out, but a common theme is there’s just no shovels in the ground for these new facilities.

This is with the backdrop, of course, of the Minister himself expressing frustration at in-patient facility builds. So he initiated an independent review—that was obviously conducted by his colleague Grant Robertson’s Implementation Unit—that found good progress was being made and things were on track. So it would be helpful, I think, for the House if we can just find out why none of these projects have shovels in the ground three years later.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Madam Chair, I think the thing that I can most help the House with is to get facts straight because the member who has just resumed his seat, Matt Doocey, seems incapable of doing that. So it was very important, when we put together a complex and complicated programme to fix up a long-neglected problem like the emerging mental health crisis that we have had in this country, that you do periodically review it part-way through. So we had the benefit of the Implementation Unit that is run out of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet—not run out of the Minister of Finance’s office—who conducted that review. The focus of that review was on the Minister of Health end of the $1.9 billion—the Minister of Health end of that $1.9 billion is about $1.1 billion—and looked at the access and choice part of that, which was the integrated primary mental health care end. It was that part of the programme that the Implementation Unit said was on track and making progress as expected.

By contrast to the member’s reading of that report, the Implementation Unit did not say that the capital build programme was on track; they said the opposite. They said it was not on track and they identified a number of difficulties, including lack of project management skills and capability within DHBs, and that that work simply had not been given the attention that it should have done. Since then, there have been changes in the Health Infrastructure Unit, which is within the ministry, and those changes are ongoing because that’s now part of the interim Health New Zealand set up. But I’m confident now that there is impetus and momentum to get those projects under way. The single biggest one of those projects was the Waikato District Health Board Henry Rongomau Bennett Centre facility that is in poor shape. There have been a lot of critical reports about that facility. The design of that is now well progressed and is going through the decision-making processes. I’m confident that that is making good progress. I’m confident that the other facilities that are part of the scheduled programme will make good progress in the latter part of this year.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I thank the Minister for the response to that, and I would point out the two reports from the Ombudsman received in the last week about facilities in MidCentral DHB, specifically Palmerston North, and of course in the Bay of Plenty DHB, in Tauranga and Whakatāne, where he was very critical that money had not been spent. Seclusion rates—and we saw that in several reports last year—have skyrocketed after declining up to 2016 and 2017, and now have peaked, and I point that towards the Minister.

I would like to finish with the Minister’s comments about the co-response mental health service, which Dr Liz Craig raised, and whether the Minister now accepts that his Government’s decision to cancel that in 2017 when coming into office—that has now had five years where that service could have been making a difference. As outlined in the annual review of the Ministry of Health, why are DHBs expecting to fund that out of baseline funding? Because what that’s driving is we only have one, which is Wellington. And when we find, and it’s evidenced in the annual review report that we’re looking at today for the Ministry of Health, that police are not turning up to 50 percent of mental health acute call-outs last year—50 percent of the most vulnerable New Zealanders calling for help and they did not get an emergency response in mental health crisis call outs.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I’m not quite sure what the question there is—the member made a number of observations—except to say that there have been a number of approaches taken to provide better mental health support at the front line of our first responders, both the police and ambulance workers as well. So Capital and Coast DHB has been running their pilot of putting mental health workers with police and with ambulance staff to see what difference that makes. We’re still waiting to see a final evaluation of that. I think a programme that I’ve also seen is where mental health nurses were located in watch-houses of police stations, particularly bigger ones, and where assessments were able to be carried out of those coming into the police station, and indeed, those mental health nurses were then available for police officers in the front line, actually out in the field, while dealing with somebody who was mentally unwell, and getting advice, and that appeared to make a difference too.

So I think we are all exploring different ways to make sure we provide the support and help that people who are mentally unwell need and in the different contexts in which that happens. That includes providing support within our emergency services to provide assistance for people they come across who are in mental distress and who need that help. There are some models emerging. In the end, it comes back to some of the fundamentals, the fundamental foundation that I think the He Ara Oranga report was talking about that needed to be laid: that the sooner people can get help for what are minor or mild to moderate mental health issues—the anxieties, the low-level depression, the distresses that people feel on a day-to-day basis—if they get help for those and learn some skills and some responses and build their own resilience, then that can help long term to keep the pressure off other mental health services.

There will be people whose mental unwellness is a consequence of factors that are not capable of being dealt with through talk therapies and what-have-you: that a pharmacological response might be needed, or a more acute response, and we need to make sure we have a system that is there, available to respond to them. But for those for whom other more mild responses are needed, those responses have to be in place too, and that’s why we’ve taken the steps that we have.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you, Minister, for receiving our questions. I’d just like to first also join with my esteemed colleagues and congratulate our chair of the Health Committee, Liz, on your new appointment.

Just a couple of things for you, Minister Little. Will the Minister support the establishment of a Māori director-general role with the introduction of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill? And as the Minister knows, I sit on the select committee overseeing the Pae Ora legislation—or sat. On a number of occasions, I had raised the need to reflect and acknowledge recognition of Māori political authority, tino rangatiratanga, as was recommended in the findings of Wai 2575. The officials denied my suggestions, stating that the Minister didn’t want that reflected in the legislation, the concept of tino rangatiratanga, and I’d like to understand: why was this decision made and what basis does the Minister decide tino rangatiratanga should not be incorporated into legislation, and why did the Minister knowingly ignore recommendations from the Waitangi Tribunal?

Third, the Pharmac reading is really dim and grim, to be honest, and some of the aspects that came out in the inequities report were shocking. What is it that you’re going to do to ensure that it aligns more with Te Tiriti and is able to address specifically inequities in how it addresses Māori going forward? Kia ora.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for her questions. In relation to the first question, whether I support a Māori director-general role, no I don’t, because I think at the moment, with the Pae Ora bill, what we’re trying to set up is a system where we have the ministry, Māori Health Authority, and Health New Zealand as the important, kind of, triumvirate, if you like, and the Māori Health Authority, although not the Treaty partner, is a very important expression of the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty and a reflection of a range of recommendations coming from the Waitangi Tribunal over time about what is needed to improve health services for Māori. So I don’t see putting in place a Māori director-general alongside any other director-general in the Ministry of Health is adding to or changing what we’re trying to do with the Pae Ora health model.

In relation to whether or not there should be a reference to tino rangatiratanga in the bill, I can tell the member that that was considered, but the advice is that because of the jurisprudence that has developed around the Treaty and indeed the references to the Treaty and Treaty principles over multiple pieces of legislation over many decades now, there is concern about what a court might do when confronted with the language of that. I think in light of the High Court’s decision on the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei case now is we’re seeing a judiciary that says that it does not want to step into and tell Māori what te reo Māori phrases or terms mean.

The other challenge I think there was too, of course, is that in the Treaty, tino rangatiratanga stands alongside Kāwanatanga, and if we are going to put expressions of tino rangatiratanga in legislation, then we also have to then also acknowledge that is within a context of Kāwanatanga, which is the other by-product of the Treaty. So that’s why that is not in the bill.

In terms of ignoring the Waitangi Tribunal, the Waitangi Tribunal makes a lot of recommendations on a lot of things in the context of its kaupapa inquiries and its other reports and findings that it makes. Not all are taken up by the Crown. Indeed, I think what the Pae Ora bill says by way of analogy in relation to the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee that advises the Minister on the exercise of powers in relation to Māori health and the Māori Health Authority is that if the Minister chooses not to accept a recommendation from that group, then that has to be publicly stated so that that at least is transparent. I think that is a useful model.

I didn’t quite catch the last of the questions that the member raised. She might take another call and raise them again.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you, there were two. So the question, Minister, was in respect to Pharmac and the report and the shortcomings and inequities specifically towards Māori. I guess a follow up to your second answer is: if the Minister is cherry-picking aspects of the tribunal recommendation in the Māori Health Authority, how are you going to maintain or ensure the authenticity or the success of that model going forward?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member, and, look, I apologise to the member; I just didn’t hear the question about Pharmac. Look, I acknowledge the point the member raises and the report that said that Pharmac’s performance on equity, and particularly in relation to Māori, has simply not been acceptable. I think even Pharmac now accepts that. We now have a final set of recommendations, from the review group, that’ll go to Cabinet very shortly and then be publicised, and I think we’ll start to see there the sorts of measures that now can and need to be taken to improve that. Part of that now, and with the benefit of the Māori Health Authority, subject to the legislation passing, is that there is now a body which Pharmac can now partner with to make sure that the way Pharmac conducts itself and goes about its business does more actively seek to meet the equity shortcomings that have been identified.

