Wednesday, 3 August 2022

WEDNESDAY, 3 AUGUST 2022

WEDNESDAY, 3 AUGUST 2022

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

Hon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): 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 conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

petitions, papers, select committee reports, and introduction of bills

petitions, papers, select committee reports, and introduction of bills

SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Marion Maw requesting that the House urge that people living with obsessive-compulsive disorder have timely and equitable access to effective therapy.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.

CLERK:

Real Estate Authority statement of performance expectations for the year ended 30 June, 2023.

report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Electoral (Strengthening Democracy) Amendment Bill.

Hon David Bennett: Ha!

SPEAKER: I am on my feet, Mr Bennett. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Controller and Auditor-General, annual plan 2022/23.

SPEAKER: The annual plan of the Controller and Auditor-General is 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. In particular, I stand by my statements on health funding and this Government’s record investment in health and education to deliver the public services New Zealanders depend on. Under this Government, we’ve increased health funding by 44 percent since 2017, including an increase of over 10 percent in Budget 2022, to fund services in the most significant reform programme in health in a generation. We’ve also increased the nursing workforce by 4,200 fulltime-equivalents (FTEs) and 1,700 FTEs in the doctor workforce since coming into office. We’ve increased Pharmac’s medicines budget to a record $1.235 billion per annum, and we’ve established from scratch a primary-care mental health service that has delivered nearly half a million sessions through primary-care providers. We’ve also committed $7 billion for infrastructure to modernise our hospitals. We’ve put more into education since we’ve been in Government than National did, including $3.6 billion since 2018 on improving school property, delivering over 1,300 more classrooms, supporting over 2,900 additional teachers, and providing over 58 million lunches to 947 schools and kura. The question for Kiwis is—they can trust this Labour Government will continue to invest in health and education; the question is whether or not National will.

Christopher Luxon: Why did she agree to the cost of living payment, knowing that it would result in taxpayer money going to people living overseas?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member fails to acknowledge that the criteria explicitly says, of course, that it’s for those earning $70,000 or less, over the age of 18, not receiving the winter energy payment, and, of course, resident in New Zealand. Of course, while individuals are not obliged to tell us if they are overseas, that was one of the criteria. We have some ability to determine if that is the case, but we also ask New Zealanders offshore that they update their IRD information. That, of course, will prevent them from receiving it.

Christopher Luxon: When will the Prime Minister be able to tell taxpayers exactly how much of their money has been sent to people living overseas?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I set out, the criteria is very explicit. The payment is designed for those who are earning $70,000 or less and are resident in New Zealand. If someone is continuing to pay tax but is also offshore, we can only decipher that if they inform IRD. Again, IRD has created the opportunity for people to update their information or indeed opt out if they so choose. I would, however, contrast that the member’s alternative is, for instance, a tax cut for those on $180,000 or less. I would rather a payment that 2.1 million Kiwis are eligible for, who are on low and middle incomes.

Christopher Luxon: Was Kiritapu Allan correct when she stated that the cost of living payment scheme had been developed “essentially overnight”, and, if so, does this explain why it’s resulted in so much taxpayer money being sent to people living overseas?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The vast majority of people receiving it, of course, are low and middle income earners in New Zealand, in contrast to the member’s proposal to give a tax cut to those earning $180,000 or more through his tax policies, which would also be inflationary and make the cost of living worse for New Zealanders on low and middle incomes. What the Minister was referring to was that we have ensured that we’ve had the increase in the family tax credit, the decrease in the cost of fuel at the pump, and, as we saw inflation increasing, we moved to provide this payment, because, of course, we wanted to ensure that we were responding to what Kiwis were seeing, because it is tough out there.

Christopher Luxon: What does she say to New Zealanders who worked hard and paid their taxes, who are angry her Government has knowingly sent their money to expats and backpackers living overseas?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I totally reject the premise of that question. The criteria is very clear on who this is intended to go for, and the vast majority of people receiving it are exactly those individuals.

Hon Peeni Henare: Sorry, none in Hawaii!

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with—

SPEAKER: Right. Who made the comment that caused the mirth? The member will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Peeni Henare: I withdraw and apologise, sir.

Christopher Luxon: Does she agree with Labour leader Jacinda Ardern, who tweeted in 2017 that “kids living in cars and motels is not a sign of care”, and, if so, why are there four times as many people living in cars today than when she became Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I stand by that, as I do stand by, also, the focus this Government has on increasing wages and decreasing unemployment across this country. And it gives me the opportunity today to highlight that in the stats we have seen released today: Māori unemployment at 5.5 percent, Pacific unemployment at 5.4 percent, average ordinary time hourly earnings rose to 6.4 percent. I stand by the policies of this Government, which are focused on increasing the incomes of Kiwis and ensuring that they are in work. And when you think about the times we’re in, those are remarkable statistics.

Christopher Luxon: Does she agree that prices outpacing wages for eight straight quarters, or two full years, means Kiwis are going backwards at a historic rate?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, as I have highlighted to the member time and time again, when you look across the course of the time that we have had in office, we have consistently seen wages outstrip the cost of living increase here in the year 2022 in New Zealand. As we are seeing around the world, we do have high rates of inflation. There are, of course, projections that that is set to improve over the course of this year, and we can anticipate a return once more to wages, under a Labour Government, once again outstripping the cost of living. I would highlight for the member that we did have consistent periods under the National Government when not only did we have inflation outstrip wages, we had very low wage growth rate.

Christopher Luxon: Isn’t it embarrassing that a Government that claims to care about workers has delivered an economy where the cost of living has gone up faster than wages for the majority of the time it’s been in power?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I utterly reject the premise of that statement. As we’ve said, wage growth has exceeded Consumers Price Index between the start of 2018 and 2021 with an average of 3.7 percent versus 2.2 percent. And, again, I stand here proud that in the worst economic crisis we have seen in our lifetimes, when they projected unemployment to be double digit and that we could have expected, as we saw in the global financial crisis, high rates of—particularly of Māori and Pacific—unemployment, we have some of the lowest rates we have ever seen. That is because this is a Labour Government focused on policies that support our people into work and into decent wages.

Question No. 2—Housing

2. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What action is the Government taking to increase the supply of housing outside the main urban centres?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. As part of the Government’s plan to tackle the national housing crisis, we’re delivering more public homes outside New Zealand’s main urban centres. The Public Housing Plan 2021-2024 focuses on building new public and transitional homes where they are most needed, including regional centres and towns where housing demand is growing fastest. This wasn’t happening before. In order to do this, we’re building effective collaborative partnerships between Government, iwi and Māori, community housing providers, local government, and the construction industry. We’ve also changed the funding settings for community housing providers (CHPs) and Kāinga Ora, which has enabled them to claim a higher operating supplement to incentivise developments in priority locations. Changes to the rent maxima have also enabled CHPs to build outside of our main centres. There is no silver bullet to solving the national housing crisis that we inherited, and there is plenty more work to do. But our Government is continuing to invest to boost the supply of public homes in our regional towns and centres.

Rachel Boyack: Have any of the Government’s 10,000 new public homes been added in Nelson?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m proud to say that we’ve added 158 public homes in Nelson since coming to Government, and have another 161 planned out to July 2025. This is a game-changer for Nelson, who between 2008 and 2017 saw a net loss of 16 public houses. We are also improving the current stock of Nelson with 18 of the homes in Nelson being upgraded through the retrofit programme. These are homes that will improve people’s lives.

Tāmati Coffey: How many of the Government’s 10,000 new public homes are in Rotorua?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We have made good progress in Rotorua with 209 additional public houses. This is starting to unwind the damage done by the previous National Government, who ended up with 44 fewer houses in Rotorua in 2017. There are also a further 300 public homes currently under construction in Rotorua. Rotorua is a priority for us for developing additional housing supply more broadly, and it’s why we funded additional infrastructure through the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund to enable over 3,000 additional homes in that area.

Chris Bishop: Has she had any discussions with the Minister of Health, who’s getting Shortland Street to help him recruit nurses, about utilising the TV programme The Block to actually help her build some houses?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, because we are a Government that actually—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: No, because we’re actually a Government that has policy on housing. I’m yet to hear one from the National Opposition.

Anna Lorck: Are any of the Government’s 10,000 new public houses in Hastings?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Hastings is seeing an additional 157 public homes added under this Government. Unfortunately, there was a net loss of 192 public homes in Hastings between 2008 and 2017. The work this Government is doing is bringing and will continue to bring new public housing to the regions to undo the damage. I am also happy to report that another 133 public home builds are currently in progress and 75 more are in the planning stages.

Dr Emily Henderson: Have any of the Government’s 10,000 new public homes been delivered in Whangārei?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I’m happy to report that our Government has added 166 new public homes in Whangārei over the past five years, and there are over 500 in the pipeline for delivery by 2024/2025. This was an area that the previous Government did make some progress on; over nine years, they added five houses. We are proud of our record, but we know there is more to be done, and that’s why we are making good progress on the Puriri Park development, which will bring 37 new homes to Whangārei by the end of this year.

Question No. 3—Social Development and Employment

3. KAREN CHHOUR (ACT) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the statement in yesterday’s report on the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill by Jonathan Boston and David King that “locating the Monitor so close to the centre of power creates the risk of a vicious cycle of increasing levels of abuse and the potential for abuse to be swept under the carpet,” or does she agree with Minister Davis’ statement that for those who submitted against the bill, it was “just another thing to grizzle about”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): In response to the first part of the question, I do not agree that the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill will risk increasing levels of abuse or the sweeping of abuse under the carpet. The bill includes specific provisions that set out a duty for the Monitor to act independently. The bill proposes a statutory officer model, statutory reporting requirements, power to require information, powers of entry, and a limit on Ministers’ ability to direct the Monitor. The Monitor can escalate matters at their discretion to the entire Parliament, to Ministers, to the Children and Young People’s Commission, and to the public. In response to the second part of the question, Minister Davis and I have both appreciated feedback from stakeholders on the bill itself, and this has informed a number of pivotal changes to the select committee process.

Karen Chhour: Will the Minister be showing up to the vigil for the survivors of State care outside her electorate office tomorrow to accept the petition asking her to pause the Oranga Tamariki oversight bill, and, if so, will she tell the survivors to their face that she knows better than them?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: During this process, I have spoken to a number of stakeholders, including Voyce—people that have been in care themselves. I am confident in what this bill is going to achieve. The Beattie Report that was released in 2018 said that we need to act with urgency. We need to make sure that we have the oversight system in place that ensures the protection of those that are in State care, and so we will not be pausing the bill.

Karen Chhour: Will the Minister continue to ignore the opposition of vulnerable and care-experienced children, policy experts, advocacy groups, and all other political parties, and does she think it is appropriate that the Minister responsible for the Oranga Tamariki oversight bill seems determined not to listen to the children she is supposed to be protecting?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As I said, I have spoken to a number of stakeholders about the legislation, and, actually, the select committee did a very good job of listening to the submissions and made changes as a result of the submissions that were made and what was heard. This piece of legislation is incredibly important. I’m really looking forward to the committee stages of this bill, where we can go through part by part to address some of the concerns that have been raised, to look at the language, and to have that debate so that we can provide assurance to the public that the bill achieves what it sets out to do.

Harete Hipango: The Minister is reminded that in your maiden speech, of 16 December 2008—

SPEAKER: Order! The member might want to go back and restart the question, because she was running into the risk of being out of order straight away.

Harete Hipango: Does the Minister remember her maiden speech, given on 16 December 2008—“The difference between this job and any others I have held is that I am privileged now to be at the ultimate of decision-making tables. Whilst at this table my commitment is to advocate for the vulnerable”—and why does the Minister now deliberately ignore the voice and views of the vulnerable, who themselves advocate against the oversight of the Oranga Tamariki systems bill?

SPEAKER: I think we’ll overlook the fact that the Minister didn’t make the maiden speech, and let the Minister answer it.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I am absolutely committed to ensuring that those kids who are in State care are provided with a system that works for them and protects them. My intent for being in this House has not changed from 2008. I also have a responsibility to traverse all of the information that is put in front of me, as well as to listen to the voices. We have listened to the voices, there have been changes that have been made to the bill, and, as I said, I am looking forward to the committee stage to be able to go through it part by part to address some of the concerns that are still being raised.

Jan Logie: Does she agree with the analysis of the Auckland University Aotearoa New Zealand Centre for Indigenous Peoples and the Law report Time to Taihoa that found that the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People’s Commission Bill as returned from the committee was inconsistent with Te Tiriti and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in content and process; if not, why not?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: No. The bill’s Treaty provisions were carefully crafted with Te Kāhui, who supported the Ministry of Social Development’s consultation with Māori across the country. The bill creates obligations on the oversight bodies to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The specific clause in the bill directly emerged from key Māori stakeholders who called for specific obligations to be placed on the oversight bodies rather than a broad Treaty of Waitangi clause which can be open to interpretation and run the risk of diluting the obligations on agencies. Also, in reference to UNDRIP, the draft declaration is still going through consultation. So it would not be appropriate to write into legislation now something that is still actively being considered.

Karen Chhour: What would it take for the Minister to listen to the vulnerable children advocacy groups and policy experts who are crying out for her to pause this bill?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Those children are front of mind for us as a Government, and that is why we will not be pausing the bill. They deserve to have an oversight system that is in place, that is robust, and we are doing that through this legislation.

Karen Chhour: Does she believe that the effective oversight of the Oranga Tamariki system is dependent on a high degree of public trust, and, if so, how does she reconcile this with a statement in the report that “The significant level of opposition to the Bill, especially from organisations working most directly with children and young people, along with all other [political] parties in Parliament, clearly demonstrates the Monitor does not enjoy the necessary level of trust.”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Again, this is why I am looking forward to the committee stage. I have been asked questions by the media and others that actually are not part of what is in this bill, questions like “Why are we dismantling the Children’s Commission?” when that is clearly not happening; questions like “Why are we moving the monitoring mechanism out of the Children’s Commission and into ERO?” when that’s not happening, because the Independent Children’s Monitor was established in the Ministry of Social Development and we’re shifting that function to the Education Review Office from there. There are so many things that have been said about this bill that we need to be able to debate robustly in this House, and the committee stage will give us an opportunity to go through line by line and do that.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

4. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What progress has been made on supporting people into jobs in the regions?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): In 2018, my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson proposed the establishment of regional skills leadership groups (RSLGs) to make Government more responsive to the workforce needs of our regions. The insights produced by the then interim RSLGs were critical to our COVID-19 response. They are one of the many reasons our economy has remained resilient, with unemployment continuing at near-record lows. The last month has seen many of the now permanent RSLGs release their regional workforce plans. Each plan is unique to its region and people, and reflects the sectors and opportunities that are important to them. The plans will be a catalyst for regions to build a shared vision for their labour markets and will influence regional decision-making to drive change that supports more New Zealanders into good jobs. I want to congratulate the RSLGs on progressing this critical kaupapa for our regions.

Angela Roberts: What recent reports has the Minister seen on employment outcomes for New Zealanders in the regions?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Today, the latest household labour force survey was released. It shows unemployment has remained at near-record lows, thanks to the Government’s economic plan to support households and businesses through the challenging global environment, resulting in more people in work and wages rising. While we always have to be careful about the regional data in this survey due to low sample numbers, it was heartening to see these strong national numbers reflected in our regions. My original home region of Taranaki continued a trend of falling unemployment since December 2021, dropping to only 1.8 percent. This is the lowest unemployment rate in Taranaki since the survey began, and represents 1,600 less people unemployed than at this time last year. With New Plymouth seeing a 15 percent decrease in the number of people receiving jobseeker work-ready support in the year to June 2022, it is clear that this Government’s focus on employment upskilling and training is paying off for Taranaki.

Angela Roberts: What other kaupapa is the Government continuing to support New Zealanders in our regions into good jobs?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Between June 2021 and April 2022, nearly 3,000 young people who were not in employment, education, or training were supported into permanent employment by the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs. The task force is a Ministry of Social Development partnership with Local Government New Zealand that supports New Zealanders in our regions, like Mitchell Boyce, an 18-year-old in Woodville. Mitchell not only gained an apprenticeship through the programme but also received support with tools and with obtaining his restricted driver licence. The Government has invested $14 million this year—including $6 million in new funding—in the task force to ensure 1,450 more New Zealanders like Mitchell can receive the localised, wraparound support they need to move into employment, education, or training.

Question No. 5—Revenue

5. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Revenue: Has Inland Revenue advised him why some people who haven’t lived in New Zealand for several years have received the cost of living payment, and will Inland Revenue be investigating what specific errors have led to these payments being made?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Revenue): Yes, to the first part of the question, and to the second part of the question, no, because this cost of living payment is made on the basis of the best information that Inland Revenue hold. That is high quality data, but it is, and will always be, out of date at the margins. Inland Revenue are continually refining their data sets, including for this payment. Inland Revenue increasingly rely on sophisticated software to automate previously manual transactions. This saves the Government and taxpayers millions and millions of dollars every year on administration costs, with staff numbers at Inland Revenue down by around 2,000 people. Benefits to taxpayers include automated assessments, refunds, and other payments, worth hundreds of millions every year, and the use of automated data sets, which we strive to continue and improve, as well as it saves money and will continue to. People who know that the details held by Inland Revenue are out of date should update them.

Nicola Willis: Has the IRD advised him on how many non-eligible people have received the payment and, if so, what is that number?

Hon DAVID PARKER: As I said yesterday, and the member quoted in her primary question, no, because you can’t know, in a particular number sense, what you don’t know.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Oh. Old Rummy. Old Donald Rumsfeld’s back.

Nicola Willis: How can he be confident—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Mr Goldsmith, I’ve been quite generous to the National Party today, as a result of an outburst from the other side. Does the member want that reversed? Nicola Willis, start again.

Nicola Willis: How can he be confident that these issues aren’t more widespread when no investigations have taken place?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Because I’m confident that the Inland Revenue Department data sets are robust and are amongst the best data sets in the world. I also know that Cabinet considered and rejected the alternative, which would have cost a lot more money, which was to run an application process for the about 2 million people that are eligible, which would have cost a lot more than the money that would have saved and would have missed out a lot of eligible people. As the New Zealand Herald editorial today said, “The only practical solution … was a broad and largely unvetted package. … Anyone ‘embarrassed’ or ‘outraged’ by the over-reach of the scheme [can] return the payment or forward it to a charity—and update their [IRD] records … As a former Inland Revenue deputy commissioner has pointed out, there were problems with all alternative approaches and the scheme, despite its flaws, was the most immediate. Something had to be done, and doing nothing would have been worse.”

Nicola Willis: Could the Minister explain the specific problems in the data sets which would have led to New Zealanders who have left the country five, six, or seven years ago receiving the cost of living payment?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, in that case, it must be that the Inland Revenue Department has a New Zealand address for that taxpayer rather than an overseas one.

Nicola Willis: Are people living overseas who have received the cost of living payment required to pay it back?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The payment is made on the basis of the automated data sets. We encourage people who think that they are not eligible to pay it back, but they’re not obliged to pay it back because it’s been legitimately paid to them. The cost of the alternative, which would have been an application-based process, would have been more than the cost savings made through that process and, as I said, wouldn’t have got the payment out to the 1.3 million people who’ve already received it.

Nicola Willis: Why is the Minister saying people who received the payment in error aren’t required to pay it back, when section 7AAA of the Taxation (Cost of Living Payments) Act says, as a matter of law, they are required to pay it back.

Hon DAVID PARKER: That’s not the advice that I’ve received. The advice that I’ve received is if the payment was made legitimately on the basis of the screening that Inland Revenue have, there is no obligation on the tax department to chase it, nor the taxpayer to pay them back—though we would encourage them to do it. If someone, of course, is aware that they were not entitled to it and in some ways encouraged the payment to be made, then that could amount to a fraud on the tax department. In that case, it would be theoretically payable back. Whether that would be practical if someone was overseas would be an issue for the commissioner to assess, and, of course, the commissioner takes those decisions independently of the Government.

Nicola Willis: Can he confirm the Minister of Justice’s statement this morning that the cost of living payment was designed “Essentially overnight.”, and is that the real explanation why this scheme is so riddled with errors and costing New Zealanders so much wasted money?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The system is not riddled with errors, and the cost of administration of running an application-based process would have cost more. I would again note that alternatives such as tax cuts that others have proposed—that would give some people $2 a week, CEOs tens of thousands of dollars per annum, and overseas landlords thousands and thousands in tax cuts every year—would have been far, far worse, and would not have provided as much to the middle-income people that this payment is directed to.

Question No. 6—Trade and Export Growth

6. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Minister for Trade and Export Growth: What progress has the Government made on the Trade for All agenda?

SPEAKER: The Hon Damien O’Connor. I can see he’s got a novel in front of him.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Trade and Export Growth): Oh. No, that’s not mine, actually. No. I could pick my box up, though, if you want. This Government’s Trade for All agenda continues to deliver meaningful commercial outcomes for our exporters. It is rebuilding the public’s trust in Government trade policy, and it is making sure that trade delivers for all New Zealanders. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus, and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership have all entered into force since we took office, covering 26 economies across the Indo-Pacific region. We’ve also concluded negotiations with the UK and the EU which are projected to increase GDP by up to $2.2 billion once fully implemented.

It’s not just the number of agreements we’ve concluded, but the quality of these agreements that matters. They have not only opened up more opportunities for our exporters; they set rules and establish dialogue on issues including labour, environment, and animal welfare. They also provide opportunities for Māori to cooperate and collaborate with our trade partners and push forward with our ambition to improve women’s participation in the export economy. I want to credit my friend and colleague David Parker for setting us on this path in 2017, and I’m proud to continue on with this work.

Ibrahim Omer: Has pursuing the Trade for All agenda had a negative impact on New Zealand’s exports and trade relations?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: No, not at all. The Trade for All agenda has not only led to an improvement in the quality of our trade policy, but it has seen growth every year in our goods exports since this Government came to office in 2017—from $53.6 billion in 2017 to over $63 billion at the end of last year. This growth has come at one of the most challenging times for global trade, with the pandemic and now the Russian invasion of Ukraine snarling up supply chains and many Governments retrenching into more protectionist policies. I’m also heartened by the interest that many countries express in New Zealand’s Trade for All agenda as they grapple with similar issues that we confronted prior to 2017 about public confidence and buy-in for trade policy. Trade for All has not only produced positive outcomes for New Zealanders, but it provides an example for others in how a trade policy can be pursued that not only provides economic growth and security but has the confidence and the support of the broader public.

Ibrahim Omer: What agreements is this Government currently pursuing under the Trade for All agenda?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We have a large work programme that we are pursuing under our Trade for All agenda. We continue to lead the negotiations on the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade, and Sustainability, or ACCTS, with Fiji, Costa Rica, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland—a first-of-its-kind agreement to bring together some of the interrelated elements of the climate change, trade, and sustainable development agendas. We’re also continuing negotiation with the Gulf Cooperation Council and the Pacific Alliance, in which we are pursuing Trade for All - related outcomes. We also continue to seek an expansion of the Global Trade and Gender Agreement, GTAGA; and the Inclusive Trade Action Group, ITAG; and the Indigenous Peoples Economic and Trade Cooperation Arrangement, IPETCA. We have also joined the launch of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity, which brings together 14 countries from across the Indo-Pacific region to focus on some of the most important future-focused economic issues facing our region and the world, including harnessing our digital economy, decarbonising our economies, and making our supply chains more resilient.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Dr SHANE RETI (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions around the health workforce?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yes.

Dr Shane Reti: Why did his announcement this week on the health workforce not include an increase in the number of new medical school places available for home-grown doctors?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The announcements I made this week were matters that Te Whatu Ora—Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health are investing in. Matters of entrance to medical schools are a combination of health investment and education investment, largely through the Tertiary Education Commission. This Government remains focused on doing what we can to increase medical students in our medical schools, but we don’t have any particular announcement to make on that at this point.

Dr Shane Reti: Can he confirm that it will take months before a single new migrant nurse is added to the health workforce as a result of his announcements this week, and isn’t that far too slow when there are reports today of an elderly woman who was left lying in a hospital ward in her own urine for 14 hours?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Can I just say, in relation to the story of the woman in the hospital who was treated in that way, that I was horrified to hear that anybody in a New Zealand hospital would be treated in that sort of way. Although as Minister I can’t get into the specific details of an individual case, I would urge that patient and her family and whānau to take those issues up with the hospital, and if they’re not satisfied, to go to the Health and Disability Commissioner. In relation to the recruitment of nurses, the member might be interested to know that right now we have 7,000 overseas qualified health professionals who have registered their interest in wanting to come to work in New Zealand, including 3,200 nurses. I don’t anticipate we’ll have any difficulty in getting through the recruitment process to get nurses in place in New Zealand just as quickly as possible. I might say there are still some barriers that we have to deal with, but they are largely around the regulatory authorities such as the Nursing Council of New Zealand, but I can say the Nursing Council has written to me recently saying they wish to be part of a solution to make it easier for overseas nurses to get their registration.

Dr Shane Reti: How then will he explain to the woman’s family and the reportedly understaffed hospital team that his health workforce announcements this week did not put migrant nurses on the immediate fast-track pathway to residency?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I would say to anybody is that nurses are now on the green list, and they have an ease of access to New Zealand that they have never had before. I only have to look at the number of those who are registering their interest to work in New Zealand: 3,200 nurses, overseas qualified, ready to work in New Zealand, and they will now be chased up.

Dr Shane Reti: When he said in his health workforce announcements this week that he would be collaborating on nursing matters with Shortland Street, does he really think Shortland Street represents the nursing workforce?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The member must have misheard what I said. The collaboration is between the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and the Ministry of Health. The recruitment campaign, which is badged Real Nurses, is a collaborative effort between the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, who actually came up with the idea and started the development of much of the collateral, and the ministry. The Nurses Organisation came to me in about the middle of last year and said, “Look, they’ve got this nub of an idea. They’ve started it, but they don’t have the means to carry on. Could we work together on it?” I spoke to ministry officials. They checked it out. They thought it was fantastic. I looked at the material. I thought it was fantastic. The Ministry of Health and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, working together, have produced an amazing product right throughout the development of it, and New Zealand Nurses Organisation representatives have been sitting on the steering group. They came up with the idea of engaging with Shortland Street to make sure that story gets to a group of people who probably, apart from today, don’t engage much with Parliament, for example, or the political process, but will want to, at an age when they are starting to make decisions about their future, engage with what future health careers look like. I’d urge those who are fans of Shortland Street to continue watching. There’s more to come.

Dr Shane Reti: Does the Shortland Street material he just stated he has looked at include a plotline with ballooning waiting lists and people waiting in leaky tents?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Once again, the member has misheard me. I talked about the Real Nurses material that has been developed. It is on the realnurses.co.nz website, which has some great information for those who are interested in a career in the health workforce, and I hope that there are many who are, because we need you. But it’s a good time now, if you’re a youngster, to be thinking about what you want to do. A health career is a great opportunity. Go to realnurses.co.nz. Carry on watching Shortland Street. You’ll find out a lot more.

Question No. 8—Economic and Regional Development

8. ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What recent announcements has he made on Government support for the regional economy?

Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): During the recess, I had the very great pleasure to announce several new initiatives supporting the regional economies all across New Zealand. I announced the fourth, fifth, and sixth investments of the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund as well as a major investment from the Major Events Fund. The investments from the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund were a $6 million loan to a Southland-based oat milk producer, Functional Foods; a $1.75 million loan to a Levin-based sustainable timber manufacturer, Techlam; and $2 million investment of either a loan or equity stake in Rangitīkei-based sustainable plastic product manufacturer Plentyful. The investment from the Major Events Fund was an $8.1 million grant to support the delivery of six Crankworx Rotorua mountain bike events. It will also secure the future of up to 24 summer series events hosted across the South Island.

Anna Lorck: What are the benefits of investments from the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund?

Hon STUART NASH: The Government set up the Regional Strategic Partnership Fund to build more productive, resilient, and sustainable regional economies. For Functional Foods, we know we grow oats well in Southland, and their being low in water use, land use, and emissions means they are an excellent raw ingredient for an environmentally sustainable alternative milk option. Producing oat milk locally is a lucrative way to diversify our strength as a quality-food producer. Both Techlam and Plentyful are paving the way for sustainability in the high-tech industry. With their cutting-edge, environmentally friendly manufacturing processes, from framing for houses to paper packaging for pies, there are many products that can be made more sustainably and with a better fit for the circular economy, and these companies are at the forefront of this sector-wide shift.

Anna Lorck: What are the benefits of investment in the Major Events Fund?

Hon STUART NASH: We’ve held Crankworx events in New Zealand for the past seven years, and they have all been highly successful. The cumulative economic impact of the 2015-2021 events has been independently assessed at over $25.9 million, which doesn’t include the ongoing economic benefit of international visitors who spend on travel beyond the event. This funding will also support extended summer series events, which will help distribute social and economic benefits across our South Island communities—in particular, to Central Otago, Queenstown, and Wanaka. You’re welcome, Joseph Mooney, and I’ll see you there.

Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment

9. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that “it does matter to us as a Labour Government that we have people in the dignity of work”; if so, why are 55 percent more people receiving jobseeker support for longer than one year as at the June 2022 quarter compared to the September 2017 quarter?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I do agree with the Prime Minister. This is why we worked quickly to enact the wage subsidy when hit with a once-in-a-generation pandemic. This quick action protected jobs and stopped New Zealand from reaching the number of unemployed predicted by Treasury. We’re making good progress, with record numbers of people moving into work over the past 12 months. In the year ending June 2022, 30,200 people on jobseeker who had been receiving a main benefit for more than a year found work. This included 6,600 people who had been receiving support for three years or more. In 2017, these numbers were 14,500 and 3,960 respectively, showing our investment into front-line case management is working. Recently, I saw a news article where the Child Poverty Action Group said that our Government was too focused on getting people into work, and not on to child poverty reduction. We do not see those things as mutually exclusive. I acknowledge there is more to do, but we are certainly on the right track.

Hon Louise Upston: Can she explain why, when businesses across the country are desperate for staff, 50,000 more people are on the jobseeker benefit than when you came into office?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: There are a number of reasons. I will say that, originally, Treasury had forecast we would have 487,000 people on benefit, and we certainly didn’t come close to that. In particular areas around the country, I do note that they have pointed out that there is difficulty in getting the staff they need. I was recently in Queenstown, and saw that that was certainly the case for the tourism and hospitality region. There are other contributing factors like, for instance, in that region, the ability to be able to access housing for those that might want to work there, and so that is one. There are other reasons as well, like the fact that we need to equip people with the right skills and training to be able to take up the employment that is available. I’m very proud of us as a Government because we have made those investments, and it will set us in good stead moving forward.

Hon Louise Upston: Why are more people on benefit for longer under her watch, despite Government spending on employment support doubling since 2017-18?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Despite the fact that we made the substantial investments through the wage subsidy, there were still a number of people that lost their job at the time. That did result in more people coming on to benefit and then needing to seek out support through the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) and the case managers to be able to be redeployed or to find employment as quickly as possible. We worked with more numbers than we have had for quite a period of time due to the significant event that we’ve been faced with, but I’m very relieved with the fact that 2½ years after the pandemic hit, we are currently in a situation where we have 11 percent of our working-age population on benefit, when that compares to 13.2 or 13.5 percent 2½ years after the global financial crisis hit.

Hon Louise Upston: What factors caused the increase in people on the jobseeker benefit in 2018 and 2019?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: That’s a very good question. What I found when I came into this role as the Minister for Social Development and Employment is that under the previous Government, there had been a steady decline—quite a significant decline—in the resource put into work-focused case management through MSD. Hardship had increased, but the Government had not funded the work focus required on the front line to be able to support unemployed New Zealanders into employment. We’ve rectified that. Year on year, we have continued to invest in work-focused case management on the front line, and we’re certainly seeing the results with that.

Hon Louise Upston: Does the Minister agree, at a time when many vacancies can be filled by on-the-job training, too many young New Zealanders are stuck on a benefit, and, if not, why not?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: This Government has been considerably focused on young people and making sure that we provide them with the opportunities to take up employment. We see that with programmes like Mana in Mahi. We see that with programmes like Flexi-wage. We see that with our significant investment in apprenticeships, which has seen significant numbers of people take up apprenticeships. I’m also very heartened to see with the recent unemployment figures and employment figures that we now see Māori unemployment drop to record lows of about 5.5 percent, and for Pacific that’s 5.4 percent. We are certainly on the right track and focused on doing the mahi.

Hon Louise Upston: Why has the number of sanctions applied in the June quarter this year been at 50 percent lower than the same period in 2019, despite the number of job seekers being significantly higher?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We take a different approach to the previous Government. We are not punitive for the sake of being punitive. I was very clear from the outset when I took on the role of Minister for Social Development and Employment that culture change would be a priority; that when it comes to applying sanctions, they are applied carefully; that my expectation would be that front-line social development staff would actually make honest attempts to contact clients before applying sanctions, and traverse the reasons for why they may have done something like missed an appointment, because let’s keep in mind that that’s often why they are applied. I don’t apologise for the Ministry of Social Development making and taking a much more careful approach before taking the stick out and applying it to beneficiaries.

Question No. 10—Oceans and Fisheries

10. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for Oceans and Fisheries: Will he commit to further action in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone to protect vulnerable marine ecosystems, such as seamounts, in light of the United Nations workshop under way in New York and relevant United Nations resolutions, including 64\72, 66\68 and 71\123?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): The purpose of the UN workshop is for States to have a technical discussion on approaches to bottom fishing and marine management. Here, Fisheries New Zealand and the Department of Conservation have established a multi-stakeholder forum on managing the effects of trawling on the benthic environment and New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. Impacts on seamounts and seamount-like features are being considered as part of the forum deliberations. Following the forum and public consultation, the Government will consider whether to impose additional restrictions on bottom trawling in New Zealand waters.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Is he satisfied with progress made in protecting vulnerable marine ecosystems, when fisheries observers reported that commercial fishing vessels dragged up 29 different species and 8.9 tonnes of coral in their nets in the 2018-19 fishing year, which is likely to represent the destruction of much more coral on the seabed, and, if he is satisfied, why?

Hon DAVID PARKER: There is no doubt that bottom trawling has adverse effects on benthic environments. We should be always striving to do better and we should be always doing better, and we should be doing all we can to both minimise the level of impact and to limit the geographic extent of it. That said, trawling is an integral part of fishing, not just in New Zealand but in many, many other countries around the world.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister agree that New Zealand’s approach of using a spatial model to manage bottom trawling effectively allows the fishing industry to smash and destroy unique assemblages of species and habitats on individual seamounts as long as there are other seamounts in the vicinity which aren’t trawled, and, if not, why not?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’m not going to get into my opinion on the detail of that, because, as I’ve said in my primary answer, there is a multi-stakeholder process occurring around bottom trawling and seamounts, and I’m not going to prejudge the outcome before it’s concluded.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he agree with the statement in the 14 July 2020 report of the United Nations Secretary-General that “Given the importance of habitat-forming species and the high biodiversity associated with vulnerable marine ecosystems, it is likely that all VMEs contribute in some way to a range of important ecological functions in the deep sea, at least when assessed on a local scale.”, and, if so, why is his Government allowing deep-sea trawlers to smash and destroy corals and other marine life on some seamounts?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, I would need to consider that quote in a bit more detail. But at first blush, in respect of there being clearly local impacts of local trawling, that would seem to be axiomatic.

Hon Eugenie Sage: Is he concerned by the statement by the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor in her February 2021 report on commercial fishing that “Even decades after bottom trawling has been halted, there can be little to no recovery in a benthic community.”, and, if he is concerned, why has he failed to protect more seamounts and features in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I did read that report. I have explained the work that we have going with a stakeholder grouping. I would also note that terrestrial environments are not totally protected either, and I don’t think it will ever be the case that all marine environments are protected either.

Hon Eugenie Sage: If he doesn’t think that all marine environments should be protected, does he agree with Karli Thomas of the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, who likens New Zealand’s position of allowing some seamounts to be damaged or destroyed by bottom trawling to allowing Tāne Mahuta and Waipoua Forest to be bulldozed because there are other kauri forests left elsewhere, and, if not, what is the difference?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I don’t, and I certainly believe that protecting some seamounts from bottom trawling is better than not protecting them.

Question No. 11—Health (Māori Health)

11. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health): What recent announcements has he made regarding the roll-out of Kaupapa Māori primary mental health and addiction services?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister of Health (Māori Health)): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This morning, I was on Hongoeka Marae with health provider Ora Toa to recognise their new kaupapa Māori primary mental health and addiction service, Ngā Kete Aronui. This is a fantastic example of the value of by Māori, for Māori health services, delivering effective mental health and addiction support to whānau who need it, in a culturally competent way. We know that when these services are delivered in a way underpinned by mātauranga Māori, many whānau are more likely to reach out for support and have a positive experience in doing so. Ngā Kete Aronui is one of 29 new or recently established kaupapa Māori primary mental health and addiction services across Aotearoa, funded as a result of the Government’s groundbreaking Access and Choice programme.