In relation to what the member describes as “cherry-picking aspects of the Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendations”: I think what we see, in relation to the model set up in the Pae Ora bill, with the establishment of the Māori Health Authority, and another critical element of that also being the iwi-Māori partnership boards—so the iwi-Māori partnership boards, that is the opportunity for iwi and the iwi voice, and, indeed, hauora Māori services’ voices to be reflected. The Māori Health Authority has an obligation to support those bodies and to draw from them, to draw from their mātauranga and their experience, to inform their work. Added to that is just—I acknowledged before that we have the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee advising the Minister—the membership of that body comes from Te Ao Māori; the Minister makes the technical appointment but the recommendations come from Te Ao Māori and, indeed, from iwi-Māori partnership boards, and hauora Māori services as well.

So I think there is a balance achieved there so that the leadership that we are all wanting and needing to see, in relation to Māori health, will be leadership by Māori, for Māori. The Crown’s role is to ensure that happens, to facilitate it, to protect it, and to make sure that it is integrated into the rest of the health system. So I think it achieves what many have advocated for. I think it achieves what the Waitangi Tribunal recommended in the Wai 2575 claims. And I detect, as I get around, a real enthusiasm right across the health sector to see this model in place and to see it work—because we all know we have to make a significant difference when it comes to access by Māori to health and to Māori health outcomes.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you for that clarity. So can I just ask one last question? If I understand—and I completely support your view on iwi, on the Tiriti partnership and tangata whenua part of it—at the end of the day, is it you, as the Minister, who will decide what of those recommendations that you’ll accept? Or is there an equal balance in how those recommendations—a little bit like the tribunal—will be adopted in going forward?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Madam Chair, thank you. If I understand the member’s question, when it comes to the advice and recommendations of the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, if I don’t accept, wholly or in part, a recommendation of the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee, then I have to transparently say that. And if I’m being called upon to implement something on the basis of their advice or recommendations, and if there is any one of their recommendations that I don’t accept, then I have to explicitly state that. But that group is there to assist me in the discharge of my powers as Minister when it comes to decisions that bear upon Māori health or the Māori Health Authority, which includes discharging powers in relation to members of the Māori health board. So there is no absolute guarantee that I, or the Minister of the day, will accept the recommendations unquestioningly; it may well be that some recommendations will be rejected. But, if they are, then that has to be publicly notified and made transparent.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the annual financial statements of the Government for the 2020/21 financial year be noted.

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.

Reports of committees on annual reviews noted.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 3 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.

Clauses 1 to 10 and Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.

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.

Report adopted.

Bills

Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill

Third Reading

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: I move, That the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third time.

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I present a legislative statement on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill.

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

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I move, That the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill be now read a second time.

This bill was introduced on 20 October last year. It was returned to the Pae Ora Legislation Committee, which was set up specifically to consider it. I want to thank the members of that committee for their work over the last six months. They considered 4,665 submissions and they heard in person from nearly 200 individuals and organisations. Now, that’s both a testament to the public’s deep interest in the state of our health system and an enormous credit to the committee for its hard work over that time. I want to particularly think its chair, Dr Deborah Russell, and deputy chair, Tāmati Coffey, for their incredible work in those roles.

Submitters made some very important points and these are reflected in the changes that the committee has recommended. I want to thank the many people who shared their personal experiences and their trust by disclosing their personal stories when they presented to the committee and made their submissions. The committee also heard perspectives from across the health sector, including workforce organisations, non-Government organisations, regulatory bodies, and individuals who assist in the provision of health services. There is strong support for the need to change our health system. It is particularly welcome that so many of those who spoke to the committee supported the general approach taken in the bill and commented favourably on the creation of Health New Zealand, the Māori Health Authority, and the recognition of iwi-Māori partnership boards.

As members will be aware, not everyone is in favour of the proposed approach, and I’d like to firstly address the concerns raised by many submitters and in media comment that the reforms are separatist and create a two-tier system. This is completely untrue. I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree that this should not be a two-tier health system. But sadly, that is exactly what we have at the moment, in practice, and that is exactly why we are reforming it. People experience unjustifiable differences in access to services and health outcomes because of where they live, their ethnicity, or other circumstances. We need to create a system that, at its core, recognises and addresses that inequity so that not just some but all New Zealanders have the opportunity and support to live healthy and full lives.

I’ve previously spoken about the reasons why we need to reform our health system, not the least of which is that Māori die seven years earlier than Pākehā. And it’s not just Māori that experience poor health outcomes that the system needs to address: Pacific people, rural people, and disabled people are just some of the New Zealanders for whom the health system needs to perform better. The system has failed too many people for too long, and that needs to change now. If we don’t begin to invest in the future of the health system, we will never see change. That would mean tolerating more inequity, more ill health, and more premature deaths. We need to make change for reasons of equity—we’ve established that. We need to make change in order to properly fulfil our obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. The essence of the Treaty is an agreement for Kāwanatanga—Government—which also respects the rangatiratanga—leadership by Māori of their people. We’ve started to see, when we govern on the basis of acknowledging rangatiratanga, such as when we handed responsibility to Māori to lead a COVID vaccination programme for their people last year, then we can make a real difference. I reject utterly the argument by some that enabling Māori to lead their people on health in their own way and to express their rangatiratanga is biased or separatist or in conflict with principles of good governance.

Clause 3 of the bill is clear that the purpose of it is to protect, promote, and improve the health of all New Zealanders. The health sector principles in clause 7 confirm the need for the system to be equitable, which is in clause 7(1)(a), and to protect and promote people’s health and wellbeing through a number of means, clause 7(1)(e). The scheme of the bill makes it clear: Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority need to work closely together—and I can tell the House that during this establishment phase that is exactly what has been happening. The committee has recommended important changes that will strengthen the bill to help achieve the purpose of the reforms. I welcome these recommendations. They will ensure the bill succeeds in laying the foundations for a transformed health system to tackle inequities and improve health outcomes for all New Zealanders.

I’d like to touch briefly on just some of the main areas that the committee spoke to. The bill makes the important step of formally recognising iwi-Māori partnership boards in the legislation. At introduction, the bill didn’t include functions or powers for the boards because we wanted to take time to engage with Māori about what they wanted in it. That engagement has happened and we now have functions and powers for iwi-Māori partnership boards in the bill. An updated process to recognise these boards is also recommended by the committee and ensures boards are representative of the whole Māori community in the area, while leaving flexibility and discretion for Māori to adopt a tikanga-based approach to boards.

Many submissions asked for a stronger accountability of the Māori Health Authority to Māori. I want to be very clear that the Māori Health Authority is accountable to the Minister of Health who is accountable to Parliament. This has always been the case in the bill and there’s been no change in that position. However, as a responsible Tiriti partner, the Crown must recognise the disproportionately poor health outcomes that Māori face under the current system and work to make that right. The bill ensures Māori voices are at all levels of the system to address these longstanding unacceptable outcomes. One of those voices is the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. The select committee has recommended it be appointed directly by Māori through iwi-Māori partnership boards and hauora Māori organisations. The Minister has to consult the committee when appointing members to the board of the Māori Health Authority and when exercising other ministerial powers. In making a decision, the Minister would not need to necessarily agree with the committee’s advice, but would have to clearly state where it had not been followed. This strikes the right balance of accountability to Māori and to Parliament. It means an entity appointed by Māori for Māori is involved in key accountability functions, leaving no doubt as to the Government’s intention to give effect to Tiriti partnership at the highest level of the system.

It will be no surprise to members that the committee also heard from users of health services and from the workforce about the need for culture change. We know workforce cultural development will be critical, but these cannot be easily legislated for. What we can legislate for, and as the bill requires, is for workforce development to be included in the health strategies and the New Zealand health plan, as well as the creation of a New Zealand health charter. One change that came out of the committee process is a technical one: the change to the ordering of precedence for the Government policy statement (GPS) on health. The change makes the Government policy statement appear secondary to the health strategies, but the GPS is not secondary to the strategies; it is the basis on which the strategies should be developed. So I do not agree with this change and there will be a Supplementary Order Paper to change it back.

The committee heard loud and clear that people want their voices to be heard in the system. Current planning, commissioning, and delivery of primary and community care is disjointed and does not routinely seek or respond to the voices of consumers. I’ve also heard comment that in the pursuit of centralisation, these reforms take power away from voices at the local level. We currently have 20 separate systems operating in 20 different ways in a country of 5 million people. It doesn’t work. Hearing the voices of New Zealanders is a key pillar of the single New Zealand health system, one that is centrally coordinated but locally delivered with health services genuinely informed by the needs and the priorities of the people it is serving. The bill puts consumer voices at the heart of the new structure. There are active engagement requirements at all levels, so services are designed for people’s needs. I agree with the committee’s recommendations to strengthen these engagement requirements. In particular, I strongly support the inclusion of annual progress reporting for locality plans. These will complete the feedback loop to local communities on the priorities and outcomes agreed with them.

Some submitters ask, “Why now?”, and I say because every week of inaction means another week of tolerating inequity, of tolerating Māori dying younger than Pākehā, of disabled people being seven times more likely to report psychological distress, of Pacific people dying six years younger, of people in our rural communities continuing to miss out. This is the status quo and it is completely unacceptable. We are changing that. The transition is already well under way. Interim Health New Zealand and the interim Māori Health Authority are set up and are working together. They have chief executives, key leaders in place, and recruitment under way. They have confirmed the prototype sites. The first nine localities are building their organisational structures and are working closely on the interim New Zealand health plan that will set priorities for service improvements in the first two years. They are ready to go.

Pae Ora for everyone in New Zealand means that our health system should be refocused to keeping everybody well for longer. We need a law to lay the foundation of our new health system, a system for all 5 million New Zealanders, with equity at its core. This bill does that, and on that basis I commend this bill to the House.

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

Dr SHANE RETI (National): In this contribution, I will speak firstly to the Health reforms generally, and then to the Māori Health Authority. The trail of Pae Ora through the select committee process is a story that starts with disrespect and ends with deception. The creation of a special select committee to discuss a purely health bill disrespected the standing Health Committee. The Labour members’ majority was an early signal of the deceit that would follow, which I will describe in detail here. The warning signs for a poll-driven watering down of the bill were there when the very first part of the bill was changed by the Labour-majority select committee. The very purpose of the bill—the purpose of the bill—was changed from reducing health disparities to striving to eliminate health disparities—a tragic reduction in ambition and a clear indication of a poll-driven watering down of this bill. These health reforms will fail, and they will fail on a number of grounds. I will describe six areas of failure.

Number one: “Labour knows best” centralisation. Retrenching of local health voices to Wellington under the ideology of “Government knows best” is the same sort of disenfranchising that we have seen with polytechnics and three waters. This is all about control and not about health services. Wellington does not know what is best for the people in North Hokianga. Local people know what is best for them, and they want this Government’s heavy hands out of their lives and out of their pockets. We despair the loss of local autonomy under these reforms.

Number two: timing in the middle of a pandemic. We had a Government official tell the select committee that the timing of the reforms in the middle of a pandemic was optimal—this timing is far from optimal. If the Government hadn’t noticed, the sector is exhausted because Andrew Little failed to build a health workforce. The waiting lists are as big as they have ever been in history because Andrew Little didn’t build enough ICU beds to protect the health system during COVID. Nurses are burnt out because Andrew Little didn’t keep his promise to fully implement the Safe Staffing Accord, a promise made in June last year. Critical care nurses are in short supply because after announcing the botched Kiwi Health Jobs recruiting programme in November last year, Andrew Little wasted four months before starting it, and it only employed three nurses to last month. Infrastructure hasn’t kept up because Official Information Act documents show that last year, Grant Robertson told Andrew Little to cut the health budget to a “minimum viable package” so that he could fund the health reforms. People are, therefore, rightfully devastated with wasted spending when Andrew Little let more than $21 million of vaccines expire, while also botching measles, shingles, and flu vaccination campaigns. The timing of these reforms is terrible.

Three: no rural voice. Where is the rural voice in the health reforms? What about the half-million people who live in rural areas with less access to GPs, laboratories, and after-hours services? Where is their voice and recognition of their unique needs in these reforms? Rural people are invisible. The Labour-majority select committee didn’t even want to include or contemplate rural people in this bill. What about exhausted rural GPs? GPs and, in fact, primary care don’t even have a representative on the Health New Zealand board. Despite the fact key solutions in the reforms are keeping more people at home, that’s primary care. Kicking people out of hospital earlier—also known as reducing length of stay—that’s primary care also; that’s where they go to. Yet primary care doesn’t even deserve a place on the Health New Zealand board. The rural voice is invisible.

The last Budget actually signalled the hidden agenda for how this Labour Government will deal with rural communities. In a terrible mistake last February, the Ministry of Health released to me an unredacted copy of a Budget briefing from Ashley Bloomfield to Andrew Little. In that unredacted briefing, one of the options to manage cost pressures was “rationalising specialist services—example: consider the scope and function of provincial hospitals.” That is code for removing rural and provincial services. This is the hidden agenda of these reforms for rural areas—decentralised decision-making and reducing provincial hospitals—and this Government got caught out by their own mistake.

Four: a track record of more money, more bureaucracy, worse outcomes. The evidence to date is that this Government has spent more money on health, but got worse health outcomes. All of the national health targets are worse now than when we handed over in 2017, and COVID cannot be used as an excuse because they were getting worse even before COVID. What we are seeing with these reforms is layers and layers of bureaucracy that are being built. Two weeks ago, Andrew Little made an announcement hailing the start of the bureaucracy—locality commissioners, locality coordinators, and 80 locality networks. The real message was that nowhere in his announcements was a single, targeted health outcome. It was all about bureaucracy—more money, more bureaucracy, worse outcomes. How could one possibly believe that these reforms will be financially viable when, in March last year, Cabinet documents showed the benefits projected to be $1.5 billion over 15 years and yet, barely six months later, the benefits had ballooned to $3.8 billion over 10 years. This is simply not credible; no one believes it.

Number five: inability to deliver the reforms. Even if the reforms did have some merit, it is not possible for a ministry and a Minister who gets a D from the Treasury for investor confidence rating to deliver these sorts of reforms.

And number six: no outcomes. Show me the outcomes, Minister. Five years before any benefits from the Māori Health Authority, and I challenge you to shout at me again like you did in select committee when I asked you to name a single health outcome that will happen in the first year. No one cares about your layers and layers of bureaucracy; they just want their hips, knees, and cataracts done. National is interested in health outcomes. New Zealanders are interested in health outcomes. Show me the outcomes.

In their entirety, then, we reject these reforms as a centralised command-and-control grab that diminishes the local voice and completely misses the vital democratic utility of health systems, which is health need. The changed financials are not credible, and this Government cannot and will not be able to deliver anything other than layers of bureaucracy, which New Zealanders will pay for.

I will now turn to the Māori Health Authority. National does not support a Māori Health Authority as a separate health system. I will set some context around the Māori Health Authority before seeking to detail three key reasons why a Māori Health Authority will fail, and conclude with 10 signals why, under this Māori Health Authority, Māori are being thrown under the bus.

Firstly, Labour did not campaign on a Māori Health Authority of this type and context; they did campaign on a Māori Health Authority, but under the Simpson review, it did not have veto rights, it was not commissioning, and it was not in the context of a complete removal of all DHBs. The comment that nothing has been done for Māori health for 180 years, those that say that a Māori Health Authority is needed because Māori Health has failed—how dare you disrespect the work of those Māori doctors who along with others took Māori from a life expectancy of 30 years in 1840 to the 73.4 years today. Māui Pōmare, Peter Buck, Tūtere Wī Repa, Edward Ellison, Richard Grace, Louis Potaka, Golan Maaka, Henry Bennett, Nītama Paewai, and Tom Kawe—we stand on the shoulders of these 10 Māori doctors, the first Māori doctors, and many others who have followed. Do not disrespect their work by saying nothing has been done for Māori. Shame on you for demeaning their memory. The better question to ask is not why Māori health hasn’t improved over the past 180 years but why there is a difference today in health outcomes for Māori and non-Māori. This is the problem we must solve.

A Māori Health Authority will fail; it will fail for several reasons. Firstly, it is based on a Treaty response and not health need. A health system that does not place health need as its core principle will fail; it will fail as it is corroded by conflicts of interest and distributive justice. A commissioning Māori health system will fail. Heather Simpson has said that she did not envisage the architect of the reforms, did not envisage a Māori Health Authority as a separate health system, which it will be if it is commissioning, and it will cause a lack of cohesion in the system. There will be competition for scarce resources. There will be provider complexity. Parliamentary questions demonstrate that a GP can hold two contracts: one with the Māori Health Authority; and one with Health New Zealand. That will definitely increase complexity. There is a terrible conflict of interest. The Māori Health Authority not only is a monitor of health inequities but a provider of health services. It is marking its own exam, and that eventually will corrode the Māori Health Authority.