Tāmati Coffey: How is the roll-out of these services progressing on a nationwide level?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Over the past few weeks, I visited 13 of these new services rolling out across the North Island, Te Ika-a-Māui. From Waitematā to Wellington, Tai Rāwhiti to Tāneatua, it is a heartening experience seeing tailored, culturally competent wellbeing services being delivered by Māori, for Māori, and making a real difference. As I have said, we have now reached a total of 29 new services across Aotearoa since our commitment to taking mental health seriously in Budget 2019. From early 2020 until May this year, these growing kaupapa Māori primary mental health and addiction services have delivered more than 20,000 sessions for those with mild to moderate mental health and addiction issues. We know that Māori have struggled over the years to get meaningful, equitable support for their mental wellbeing, which is why we committed to funding these new by Māori, for kaupapa Māori mental health services.

Tāmati Coffey: What reactions has he seen to these new services?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Recently, I visited the Poutiri Trust’s chief executive, Kirsty Maxwell-Crawford, and she said that the new Mataora service in the Bay of Plenty is a significant boost for supporting its work in the area of mental wellbeing. I quote: “It means we can respond to whānau in need, who have taken the brave step of reaching out for help. We have increasing numbers of whānau contacting us in times of stress, whānau wanting counselling or to access a Māori therapeutic service. Mataora allows us to be responsive to their needs”. Te Tihi o Ruahine chief executive Materoa Mar said that the new Te Ara Tōtika service in the central North Island helps “develop more connected pathways for whānau and stronger relationships between service providers” and the service is “a wrap around one connecting people with education, social, health, and wellbeing”. Nothing is compared to hearing the voices of those who have engaged with these services. Their stories are about getting support when they really needed it, and have been truly moving. I would encourage anyone listening out there to reach out for help to one of these services when they require it.

Question No. 12—Environment (Biodiversity)

12. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Associate Minister for the Environment (Biodiversity): Does he stand by the exposure draft of the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity that objectives, policies, and methods developed under it “must, to the extent practicable: enable new occupation, use and development of Māori Lands”; if so, will he extend the same criteria to all New Zealanders with significant natural areas on their land?

Hon JAMES SHAW (Associate Minister for the Environment (Biodiversity)): In response to the first part of the question, yes. In response to the second part of the question, there are a number of variances in the Draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity for geothermal land, pastoral farming, forestry, and Māori land. The Government has not yet released the final National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB).

Mark Cameron: Does the Minister agree that local authorities will be required to “apply options for offsetting and compensation” for Māori lands identified as significant natural areas?

Hon JAMES SHAW: As I just said in the answer to the primary question, the Government has not yet released the final National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity.

Mark Cameron: Will the Minister require local authorities to apply for options for offsetting and compensation to all New Zealanders with significant natural areas on their lands, and, if not, why not?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Well, the Crown has acknowledged responsibility for land dispossession through the Treaty settlements process, and I understand, actually, that the ACT Party has endorsed this process as it relates to the violation of property rights and the attendant economic impact of Māori who have been dispossessed of their lands. I am fascinated to find that the member is less frightened of variances in the NPSIB for geothermal purposes than he is for Māori purposes, and I wonder why could that be.

Mark Cameron: Does the Minister stand by the statement made on his behalf in this House on 30 June that “existing land use will continue under these proposals.”, and can he give a guarantee to landowners that this will be the case?

Hon JAMES SHAW: Yes, and yes.

Mark Cameron: Does the Minister accept that parts of the Draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity give different rights to different groups of people, and when will his Government start putting the people and environment of New Zealand before its ideology?

SPEAKER: Oh!

Hon JAMES SHAW: As I said, there are—

SPEAKER: Well, no. Just—I am going to let the member answer the question, but I think fairly soon, a few members, and not only newer members, are going to need a bit of a seminar on supplementary question drafting. There might be a semi-employed backbencher soon who can give them a hand.

Hon JAMES SHAW: As I said earlier, there are a number variances in the Draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity relating to geothermal land, pastoral farming—which I would imagine that that member is quite interested in the variances for, as well—forestry, and for Māori land, and there are a number of very good reasons for that, which were outlined when we first consulted on this in the summer of 2019-20, and then again on second draft more recently.

Bills

Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill

Third Reading

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): I move, That the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill be now read a third time.

Tihei-wā mauriora. Ki te whaiao ki te ao mārama. Ko te maunga Aoraki tātārehua e mihi ana ki te rangi, e mihi ana ki te whenua, e mihi ana ki ngā tāngata. Tū winiwini, tū wanawana kia puta ki te whaiao ki te ao mārama. Tēnā koutou ōku rangatira. Tēnā koutou Ngāi Tahu whānui. Tēnā koutou ngā tini whanaunga, ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, ngā hapū maha, ngā hapū rongonui, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, nau mai, nau mai whakatau mai, nau mai hoki mai ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei. He hōnore nui tēnei māku e whakatū ki te tautoko ki te hēparatia tēnei pire i tēnei pānuitanga tuatoru.E mihi ana au ki te Kaunihera Taiao ki Waitaha, tēnā koutou e te kaunihera. Tēnā koutou mō te mahi tahi me Ngāi Tahu i tēnei pire. He rā nui whakahirahira tēnei. Tēnā koutou e ngā mate huhua o te wā e hinga atu rā e ninga mai nei kua whetūrangitia koutou. Hoki mai ki a tātou te kanohi ora e pae nei. Tēnā koutou e ngā kaumātua e ngā pōua me ngā tōua. Ki a koe te rangatira e Tā, Tā Tīpene, e mihi kau ana ki a koe e te rangatira, e te pāpā. Koutou e ngā Papatipu Runanga e tautoko nei i tēnei pire, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[The breath, the energy of life. To the dawnlight, to the world of light. The misty mountain Aoraki greets the sky, the land and the people. Fearsome and formidable, to come forth to the dawnlight, to the world of light. Greetings, my chiefs. Greetings to the wider Ngāi Tahu. Greetings to my many relatives, to the local assemblies, to the many sub-tribes, to the well-known sub-tribes, greetings, greetings, welcome, welcome to the House of Parliament that is prepared for you. It is a great honour for me to stand in support and to shepherd this bill in its third reading. I acknowledge Environment Canterbury, greetings to the council. Thank you for your collaboration with Ngāi Tahi on this bill. This is a very important day. I acknowledge the many deceased of this time, you who have become stars in the heavens. Returning now to the living seated here. Greetings to the male and female elders. To you, Sir, to the chief Sir Tīpene, this is my greeting you, the patriarch. To you in the Papatipu Rūnanga who are supporting this bill, greetings to you all.]

As the member in charge, I am delighted to speak at the third reading of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill, te Pire Kaunihera Taiao ki Waitaha (Whakakanohitanga o Ngāi Tahu). This bill is an historic bill. This bill is about the evolution of our Treaty partnership and representation of Māori, of iwi, at the local government level. I want to commend Kaunihera Taiao ki Waitaha Environment Canterbury, for their boldness in bringing this bill to the House. This bill has been a long time in the making.

I want to acknowledge both the present council and the previous council for their work with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu in bringing this second iteration of this bill through to this House, and I’m absolutely honoured as the member in charge to now be at the third reading, right on the cusp of it being passed into law by this House.

I want to mihi to all my relations who have travelled from the great southern islands Te Wai Pounamu to be here to tautoko this significant occasion. In particular, I want to acknowledge Tā Tipene O’Regan, who is gracing us with his presence; our rangatira who has lead our great tribe and is now here to tautoko this significant development in that new age of cooperation that the Crown committed to with Ngāi Tahu through the Ngāi Tahu Settlement. So I mihi to Tā Tipene and I mihi to our Papatipu Rūnanga—the faces of Ngāi Tahu that make up the mana whenua that will be represented on te kaunihera on the Environment Canterbury Council.

Because it is the hapu—it is the Papatipu Rūnanga—that hold up the great iwi of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and they are all represented here today in the Canterbury region.

I want to acknowledge all of those Ngā Paptipu Rūnanga, and they are Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura, Te Rūnanga o Ngai Tūāhuriri, Te Rūnanga o Ōnuku, Te Rūnanga o Koukourārata, Te Rūnanga o Raiwera, Te Rūnanga o Taumutu, Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke—Rāpaki—Te Rūnanga o Arowhenua, Te Rūnanga o Waihao, and Te Rūnanga o Moeraki.

Our Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, who have been working in a tuia partnership for many years with Environment Canterbury are now taking the next level through the enshrinement in this legislation to have their representation right around the table at the regional council level. I want to mihi to all of their participation throughout the years and also their support for this legislation.

I do want to acknowledge the regional council especially, and that goes right from the chair, Jenny Hughey, and her team of councillors. I thank them for their tautoko. Right through all of the staff and members that have been working very, very closely through the passage of this bill.

I’ll get to acknowledge them later on, but this is a really significant piece of legislation because it reinstates Ngāi Tahu mana whenua representation at the regional council level. This is a unique piece of legislation; it’s bespoke to the Canterbury region. It recognises the vast takiwā of the Canterbury region from north of Kaikōura, south to the Waitaki River, from the Banks Peninsula all the way through to our mighty maunga, Aoraki. It’s a vast 44,500-square-kilometre area—the largest in the country—and also a population of 600,000 throughout that takiwā.

Throughout that massive takiwā, there is one mana whenua; there is one recognised iwi, and that is Ngāi Tahu, represented through Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. This bill is about ensuring that there is direct Ngāi Tahu representation at the regional council level; it recognises the Treaty partnership; it recognises Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Ngāi Tahu are entitled to this representation. They’re entitled to this representation because that is the promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and this is a modern-day expression of that promise. That’s what this bill provides: it provides for Ngāi Tahu through recognising their mana, recognising their rangatiratanga to have their ability to appoint two representatives to the regional council.

It’s a big regional council; the good citizens and ratepayers of the Canterbury region will still get 14 elected members from that vast takiwā area; they will still have those members. But there will be the addition of two Ngāi Tahu councillors who will be at the table to provide enhanced decision-making and to provide that important mana whenua perspective into those decisions, because that is very important.

So this is a positive move and I commend Environment Canterbury for their forthrightness in bringing this bill to the House. It’s been an absolute pleasure shepherding it through thus far.

I’m not going to entertain the debates from the other side, because this is a time of celebrating the passage of this bill. In 2019, when we failed to pass an earlier iteration of this bill, I remember saying at that time that we will be back. I remember saying that our great maunga—our sacred maunga, Aoraki—is patient and is watchful.

I’m so delighted that we waited our turn and we have come back to this House. We have come back with this legislation and we have the numbers to pass it into law. I know those on the other side may be wanting to take us back; they want to take us back and put us in a box. But this is about the evolution of Aotearoa and the representation of Māori at council level.

I want to thank all the people that have been involved: David Perenara-O’Connell, Julian Phillips, Catherine Schache, David Cochrane—who was the solicitor draft person, all of my whanaunga from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, Lisa Tumahai, and all of the Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, for the mahi tahi that has taken place in the culmination of this historic legislation.

I’m delighted that it will pass. I’m delighted that I’ve had the opportunity to shepherd it through. I commend this bill to the House, mō tātou, ā, mō kā uri ā muri ake nei [for us and our children after us]. Kia ora tātou.

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

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I do want to acknowledge the presence of the good people of Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu for the third reading of this bill, the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. I’m afraid to say that the National Party will not be voting for this piece of legislation, and we do not support it.

What does it do? This legislation allows for 14 councillors in Canterbury to be elected by everyone—Māori included—everybody in the community, and then after those 14 councillors are elected, Ngāi Tahu will appoint two more. So this is not a question of Māori wards in Canterbury, proportional to the population and democratically elected. It is about the appointments of two councillors on top of what has been a one person, one vote election.

Now, why are we worried about that? Why do we care? Because it goes against two principles that have been important to our democracy. The first is equal suffrage, which is enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—equal suffrage, which is equal voting rights for all New Zealanders—and also in the Human Rights Act around discrimination on ethnic grounds. The second principle that we’re concerned about is electoral accountability, because one of the things that keeps all of us in Parliament on the straight and narrow is we know that, if we get it wrong, we will be thrown out at the next election—which is what is going to happen to this Government, I predict. But under this bill, there is no such accountability because Ngāi Tahu get to appoint those two councillors for ever and a day; they cannot be thrown out, and there is no direct accountability.

I can’t believe that I’m standing here in this Parliament making this argument—defending equal suffrage and accountability at the ballot box. It astounds me that I’m having to make this argument, and frankly, it’s been very difficult to get the message across. I’m not going to criticise media generally, but I do want to make the point in regards to the Christchurch Press: you point blank refused to publish an article I wrote on this topic outlining our view, saying that they wouldn’t publish it because they needed to have a balanced article written by somebody else, which didn’t strike me as difficult to arrange. But lo and behold, this morning they do publish an article supportive of the bill and refuse to publish mine. And so it’s been very difficult to have a decent debate about what is an important issue. This is not just a matter for Canterbury; it’s a matter for the whole country.

Now, there’s two points. We don’t agree with the change. Why is equal suffrage important? I mean, why did Kate Sheppard, 100 years ago, argue for equal suffrage? Why is it an assumption that people are abasing? I would say it was pretty obvious: most people living in a democracy expect to have an equal say about who governs them and the decisions affecting their lives. If you look around the world, it is something that many people aspire to and don’t have access to right now. There are many countries in the world where people don’t have an equal say in who governs them, and they are worse for it. And they look to democracies like ours and they wish they could have it. Why is accountability important? Well, again, please show me a country in the world where the rulers of a country are not accountable at the ballot box which works well. Please show me an example, and I will be interested to see it.

But secondly, as well as why we don’t agree with the change, we don’t agree with the way that it is being done because, as the introducer said, this is an historic bill, an evolution of Aotearoa. And it will set a precedent—there’s no question about that across local government. Some argue that it’s unique to Canterbury. I can’t understand how you would say this is a modern expression of the Treaty, but it only applies in Canterbury. I’m sure there will be many other councils to which this logic will flow to, and then potentially to central government. But the thing that offends me is that, given this is a historic change that is being perpetrated, we have not heard once from the Prime Minister on the topic. In fact, for most of the debate, Ministers have refused to answer any questions about this bill. They’ve said, “It’s nothing to do with us. It’s a local bill; nothing to do with us.” But the Labour Party is voting it and making it pass. I still haven’t heard a word on the subject apart from some flummery in the House yesterday from the Minister of Justice. We haven’t heard Ministers actually defending the logic of this bill. No case has been mounted. It’s been carried through in a local bill, and so that’s where we’re at.

And then they say, “Well, the council asked for it.” Well, that’s good. I’m glad that the council asked for it, but we do note that the council made a deliberate decision, clearly, which I’ve got here, not to consult with their community and the public on this issue. So the public are the ones who haven’t had the opportunity to have a say. And so why are we worried about this? We’re worried because we’ve heard broader discussions and arguments put forward by Willie Jackson, who has told us that the nature of democracy in this country has changed, and so the nature has changed.

Hon Willie Jackson: How did you get in?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’d just say to the Minister: I listened pretty carefully, and the member got in the same way that I did. But, if he means the member and not me, he should say, “the member” and not “you”.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister Willie Jackson said the nature of democracy has changed. And I suppose the question is: “To what?” When did we decide, as a country, that the nature of our democracy has changed? I don’t recall going along to a constituent assembly where we all decided that the nature of our democracy had changed. I don’t recall a referendum where we decided, and I don’t recall the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, going to the people at the 2020 election saying, “By the way, I’m going to change the nature of our democracy.” What mandate have they got for it, and what does it mean?

The suggestion is that the Treaty of Waitangi demands this. Well, it is our view, on this side of the House, that the Treaty of Waitangi does not trump democracy, and the country hasn’t decided that, and so, ultimately, what is being pushed here is, I think, a very divisive agenda which is pitting one group of New Zealanders against the others. They’ll say we’re being divisive by opposing it. This is not something that we have put forward; it is something that the Government has put forward. They haven’t argued for it, and they haven’t made a case for it. They are making a significant change to our democracy without asking New Zealanders first.

Now, there’s a couple of red herrings that have gone around about this. They said, “Well, National did it, earlier.” National appointed commissioners when the Canterbury Regional Council failed beforehand, and we included Ngāi Tahu representation in that. That is a very different thing, for a duly elected Government of the day, which is accountable to the people of New Zealand, making an appointment in a particular set of circumstances and being accountable. If people don’t like it—if the population didn’t like it—they could throw us out. And arguably they did, not just for this, but for other issues. So that’s very different to changing the law to give a permanent, unelected right by Ngāi Tahu to appoint two councillors—a very different thing, where the accountability won’t apply. So there is no comparison between those two things.

Secondly, we have a Michael Wood “special” saying, “Oh, because people who own property in different council areas get to vote in each, one person, one vote doesn’t apply.” The silly and irrelevant discussion, which is New Zealanders only get one vote per election and if anybody, including Ngāi Tahu members who might own multiple properties—all get access to vote in different elections. That law applies to everybody in this country, and that is the point. So we give clear warning.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Have you seen who owns houses?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Thank you. Thank you very much for the commentary. We give clear warning that this bill is being passed against the strong opposition of the National Party. We will repeal this Act if we are lucky to be elected at the next election. We assert two principles that are important to our democracy. That is, equal voting rights for all New Zealanders, and accountability at the ballot box. We think they are important. They are part of what makes this country precious. They are part of what makes this a successful modern economy, and those two principles are important. And if we get a chance to repeal it, some will complain that we are taking something away from somebody when we repeal this legislation.

I want it on the record that this bill was passed against the will of the Opposition. A change with widespread implications for democracy that has been pushed through without any attempt whatsoever to bring widespread acceptance across the House. It has been done on crude majority numbers and, as such, it will be repealed if we get the opportunity at the next election. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Tuatahi e mihi ana ki a koutou Ngāi Tahu kua tae mai nei i tēnei wā ki te tautoko i tenei pire. E mihi ana ki a koutou e whakarangatira te kaupapa i tēnei wā. Nō reira, ki a koe e te pāpā, Tā Tīpene, ngā mihi ki a koe e te pāpā. Mō tō kaha ki te kōkiri te kaupapa, ki te whawhai mō te kaupapa i tahuri tō korowai rangatiratanga i runga i a tātou i tēnei wā tēnei te mihi ki a koe e te pāpā, koutou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[Firstly, I would like to acknowledge you of Ngāi Tahu who have gathered here today to support this bill. Thank you for honouring this issue today. So, to the patriarch, Sir Tīpene, I acknowledge you. For your energy in championing this cause and fighting for this cause, we are honoured by your chiefly presence today, greetings oh patriarch, and everybody, greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]

Tā Tipene graces us with his presence. He must have had a good laugh at that last kōrero when we had someone talking about democracy who is a product of the new democracy with his dirty, rotten, filthy deal in Epsom. He’s forgotten about the new democracy, where his leader did a deal with the ACT Party and put him in on the list. Oh, no, democracy doesn’t count there because that’s a dirty, rotten, filthy deal between the National Party and the ACT Party. Oh, no we’ll forget about that—the rorting of democracy only applies to Māori! So shame on you, Mr Goldsmith.

I am proud to tautoko this bill, proud to support this bill. This is about the promise of the Treaty coming to fruition, and that’s what my good friend and colleague Rino Tirikatene has said. It’s taken too long for Māori to get the most basic of representation at local and regional level. I salute all our whānau who’ve come in from Ngāi Tahu for your absolute commitment to this kaupapa. What makes the struggle for equality under the Treaty so much more difficult is when our colleagues on the right pull political stunts to manipulate Kiwis’ ignorance of our past by weaponising the one person, one vote principle.

It is a disgrace that the right would use such spiteful dog-whistles—I was going to say “racist” and I think I can say that with right-wingers, can’t I, Mr Speaker; I’m not talking about anyone in particular—by claiming that the honouring of the Treaty amounts to a desecration of the one person, one vote democratic value when there are multiple examples from the very democratic tradition that they pretend to care about that shows that one person, one vote is but one value within the democracy, not the only value.

Mr Speaker, the House of Lords—I’m sure you’ve been there—is not one person, one vote. The Electoral College is not one person, one vote. The Senate is not one person, one vote. In New Zealand, our own very country, with MMP it’s not one person, one vote. It’s one person, two votes. Why are Māori having to explain democracy to those who claim to protect it? The right would not for one moment claim that America or the UK were not democracies, yet we in New Zealand, a country that has “one person, two votes” extends the universal suffrage of representation promised to us as Māori. We have Chris Luxon and David Seymour up in arms. Give us a break. We all watched the 6 o’clock news last night. Nicola Willis was squirming, and that was a story highlighting how multiple property owners can vote in multiple local body elections, giving landowners more power than the poor. I was watching Nicola struggle to answer why one person, one vote suddenly doesn’t apply to rich landowners. I kept watching it all night.

The question is: how many votes is the leader of the National Party going to get in the local elections? Seven? This is democracy—this is the wonderful democracy. This is a group of people who refuse to accept new democracy’s change in 1996 when Winston Peters chose them as a Government. That’s not a new democracy. It’s not a new democracy when you have four women in Parliament. It’s not a new democracy when you have more Māori in Parliament. It’s not a new democracy when you have more Pasifika in Parliament. Oh, no, that’s not a new democracy. It’s only a new democracy when Māori start working the system, and it’s a wrong democracy! It’s disgraceful the way this lot have carried on, the way they have manipulated the situation.

This Government is an example of the new democracy. We got 37 percent, they got 44 percent. We became the Government—that couldn’t have happened; under MMP, that’s the new democracy. What does the Opposition not understand about a new democracy? The representation of Ngāi Tahu on the Canterbury Regional Council for some reason scares them. It scares their friend Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB so much, but Mike doesn’t need to be frightened by Māori gaining what’s been promised to them under the Treaty. We live in a democracy with one another and seek genuine engagement to build bridges, not walls. Unfortunately, the right refuse to accept this. This is a maturing of our democracy. We seek to frame co-governance as a positive way forward. The right frames it as a racist evil by manufacturing “one person, one vote” outrage, when the very democratic system they claim to defend allows for many values that go beyond that.

I do think, as I’ve said, that the greatest hypocrisy in the right’s position against co-governance is that we are using the co-governance architecture that was built by the National Party and the ACT Party. Whether they want to admit it or not, that’s just a fact, and that’s why I say it’s incredible when we look back—and I was just given a note—and see that there are at least a dozen Treaty settlements that support co-governance brought in by the Hon Chris Finlayson. A dozen. And as I said also—

Hon Member: What’s he got to say about this?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: He supports us, actually. He’s a supporter. He says co-governance can work, not just in the natural resource area. It doesn’t just have to be about the lakes, and the sky, and the sea, and stars. It can be about Te Ao Māori in a modern context. So it’s just an outrage the way the right wing have been carrying on in terms of this bill. This has been such a wish of our people from Ngāi Tahu who come here. The way that things have been manipulated is almost beyond belief. This is not some Māori takeover. This is not about the Mahuta/Jackson quest for power, as the right wing and the National Party and the ACT Party have been trying to frame this for the last couple of years. There’s no takeover. This is about partnership. This is a partnership that is working. This is a partnership that is in the Treaty. This is a partnership that judges have talked about for the last 35 years—that apparently David Seymour knows more about than our very learned judges.

When we get things right, when we have the law in our favour, we’re opposed by the right wing absolutely. It is a disgrace, and this is a disgrace, and it’s a shame that our very learned knight and leader Tā Tipene has to witness this given all the history and experience he has had with the National Party. In fact—I’m not sure if he was part of it now. I’m sure he’ll tell me later. But I know that with his history and his experience and the work he has done with the Hon Doug Graham and Jim Bolger he’ll be shaking his head thinking, “What happened to the National Party? What happened to that commitment?” When you look at what’s happened in Te Uruwera, when you look at what’s happened in Auckland, when you look at what’s happened with the Ngāti Whātua settlement—settlements everywhere—you see co-governance working, everyone working in tandem, and yet the National Party are so opposed to this and are framing this in the most irresponsible and disgraceful way.

The Government embraces cooperation, embraces co-governance, and embraces representation. We see it as not only fulfilling this nation’s obligations under the Treaty; we also see it as the best way forward for our society, and I’m proud that we’ve been able to support these two new Māori seats for Ngāi Tahu. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak on the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill at its third reading. Before I begin, I just want to acknowledge the members of Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu who are in the gallery, and Tā Tipene O’Regan.

I’ll just touch on, briefly, the history. The National Party has had a proud history of developing its relationship with Māori, developing its relationship with Ngāi Tahu. I think about the negotiations between the Treaty Minister Doug Graham, who was the Treaty Minister in the National Government who negotiated with Tā Tipene O’Regan and Ngāi Tahu to have this settlement, the Ngāi Tahu settlement, which was signed in 1996. The National Party celebrates, acknowledges, and is proud for Ngāi Tahu and of Ngāi Tahu—the incredible efforts that Ngāi Tahu has made since then in developing their rohe, developing their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their people. It’s recognised throughout New Zealand and overseas, the extraordinary efforts they have made since then to develop their people and their area, and their business acumen is celebrated.

The unfortunate thing is this bill has got it wrong. I’ve heard the Hon Willie Jackson make a number of interesting comments, which I’ll touch on, which may indicate why there is some confusion that has led to where we are here. For example, he talked about MMP, and he said democracy changed. An interesting thing is that democracy changed in MMP when New Zealanders got a chance to vote on it in a referendum. When there is electoral change to the way that we operate and govern our country, we have a constitutional convention of having a referendum so the people of New Zealand can make a decision about how they want to be represented and how they want to be governed. That has not happened here.

We heard from the Hon Paul Goldsmith before, who said that the regional council didn’t even consult with their ratepayers. That is unfortunate. We have come to a place here where the regional council has sent a bill to Parliament and said to Parliament, “You sort it out.”, and we’ve just gone through a fairly truncated process, and we are here now.

This bill has a fundamental flaw in it from a constitutional perspective: it appoints two members to a body which is going to make the decisions for all of the people in its community. This undermines the constitutional convention of universal suffrage, which has been a defining point of New Zealand for 129 years. New Zealand is one of the youngest countries in the world. We have one of the oldest democracies in the world.

For 129 years we’ve had this convention that we have one person, one vote. I heard Minister Willie Jackson, again, say, “Oh, it’s not one person—it’s one person, two votes.” Well, the point is that everyone gets to make the vote for the electorate MP, the person who represents them in the region, and one vote for the party they want to represent them. Someone can, for example, think that their local member of Parliament, who may belong to, say, the Labour Party, is doing a good job for them, but they think that the National Party, by way of example, would be better in terms of their values at a national level. So each person has a choice to make about the party and about the actual local representative for them. Everyone has that right.

This bill undermines that principle of universal suffrage—that’s everyone having one person, one vote. Not only that, but it actually undermines the principle of voting, because these will be two members who are appointed to the regional council. Let’s just be clear: this is local government. Local government is government, and under our constitutional conventions we have this principle of universal suffrage. But it’s not just a New Zealand principle.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified in 1948, born out of the experiences of countries around the world with regimes that did not honour the principle of voting for people who govern them. There was an agreement to have this Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and article 21 made it very clear. It said, “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives”—not appointed representatives. It went on to say, “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall … be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” So there is an international agreement that the will of the Government and the basis of the authority of the Government is expressed in genuine and free elections, which are through universal suffrage. This bill undermines that principle.

I would also note that the Attorney-General’s opinion on this, in my view, has unfortunately not delved into this in any great detail. It’s just said that “The Treaty of Waitangi settlement agreed between Ngāi Tahu and the Crown in November 1997 acknowledged the rangatiratanga and mana of Ngāi Tahu over their lands … and affirmed their ‘special association’ with the natural environment in a number of areas.” It said, “On the basis of this, the Settlement awarded Ngāi Tahu positions of input into environmental management bodies throughout the South Island/Te Wai Pounamu. This included establishing a Ngāi Tahu statutory adviser position to the Department of Conservation and awarding dedicated seats to appointees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu on the New Zealand Conservation Authority and on Conservation Boards within the Ngāi Tahu Claim Area.” It goes on to say that it thinks that although this could ostensibly be seen as discriminating against others because they can’t be appointed unless they’re Ngāi Tahu, they think because of the special relationship, this bill is justified.

It doesn’t address that issue of universal suffrage. It does not address another key point. These bodies, the New Zealand Conservation Authority, the Department of Conservation, are responsible to bodies which are politically accountable. That’s an important point, because people have a right to be governed by those over whom they have the right to have a say in whether they are appointed to their position of governance and a say in whether they are removed from their position of governance if they don’t think they’re doing a good job. This bill, unfortunately, undermines that key principle and undermines that fundamental democratic electoral accountability, which has been key to balancing the different dynamics in our communities for 129 years.

That is the point of democratic electoral accountability—that we have a lot of different opinions in our communities, we have a lot of different views in our communities, and we need to find ways to balance them; and that everyone has the view that they have at least had an opportunity to have an input into those decisions. This bill, unfortunately, undermines that.

Let’s just be clear. There wouldn’t be too many people in New Zealand who don’t think that the Treaty process has been a good one overall in terms of addressing historical grievances and in terms of making them right to a degree—certainly by no means perfect, but making steps to acknowledge wrongs that’ve been done in the past and to make right those wrongs as far as has been possible through this democratic process. The important thing is that New Zealand has accepted that under our political system, under a system in which each person has the right to participate in voting for those who make those decisions. That’s a really key, fundamental point.

So I do, unfortunately, have to stand to oppose this bill and to say that it is unfortunate that we are undermining 129 years of universal suffrage in New Zealand. We are undermining the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If I look at the Treaty of Waitangi, we have article 1, which is kāwanatanga, governorship, and there’s different views on this. There’s article 2, which is rangatiratanga—rangatiratanga over taonga, over lands, and other treasures which Māori have and had at the time of signing the Treaty of Waitangi. Then there’s article 3, which is equal rights of citizens of these lands. I do not see how this opinion from the Attorney-General has adequately connected those three critical principles in the Treaty of Waitangi with this bill. So it is with regret that I do have to rise to oppose this bill. I would stress that the National Party and myself are strong supporters of Ngāi Tahu and we wish their continued success into the future. But this bill is not a good one, so I cannot commend this bill to the House.

TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): If ever there was a reason to stop voting National, today is the day. I grew up in a horse racing family, and my dad taught me about the importance of having “A dollar each way, son—have a dollar each way.” Every time that I heard that previous contributor, Joseph Mooney, talk about how supportive he was of Ngāi Tahu and your journey, and then he put in there, “Oh, but, unfortunately, I’m not going to be able to support it today.”—I heard a person that was putting a dollar each way. Why? Because he knows that there’s an election coming up next year, and he knows that he’s going to have to defend it in the electorate that he comes from, Southland. I hope—I hope—that your rūnanga holds him to account.

Ditto all of the National Party MPs who have stood here today, and their party, who have said that they will repeal your legislation in this House. They’ve said it blatantly, it’s all over their social media. They have drawn a line in the sand and they said that they are going to absolutely repeal this bill. They need to be held accountable for that. That’s a very bold statement, but even bolder when you’re sitting here in front of the iwi themselves. I’m glad that they’ve got their masks on because, if they didn’t, you’d probably be able to see the grimacing and maybe some of the underhanded words that should go with the opposition that you’re putting up towards this bill.

Tuatahi ake, he mihi tēnei ki a koutou o Ngāi Tahu, ngā pōua ngā tāua kua huihui mai nei i tēnei rā ki te hāpai i tēnei kaupapa. Mai i tēnei tētahi o ngā kaihoe o Te Arawa waka mai i Maketū ki Tongariro, he mihi tēnei ki a koutou katoa.

[First and foremost, this is my acknowledgment to you, Ngāi Tahu, to the male and female elders who have gathered here today to carry this issue. From me, one of the paddlers of the Arawa canoe, this is my greeting to you all.]

One of the amazing things that you get to experience when you sit on Māori Affairs Committee is the submissions that come in from Ngāi Tahu. Whenever they put in a submission to the committee, to this House, they preface it with the apology that was set down in their settlement that they signed back in 1996, that was enacted in 1997. Unfortunately, the wash of MPs in this House is such that so many forget it. They forget the apology. They forget what was signed up to. They look to the past and they have this political amnesia that takes place, and it needs to be addressed. So I thank you and I implore you and I encourage you to continue to put that apology at the start of all of your submissions so that whichever MP is looking over your submission in whatever context, whatever bill, whatever legislation you’re talking about, they are reminded of that apology.

For that context, I want to read some of that apology today because I think it’s incredibly apt. Section 6 of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act—this is the text in English of the apology—it says in subsection (4), “The Crown recognises that it has failed to act towards Ngāi Tahu reasonably and with the utmost good faith in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown. That failure is referred to in the Ngāi Tahu saying ‘Te Hapa o Niu Tireni!’”—which translates to—“(‘The unfulfilled promise of New Zealand’). The Crown further recognises that its failure always to act in good faith deprived Ngāi Tahu of the opportunity to develop and kept the tribe for several generations in a state of poverty, a state referred to in the proverb ‘Te mate o te iwi’ (‘The malaise of the tribe’).

In subsection (6), it says, “The Crown expresses its profound regret and apologises unreservedly to all members of Ngāi Tahu Whānui for the suffering and [the] hardship caused to Ngāi Tahu, and for the harmful effects which resulted to the welfare, economy and development of Ngāi Tahu as a tribe. The Crown acknowledges that such suffering, hardship and harmful effects resulted from its failures to honour its obligations to Ngāi Tahu under the deeds of purchase whereby it acquired Ngāi Tahu lands, to set aside adequate lands for the tribe’s use, to allow reasonable access to traditional sources of food, to protect Ngāi Tahu’s rights to pounamu and … other valued possessions as the tribe wished to retain, or to remedy effectually Ngāi Tahu’s grievances.”

The kicker is subsection (8), where it says, “Accordingly, the Crown seeks on behalf of all New Zealanders to atone for these acknowledged injustices, so far as that is now possible, and, with the historical grievances finally settled as to matters set out in the Deed of Settlement signed on 21 November 1997, to begin the process of healing and to enter a new age of co-operation with Ngāi Tahu.” That was 25 years ago that they signed that. And it’s here, 25 years on, that we’re still having to wrestle this bill through Parliament, through our parliamentary structures, to enable you to have your new age of cooperation. I apologise that it’s taken this long, and I apologise that you have to go through this process. But we’re going to get this bill through, today, because it’s what you want.

The Opposition, for a long time now, have been fearmongering—absolutely fearmongering—New Zealanders into believing that this a Māori takeover, that Ngāi Tahu are a very wealthy, billion-dollar tribe, and that they don’t deserve an extra say on top of what they already get—the potential to be already enrolled as a candidate in the Environment Canterbury (ECan) elections and to go through the normal processes—which have entrenched a particular way of life here in New Zealand, which is fearful for the Opposition to think that that will change. But today it’s going to change, and I salute you for that.

I put a pānui out to all of those other iwi that are listening: Ngāi Tahu have opened the door. And for that reason, all of those iwi out there that are struggling with how representation works for them in their rohe, I hope that they’re understanding that this is a potential pathway. Not under the National Government, because they’re going to repeal it all, they’re going to take it all away, they’re going to make sure that they entrench the system that we’ve currently got whereby we don’t have this kind of representation. The ironic thing is they started it—they put the Act in place. They were the ones that came up with the ingenious idea to actually have two appointed people, appointed by Ngāi Tahu, on the Environment Canterbury board. They did this. But what are they doing? They’re politicking—they’re politicking—and they’re trying to take away what you want.

I’ll take this opportunity to remind them of a recent article that was written by the Hon Chris Finlayson, who had done his time in this House wearing his blue ribbon the whole way, but, having come out the other side, he made a few reflections in a recent E-Tangata column, and I want to read this to you. He says, “Once you’ve read the factual concessions by the Crown, [you’ve] read the apologies, you begin to realise the wrongs that have been committed. You begin to get a good understanding of the facts. The Crown promised to protect ‘the unqualified exercise of … [Māori] chieftainship over their lands, [over their] villages and … treasures’. But it not only failed to perform that obligation—it went out of its way to breach it. We must acknowledge that failure and that breach, and remain committed to putting things right. My perspective on how to put things right is fundamentally a centre-right one. It asks the question: Why does the government think it knows best? The government makes heaps of mistakes. I was in there for years. I saw; I know. So, I don’t think that government has all the answers, and I agree with Ronald Reagan that, so often, government is the problem.”