There are 10 signals that Labour are throwing Māori under the House with this Pae Ora bill. The Māori Health Authority veto has gone, the veto that Andrew Little said in this House was vital for inequities—gone. The only redaction in all of the Government papers is in the Māori Health Authority in the financial statements. The Māori Health Authority is not a Treaty partner. Treaty principles are not included in the Pae Ora bill. The Māori Health Authority can be dissolved easier than Health New Zealand. No benefits to the Māori Health Authority in the first five years. The commissioning part has an unfixable conflict of interest. The role of iwi-Māori partnership boards has been watered down. You have been vacated; you are deleted with a red line by this Labour Government, and you will now apply. And, finally, there are deleted powers to undertake functions. The Māori Health Authority no longer has complete powers; there are many holes in this bill.

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute in the second reading of this bill.

I’ve got a number of notes here but I do want to address a number of the matters that the previous speaker Dr Shane Reti has just presented to this House. It was drawn a parallel that commissioning would fail. Actually, commissioning was established under that Government, the National-led Government. It was established through Whānau Ora, and the same model for commissioning that is being implemented here through the Pae Ora legislation in enabling the Māori Health Authority to be able to deliver is the same commission model that was established and supported by the National-led Government. Now, I’m really excited about that, also as the Minister for Whānau Ora, because we’ve seen the results that can be achieved through commissioning for outcomes, a very different way of doing things. We know that when we commission for outcomes, what we’re allowing is actually a certain kind of outcome that allows flexibility for providers to be able to cater for the needs of whānau. Now, that’s exciting because why? Whānau Ora actually was born with a health lens. It was born out of health. However, the National-led Government established Whānau Ora, as we know it today, and the commissioning that will be enabled through the Pae Ora legislation.

So I’m really quite proud of that particular fact. It was something that was asked for by Māori to the tribunal, in the health claim to the tribunal, in the hauora claim, the hauora report. It’s something that we were quite clear on actually. The member gets it wrong. He says that this party, the Labour Party, didn’t—what do you call it—campaign on a Māori health authority. We were quite clear. We were campaigning on a Māori health authority, no ifs or buts about it. What we were quite clear on though was that we needed to work through what would be a once-in-a-lifetime change in the health sector. That’s something that we’ve afforded the committee to do, this House to do, and I’m proud now to stand here in this House in support of this bill in its second reading.

In supporting my colleague the Hon Andrew Little I do want to acknowledge the Pae Ora Legislation Committee for the work that they did. We know that it was a huge piece of work. Minister Little has already outlined the large number of submissions on the bill. They sat through extended sittings and hearings to make sure that they could work through as many of those submissions as possible. No mean feat. I want to acknowledge them.

Of course, I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the Hon Andrew Little on this particular bill. What he has said is true. When we’ve been around the country to promote the Pae Ora legislation and to talk about the health reforms, it has been overwhelmingly positive. If one wants to listen to the speech from Dr Reti, they would think it’s all doom and gloom. But I can tell you that, actually, the optimism and the positivity from the health sector, I have never, ever seen it before. This is in the face of a pandemic, in the face of a health sector pivoting to respond to that pandemic. There is still huge optimism for what we are going to achieve in the Pae Ora legislation.

Of course, the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill provides for the essential foundations for that reform. I want to touch on a number of those, as have speakers before me. The Māori Health Authority will work with iwi-Māori partnership boards, Māori health providers, professionals, iwi, hapū, and Māori communities to understand and deliver Māori health needs and aspirations across New Zealand. Now, just reading that one sentence there, when I heard the previous speaker who said, “Health in Wellington is different to health in Hokianga.” Well, guess what! There are iwi, hapū, whānau, and health providers in Hokianga, which this legislation enables their voice to be heard. It enables their voice to be heard so that we can make sure they receive the support that they need to meet the health aspirations in those regions.

Also, this will help build a stronger Māori workforce, support the growth and capability and capacity of hauora Māori healthcare providers, and encourage more innovation and services that deliver better outcomes for Māori. That innovation we speak of, we saw it at the forefront of our COVID pandemic response from our Māori health providers. What better way to acknowledge and reward them for the work that they did in the pandemic than enabling them to make sure that this continues into a reimagined health future for our country? The reform presents us with, as I’ve already mentioned, that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reset our thinking, and, in particular, the challenges with Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Dr Reti names luminaries and leaders in the health sector and the Māori health sector, in particular, over centuries. The same Māori doctors and Māori health providers presented to the Waitangi Tribunal on the hauora claim—a very clear voice. That voice said that change needed to come, and this legislation does it. They went on further to make sure that as we match the clinical expertise of those doctors with actual public health services on the ground, that they were in a match that would suit that particular region. I want to acknowledge that, because the tribunal was quite clear and continues to guide much of the work that we’re doing in the reform work now.

The other part that’s been much spoken about, basically, since the start of this reform work is the iwi-Māori partnership boards. The iwi-Māori partnership boards, through this legislation, are an important part. Now, it was quite clear through the submissions that the iwi-Māori partnership boards needed to be put into legislation to make sure that it has form and function. It also has the powers to make sure that the aspirations that are led through those particular iwi-Māori partnership boards are met.

I want to go back to what Mr Reti said when he said, “What happens in Wellington is different to Hokianga.” The iwi-Māori Partnership boards will allow those voices to come to the fore for health aspirations at a local level, and even another local level, because guess what! Hokianga is part of Tai Tokerau. When the Tai Tokerau finds its voice on these reforms, which is what this legislation does, so too will Hokianga through the iwi-Māori partnership boards. Because the same thing is true, actually—what’s right for Ngāpuhi isn’t necessarily the aspirations and health for Te Arawa. Now, what the iwi-Māori partnership board does is it enables that voice and it enables that aspiration to come to the fore in all of what we’re trying to achieve here.

It also looks towards engaging with more Māori. Sir Mason Durie, a luminary in Māori health who created the Whare Tapawhā model, which I know many in this House are familiar with, made it very clear that through the engagement, the accountability structures needed to be in place so that it wasn’t simply an accountability structure in Health back to the centre—in other words, to central government—but also from the provider to the whānau. We’re quite clear in our work with iwi-Māori partnership boards that that is an expectation that we have that accountability structures between whānau and health providers are also measured and also accounted for in this reform work.

We also want to, through these iwi-Māori Partnership boards, assess the current state of hauora Māori and determine those priorities with them, not for them. Monitoring the performance is, of course, the duty of the Crown as we move forward. But as I said, the accountability structures must be throughout the entire system and not simply to the centre. The engagement with the Māori Health Authority and the support from the Māori Health Authority is crucial to make sure the iwi-Māori partnership boards are a success. My recent meetings with the Māori Health Authority board and its management and leadership is quite clear that they too are excited. They are fully engaged with the iwi-Māori partnership boards that have already come to the fore in recent times. Ngāti Toa and Te Āti Awa here in Wellington have come together to create an iwi-Māori partnership board, which is hugely exciting, and they are already engaged in the health aspirations from their local perspective with the Māori Health Authority.

What it’ll also do is agree local priorities and locality plans with Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority. Well, we hear from the other side of the House this loss of democracy. Actually, it’s the opposite. What this bill does is it strengthens local voices. It strengthens local delivery to make sure that we can—

Matt Doocey: Define what a locality is. What’s a locality?

Hon PEENI HENARE: If Mr Doocey was listening, he might ask his colleague where Hokianga is. That is a locality, Mr Doocey. Hapū and iwi, through iwi-Māori partnership boards and a locality plan, are quite clear that we can deliver localised outcomes to meet the health aspirations of our people. So I dispute the assertions from the other side that it is a failure in democracy. In fact, I think it is a strengthening of democracy. We see it in our health work. We see it in our three waters reform. We see it in all of the work that we’re doing in the regions, and I’m proud to be on this side of the House to support that.

The Minister has already spoken about the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. Once again, another local voice adding to central decision-making and being a part of what will meet Māori health aspirations. The Minister made it clear the people who are appointed to that board come from the regions. And guess what! Those are rural regions too, Mr Reti.

Finally, I support this in the second reading of this bill. I’m proud of the progress we have made. These reforms present a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make significant changes to our health sector, and I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thanks very much, Madam Speaker. I think, hopefully, I can give the House a challenge tonight and all those watching this debate to see if by the end of it they’ll actually know what a locality is, because this bill does not describe what a locality is and that, in fact, is the issue. The last speaker, Peeni Henare, spoke of the optimism in the health workforce. I disagree. I think it’s apathy, because at a time when the health workforce is preoccupied, quite rightly, responding to the impacts of COVID—and not only that, they’ve accepted change irrespective of whether they agree with it or not. But the biggest concern I think the health workforce has, as many New Zealanders have, is when you look at the bill in front of us—and I don’t think the select committee process has really helped it—there’s no real definition. There’s no detail. People don’t actually know what it’s going to do. So that’s why I set the challenge: if we can find out by the end of this debate what actually a locality is going to be.