I want to acknowledge all of those councils that stood behind you on this journey. E ai ki te whakataukī, mā te huruhuru ka rere te manu.

[According to the proverb, it is the feathers that enable the bird to fly.]

It was the Christchurch City Council that fronted up and said that they wholeheartedly support this. It was the Hurunui District Council that put in their vote of confidence as well. But it was the Selwyn District Council that I was really listening to when they said, “Mana whenua representation on the regional council will strengthen the strategic partnerships in Canterbury between the papatipu rūnanga and local government.” The regional council has been clear that the benefits of mana whenua representation at the council table include greater efficiency in planning and consenting processes, and, also, reduced costs for the council and consent applicants, and improved enforcement decisions. Today is your day. We’re here to celebrate it. I commend my whanaunga here, and my colleague Rino Tirikatene—I see your mum and your sister up in the House there, e hoa, and they should be very proud of you. Today is a good day. We stand by you, and we support you on this journey. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, mauri ora ki a tātou katoa.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe, tēnā koutou katoa. Tuatahi ake ka tika me mihi ki a koutou a Ngāi Tahu me ngā maunga, ngā awa, ngā whenua o Te Wai Pounamu, kei te mihi kei te mihi.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, greetings one and all. First and foremost it is appropriate that I should acknowledge you, of Ngāi Tahu, and the mountains, the rivers and lands of the South Island of New Zealand, greetings, greetings.]

I’m really pleased to take a call on behalf of the Green Party on the third reading of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. Can I congratulate the bill’s sponsor, Rino Tirikatene, for his work in shepherding it through Parliament, and can I acknowledge the very strong presence in the Speaker’s gallery of Ngāi Tahu whānui, representatives of the Papatipu Rūnanga, and the rangatira and New Zealander of the Year Tā Tīpene O’Regan. Can I also acknowledge the chair of Environment Canterbury, Jenny Hughey; the Tumu Taiao, Iaean Cranwell and Yvette Couch-Lewis; the delegation of councillors from Environment Canterbury; and support staff from both Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Environment Canterbury.

The Green Party is really proud to support this bill because it recognises and helps implement the Te Tiriti partnership in Aotearoa New Zealand’s largest and second-most popular region of Waitaha Canterbury—the 45,000 square kilometres of Canterbury. It provides for representation of Ngāi Tahu as mana whenua, as a decision maker and not just an adviser at the table, and it’s critical because it strengthens democracy. It doesn’t diminish it, as the National Party is alleging. It strengthens it because it’s adding two additional representatives at the council table, ensuring that there will be a strong voice for Ngāi Tahu and active participation in decisions there.

Having mana whenua at the table is critically important for regional councils because, of course, they’ve got statutory responsibility under the Resource Management Act for management of te taiao—fresh water—the awa, the lakes, coastal waters, the soils, land, and also the air. So given the significance of te taiao in Te Ao Māori for the identity of mana whenua, for their culture, traditions, and for providing mahinga kai, it’s critical that Ngāi Tahu as mana whenua have a strong voice in decisions about the management of te taiao, and, of course, as the previous speaker Tāmati Coffey noted, the whole Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act—the apology that the Crown made—affirmed Ngāi Tahu’s special association with Canterbury’s natural environment. This bill, and the representation it provides, recognises that special association.

It is nonsense for National MPs to claim that this is diminishing democracy or that it’s advantaging Ngāi Tahu, because, as the Attorney-General noted in his report, no other comparator group is currently recognised by Government as having the association that Ngāi Tahu has with the Canterbury region. So there’s no other person or group that is going to be materially disadvantaged by this bill.

It’s also nonsense for National to claim that there hasn’t been consultation. There were some 1,600 submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee, and the committee very carefully considered the bill and those submissions. So the whole—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What was the balance?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: “What was the balance?” Mr Brownlee is asking. The National Party is whipping up misinformation and misrepresentation about this bill. It is scaremongering. That is diminishing democracy; not this bill.

The spam campaign that the National Party has been involved in, with over a million emails coming into members of Parliament—being fearful about this bill is what diminishes democracy, and I have said in response to some of those constituents who have emailed that they should go and read some history. They should understand that in Canterbury we are on land that Ngāi Tahu ended up having taken from them. That’s the basis of the claim. People need to learn the history of colonisation, the impacts of colonisation, and what this bill is doing to shape a democracy, a future for Aotearoa that is based on Te Tiriti as our constitutional foundation. I really acknowledge Tā Tīpene O’Regan, who has spent his life building biculturalism, building the connections between Te Ao Māori and Te Ao Pākehā. This is at the heart of this bill. It’s collective amnesia on behalf of the National Party for failing to recognise that.

Of course, the only good thing that came out of their stripping away of democracy in 2010 was the appointment of two members of Ngāi Tahu as commissioners to Environment Canterbury. It has been the work that those two representatives did and that the Tumu Taiao have done since which should reassure anybody who has concerns about this bill, because this bill is about ensuring that we don’t have decisions such as those made by the former Banks Peninsula County Council at Takapūneke to have a waste-water plant and a rubbish tip sited on a place that is so significant in the history of Aotearoa and where hundreds died. Those decisions were made because there was no Ngāi Tahu voice at the table.

This bill is about strengthening democracy. It’s about making good decisions which represent the mosaic, the cultural diversity of our society and culture, and is about building a stronger future. I was one of the regional councillors that was removed by Ministers Rodney Hide and Nick Smith in 2010. The only good thing that came out of having the commissioners that were appointed, because the National Government was concerned about how the council was increasing the flows in rivers like the Waimakariri to better restore their mauri and their health, was the active involvement of Ngāi Tahu. We have also seen it in the rebuilding of Christchurch after the earthquakes and the strong involvement of Ngāi Tahu in creating a new identity for our city which recognises our diversity, and this bill is part of that.

The Green Party strongly supports democratic representation through elected councillors and effective representation. The National Party gets hung up on equal representation, not effective representation. So we need options like the one this bill is creating to ensure that we’ve got that fair and effective representation of Māori constituents, and we ensure that the views of mana whenua are considered and a vital part of decision making. It will lead to better decisions. It will recognise that Ngāi Tahu once owned all of the land in Canterbury, and that will strengthen and not undermine democracy.

Nō reira, ko mātou o te Pāti Kākāriki e tautoko ana i tēnei āhuatanga, te mahi tahi me ngā mana whenua mō te oranga o te taiao. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[Therefore, we of the Green Party support this aspect, the collaboration with the people with authority over the land for the benefit of the environment. Greetings, greetings, greetings one and all, be well one and all.]

SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā rawa atu ki a koe. Kaupeka ki runga, kaupeka ki raro, kūī, kūī, whiti ora e! E mihi ana ki ngā rangi, e mihi ana ngā whenua he mihi ki ngā maunga o Ngāi Tahu, tēnā rawa atu ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, nau mai haere mai.

[Mr Speaker, warm greetings to you. Kaupeka above, and below, alive and flourishing! Greetings to the skies, greetings to the land, greetings to the mountains of Ngāi Tahu, a warm greeting to you, welcome, welcome.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s wonderful this afternoon to put my voice, my thoughts, my opinions, and my aspirations to the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill.

I haven’t shared it too often, but I have a middle name; it is “Kiritea”. It came about because I had a wonderful name gifted from my grandfather Iria I Te Rangi—a beautiful name that has followed many generations in my family. I come from a wonderful father with heritage from Ngāti Whitikaupeka Rongowhakaata, and I have a beautiful mother, European by descent, yea high, blonde, blue-eyed. So that comes together that, when I was born, I came out quite fair, with blonde hair, slightly brown skin, and was gifted the name “Kiritea” simply because Iria I Te Rangi was too Māori for such a fair boy. In some ways, that is a travesty—a travesty that such a strong generational name was taken away from me. Similarly taken was my language, my opportunity in life to grow up being Māori and European, but also growing up being Māori, having access to my reo, having access to my culture, having access to my whānau, and here, at the age of 40, I’m still learning te reo Māori today, still reconnecting with my whakapapa, still reconnecting with my whānau back in Mōkai Pātea, and still attempting to settle the whenua that was taken from my family.

I tell this story because I find the particular conversation around co-governance, I find the negativity, the tension with these types of conversations, personally challenging, because, ki tēnei taha, my beautiful mum, blonde, blue-eyed, beautiful European whānau that I lovely dearly, and on that side, ki tērā taha, my Māori whānau, who desperately wish that we had all the joys in the world, the knowledge, the mātauranga to be uniquely who we are, to have the voice that we absolutely want to have. And that tension runs deep, and as I sit here listening to the debate in the House this afternoon, I feel the tension across my brow, I look at the whānau up there, I look at my colleagues across the room, and I look at our members here in Labour, and this is one moment in time why I joined this party, why I got involved in politics, because I believe that our country, Aotearoa New Zealand, can be better. That’s what I signed up for. That’s what we signed up for, and that’s what they signed up for. And that is what our whānau want.

Those are the types of things that, as politicians, we stand up for what we believe in. We stand up for the change and the things that matter, and I look to this particular bill, and I think that this bill will empower Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to appoint two members to their council after the 2019 elections—two members. So there will be 16 members on council—16. So, when we discuss democracy, in our minds, democracy to some people is purely about numbers and votes. Democracy is about representation of people. It is about the representation of all people—

Simon Court: You’re here because people voted.

SHANAN HALBERT: —representation of all people—and comments like that are arrogant. They are ignorant, and they do not stand up for the challenges that Māori face to stand and represent in this House. It is not an equal system and by no means did any Māori have an easy pathway to get here. I look to Tāmaki-makau-rau, where I am from, and that’s the example, whānau mā, that I draw from. I think of the law that they changed, across the room, back in 2009, when they established the super city. They put in place the Māori Statutory Board, which aimed to improve the representation of Māori, the voice of Māori across Tāmaki-makau-rau, in the growing city that we are. We wanted Māori to be a part of that discussion, not left behind.

Simon Court: A good idea.

SHANAN HALBERT: Now, that was 13 years ago. It was a very good idea—it was a very good idea. In my time in Tāmaki-makau-rau, I have had the blessings and joys of seeing that growth of our city, our biculturalism, our stories and mātauranga of mana whenua in that city. It is imprinted in that city now to the extent that across new buildings and infrastructure, in transport, we see Māori designs everywhere, from mana whenua, so that all of our tamariki, our generations to come, will see their imprint across the infrastructure of our city. That’s not just hopes, aspirations, and ideologies; that is the beauty of Aotearoa New Zealand, where we stand here together—that we uniquely acknowledge and accept all of our voices to be heard. If we seek to look at democracy as purely one vote—one vote per person, a mathematical equation—that is not going to achieve the representation that we seek as a country. That is not going to make us richer in the Aotearoa New Zealand that we all aspire for our tamariki mokopuna, for our children and young people, moving forward.

What this bill does is enable local authorities to promote legislative change at a local level. This is Ngāi Tahu, this is Canterbury, uniquely identifying a representative system that they believe in, that they believe helps fulfil their aspirations. If anyone in this House believes that it doesn’t meet the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, you are factually wrong. This bill has been through that process. It is within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—

Tim van de Molen: Everyone’s entitled to your opinion!

SHANAN HALBERT: It’s not my opinion. I have been through the process, and that misinformation from the ACT Party must stop. That is wrong, Simon Court.

Simon Court: Point of order. The member was referring to that statement as if it was made by the ACT Party. I just want to correct the record. That statement was not.

SHANAN HALBERT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge that. My point is that the misinformation that is shared around whether it’s this bill or whether it’s co-governance or whether it’s three waters—now is the time for our country to embrace the rich culture, representation, and equity that this country truly deserves. It’s about setting us up now for our tamariki mokopuna, for our future generations. But here we’re sweating two appointed members to a council, out of 16, and if we’re really concerned—if we’re really concerned—what’s lost? What is lost here? It is only the things that are gained for Canterbury, the things that are gained for Kai Tahu to fulfil their aspirations, their wawata, the things that they want for their rohe, for their iwi. This bill would have the effect of reinstating the mana whenua representation on Canterbury Regional Council, and that is an important thing. The misinformation, the negativity needs to end. Kia tau. We need to ensure that we have the best democratic models to set us up for a beautiful—a beautiful—inclusive future. Nō reira, e mihi ana ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu who are present here today; Tā Tipene O’Regan and Kaiwhakahaere Lisa Tumahai.

I want to start by just acknowledging some of the concerns that we have heard expressed in this House from the member sponsoring the bill, Rino Tirikatene, and from others, about why it’s important, they think, that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu has two unelected representatives on the Canterbury Regional Council—Environment Canterbury. I just want to quote from an article which Lisa Tumahai published today, I believe: “We care deeply about our wai Māori … mahinga kai … [our awa] … taonga native species which have been passed down from our tīpuna … and will be the inheritance we are … bound to leave for future generations”. Well, I want to acknowledge that, because I also share those passions, those concerns, and want to pass on a clean environment with all of the natural resources that are important to all New Zealanders, to all those who come after us.

I’d also like to acknowledge another point that Lisa Tumahai made: “one example of kaitiakitanga and co-governance in action, at nearby Te Waihora (Lake Ellesmere) … partnered with [Environment Canterbury] and other agencies to protect this tribally and nationally significant site and halt the destruction of nearby wetlands.” Well, that is also something that many New Zealanders, particularly people like myself who have a passion for ecology, the natural environment, for fishing, for hunting, for just being out there in the bush and soaking up the smells and all of the things that nature gives us—we are also passionate about protecting these places and work in our communities. So we have that in common.

But where we depart is that, at its heart, this bill fails the test of democratic legitimacy. This bill overturns that by appointing two members from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to an otherwise—otherwise—democratically elected and accountable council. It gives Ngāi Tahu—who have, I understand, from statistics I’ve researched, 15,600-odd members in the region—two representatives for those 15,600, while it gives the other 630,000 people only 14 councillors, elected by universal suffrage. So it creates a disproportionate representation if we’re considering the number of people represented, even if you thought it was a good idea to appoint unelected people to have decision making on a council.

So Ngāi Tahu directors, we understand, who will be most likely the ones appointed to Canterbury Regional Council, are required to act in the interests of their corporation. There is going to be a real conflict of interest. It will come up, and I think it needs to be acknowledged. It needs to be on the record here. So this is not something that we’ve canvassed at length. We understand the core responsibility of Te Rūnanga representatives, as outlined in their charter as follows: they have a fundamental duty to administer the assets and liabilities as kaitiaki for Ngāi Tahu Whānui. In performing those duties, they must “act in good faith and in a manner that the Rūnanga Representative … believes on reasonable grounds is in the best interests of Ngāi Tahu Whānui as a whole”—the best interests of Ngāi Tahu Whānui as a whole. So that’s clear. That is their charter. That is their right to have that charter.

Then it goes on. In 8.2 of the charter, “Collective interests of Ngāi Tahu Whānui”, the representatives agree not to “act in a manner which unfairly prejudices or … discriminates against any particular Papatipu Rūnanga [against] that Rūnanga Representative … believes on reasonable grounds that [there is a] fundamental duty … [which] requires such action”.

That actually clashes with the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968, which makes it clear that elected members must not vote or take part in any council discussion if they have a pecuniary interest in the discussion. Elected members must be disqualified from such discussions. Now, what we understand about Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is that they also, as a group, operate a very successful business that has commercial interests in forestry, farming, and they’re seeking to have resource development opportunities in what is currently Department of Conservation stewardship land. In fact, they were able to provide the only serious economic analysis and viewpoint from a commercial perspective of the proposed review of stewardship land, to which many, many people who operate in the commercial sector are grateful that they have provided that perspective.

But let’s be clear; appointing two representatives from a large organisation, which is a very successful business organisation, a very successful organisation, on to a democratically elected council who is tasked with making plans and rules and making decisions over how people use their land, making decisions as to how public funds collected from ratepayers and taxpayers are used. Appointing unelected people on to what would otherwise be a council of 14 elected people is fundamentally wrong. It is not a legitimate way to operate a democracy.

Another concern that’s been raised is there was no referendum of Canterbury voters. There was no test. One of the Labour members has pointed out that they’ve received tens of thousands of emails, tens of thousands from people in Canterbury, concerned. I want to read you one. “This legislation will not tweak representation. It will instead destroy foundational principles of democratic accountability and equal suffrage”. It goes on—it goes on to raise more of the points that I’ve raised. Now, you know, there are other New Zealanders, tens of thousands of them in Canterbury, who’ve drawn the same conclusions that I have, the same conclusions that other people from other parties in Opposition have spoken about today. They’re drawing those conclusions because that’s how they see the evidence before them.

So what problem is this bill trying to solve? Is it about having representation from Ngāi Tahu, the iwi whose takiwā includes all of the parts of the South Island, with the wonderful mountain ranges and the great rivers? Because poor decisions in the past have been made about water and natural resources? Well, that’s certainly a part of it, and poor decisions have been made. Is it about how resources are allocated, whether they be minerals, whether they be access to land for forestry and farming? Well, it’s certainly a part of it. But this bill doesn’t solve any of those things. All it really does is create a sense of angst and anxiety amongst many, many people that actually this is another attack on democracy, which this Government has specialised in. They’ve specialised in it.

So what would ACT do? Well, look, the member who spoke, the member from Auckland, Mr Halbert, spoke about the Independent Māori Statutory Board which was established when Auckland Council, the super-city, was established, which gives mana whenua in Auckland two seats at the table so that they can give advice as to what’s important to mana whenua. There is absolutely no reason why a similar provision can’t be made for Environment Canterbury, because it is important to hear the voice of mana whenua. I myself, as a civil and environmental engineer, have presented to mana whenua forums in Auckland explaining why pieces of infrastructure—certain issues around water quality—need to be resolved, and seeking their feedback. It’s important.

But, look, what would ACT do? Well, ACT would repeal this bill, when we are in Government. We believe, actually, that you must seek popular agreement. If you want to change the electoral system, we need to go back to the people of Canterbury and ask them what they want. The people of Canterbury should have the right to vote for their councillors, those councillors who spend ratepayers’ money on their behalf, and who make decisions about how resources are allocated, who gets consents, and who gets the water. Fundamentally, ACT opposes this bill because it’s not democratic.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and to Ngāi Tahu, tēnā koutou katoa. You will know that Te Wai Pounamu is not my home. It’s always a lovely place to visit and experience. For me, in the context of Cook Islands Language Week—as we know, my home on one part of my family is back in the Cook Islands, the island of Aitutaki. Kia orana. But I hope to bring to this debate this afternoon my experience in local government for 10 years prior to coming to this Parliament. But before I do, I do want to place on record an apology to our visitors in the gallery this afternoon for listening to some of the comments that have been made by parliamentary colleagues on the other side of the House that, in my view, are out of line and unnecessary.

Mr Court has made some comments—and it’s no surprises there; it continues with the ACT Party’s approach of being on a one-track mind in terms of where they are heading. The suggestion that these changes will introduce disproportionate representation I cannot fathom, because this leads to increased, improved, and advancement on representation within a local community context.

The suggestion that Ngāi Tahu directors will fill up to two seats around the council table—that is a matter for Ngāi Tahu. That is a matter for them to consider who the best individuals will be to represent their communities around a local decision-making table that represents communities of interest. The suggestion from the ACT Party and from Mr Court that Māori can’t manage conflicts of interest I find absolutely abhorrent. I find those comments and that view absolutely abhorrent. What an insult, not only to our visitors but to others around the motu who can manage conflicts of interest around many, many council tables, many board tables around our community. He, in his own suggestion, indicates that Ngāi Tahu, from a business perspective, is a successful organisation, so one would think that any successful organisation is able to manage conflicts of interest. However, this bill will empower Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to appoint up to two members to the council following local elections.

This is a local bill, and I want to acknowledge my colleague Rino Tirikatene for doing what actually is his job. He is the local member. This is a local bill. There is a defined process that’s actually outlined in the in the Standing Orders of this Parliament, and he has approached that as any good local member should, would, and has done, so I want to acknowledge his work in this space.

It’s interesting, because there are suggestions around that what’s going to happen today, this afternoon, this evening is somehow representative of a Government agenda to implement Māori representatives across all of regional governments nationally by way of a local bill. Well, that’s not something that can be achieved by way of a local bill. A local bill—and I know because I have a local bill on the Order Paper today, the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill—is something that’s defined in terms of dealing with a local issue.

Actually, I have to say that I reflected on some comments with my own local bill, and there was a fellow parliamentarian who, on the Hansard, says, “what’s known as a local bill—[it’s] relatively rare in the processes of our Parliament, but [is] quite an important tool for local government to sometimes address issue that are significant in terms of their inability to move things forward.”—an important tool for local government to address issues that are significant in terms of an inability to move things forward. That was a comment on the Hansard just this year from Hon Scott Simpson, the member opposite, who clearly has an understanding of what a local bill is. So I, again, congratulate my colleague Rino Tirikatene for bringing this to the House.

This was also an arrangement that was first put in place by the National Government back in 2010. I want to acknowledge Hon Eugenie Sage for reminding the House that an ACT Minister at the time, Rodney Hide, also had a hand to play in this. So isn’t it interesting that we get to the third reading this afternoon and the National Party and the ACT Party have made it very clear to everyone in the Parliament that they are not supportive of what this local bill is seeking to achieve? It’s good enough for them at a particular time and place, but it’s not good enough for them here and now. I think that is an absolute disgrace on the part of the National Party and the ACT Party as well, because since 2010, everything points to a significant level of achievement, given the involvement of that mana whenua voice when it comes to environmental issues and environmental matters of concern.

One of the interesting things that I’ve had a look at as part of the select committee process—and I want to acknowledge colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee that progressed this bill—is the bill in its current form comes with a number of amendments in terms of remuneration, and the suggestion that we would be, or anyone in this particular space would be taking money out of an existing pool to fund two additional members. Those that are involved in local government, including yourself formerly, Mr Speaker, will know that that can be a very divisive process, a group of councillors working out how much money each individual is going to be paid based on the responsibilities that they have. The appointment of these additional two members is quite separate, and so I note that the select committee did identify that as a particular change in the bill moving forward.

When it comes to local government, there are three types, generally, of councils: a regional council, a local territorial authority, and a unitary council. Now, I’m familiar with the local territorial council because that’s where I’ve come from—things like playgrounds, roads, all of those sorts of things; very important things. Whereas the regional context is generally about the environment, some talk about public transport and the like. So what I think about is: how appropriate or not is it to have mana whenua involved in a decision-making process for a local community that has a huge impact on the local environment? I think, actually, the answer on this side of the House is really clear, and that’s that it’s extremely significant, it’s extremely important, and it is the right thing to do, particularly given the fact that Ngāi Tahu holds the rangatiratanga or the tribal authority for over 80 percent of Te Wai Pounamu, or, as we know, the South Island—a significant role. Is it too much to ask to have two members—up to two members—who would be guaranteed seats around that table—

Matt Doocey: Already there.

TANGI UTIKERE: —to participate in discussions, to take on their responsibilities? The members opposite say, “Yes, it is.” Well, again, that is an outright shame that that’s the view that some members of this House have.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: A Cantabrian as well.

TANGI UTIKERE: We are—and a Cantabrian as well. Well, doesn’t that hit to the heart. I mean—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Shameful.

TANGI UTIKERE: It is shameful. So on this side of the House, we are about empowering local communities and acknowledging that, actually, local communities need to decide for themselves, in many respects, matters that are important to them. So I congratulate, again, the local member for doing his job and bringing this bill to the House.

Outlined in the legislation, which is the Local Government Act, which overrides all of these considerations in terms of the scope and the context—it kind of outlines what the responsibilities and roles and duties will be. What’s really disappointing is that up until this point in time, Ngāi Tahu have, I don’t know, sat at the table, sat alongside the table, maybe filled the seat, but for the last couple or two or three years, they haven’t actually been fully part of the decision-making table. This local bill will change that. It will give them the opportunity to sit where they deserve to be, to participate in a local decision-making process over many environmental points of interests that are important to them and their rohe.

There are many aspects that other members have canvassed as part of their contributions today, and I just want to also note the contribution that Eugenie Sage has made, because she has been a member of this local authority, and so she comes from a perspective where she clearly sees what difference this will make, from where that particular entity has come from and the future, the bright future that will now be in place, because this is a bill that will pass through the Parliament today. That means it is a day to rejoice and celebrate, because local democracy is being returned to the people of Canterbury, but more specifically to the people who Ngāi Tahu represent. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia orana koutou katoa.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party to oppose the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill in its third reading. Can I acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Rino Tirikatene, Tā Tīpene O’Regan, and Ngāi Tahu, who are here today. Can I acknowledge Ngāi Tahu as mana whenua of the Waimakariri electorate and I acknowledge the proud history between Ngāi Tahu and the National Party.

This is a debate, so I don’t want to trot out the lines that some people have for the last hour and a half. I want to respond to some points, and Tangi Utikere, that last member who took his seat, apologised for some of the comments being made in this House. I do not believe any apology is needed. That is the reason why we have this Chamber—for debating the issues. It is a House of Representatives for all views to come into this House.

Shanan Halbert, quite rightly, in his speech talked about the tensions and how challenging it is. Well, that’s exactly right—that’s what politics should be. We are grappling with the big issues and it is uncomfortable at times.

I think the National Party has been very clear that we don’t disagree with representation around the table at Environment Canterbury (ECan) from Ngāi Tahu. It’s about this bill that’s been brought in as a local bill. The reason it’s a local bill is because it does not change primary legislation. If this is such a good thing, why is it not coming in as a Government bill to change the Local Government Act 2002?

The reason why there is heated debate is because this Government did not stand on this mandate at the last election. In their words, they’re tweaking and changing democracy without the debate. ECan introduced this bill without consultation with their local communities, so that’s why we are having this debate, and this debate is: why are we having a local bill that will allow these changes in New Zealand’s democracy?

Quite rightly, the National Party is standing up for what it believes in. I don’t think anyone would expect any different. That is the reason we are in this House—because we stand on values and then we stand up for the values.

I’ll give you a quote, if we want to talk about what happened in ECan with the appointed commissioners. Here’s a quote: “There was never any justification for why Canterbury should be the only region that doesn’t get to elect its regional council. National is out of touch with local people’s desire to have a say in the people who will take their region forward. I urge all parties in Parliament to support this bill and restore democracy in Canterbury.” That was from the Hon Dr Megan Woods. So the shoe’s on the other foot now, and that’s why we’ve been very clear about what we stand up for.

I actually believe there are a lot of commonalities in this debate. I want to draw reference to my parliamentary colleague Rino Tirikatene, who talked about the evolution in New Zealand, and it is an evolution.

If I can briefly tell a personal story, I had quite a milestone birthday with my dad recently. There was a large group of people, and my six-year-old son, after the speeches, came up to me and said, “Dad, can I sing ‘Happy Birthday’?” It blew me away. A six-year-old boy—I didn’t think he’d have the confidence. We gave him the microphone—“Rā whānau ki a koe”—and he sang in te reo. Then, the next day, I heard him talk to my daughter and say, “Oh, I’m half-Irish, Mum’s half-Hungarian, and I’m half-Māori.” His older sister said, “You can’t be part-Māori.”, and he said, “Yes, I am, because I speak te reo.”

This is the next generation coming up, and each generation will have those shared stories. But that does not allow a Government that has had this bill voted down in a previous term decide that, now, we are in a one-party State. They can bring any legislation in and they’ve denied it will change law around the country, but we’ve also heard from speakers who’ve said that this will pave the way for the rest of New Zealand. This is not the right way to bring in legislation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): May I first begin by acknowledging the leaders of Papatipu Rūnanga and Tā Tipene O’Regan. Your presence here is a welcome blessing to us, and thank you for being here. I always want to acknowledge my colleague Rino Tirikatene for bringing this bill to the House. Thank you for your work, my friend. He uri ahau nō tawhiti, ka mihi ahau ki tēnei whenua me ōna uri. Ko Sarah Pallett tēnei e mihi ana ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[My origins are in distant lands but I pay tribute to this land and its descendants. My name is Sarah Pallett and I offer my greetings to you, my greetings to you all.]

As we’ve heard, the bill that is before us this afternoon is a bill that will empower Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to appoint up to two members to the council after the local elections. This is a local bill that the Canterbury Regional Council, colloquially known as ECan, has requested that Rino Tirikatene take to Parliament, as he has done. And, as we’ve heard, local bills enable local authorities to enable legislative change at a local level. It only applies to the Canterbury Regional Council at their request.

Now, since 2020, Environment Canterbury has had two wonderful Tumu Taiao who have been appointed and assist with council decision-making. They sit at the council table and make valuable contributions. But they do not have voting rights, which is: they’re sitting at the table but they’re not able to eat. And this bill is seeking to address that.

There’s been substantial support for this bill. In their submission, the Selwyn District Council commented, and I quote, “The approach in this bill to mana whenua representation at a regional governance level is a straightforward and effective way to give effect to basic obligations under current resource management legislation and Local Government Act 2002.” Obligation—please remember that word.

For Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke Rāpaki, this bill is of great significance, because, and again I’m quoting from their submission, “It provides certainty that the values and concerns of mana whenua, as the Crown’s Tiriti partner, are given expression in the Crown’s decision making and the exercise of functions by the Crown and its agencies.” Tiriti partner—again, bear that in mind.

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu submitted that “while there is still a journey to be completed to full partnership and improved environmental outcomes, the distance that has been travelled since 2010 is significant.” “We believe”, they said, “that it is in no small measure as a result of this governance relationship, and reinstating direct Ngāi Tahu representation on council will ensure a continuation of that journey to full partnership.”—that word again.

Concerns are occasionally raised in this House about New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance, and comparisons have been made occasionally in other speeches earlier between this bill and examples where other bills are not found to be compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, so I’d just like to emphasise, yet again, that the Attorney-General’s legal advice to this House was, and I’m going to sum up: “We have concluded that the bill appears to be consistent with that Act.” So no concerns there.

The Treaty of Waitangi settlement agreed putting Ngāi Tahu in the Crown in November 1997, and acknowledged the rangatiratanga and mana of Ngāi Tahu over their lands—also acknowledged by Environment Canterbury—and affirmed their special association with the natural environment in a number of areas. And Selwyn District Council drew attention to part of the Crown apology read earlier, delivered when the Crown sought to begin the process of healing and to enter a new age of cooperation with Ngāi Tahu.

Healing from what, some might ask? Let me refer you to the Hon Chris Finlayson, John Key’s Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, a member of the National Party, who said recently, in E-Tangata, “Once you’ve read the factual concessions by the Crown, read the apologies, you begin to realise the wrongs that have been committed. The Crown promised to protect ‘the unqualified exercise of … [Māori] chieftainship over their lands, villages, and … treasures.’ But it not only failed to perform that obligation—it went out of its way to breach it.” This bill is one step towards remedying that, and I commend it to the House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): My contribution this afternoon is not going to be, in its end, any different to the commentary that has been offered by other National speakers today, but I do want to start by acknowledging Ngāi Tahu, and particularly Sir Tīpene O’Regan, and the many other leaders who are here today.

I was in the House at the time of the settlement back in 1997. And I don’t resile from any of the commentary that was read out by Tāmati Coffey as he quoted from that apology. I was also here when there was the bill passed by our Government—or should I say, by a Government in this House—protecting pounamu as being exclusive to Ngāi Tahu. And I was here too when there was the commissioners appointed into Environment Canterbury (ECan). And the rationale for that—and I was a strong arguer for it—was that we were taking away broad representation that might be achieved through a ballot box, and deciding who it was who, for a time, would be placed with that responsibility to remedy some of the problems that ECan was beset with at the time; notwithstanding some of the attempts to write history again here today. I was also the recovery Minister in Christchurch, and was very strongly of a view that Ngāi Tahu should be recorded as statutory partners in that recovery. Each of those, though, are separate things and separate incidents that needed to have a different approach taken to it.

This bill is very bad process, as my colleague Mr Doocey previously pointed out, and I have in other stages of this bill. Why isn’t it on the Order Paper as a Government bill, so that it does become primary legislation? Perhaps a primary legislation with a schedule in it that makes the same offer to every other council, without the need to come through what is, essentially, a backdoor process.

I do want to acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Rino Tirikatene: a fine gentleman, someone who I’d consider to be a friend, although not a close one because of our political differences on other matters, but a man who is undervalued in this Parliament in my view. And I think nothing in my view would do anything other than respect the fact that you have brought the bill on behalf of those who ask for it. The question is: what was the basis for their asking for it? Where was their representation respected in the question they might have asked about those who sent them to sit around that table? It’s non-existent. And I think that is also a problem.

I want to talk about some of the co-governance arrangements that were made by our Government and by previous Labour Governments. Those are arrangements that have endured, that work, that are totally appropriate. They are specific to circumstances in this country. They are geographic locations, institutions, whatever you might like to take as being almost separate to the primary purpose of either central or local government—totally appropriate. And I think we’ll see a lot more of it in the years to come, and that will be good. I am not Ngāi Tahu, I’m not Māori, but I recognise Ngāi Tahu as being mana whenua in the only place that I can call home. And like many others, I have very close family who are Ngāi Tahu. So it’s not an issue about Ngāi Tahu versus everybody else. It is an issue about the principles of how the law in this country is constructed, and how it should be implemented.

I am surprised by some of the claims today that this is an imperative Treaty issue. Well, one of the imperatives of the Treaty was that it did respect the law. It was signed by many because there was a desire to have that law. And I just get a little bit annoyed by some of the unreasonable emotion that gets put on to it, particularly the commentary before from a speaker who I won’t name, talking about the extra emotion and sort of hype and everything that goes around this. Well, I haven’t engaged in any of that, but I do think that there is a proper process that we should be following.

I don’t need to take up the entire 10 minutes allocated on this particular topic, because I do think that once it is passed—and I acknowledge that it is going to pass today—the real point will be where do we go from here? And I have deep personal regret that there seems to be an apparent breakdown between the relationship of my political party and Ngāi Tahu. And I think there is, perhaps, not a deep enough understanding on either part about where either party might be coming from.

So can I finish just by saying that there has always been, since 1840, conflict over all sorts of littleish aspects of life in this country that shouldn’t exist. Some years ago I was the chairman of the Riccarton Bush Trust that administers a piece of land that I think is correctly named Pūtaringamotu. And when that remnant of native bush was being put into a management plan that we were very keen on—I remember that they used to mow underneath that bush so that you could see from one side to the other, completely destroying the fauna and flora that was underneath it. So a management plan was being put in place and we consulted with Ngāi Tahu, asked them if they wanted a representative on the trust, etc. And the answer came back “no”, and that wasn’t necessary. When the management plan was launched, it was Rick Tau who came and was the representative for the occasion on which that document was launched. What I remember him saying is that when the English came to Canterbury, both the Presbyterians who were in Riccarton and the Māori who were all over the rohe got done over. And I’ve got to say immediately that is not a Catholic having a go at the Anglicans and the Presbyterians, it is simply an acknowledgment that there has been a long time where there have been dealings that aren’t appropriate. But I don’t think for one minute that you can rectify all of that history by setting aside some of the good aspects that were achieved through the agreement of the Treaty, and use a process like this where there has not been the sort of public debate that there should be.

As for the suggestion that there’s been some sort of a massive effort to put out a whole lot of misinformation, I want to make it very clear, I’ve had no part in anything like that. It is simply a matter of there not being the following of a process that there should be, and a real question about why the Government, who have had speaker after speaker today stand up and say how wonderful this is, not have it in primary legislation with a schedule enabling others to participate.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou rangatahi. Tēnā koutou mana whenua. Tēnā koutou whaea. Tēnā koutou rangatahi and tēnā koutou tamariki. [Greetings, Mr Speaker. Greetings, young people. Greetings to the people with authority over the land. Greetings, ladies. Greetings, young people and children.]

I also want to just acknowledge the Ngāi Tahu tūpuna and the long struggle that Ngāi Tahu have had to get some restoration to the place that they once occupied.

I’ve heard many of the speeches and I don’t intend to repeat everything that’s been said today, but I do want to just lay out the foundations of why this legislation is entirely appropriate and why it’s, in fact, an enhancement of our democratic and deliberative processes.

Ngāi Tahu, as we know, are signatories to Te Tiriti, and the Treaty promised rangatiratanga to iwi. We know now, quite clearly, that that promise in Te Tiriti has not been adhered to. That promise was to give rangatiratanga over whenua, over kāinga, and over taonga—in the loose translation of the English version, over lands, forests, fisheries, and all things precious to iwi. We know that the transactions, such as they were, by which Ngāi Tahu lost their lands and the things that were precious to them, weren’t just, that they weren’t honest, and that the Crown acted unconscionably. All that is acknowledged.