What’s really concerning on this side of the House is here we have a Labour Government that’s got a track record of failure to deliver, of absolute incompetence. They cannot plan for anything. And now they’re saying, “Trust us. In the middle of the pandemic, we’ll blow half a billion dollars on a health restructure.” It doesn’t add up. And then tonight, the context of this—the worst poll this Government’s had in five years. And we’ve got rural and regional government MPs who are sitting there going, “I’m going to have to go back to the electorate when I didn’t even stand on a platform of disestablishing their local DHB at the last election. And now I’ve got to defend rural not even being mentioned as a rural strategy, as a priority group.” Who would have thought in a country like New Zealand, when you listed the strategies and the population priority groups, rural would not be there. Because remember that term, the Hon—well, whatever the primary industries Minister is—Damien O’Connor had, that term rural proofing? Oh yep, remember that. Well, where’s the rural proofing in this bill? It’s not there, and I look forward to those Government members going back and explaining that in their electorate.

The second reading is talking about submitters. I want to raise the submission of the New Zealand Rural General Practice Network. They have over 1,800 members across 90 percent of all rural general practices. They, quite rightly, point out that rural and remote New Zealand encapsulates about 700,000 New Zealanders—700,000 New Zealanders. And I know, as our agricultural spokesperson Barbara Kuriger will know, that those 700,000 people deliver 50 percent of this country’s GDP—and they don’t even get a look-in in this bill. The Government members did not want to listen to those submissions and here they are championing equity—equity when it suits them. Why not put a rural strategy in place?

This bill was championed around addressing the postcode lottery. Not including rural is going to entrench the postcode lottery. And I just want to put a quote on the record from the general practice chair, Dr Fiona Bolden. She says, “We wish you luck if you have a medical emergency or an accident on a remote rural road and are waiting for a response from an under-funded and overworked rural GP or nurse who is on a 24/7 call roster, or wait for an ambulance that has to be dispatched from a depot 3 hours away.” People affected by that are not just rural people; because urban people will be out using those roads in rural New Zealand, going on holiday, going about their work. And that’s why this is about all New Zealanders being sold short when this Government chose not to include a rural strategy and rural people as a priority group.

Another priority group I want to flag up that wasn’t listened to in the submissions in the select committee process was people with mental health issues. The Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission said, “The issue of mental health is almost invisible within this bill.” They’re not listed. There’s no mental health and wellbeing strategy. Who would have thought, with a Government that came in on the pledge of transforming the mental health system, that the mental health commission would be saying it’s invisible in this bill. And of course, the mental health commission are the ones who’ve released their recent report that said: with the Government’s announcement of $1.9 billion, no material improvements. And then they’ve got the nerve to bring the bill to the House that doesn’t even prioritise people with mental health needs. Who would have thought of it?

It says when they look at the Government policy statement, in preparing a health strategy they’re required to consult—this is the Minister—with health entities or groups considered as reasonably likely to be affected, and the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission is not one of those groups. The mental health sector watchdog is not someone the Minister has to consult. And the reason why that’s important is: let’s not forget last year’s debacle with the Ministry of Health when ministry officials were caught running a risk lens over negative statistics as to not embarrass the Government. That’s why we need the independent Crown entity, the mental health watchdog, included in this bill, but they’re not.

You really have got to scratch your head as to why the mental health commission has to come in with a submission pleading to be included in this bill, especially when setting up the mental health commission was a recommendation of this Government’s own inquiry and they spent huge cost and time of this House passing legislation to establish it. And now not only do they not want to include it in this bill, but, as we know, they’re actually blocking its first reports at select committee.

Then we have had the true advocate I believe in mental health in New Zealand, which is the Mental Health Foundation. And they’re saying that this bill does not demonstrate the Government’s commitment to improving mental health and wellbeing outcomes. They’re saying it shows no leadership and ownership. People with mental health issues in New Zealand can have a life expectancy shorter by 20 years of the average Kiwi. This bill was built around equity. Yet when we look at the strategies within this bill, the health strategies that this bill will need to respond to, mental health is not one of them.

And you’ve got NGOs like Emerge Aotearoa, who are really concerned about mental health being invisible in this bill. They’re pointing out in their submission the impacts they see around COVID-19. We know other mental health systems around the world are calling the impacts of COVID-19 on youth mental health a shadow pandemic. Why would you not include a mental health and wellbeing strategy to inform this new health restructure?

Of course, the World Health Organization said that mental health needs to be a key plank in any country’s COVID recovery management plan. This Government is tone deaf to the submitters that have taken their time to raise genuine concerns about what is going to be a once-in-a-generation restructure of the health system. Why would we not get this right? Why would we not include mental health as a strategy? Why would we not include our rural communities? Because when you start to become stubborn like this, it starts to sound more and more ideological. Is the true point of this to be equitable? If it is, put those two population groups in. Or is the point of this bill to be simply, like the other bills coming through this Parliament, ideological, of taking away local people’s views, centralising it, running everything from Wellington? The bureaucrats in Wellington do not know how to deliver health services in my electorate of Waimakariri. We have been waiting for after-hours healthcare services promised for a few years ago, now. We’ve got a rural health hospital that’s been closed down. Taking rural out of this bill—

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

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): As chair of the Pae Ora Legislation Committee, I’d like to report on some of the submissions that we received in the process of hearing the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. We received 4,665 submissions, of which 178 were from groups rather than from individuals. On a straight numerical basis, most of the submissions were opposed to the bill, but the great majority of those submissions opposed to the bill came from individuals, and they were single-issue submissions—I’ll refer to those later on. But professional bodies; medics; lobby groups; population groups; the Asian, the Māori, the Pasifika groups; the rainbow groups; the disability groups; and so on expressed support for the bill. There was overwhelming support for the bill from professional groups, from medical groups, and from the workers in the health system. They see the need for change, and they know that the time for change has come and they support this bill.

Members opposing this bill opposite have worried about what a locality is, and said, “We don’t know what it is”. I invite them to raise that in the committee stage, but the Minister Andrew Little has already been quite clear about what a locality is—it’s a place- and people-based approach for improving the health of populations. There are three characteristics: it’s a partnership with mana whenua, it supports locally led solutions that take a holistic approach to wellbeing, and the locality approach joins up care across communities. It is a very localised approach, rather than a top-down approach.

I want to just read some of what people said about the bill, some of the submissions that came in. General Practice New Zealand said, “GPNZ is supportive of the overall reform direction that the legislation is designed to enable. We endorse the principles set out in the Bill, specifically the requirement to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Te Tiriti section clarifies that the whole health system, and not just the Māori Health Authority, will be responsible and accountable for health equity and upholding the principles of Te Tiriti. We support the new structures and the intent to achieve a consistent and unified health system”. That’s from General Practice New Zealand.

The National Council of Women said, “NCWNZ welcomes and strongly supports the purpose of this Bill to fundamentally change the structure and accountability of the publicly funded health system” and they “particularly welcome the establishment of the Māori Health Authority”.

The National Hauora Coalition, drawing on their decades of experiences of running a Māori primary health organisation, say, “The NHC supports the intention behind the Bill to create a fairer, more equitable health system that is effective for Māori and honours te Tiriti o Waitangi.” They sought a stronger Te Tiriti clause in the legislation, and they emphatically supported the establishment of a Māori Health Authority.

The Health and Disability Commissioner said, “I acknowledge the Government’s ambitious reform efforts and endorse the vision of an equitable and cohesive public health and disability system which gives effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and is designed in partnership with the people it serves.”

The New Zealand Health Group said, “We want to be part of the story that stops the decline in Māori and Pasifika health and for those living with disabilities or injuries for our current and future generations.” Then it goes on to say, “The Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill lays the foundation for the transformation of our health system to better achieve equity by reducing health disparities among [the] population groups in Aotearoa, and particularly for Māori, Pasifika and those living with disabilities [and] injuries.”

New Zealand Rural General Practice Network (RPNG) said, “[The] RPNG is supportive of the overall reform direction that the legislation is designed to enable. We support the new structures and the intent to achieve a consistent and unified health system. This support includes the requirement to give greater effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We endorse the intent that the whole health system, and not just the Māori Health Authority, will be responsible and accountable for health equity and upholding the principles of Te Tiriti.”

The support for this bill was overwhelming from people who know what they’re talking about within the health system. Now, of course, there were many areas where people asked us to go further, and particularly it was with respect to health strategies. The bill already has a New Zealand health strategy, a Māori health strategy, a Pacific health strategy, and a health of disabled people strategy. We were also asked to put in place strategies for Asian peoples, for women, for rainbow people, for mental health and addiction services, for rural communities, for refugee communities, for rare diseases, for children, infants, and a strategy for medicines. So those were a lot of strategies we were asked to put in place as part of the legislation.