I know my friend and colleague Tāmati Coffey has referred to the Crown apology, but it’s worth emphasising that it absolutely recognises, embodied in legislation, that there was a breach of article 2, that the Crown failed to preserve and to protect Ngāi Tahu, and it failed to protect the ownership of their land and possessions. Moreover, it failed to acknowledge Ngāi Tahu’s rangatiratanga and mana over the South Island, in the land within its boundaries, and failed in fulfilment—the Crown failed in fulfilment of its Treaty obligations in recognising Ngāi Tahu as tangata whenua. In doing so, in entering into the Treaty settlement legislation, the Crown said, in its apology, that it wanted to enter into a new age of co-operation with Ngāi Tahu. Those words are from the apology itself.

There can never be full restoration; we know that. The Treaty settlement process acknowledges that. But that’s not to say that we shouldn’t continue to strive to engage with a genuine and real partnership with Ngāi Tahu and all Treaty partners. That’s what we’re doing here today. We’re looking not at an ossified system, a system that is stuck in old ways, but exploring new ways and innovative ways, ways which recognise the rangatiratanga of Ngāi Tahu, both in respect of the land and the treasures on and in the land, and also the treasures that are Ngāi Tahu and their tikanga.

We know, then, that the claims settlement Act recognised in many places the importance of co-governance, the important place that Ngāi Tahu has to play in having a special voice in respect of this custodianship of the land. And we know that, as Mr Brownlee has mentioned, the insights that Ngāi Tahu could provide was recognised in the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act, when two Ngāi Tahu representatives were put on the board of Environment Canterbury (ECan), appointed by Ngāi Tahu. I think it’s important to recognise that—that this is not Government or anyone else imposing on Ngāi Tahu who or how those people are selected, but to simply say: we want you to have a voice, a real voice, a voice that’s equal with every other councillor’s around the table, and do it your way; use your rules, your tikanga. I think that’s important.

I think it’s really important as well to say that this isn’t about—if I can be a little selfish, it isn’t just about giving something special to Ngāi Tahu; it’s giving something special to Canterbury. And that’s important, because I’m confident that ECan will be a better, more thoughtful, stronger and more deliberative organisation with those voices around the table. I’m not saying that out of some hope, but if we look to the ECan documentation that underlines this bill and the policy paper they had, they said, in respect of having Ngāi Tahu at the table, that the practical benefits of mana whenua representation in Canterbury were rapidly and widely recognised during the nine years it was in place. These benefits include greater efficiency in planning and consenting, reduced costs for the council and consent applicants, and improved enforcement decisions. I’ll have that! That sounds pretty damn good to me. That’s a benefit that falls not just to Ngāi Tahu but to all of Canterbury. We will have better outcomes, better environmental outcomes, and better outcomes around the rohe because of that.

I do want to recognise also that objections have been raised around the Bill of Rights Act and that was looked at independently by the Ministry of Justice, advising the Attorney-General, as Sarah Pallett, the MP for Ilam, has identified. That wasn’t a cursory look. The question was: is this discriminatory on the basis of race? Is this giving special rights to someone, a group that isn’t justified on the basis of race? The question was squarely asked and it was squarely answered, and the answer was this: to do so would be to discriminate on two comparable groups. We don’t have two comparable groups. We have the general population and we have Ngāi Tahu, who occupy a special place, who have been recognised as having special rights because of significant historical wrongs and grievances that need to be addressed. This step today is part of that story, a story that continues, and I’m very proud to be part of it.

So the question then becomes: are we brave enough to have a diverse, a modern, and an inclusive democracy, a democracy that recognises the rights of our indigenous people, as mana whenua and Treaty partners? Because this will benefit all of Canterbury. It’s a step to protect the things that we all treasure: our environment, our waterways, our forests, our fisheries, and so on. This is a genuine partnership with our Treaty partners, a partnership which must and will endure. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 77

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

Noes 43

New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I have a very nice note from Rino Tirikatene, warning me that a waiata will be sung at the conclusion of the vote, and permission is granted for that to occur.

Waiata

Haka

Debate ON INVESTMENT STATEMENT

Debate ON INVESTMENT STATEMENT

BARBARA EDMONDS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on He Puna Hau Pātiki: 2022 Investment Statement.

Before I go into the report back by the committee, I wanted to quickly mihi to manuhiri Ngāi Tahu, who were just in the House. I also wanted to tautoko our Labour Māori caucus—in particular Rino Tirikatene—and our Canterbury caucus for their considered kōrero on the previous bill, the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. I also wish I was joining the celebrations because that was a pretty mean haka and waiata.

It’s a pleasure as the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC)—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Great committee.

BARBARA EDMONDS: —to report back to the House on He Puna Hau Pātiki: 2022 Investment Statement. I absolutely agree with the Green member; it is a great committee.

At least every four years, the Public Finance Act 1989 requires the Minister of Finance to present to the House an Investment Statement prepared by the Treasury. With recent changes to the Public Finance Act and the new Public Service Act 2020, the Investment Statement is actually one of four statutory reports. The other mandatory reports are the Long-term Fiscal Position, a Long-term Insights Briefing, and a Wellbeing Report.

Now, it would be quite cynical just to view these detailed reports as a mere tick-box exercise. They could probably sit in the book or magazine shelf in the lobby of 1 The Terrace or in any Minister of Finance’s executive wing waiting room. However, one cannot underestimate the importance of these four reports, and I believe the Treasury summed it up well: that these reports are a reflection of the necessity of the public finance system in supporting New Zealanders’ intergenerational wellbeing through a more modern, agile, and joined-up public system.

In the light of the last two years, it was clear in the almost three-hour hearing with the Treasury—including an hour with the Minister of Finance on 8 June—that the impact of the COVID-19 economic response and the intergenerational impacts was top of both the select committee’s minds, officials’, and Ministers’.

This is the Treasury’s third Investment Statement. Unlike the two previous Investment Statements, the 2022 Investment Statement focuses on the overall health of the balance sheet, as well as the key differences and the new challenges since 2018. This approach reflects two considerations.

One, COVID-19 and long-term structural change. COVID-19 has been an unprecedented economic shock. Its effects—combined with other longstanding trends that are relevant for all Government assets, such as low mutual interest rates and climate change—have driven the focus on the composition and strength of the balance sheet.

The second consideration is the broader suite of stewardship responsibilities, hence the four reports. Overall, the Investment Statement concluded that the overall health of the Government’s balance sheet remains strong. This is despite an increase in the scale, risk, and complexity of the balance sheet as a result of the COVID-19 response.

To break it down for our non-FEC members or accountants like the member Hon David Bennett—who I wish well for his next chapter—the Government balance sheet shows what the Government owns: its assets; and what it owes: its liabilities; at one fixed point in time. The balance sheet also includes the physical infrastructure such as hospitals, schools, and roads that support public services.

COVID-19 re-emphasised the importance of the balance sheet. The Government balance sheet was in good health prior to COVID. At the end of December 2019, net core Crown debt was 19 percent of GDP, while net worth was $143.1 billion. The strength of the balance sheet, therefore, provided the Government with the options in how it chose to respond to the pandemic, including the ability to provide significant financial support to the private sector and indirectly to households through policies such as the wage subsidy and the COVID-19 relief support payment.

Therefore, not unsurprisingly, the Investment Statement claims that given the significant financial support to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19, what it has shown is that the net core Crown debt has increased to reflect this increase in spending. Caralee McLiesh, who is the secretary of Treasury, said as a result of the pandemic, there has been a significant increase in debt: increasing from 19 percent of GDP prior to the pandemic to peaking around 40 percent of GDP—that’s an old measure of new Crown debt—or 20 percent under the new net debt measure.

At the same time, both financial and non-financial assets have grown, leading to higher net worth, with New Zealand amongst the upper end of all OECD economies in net wealth. The sensitivity of the balance sheet to changes in interest rates has also increased; this reflects a change in the composition of debt resulting from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Large Scale Asset Purchase programme, or LSAP.

Members of the committee actually asked Treasury about whether the LSAP contributed to increased inequality, and the Secretary of Treasury responded, “No,” specifically, on the LSAP programme, and it would be incredibly challenging to attribute one particular policy to the outcomes they’ve seen.

Chris Bishop: Wow, come on.

BARBARA EDMONDS: But what was interesting—what was interesting, Mr Bishop—is that there was a slight narrowing of inequality throughout the pandemic. At the same time, financial and non-financial assets such as equities in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund have grown, leading to an increase in the Government’s net worth.

Future challenges referred into the Investment Statement also included public investment in infrastructure and climate change, and the report back from the committee references the deficit and infrastructure investment. It says that there’s evidence that New Zealand has an infrastructure gap and the Infrastructure Commission—which was established in 2019 to coordinate, develop, and promote an approach to infrastructure—was basically established to help improve New Zealanders’ wellbeing.

Now, what I’ve noticed throughout the whole discussion that we had at select committee on this particular Investment Statement is just the importance of, one, making sure that we have strong economic books—or management—and then making sure that we address those future challenges.

What I wanted to be able to reflect on is that throughout the discussion with Treasury, it was really clear that New Zealand’s balance sheet was well positioned to deal with the challenging global environment. We’ve seen, since that, unemployment is at a record low, exports are up, and our economic activity has continued to grow over the past year.

We are carefully managing our spending and keeping debt under control, and that was clearly seen between the two Investment Statements in 2018 and now in 2022. These strong fundamentals meant we were able to support New Zealanders through that tough period, and now this tough period with a cost of living package, fuel tax cuts, increases to superannuation benefits and the minimum wage, and the winter energy payment.

We’re also investing in critical services like health, and that’s so important given that the Investment Statement pointed out the infrastructure gap. We’re also investing in school packages, so some of the property packages that we’re seeing—that has the double benefit of not only creating jobs, but it also provides spending and benefits to our children so that the walls that they learn in are good, are warm, and are able to basically improve into modern learning systems.

By keeping debt in check as the Investment Statement has shown, we’re making important investments in our future. We’re delivering a resilient economy that provides security for all. And again, if the Investment Statement isn’t a good reflection of our balance sheet, then also perhaps our triple A credit rating is—something few countries in the world were able to say during that period.

There’s also our books getting into surplus in 2024 and 2025—it’s one year quicker than National did under the global financial crisis.

So I’d like to thank our members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their work on—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Great committee.

BARBARA EDMONDS: A great committee. Of course, I agree with the Greens’ member. Another “Great committee”.

The Investment Statement has shown: basically, if we hadn’t managed the books earlier in the Government’s term, then we wouldn’t have been able to effect the financial support packages that have helped our economy through COVID.

The effectively managed assets and liabilities support the Government’s ability both to deliver services that New Zealanders need today and to ensure we have sustainable and resilient public finances that will bolster living standards for future generations.

I’d like to thank the Minister and the Treasury officials for their time on 8 June that was close to three hours of hearing time, and I thank them for their time and their efforts. I also thank the Treasury for their post-hearings questions and I would like to conclude my report back to the House from the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): The 2022 Investment Statement provides us with an opportunity to think about some of the immediate and long-term risks facing New Zealand. I want to reflect on three key themes. The first is around the effect of the expensive monetary and fiscal policy that we’ve had over the past two years. The second is New Zealand’s debt position and what that means in terms of our risks and exposure. And the final is our infrastructure deficit and how we should be meeting it as a country.

On the first point, in terms of the expansive monetary and fiscal policy that New Zealand has embarked on in the past couple of years, I want to highlight that we are one of the countries in the OECD, in the developed world, that went on the biggest amount of stimulus, both in terms of the amount of bond buying or money printing that our Reserve Bank embarked on and in terms of the amount of borrowing and fiscal stimulus that the Crown embarked on. I think it is appropriate that we reflect on the effects of that, because we just had a Labour member—and I find it a kind of rich irony—arguing that that didn’t have an impact on equality. Now, what we know to be true is that, when we had interest rates at record lows over a sustained period, that led to extreme asset price inflation, such that by one measure New Zealand house prices increased 28 percent in one year. To say that that sort of asset price inflation doesn’t have an effect on equality is an interesting kind of maths, because I think, for those who are outside of homeownership looking in, they would argue that that had a very material effect on how equal their wealth was to others’. Similarly, when we look at the effect that sustained low interest rates and money printing had on the Crown’s balance sheet it’s notable, I think, that a lot of the appreciation that occurred is again a direct result of those low interest rates.

The question we have to ask ourselves is: was that a free lunch? Did we get those higher asset prices as something that we will be able to hold on to for ever? And, of course, we have to examine the cost of that. The cost is a cost of living crisis. We have 7.3 percent inflation in New Zealand today, the highest it’s been in 32 years, and what that means for working people—and I think particularly of those without assets—is that the reality for them is that now, for two years, for eight successive quarters, prices have been rising faster than wages. So the real effect of that is that New Zealanders are going backwards. I bring these points into the debate, because I think we should always reflect on the significant measures that the Crown takes and the impacts they have, not just the immediate impact of us coming through the crisis but also the consequences today. In simple terms, I remember Grant Robertson in the election debates telling us we had an extremely strong economy because of the decisions taken by him and the Reserve Bank. Well, if he wants to claim the credit for that strength, he must also claim responsibility for the hangover that New Zealand is now incurring.

The second point that I want to make about that expansive monetary policy is that it is not without cost to the Crown balance sheet, because, of course, the Large Scale Asset Purchase programme has made the Crown balance sheet a lot more sensitive to changing interest rates. In a real effect, that will mean that Treasury needs to shovel between $150 million and $200 million over the Reserve Bank balance sheet each month for the foreseeable future. So the fact that the Reserve Bank embarked on a significant programme of bond buying, or money printing—that is not without cost, and I highlight that point. The second point I want to dwell on is debt, because the speaker previously said, “Oh, look, debt is nothing to worry about in New Zealand.” I want to lay out the numbers, because I think New Zealanders with common sense would listen to these numbers and sit up straight. Going into the pandemic, debt was 19 percent of GDP. It then reached 30 percent, and it’s on its way to 40 percent. That is, by anyone’s judgment, a massive accumulation of debt over a short period. While it is right to say that the ratings agencies have been comfortable with that for now, they have also highlighted some significant risk factors for New Zealand, because, of course, the point of not accumulating too much debt is that we want to have enough capacity to borrow if another rainy day comes—if, God forbid, foot and mouth disease came to New Zealand, for example.

So the external factors that analysts consider when they look at New Zealand’s debt position are the current account deficits, which are pretty high relative to other countries; our negative international investment position; our high household and agricultural sector debt, and I go back to that housing issue; the lack of diversity in our exports; and the high house prices, which create a risk to financial stability in and of themselves because, in the event of a correction, New Zealand would be exposed. So I would caution members of this House against taking a Holly Golightly approach to our debt. We have high debt, and we need to be careful about how we accumulate any more into the future. We need to look at where our future challenges lie. New Zealand superannuation is forecast to rise from currently 5 percent of GDP to 7 percent in 2061, and health spending needed to support demographic change and rising demand is expected to go from 6.9 percent to 10.6 percent of GDP. My point is that we need to ensure we have a resilient enough Crown balance sheet that we can afford these increasing challenges into the future.

Finally, I want to just make a couple of points about the infrastructure deficit which New Zealand has. Here, on the National side of Parliament, we are of the view that growth-enhancing infrastructure investment should be supported. We are also of the view that, where we have social infrastructure that is not performing well, we must invest in improving it. We do believe that, when we take on debt for projects that over the medium term will deliver greater returns for New Zealand, that is worth doing, but it is of great concern to us, even if it’s not of concern to the member Anna Lorck, that Treasury’s analysis is that this Government, this Labour Government, has had a serious delivery problem when it comes to infrastructure. I hold in my hand a report that Treasury released at last year’s Budget, where they said that over half of the initiatives submitted for funding were not investment ready. Treasury had to caution ministers that funding investments that are not ready will not speed up delivery; rather, it will increase the risk of delayed delivery, cost overruns, and negative impacts on expected outcomes. Treasury commented on the need for Government agencies to improve their delivery performance.

This is a theme, of course, that is pretty consistent across this Government: that it is pretty good at making announcements and expressing aspirations, as it has done on infrastructure, but when it comes to the delivery and the execution, it has been very poor. This is significant when it comes to the Crown’s balance sheet, because, if we are going to accept that borrowing for infrastructure is going to occur, we need to be confident that we can look taxpayers in the eye and say we will do that in ways that are efficient, we will select projects that are valuable, and we will execute well. But the documentation from Treasury suggests that they have very real concerns about the ability of this Labour Government to deliver on those expectations. They have noted again and again that a significant proportion of infrastructure projects that Labour signs off for funding don’t even have business cases attached. I think here of the light rail commitment which Jacinda Ardern made in a campaign; it was going to be delivered by 2021. The reason that investment has fallen apart so badly is that Ministers didn’t even know what the objectives of that project were.

So, in closing, I say yes, we in New Zealand should be prepared to invest in infrastructure, but we should do so carefully and we should do so knowing that the debt we take on must be repaid by future generations. We should be very careful indeed with that money.

ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I do so also as a regional, local MP—MP for Tukituki. I think it’s really important when we speak to this 2022 Investment Statement that we bring it back home; bring it back home to what it actually means on the ground, in the regions, like Tukituki. We want to talk about how we can see the Government spending its money—money during the COVID-19 shut down, lockdown, all those things that went on—how did we keep our economy going?

Now, we’ve heard from the National Opposition. You would think that New Zealand, according to the National Party, isn’t going anywhere. They’ve questioned every investment this Government has made. They’ve questioned whether we should have spent as much money as we did investing with businesses, keeping workers employed, doing those things that help make this economy go round. They’ve talked of how the debt level in New Zealand is so high. Well, it’s lower than Australia’s, it’s lower than the US, and it’s lower than Canada’s. So I think New Zealand is actually in a very, very strong position to recover, and recover well.

Look at our unemployment level. Look at how well we’ve been doing in the regions. Look at how well we’ve been doing—loads of jobs—and I’ll tell you how that happened. It happened because, for the first time in over a decade—under National, did Hawke’s Bay see any investment in regional economic development? Tell me how much Hawke’s Bay got in regional economic development under the National Government.

Chris Bishop: Absolutely bucket loads.

ANNA LORCK: No, no. Under the National Government, the Matariki Regional Economic Development Strategy got zip. Hastings got zip.

Chris Bishop: That’s not true.

ANNA LORCK: Yes, that’s right. Hastings got zip.

Tangi Utikere: How much?