Now, we’ve already heard from Mr Matt Doocey, his concern about whether or not there is something in place for mental health services, and then saying that mental health was overlooked in the bill. But I request Mr Doocey to look at clause 7(1)(e)(iii) of the bill, where the health system principles specifically say that it should promote health and wellbeing by “working to improve mental and physical health and diagnose and treat mental and physical health problems equitably”. It’s sitting there in the bill already. We have, as a committee, endorsed the inclusion of a women’s health strategy in the legislation. That seemed to be something that was really important to do in the legislation itself. But just because a strategy is not in the legislation does not mean it cannot be elsewhere in the system, and Health New Zealand will be able to develop its strategies for all those other groups as needed—as needed—and they certainly are needed, but that will certainly be part of the work that Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority are enabled to do.

The people who were opposed to the bill were overwhelmingly opposed on a couple of grounds. I’m going to read just the one submission, but there were huge numbers of submissions that said basically this, and this person has said, “No public mandate has been sought for segregating our health system. I support health services based on clinical need, not race.” Indeed. Indeed, we should support health systems based on clinical need. A report on Radio New Zealand from earlier this year talking about research that was conducted at the University of Otago says that Māori are more likely to get cancer, will get it younger, are diagnosed later, have poorer access to treatment, and are much more likely to die from cancer than non-Māori because of inequity in the health system. People told us that in order to have equal access to the health system, we should have access that is not based on the colour of one’s skin. Indeed, it should not be, but that has been the case for far too many years now, that Māori have simply not had equitable access to our health system and neither have Pasifika peoples. This bill sets about changing that.

As the Minister said, it is not just a matter of need. And this goes back to the mandate. Was there a mandate? Yes. Health reform, and it was firmly on the table. Ensuring that we better meet our Treaty obligations was firmly on the table. Part of the ethos of this Government is to ensure that we are continually talking with our treaty partners, with our Māori Treaty partners, that we are continually revising and re-understanding and reorganising the way we do treaty in this country. That the Treaty is a conversation, that constitution is a verb, not a noun. We are continually working to ensure that we are doing governance as Treaty partners—and that is, part of what is happening was the establishment of the Māori Health Authority. We are working to make the Treaty a real part of the constitution, and I am proud to be part of that.

Finally, I wish to conclude with some thanks to the people who worked so very hard on this bill. My thanks to the officials in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet who helped to get us through this bill and worked so hard on it, and to our clerks in the select committee who helped us to run a very effective and efficient process. I would also like to give my thanks to the committee members, especially my deputy chair, Tāmati Coffey, but also to all the members of the committee. It was a very efficient and effective process. We disagreed strongly about issues, but everyone worked hard to make sure that the process went very smoothly, and I’m very grateful for that. I am very grateful to the submitters who put in submissions and helped us to improve this bill immeasurably. And finally, I wish to acknowledge the extraordinary work done by the Minister of Health and by the Associate Minister for Māori health, and for the people who have been involved in this legislation. This is transformative change, and I thank the Ministers for bringing it to the House.

Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora koutou. I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill. Tēnā koe e te Minita mō tēnei mahi taumaha.

[I acknowledge you, the Minister, for this demanding work.]

And thank you to my colleagues on the Pae Ora Legislation Committee, particularly our very able chair, Deborah Russell, and deputy chair, Tāmati Coffey. I join other speakers in acknowledging all of those people who made submissions. It was worth the effort—dozens and dozens of changes were made to this legislation because of it. Special thanks to our Te Mātāwaka staff and the Rainbow Greens, who supported many submitters to take part in this democratic part of our society. I note that the Greens did campaign on an independent Māori health authority, and until it’s actually established it remains one of our Māori priorities.

Based on Te Whare Tapawhā, the Māori health model created by Tā Mason Durie, the Māori Health Strategy, He Korowai Oranga was launched in 2002. It set a new direction, an overarching framework that would guide the Government and the health and disability sector to achieve the best health outcomes for Māori. It was updated in 2014 to the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Strategy. That strategy has had no impact on the grim statistics for Māori, because it did not address the institutional racism built into the health system that accounts for the horrifying health statistics for Māori and Pasifika people.

This legislation aims to address this by acknowledging Māori leadership in the form of the Māori Health Authority, the creation of iwi partnership boards, and the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. It acknowledges mātauranga Māori and it makes systemic the need to engage with experts in the field, especially our Māori, Pasifika, and community health providers, who turned the tide on COVID-19 through their vaccination efforts and personal support for their people.

This new structure does not disrespect Māori doctors from the past or the current day, as my learned colleague Shane Reti has suggested. I think it just acknowledges that a handful of them has never been enough to go up against the force of the settler colonialism that has formed the health system we’re trying to change today. Also, anything that has been designed by Tā Mason Durie we know is based soundly in kaupapa Māori. But, most importantly, instead of the usual goal of reducing health disparities, Pae Ora firmly states that it will eliminate them. Now, that’s a big ask. It was always going to be difficult, complicated, and messy. However, transformational change can only happen with a vision, and the Greens certainly envisage a health system that is based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but it ensures that no matter the ethnicity or cultural background of a person, no matter their age or address, no matter their disability, no matter their sexuality, gender, or sex characteristics, they have access to the healthcare they need when they need it and where they need it.

During the many times I’ve spoken in this House on COVID-19 orders and bills, I expressed concerns that people who died of COVID seemed to be more important than people who died for any other reason. There’s still daily reporting in the national news, but only for COVID people, not for cancer, not for rare diseases, not for family violence, and not for suicide. In the year ended December 2020, there were 32,613 deaths in this country, an average of over 89 people every single day. In 2021, 34,932 more, an average of 96 people every day. A few made the news, but most went unremarked, mourned by their family and friends but not the nation. Some of those deaths were because the treatment they needed was not available in this country or not funded by Pharmac. Some were because their treatment was delayed and appointments were missed to make way for COVID, because of the chronic shortage of nurses and specialist healthcare professionals. Some were because they lived rurally or had disabilities that meant that healthcare was not accessible for them. We can do better, and we absolutely should, because not dying is a very low bar in developed countries such as ours. Many people would just like to live without pain, with access to the diagnosis, healthcare, and medication they need.

We support the locality plans because they enable local voices that operate within communities in a way that works for them. I totally agree with my colleagues who’ve said people in Wellington should not be telling anybody else in the country what to do. However, for me, I’ve always had a concern that it’s very easy to just duplicate the way that things have operated, because we still have the same hospitals in the same places. We are still going to have mostly the same staff offering pretty similar services to what we have, in the regions and locally.

So for me, the national strategies then have to be key. We support the production of the hauora Māori, the Pacific health and disability outreach strategies that were already in the original legislation. We shout out to the Gender Justice Collective, who advocated for years and have successfully achieved a women’s strategy being included with those. And as my colleague Deborah Russell has said, and my colleague Matt Doocey, there were many, many other strategies that several of us advocated for that came out of the submissions. So I reiterate: the mental health, rural, rare diseases, rainbow medicines, and there were many more. My concern, and what is not in the legislation at all, is how do those connect together? It doesn’t exist yet, because we cannot get rid of the postcode lottery until those things are woven together, and until that happens, we can’t make any of this vision come true.

To conclude, I want to just acknowledge that there’s two terms that are appearing in New Zealand legislation for the first time, in the Pae Ora bill. The first is “lived experience”. It puts into law and acknowledges that people who have experience are actually critical for officials to listen to when decisions are being made. This is a core part of how our health system should be working. They should not be discounted because they don’t have a degree. They certainly have a degree in what’s wrong with them or what’s going on with their own health, and it’s such a huge resource in the generosity of all those people that have to, through their own experience, educate everybody around them. The fact that it’s baked into this, I’m very, very, very, very pleased with.

The second—and, although I’ve failed so far, I’m going to keep trying to get a rainbow strategy added to the list. The second term that’s been added is “takatāpui”. I’m particularly proud of that because it’s saying, again, that there are particular experiences that people have in different communities in this country that are not experienced by anyone else, and so they have particular expertise and particular knowledge that is essential for the decisions that are being made about them. In the Greens, we call that appropriate decision-making, both of those terms.

We have high hopes for this restructure. We are also realising that there is a lot more work to do. I would like to see much greater clarity on how those locality plans work with the national strategies, and how many aspects of this will roll out to actually get to that vision that we’re talking about. However, thank you again for all the work that has gone into this and all of the officials who make us look good on these committees. We commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise tonight on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill in opposition to the second reading. I want to start by acknowledging the submitters who took the time to submit to the Pae Ora Legislation Committee. I also want to acknowledge the select committee’s staff—many of whom worked on the Health Committee as well; who were doing enormous roles of not only sitting in the morning with the Health Committee but also sitting throughout the afternoon with the Pae Ora Legislation Committee too. I want to commend them for all of the work that they did to help bring it to the House today.

It is a mammoth task to reform the health system, and there were many people working behind the scenes. But I want to make a very clear point, that is: it’s still not clear what the different outcome is from having this bill seen to under the Pae Ora Legislation Committee than would have been the outcome from having it seen to under the Health Committee. Because we have a Health Committee; this is a health reform, and yet there is no better place to look at health reform than in the Health Committee. But the Government felt the need to make the Health and Māori Affairs Committees merge for the purposes of this bill.

The Minister at the time said, “This bill is about meeting Treaty obligations.”, and implied that somehow it is not possible for the current Health Committee to do that. And it’s because of a belief system that has crept into Parliament that says that membership to a group should be based on race and that is more important than what unites us as our common humanity. He essentially said that people on the Health Committee can’t do an adequate job at looking at health reform because of our ethnicity. He set an ugly precedent in this Parliament that says that even though elected officials and elected representatives might have the ability to analyse, to debate, and to reason, that doesn’t matter. What matters more, and what is more important, is what identity group you subscribe to, what group that you belong to. He put administration over outcomes. All of that shows you that it’s a symbol of what’s wrong with this Government.

The administrative reform of Parliament’s select committees was important—in the same way that we’re seeing governance and administration change but not as much focus on outcomes in the Pae Ora legislation. There is the same fundamental problem in this bill. I spoke to mental health workers about the Pae Ora legislation, and I asked, “How will this actually change the job that you do on the day to day?” And they said, “We have no idea. We cannot point to a single thing that we think might actually change.”

I talked to doctors who laughed when I asked whether they thought that this would actually make their jobs easier, whether they’d see more patients, whether there’d be any change in patient outcomes, because they’re still not clear what this change will actually effect in real people’s lives. I talked to patient groups who said they don’t know how this will change, in any way, the types of drugs that we have access to in New Zealand, because it doesn’t—medicines access is completely outside of the scope of this bill. I’ve talked to rural doctors who say, “We have no idea how this makes it better for access to care in rural areas.”, because what is a locality that they fall under, under this bill?

This bill changes administration, but it doesn’t answer the basic questions of whether we’ll get better treatments, faster, and for more people. So what does this bill actually do? Well, it removes the 20 district health boards and it replaces it with Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority, and there’ll be five to eight board members on both. One of those board members sitting on the Māori Health Authority will also be able to be a member of Health New Zealand. Now, these two separate entities will be able to come together to create and carve up New Zealand into locality plans, but there is an issue here that iwi-Māori partnership boards must also be consulted on these plans. It says that a locality plan is made when it’s agreed to by Health New Zealand, the Māori Health Authority, and the relevant iwi-Māori partnership board.

Now, the real difficulty is that last week, the Minister of Health stood up and said there could be up to 80 different localities. He said there might be nine now, and it’s so up in the air what that actually is. Now, the iwi-Māori partnership boards will be able to help design the delivery of services. This is a huge issue, because we have three Ngāpuhi members in our caucus, and it’s very unfortunate that when it comes to the issue of Treaty settlements, Ngāpuhi have been unable to come together to negotiate who will be in charge of Treaty settlements. Are we saying to the vulnerable people of Northland that their locality plans—the service, the design, the delivery of their services in Northland—could be in jeopardy because they have to have the Māori Health Authority, Health New Zealand, and the relevant iwi-Māori partnership board, whoever that is to be established, all agree to a locality plan? This risks being ineffective and divisive.

Now, the real issue here is that when they can’t come together on a locality plan, they have to be arbitrated by a Minister who is also in charge of the health strategy, the Pacific health, the disabled people, women’s health strategies, and it’s not clear that getting rid of any of these DHBs and putting in place this mess of a system is going to create anything that’s not simply bureaucratic and a nightmare to deal with.

Now, ACT has multiple solutions that we are putting forward in three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to make sure that we can have an effective, modern healthcare system that acknowledges that all people are equal in New Zealand and they all deserve good health outcomes under the law. Now, we have created, firstly, a rural health strategy, because it’s ridiculous that under this entire bill the rural populations of New Zealand have been forgotten. There are 700,000 people living in rural and remote areas of New Zealand. They were mentioned 80 times in the health and disability system review that brought this bill to Parliament, and yet they’ve been completely forgotten—forgotten. The rural populations of New Zealand are quite often forgotten completely by this Government, and the ACT Party is here to bring them back into the fore. So we would like to see a rural health strategy for the people who provide so much for us in New Zealand.

We also have a medicines strategy, because we cannot truly reform the healthcare system if we don’t discuss medicines, and medicines has been completely removed from this bill. We need to know that if we’re truly having a once-in-a-generation reform, we’re discussing how medicines can help keep people healthy as well. So we are putting in place a medicines strategy. The third that we are bringing to the House is an SOP to completely remove the Māori Health Authority from this bill, because, quite frankly, it is divisive. We need to make sure that people get the healthcare that they truly need and deserve, not a system that increases bureaucracy and red tape through division. This amendment would remove the Māori Health Authority, because we want to strengthen the healthcare system and not divide it.

I would ask my colleagues in the National Party to support us on all three of these amendments so that we can actually make sure we have real change. I would also ask my colleagues in Labour to question the errors of their ways, to make sure that we don’t divide our country, that we make sure that we acknowledge the inherent dignity and humanity of all New Zealanders, that we make sure that we’re reforming the healthcare system in a way that puts health at the centre of healthcare and not an exercise in co-governance. It is a divisive bill. We oppose it, but we hope that we could make it some bit better. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. That last one; that was an interesting one—“The errors of our ways,” Brooke van Velden says. Take out the Māori Health Authority and you will see the light, you’ll see the errors of your ways. Well, I absolutely, fundamentally disagree with that member. I absolutely, fundamentally agree—not just us over here on this side of the House, though, not just the Green Party of Aotearoa, not just the Māori Party as well. Actually, there’s a lot of organisations that think that the Māori Health Authority is good, and they penned an open letter—and they penned an open letter. And these aren’t necessarily Māori organisations. We’re talking about the Lung Foundation NZ, Kidney Health New Zealand, Stroke Foundation NZ, the breast cancer coalition, the gynaecological health foundation, and Cancer Society New Zealand who have all penned an open letter to be able to convince those people on that side of the House that want to take the Māori Health Authority away and plead with them to be able to say, “Let it happen, let this happen.” The Māori Health Authority is a really great innovation here.

I want to start by talking about the commitment that we have, in this House, to be able to realise our Te Tiriti partnership. We, as lawmakers in this House, must have a serious commitment. We cannot keep going with the system that we’ve got—we cannot keep going with the system that we’ve got. The system is broken; the system does not work for Māori. And we did hear it in our submission hearings. We did hear people come forward, and they did say to us that they wanted to see improvements. They were asked—in fact, it was Matt Doocey who sits on the committee as well. He asked the question to GPNZ, General Practice New Zealand: does your organisation have a view on the disestablishment of DHBs? They said, “Yes, this was signalled early, and we’re very comfortable with this.” He talked about Starship; one of his questions: “Are we going to see an equivalent Starship for young Māori or the same organisation?” And the response was: we actually need to earn the trust of all people in Aotearoa, including Māori. We have to earn the right and the trust to have a single service. Health New Zealand and the Māori Health Authority need to work together on a partnership level to be able to make those decisions.

And I keep hearing it, in speeches coming from the Opposition: “What’s the outcomes, where are the outcomes? We want to know the outcomes.” Well, let’s start with this outcome: by Māori, for Māori. Let’s start with that as an outcome, as something that we’re doing this whole reform for, which is a health system where, actually, the Māori voice is heard through the system—[Interruption] Oh, we’ve got them fired up. Kia ora, welcome. Good morning, welcome. What we’ve got here is the opportunity for Māori to be able to input into a health system like we’ve never done before—like we’ve never done before—in an honest and meaningful way. We want to bring Māori into that conversation, which is why we’ve set up and refreshed, in some parts of Aotearoa, the iwi-Māori partnership boards. I know that our one back home—it had been in a bit of an abeyance because, actually, and that’s a sign of the politics, because, as much as they’ve wanted to participate in the health system in the past, they haven’t been able to because they haven’t had legislation to back their voice.

So what do we get? We get what we’ve currently got, which is a health system which isn’t working for Māori. So the iwi-Māori partnership boards, as well as other hauora Māori organisations, are going to be able to give advice to the Minister of Health and, through that, the Minister of Health will be charged with the job of appointing the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee. And what will that committee do? They will appoint the members on the Māori Health Authority. Why have we gone to those lengths? Because it came through really clearly in the submissions that, actually, a Māori Health Authority should not be appointed and dismissed by the Minister, who sits within the Government of the day.

Māori submitters, notably the Māori Women’s Welfare League, came forward and said to us, “If you’re going to tell us that this is an independent and arm’s-length organisation from you guys in Government, then you need to create a process whereby we have faith in the system.” The iwi-Māori partnership boards, the hauora Māori organisations will contribute to that. The Hauora Māori Advisory Committee will contribute to that. We will have Māori making decisions for Māori.

I want to tell one very small story which sums this up. There is a health and social service provider in the beautiful Waiariki region. This is a Māori health provider that goes into our very small communities—and they are rural communities as well—and it is their job to fight for contracts. They have to go in and they have to fight within the health system for those contracts. When they do that, it’s actually a really, really long line. Every time that they do that, they have to say, “We’re doing this because we are able to deliver on the equity that our communities deserve, but you need to have faith with us.” That hasn’t happened. Sometimes they’re successful; sometimes they’re not.

The fact is that if we’re creating a partnership, if we, in this House, are committed to a Te Tiriti partnership, then we need to be able to give organisations like them the mana to be able to make their decisions by Māori, for Māori. That’s the outcome that we’re looking for here. That’s the outcome that came through in some of the submissions that we heard. The hauora Māori organisations were incredibly passionate about the reform that we’re undertaking here. It’s got their support. They see the vision. It’s terrible for the Opposition to actually bag it without giving it a chance. That’s what these organisations have asked for. They’ve said, “Take a leap of faith. We can’t do any worse than the Government has done over successive Governments. Take a chance on us.” That’s what I heard in the submissions. That’s what I’m here to support in the second reading, and that’s what I’ll be supporting in the third reading as well. I commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Simon Watts—five minutes.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Well, thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise on the second reading of the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill—a bill that National oppose. And I rise on behalf of the National Party and as a member of North Shore. And what I haven’t heard this evening is any acknowledgment of those hard-working clinicians who are currently working around the country, such as those in my local hospital of North Shore Hospital in the emergency department there, looking after people around the place, or those ambulance officers, such as those working on North Shore one this evening, based in Takapuna, who are dealing with the significant reality of delivering healthcare services in this country at the moment, which has been a very difficult period post-COVID, but fundamentally will not be supported by this bill and this legislation. We have heard a number of speakers on the other side promising a lot of hope and ambition in terms of what the future may look like, but they will not be able to deal with the underlying issues that are within our health system this evening or tomorrow. I’m going to talk this evening in my short call around some of those key drivers.

There is never a good time to blow up the health system. I quote there an important point to note that this Government has decided to undertake reform of a monumental scale in the middle of one of the largest impacts on our health system that we have seen in generations. The challenges around the timing shows that there is absolutely no understanding in terms of how to actually implement change within what is a very complex, complicated, and not integrated system, which is the health system. No one is standing here this evening saying that the health system is absolutely perfect and there cannot be any improvements, but the way in which this system needs to be reformed needs to be done in co-development with those people at the front lines; those that understand the issues, and we need to deal with the significant aspects that are facing our individuals in our health system today. And that key issue is around workforce.

I looked through my notes when I got up in this House last June and July and asked the Minister of Health what he was doing around the significant healthcare workforce crisis in this country and what were his plans around solving that. That was June and July of 2021. Where are we now? What has changed? Well, I can tell you what: things have got worse, and we are nearly a year down the track of a lot of talk from that other side of the House, and Kiwis have clicked on that these guys are good at talk but have a complete inability on delivery.

They cannot implement and do not have a plan, and we are seeing this coming through in this legislation. We are not going to see any improvement in health outcomes, we are not going to see any improvement in our rural and our suburban communities as a result of this, and we’re going to continue to see the issues around health workforce crisis continue to get worse and worse as the borders reopen and our workforce move across to Australia, which 70 percent already do at the moment.

The centralisation of bureaucracy behind this reform is mirrored in other aspects of reform by this Government across a number of other areas. The increasing of bureaucracy and the centralisation—this mind-set that Government knows best—is endemic in the way in which this Government is trying to implement change. The challenge and the reality is that this change will not deliver the outcomes that Kiwis require in this country, and that is a great shame, because the opportunity cost of failure to deliver will be felt by our communities and our most vulnerable. There are those members of my community of the North Shore who are struggling to get access to healthcare services, who are struggling to get their next elective operation, and who are not getting the Pharmac drugs that they require, but, instead, you’re going to see half a billion dollars of taxpayers’ funds—hard-earned taxpayers’ funds—going on more bureaucracy and not the actual factors that are going to help improve those health outcomes.

Māori health outcomes have been noted as one of the drivers of this. This Government could take one action this evening to change that. It was a National Party policy around the introduction of lung cancer screening for ex-smokers in the Māori population. There is an eight-year differential between Māori and non-Māori around mortality. That initiative in itself would take one year off that eight-year differential, yet this Government are not even focusing on the examples right in front of them. National oppose this legislation because it will not deliver health outcomes for our community.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Tēnā tātou e te Whare. The Māori Health Authority is based on the needs of tangata whenua, and it is us as tangata whenua, our whānau, who have been underserved for generations; not all Kiwis. Te Pae Ora legislation is a step in the right direction to actually addressing and fixing some of those wrongs we’ve experienced, as was addressed in Wai claim 2575.

This policy was championed by many, including Te Paati Māori, and adopted by this House. I want to thank those in the House who know it is the right thing to do. It’s taken 180 years to address our health inequities, which are a breach of our constitutional entitlement—that constitutional contract, which some on my left and right conveniently forget, which guaranteed our rights and interests. A reminder: article 2 said it’s about acknowledging pre-existing rights we had before colonisation. Article 3 of the Tiriti is about equal rights as tangata whenua, addressing equality and equity. Te Pae Ora legislation is an attempt to the realignment and a step towards honouring this country’s obligation.

So Te Paati Māori is pleased to be standing here, advancing this on the promise to let us stand on our own two feet; to be well; to be reaching our true potential; to assert our tino rangatiratanga; to do by Māori, for Māori, after desperately waiting for those in power to admit there has been a two-tier health system which has failed us. You would think those that are anti this would be supporting us standing on our own two feet. But no, we stand here under our own constitutional right, upholding our Tiriti rights and treatment, and they’re still not happy. Let’s remember: our democracy exists on that very Tiriti o Waitangi, when 100,000 Māori were here and 100 settlers; we could have retained 100 percent but our tūpuna generously determined to partner fifty-fifty equally—which still creates issues. The descendants of those tangata Tiriti have forgotten their place.

Non-Māori are here based on our Tiriti, even the right for this Parliament to be here is based on our Tiriti. This great democracy many of you fight for and talk about in Aotearoa is founded on Te Tiriti. The rule of law, and all rules of law—contract of Te Tiriti—is to be reminded the Māori Health Authority is about finally honouring that contract. There is no separatist, special treatment going on here. The duplicity of those opposing the Māori Health Authority—the 2 percent of New Zealand that own 40 percent of our wealth—this minority who donate to this democracy, these are a cohort who buy our democracy as a minority. Therein lies the problem of this House as certain people use their might to suit their minority, who then become a majority voice within this nation.

Te Paati Māori are here by our constitutional right and obligations; therein lies the difference. We are not the 2 percent minority who escape tax by will, who don’t have to live amongst those who the system fails; we are tangata whenua and we are holding you to account for the contract you broke. Why would they want us to be part of a separatist health system that kills us seven years sooner than themselves? Why would they want us to maintain a system that takes our money, spends it all on us, fails us, then tell us as Māori that we’re the failure? We have a constitutional right and entitlement to self-development and self-management, a desire to break away from systemic failings so that we can be well—well enough to learn, well enough to earn, and unshackled from welfare dependency systems.

I also want to take umbrage at those who are either deeply confused or deeply misleading groups of people. Te Paati Māori believe they know exactly what they’re doing: they are playing race baiting politics. We can no longer trust a Luxon solution or Seymour solution; they say they will scrap the Māori Health Authority if they get in. But this queenmaker is saying it’s a deal-breaker. The more strongly that National and ACT subjugate our people, the more distance Te Paati Māori must take. As typical of those not affected, those funded by the 2 percent take issue, so we take pride and we’re happy to be here today to support this, and wish you to continue on. Kia ora rā.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, this debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.