ANNA LORCK: Zip. Ask how much the National Government put into the regional hospital over that decade. How much in capital investment? How much? Nothing. Nothing at all. Just like Mr Brownlee said one day, “Nothing. Nothing at all.”

Now, in contrast, what has this Government been investing? What can you see in this Investment Statement on what has been going into the regions? Let’s talk about housing. Let’s really bring it home: housing for Hastings. Now, we’ve asked—I asked—the Minister of Housing, today, a question in the House on how many of the 10,000 new home builds that come under the investment that’s in this statement—how many houses have been built in Hastings? So far, we’ve built 157 public houses in Hastings. That’s right, Mr Bishop—157 houses. Guess how many the National Government built. How many do you think they built? Six. Six houses, and they sold off and got rid of 192 houses. How about that for performance? How about that for outcomes for Hastings? But here we are investing in houses in Hastings, building them with young apprentices coming on board. Business is booming, and we’re getting on and getting the job done. That’s because we are investing in infrastructure.

Now, the National Party are saying terrible things on the other side; how can they defend that? How can the National Party defend six houses and pulling down 192? And back to the business of this Investment Statement, because along with delivering 157 public homes just in Hastings, we’ve also got another 133 being built. How many did the National Government build? Six. That’s what they built—six. How much money did they put into the hospital—capital investment? Zip—zip. And the Labour Government, through this, has invested over $100 million so far. That’s what happens when you back infrastructure. According to the National Party, you don’t want any infrastructure investment. You didn’t even invest in the regions. In fact, I found a front page cover of Hawke’s Bay Today with the two mayors of Napier and Hastings saying National hasn’t been investing in the regions, and this Government backs the regions.

Actually, the mayor at the time who went out and asked the Government “Where’s our money?” was the former National MP Lawrence Yule. So when he was the mayor—

Hon Member: Great guy.

ANNA LORCK: That’s right—that’s right. When he was the mayor, along with Bill Dalton, they were demanding investment in the regions. But, oh no, not the National Government—they don’t believe in infrastructure investment. Not in the regions; never have. And the proof is in the pudding.

Let’s also talk about what we are investing in those shovel-ready projects, because, when it comes to business plans, Mr Bishop, we have them in spades. We had our business plan ready to go, shovel ready, $39 million right into building an Olympic swimming pool in our regional sports park—never would have seen that under National; not even ready to do any investment—and from that, we created another 100 jobs. Let me keep going on the investment that’s come into the regions of Hawke’s Bay. Like Hawke’s Bay, Hastings saw $9 million in the middle of the COVID lockdown to get one of our roads under way. Why did we get that? We had a business plan, shovel ready, ready to go—one of the first off the mark. So, when it comes to shovel-ready projects in our region of Hawke’s Bay, that’s investment in here; that’s what we’re talking about.

Then let’s talk about the spend on investing and backing business, because, on this side of the House, we believe in business. We absolutely do, but not over on that side. They say that business is “soft, soft, soft”. And that’s what you call “business”. The Leader of the Opposition, Christopher Luxon, called businesses “soft”. I can tell you, as a business owner, I know how hard it is to get out there and get businesses cracking. I’ve worked with businesses; I back businesses. That’s what we’ve been doing, and that’s what we’ve seen. These jobs, these infrastructure projects that the National Opposition are against—they say that that’s not doing things for the region. Well, I can tell you, jobs, growth, employment—booming; economic performance—strong and going for it. That’s what you see in the regional economies, where we do have diverse markets. That’s what we do. We use entrepreneurial spirit. We use number eight wire thinking, and we get the job done.

Maureen Pugh: Treasury doesn’t agree.

ANNA LORCK: When you come back and you look at—Treasury loves Hawke’s Bay. Treasury loves Hawke’s Bay. They love coming and visiting Hawke’s Bay. I can tell you that they’d love to come to my region. In fact, Treasury can come to Hawke’s Bay anytime—anytime they like—and when you look at this, as I’ve said, this is where Treasury does the hard work, and yes, we have been working and investing.

Let’s talk about schools; that’s another one. Let’s talk about schools, because, under the National Government, we got nothing for schools—not even in Havelock North. Oh, that’s right, right at the end, after a local campaign, they finally built eight more classrooms. That’s what they came up with. On this side of the House, we’ve invested millions into our houses infrastructure—

Simon Watts: No, you haven’t.

ANNA LORCK: Again, infrastructure—yes we have. Sixteen million dollars to make projects and schools ready to go. That’s what we’ve been doing. We get on with the work, and we’re not negative—not like National; nasty National; negative, down in the dumps. We, over here, know how to back the regions. We know how to back business. We do the mahi. We grow jobs. Madam Speaker, I commend the Investment Statement to the House.

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

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Well, well, well, well, well. Goodness gracious me. Now, I do feel sorry for Anna Lorck, the member who’s just resumed her seat. I really like Anna Lorck, but goodness gracious me. Three years. She’s fought so long to get into this place, and she’ll spend her three years here and then she’ll be out the other door. Having skited for the entire 10 minutes about the Hawke’s Bay, when we’re meant to be talking about the Investment Statement, and told a whole bunch of, series of, erroneous things about National’s former record, I do feel sorry for her. I do feel sorry for her, because the simple reality is I’ll put our record on infrastructure investment, the last National Government’s record on infrastructure investment up against this useless and incompetent Government’s record any day of the week.

Anna Lorck: Good grief; here we go.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): All right. Order! Order! Order! The member will not interject once she has got up from her seat.

CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ll put our record up against the Labour Government’s record any day of the week, because the thing about the last National Government was we built stuff. We got things done, and, generally, we got it done on time and under budget.

Now, just the other day the Government opened the next section of the Waikato Expressway. Fantastic project. I know David Bennett here has lobbied so long for that project and done such a good job on it. The Waikato Expressway was nothing throughout the 2000s under the Helen Clark Government, and it took a National Government to turn up and say, “We’re going to make this a road of national significance, and it’s going to be a four-lane expressway that you can now even travel at 110 kilometres per hour on; the safest road in the country.” Yeah, Labour got to open it. But you know what? The bulk of it was built under National.

What else did National deliver? Ultra-fast broadband. We all took it for granted during the lockdown. We had ultra-fast broadband rolled out, ubiquitous ultra-fast broadband rolled out around the country, built by National. On time, under budget, thanks to Steven Joyce. Transmission Gully opened the other day. The Prime Minister turned up for the opening; again, another project by National.

But one of the problems with this Government, and this is actually highlighted in the Investment Statement, is this Government’s made two mistakes when it comes to infrastructure. The first is they stopped the pipeline of infrastructure and transport investment—and there’s a reference to that in He Puna Hao Pātiki—by essentially slashing the Transport Agency funding or the National Land Transport Fund State highway budget in 2018. We’ve got Phil Twyford to blame for that. Then they have made a series of dubious decisions, and I would argue economically wasteful, economically destructive decisions, when it comes to infrastructure investment. That’s why the Treasury highlights in the Investment Statement that we need better discipline around what we spend money on.

Because it’s all very well, as Anna Lorck did—and actually Barbara Edmonds did to a certain extent—to stand up and say, “Oh, well, infrastructure, there’s a deficit”. Yeah, I mean, we all agree there’s a deficit. There’s no doubt about that. But addressing that deficit, you know, has to be done in a disciplined way. To give you an example, reopening the Napier to Wairoa train line, which I didn’t hear Anna Lorck talk about, and the reason she doesn’t talk about it is because five trains have been down it. Now, we have Shane Jones to blame for that. He spent, I think it was, from memory, $9 million reopening a train line that no one wanted to use. So that’s the kind of economically destructive policies I’m talking about. That is ill-discipline fiscally, but also ill-discipline in capital spending when it comes to infrastructure investment.

Now, another project that is ill-disciplined that the Government stopped due to the public outcry, before they could spend the money, was the cycle bridge over the harbour bridge. I mean, we all remember that—$785 million I think it was. A staggering sum of money, and, unsurprisingly, every region around the country went, “Hmm, $785 million is a lot of money.” Dan Rosewarne over there, the new MP, list MP based in Waimakariri, he knows what that money could be spent on. It could go on the Woodend bypass, which the local MP for Waimakariri Matt Doocey has spent so much time campaigning for and which this Government will never deliver. Glen Bennett knows all the projects that that money could be spent on in New Plymouth and the Taranaki region. He was sitting there when Michael Wood got up and announced it with Grant Robertson a year or so ago, and said, “We’re going to have a cycle bridge over the harbour bridge in Auckland.”, and a very niche minority of people in Auckland went, “Yes, it’s very exciting”. Every Labour regional MP sat here going, “Oh no, how am I going to defend this?” Because Glen Bennett’s got to go back to New Plymouth and Dan Rosewarne’s now got to go back to Waimakariri, and Tangi Utikere’s got to go back to Palmerston North and defend three quarters of a billion dollars being spent on a cycle bridge, and Tangi Utikere knows it.

That’s what happened. I think I know what happened; it was announced and then there was a massive public backlash and all the Labour regional MPs, all of whom are staring at defeat in their seats in 2023, went to Grant Robertson and the Prime Minister and said, “We cannot defend this. This is indefensible. You’re asking us to go over the top and take one for the team.” They said, “Three waters is bad enough. The regions are in open revolt. Three waters is bad enough. But you’re really asking us to go into no man’s land. You’re asking us to walk into the fire and take one for the team. And you know what? We’re not going to do it”. So the Government didn’t do that. So the fiscal ill-discipline and ill-disciplined investment into that didn’t happen, thankfully.

But we do have a destruction in the pipeline. The most interesting thing is—I mean, I’m National’s spokesperson for infrastructure. I go around the country with my good colleague Simon Watts, and the destruction of value from that pipeline being destroyed in 2018 by Phil Twyford is real. There’s a whole series of projects that got cancelled overnight that were part of the pipeline and, of course, a lot of those companies then shed their staff, they had to change all their plans, and the most economically ruinous thing about it and the most frustrating thing about it is the Government back-tracked after about an 18-month time.

So we’re in this ridiculous position where Phil Twyford comes in and says, “We spend too much money on roads and we’re not going to spend any more on State highways, we’re cutting the National Land Transport Fund”, all these projects get cancelled like Pētone to Grenada, like Melling, like the Tauranga Northern Link. You name it, you pick what—Cambridge to Piarere, that’s another one. And then there’s a big outcry against it and Grant Robertson turns up in election year 2020 and says, “Don’t worry, I’m going to borrow $10 billion on the New Zealand upgrade fund; I’m going to personally hand-pick the projects”, and then all of a sudden they’re back on the pipeline. But of course the costs have gone up in the meantime. We’ve wasted two years. Ōtaki to north Levin: one year it’s on, one year it’s off and, you know, the next year it’s back off again, and, unsurprisingly, the companies who are working on the projects down the road like Pekapeka to Ōtaki, they don’t know if they’re Arthur or Martha. They don’t know if they’re coming or going.

Of course, how do you plan for the long term when you’ve got no certainty of investment? Of course, that is the problem, and it’s all created by Labour—it’s all created by Labour. This is not something that they can blame on National, because every Government, in some respects, you know, will always get things wrong, and the next Government inherits the sins of their predecessors. No one’s disputing that. All of this is blamed on Labour, because Labour inherited a pipeline of infrastructure and transport investment that if they’d just stuck to it, the Minister of Transport would be opening roads around the country. Instead, we’re just getting started on the Tauranga Northern Link after five years of delay. One of the most dangerous roads in the country. Melling interchange in my former electorate of Hutt South will get started next year, five years after it could have started—five or six years after it could have started. It’s intensely frustrating.

Hon David Bennett: At least it’s getting started; it’s more than ours.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, David Bennett says, “At least we get started”. I mean, Cambridge to Piarere, and I think they’re doing route protection, but, again, it’s never going to start unless National gets back in to Government.

So the problem with the Investment Statement, as presented, is wholly caused by stupid Government policy—dubious decisions made for political reasons, like reopening the Napier to Wairoa train line. I haven’t even talked about light rail. It’s hard for people to get their head around how big that project is. It’ll never happen. But at least on paper—it’s kind of like 15, 25, 30, I mean, yeah, it’s only money. It’s only taxpayers’ money; $30 billion of money, of which there’s no business case yet, but the Government is, of course, committed to it.

So the Investment Statement is an important and interesting document, and it reflects the fact that we have a Government currently focused on ill-disciplined investments, both fiscally through operating expenditure, but also ill-disciplined in the actual projects that we choose to focus on, before we even get started on how we actually deliver them, which they are totally incompetent at doing.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Anyone can run a surplus if you don’t pay the bills and don’t do the maintenance. Now, a really stark example of that is you might listen to Mr Bishop’s speech, and he’s a very articulate young man and he can put together a good argument because he’s a good debater, but it doesn’t mean he’s right. Your ability to put an argument bears no relationship to the truth of the argument.

Actually, there are two things about that list of projects that he went through. One was that most of them were election promises and were never funded, and it was something that you waived. Not long after the 2017 election, as you drove around the country, there were a lot of billboards there that had been put up by the National Party, and those billboards all said, “Oh, we were going to build a road here, we were going to build a road there.” No, they weren’t. None of those projects were far off from being a press release.

There were many projects, but they certainly hadn’t been funded, which brings us to the matter of how those roads of national significance and those other projects had been funded.

Hon David Bennett: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Now, I don’t want to create a debating point with the member, but he said that none had been funded, and that’s incorrect. Actually, the Cambridge highway was funded—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yeah, that is not a point of order.

Hon David Bennett: But—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That is not a point of order. The member will resume his seat. Before the debate recommences and I call Greg O’Connor, can I just invite the House to return a little more closely to the Investment Statement. I have allowed a degree of latitude, but I think the debate is now getting to the point where it is getting a little too wide, and so I’m going to invite members speaking to return very much to the principles of the Investment Statement.

GREG O’CONNOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was about, as you spoke, to move towards the pertinence of this, because when I did come into Parliament—and many of us come here. We’ve been on all sorts of walks of life and some of us have been involved in running reasonably major businesses, but wherever we’ve came from, we got to know the industry we were in. So we arrive here, and, certainly, in my case, I was, I suppose, somewhat enthused and confident to find that we did have things like this Investment Statement, that we did have a broad overview of where the country is going, where we sit on our balance sheet, and how much we owe, and—more importantly—that we were taking a long-term view, because that had been the problem.

I’ve just come from a meeting where there was a very enthusiastic group who are looking to get a rail line built, a historic passenger line into Tauranga. Now, that’s a great initiative, and good on them—very enthusiastic. But when the discussion that we have is only about one part of what needs to be a joined-up piece of engineering, a joined-up piece of infrastructure, there we come to the problem, and while it’s important that we do have an Investment Statement, really, it’s about ensuring that we are joined up.

So if, for example, we build some flash new roads—which Chris Bishop, the previous speaker, talked about—that’s all very well. You can have a multimillion-dollar opening for the Waterview Tunnel, but the problem, of course, is where did that money come from? It came from the maintenance budget. Right now, and this was one of the things we didn’t hear as a Government when we arrived—this very much comes to the Investment Statement that we’re talking about here today, Madam Speaker—was that all of a sudden, the maintenance hadn’t been done. So you have these flash, new roads going nowhere, because if you drive on the safest highway in New Zealand and all of a sudden you’re on potholes because nobody’s had any money to do it—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member will not bring the Chair into the debate.

GREG O’CONNOR: Sorry, Madam Speaker?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will not bring the Speaker into the debate.

GREG O’CONNOR: Oh sorry, Madam Speaker. I hadn’t been aware that I had, but I’ll certainly be very careful of that. So if we do allow ourselves to focus, and even if I look at what’s going to be happening this year in local body elections, we’re going to get a whole lot of potential mayors, potential councillors, and they’ll all be up there promising flashy stuff—all the stuff that the wekas love and that the magpies love. No one will be getting up there and saying, “We’re going to build better infrastructure. We’re going to build better sewers. We’re going to build better water.”, because that’s not the nature of the beast. It’s in our nature—we’re all looking for the sugar fix. So this is what brings us back to this Investment Statement, where we can actually soberly sit and take cognisance to balance where we are going as a country to ensure we are going to be able to pay those bills in the future.

Again, I go back to the discussion I’ve just been having, where we’ve got the ACT Party and we’ve got the National Party who stood up and did nothing but criticise, for example, the current rail service from Hamilton to Auckland—which would naturally extend into Tauranga—but without having any sort of an alternative. This is exactly what we’re talking about.

So if you pick up the 2022 Investment Statement, it sits alongside our long-term fiscal statement, the long-term insights briefing, our wellbeing report, and then there is the Investment Statement. Actually, what is the Investment Statement, because if you’d listened to this debate so far, you actually might be quite confused as to what it is: every four years, the Minister of Finance must present to the House of Representatives a statement prepared by the Treasury that describes the state and value of significant assets and liabilities. Well, that goes back to what I spoke about before, where, at the end of the day, whether it’s our household budget or whether it’s the business we run, we’ve got to, basically, balance our books. If we don’t, we’re trading while insolvent, and there are all sorts of regulations and there are all sorts of laws to ensure that we don’t do that.

So it is absolutely appropriate, absolutely necessary and actually, now, absolutely legal to ensure that we as a country—but we are only the guardians. We are here now; we get to own our little piece of history. There are not many here—many are older, some are younger, some are brand new. Mr Rosewarne, I welcome you here. You, no doubt, are going to be here for many more years; I may not be here quite that long. But what we must ensure we do is that we own our piece of history while we’re here, and owning that piece of history ensures that we have the financial ability. There would be nothing worse to leave to those who come after us not only an excessive debt but a debt that actually is not going to be able to be serviced by anything we’ve built with it, and that is where I’m very happy to have a look at the planning of this Government and at the things that we’re doing now.

One of the main things we do—and, again, it’s touched on here, and, in fact, it’s more than touched on; it’s actually highlighted in here—is making sure we invest in our people, because if we were to do what we did in 2008 and stop investing in our people, then with that infrastructure pipeline, we could have that all that we liked, but all we would end up with is nobody to work in our infrastructure now. If we closed down our polytechs, if we closed down all our training institutions, and if we sacked all our apprentices—actually, those people are one of the biggest investments we can make for our future, so what this Government did when we were faced with a similar situation to the one in 2008 was to ensure that we did invest. Again, if you have a look at this document, one thing that is highlighted is to ensure that we are investing in our people.

Yes, we’re going to need to build more rail and we’ve got to ensure that we have coastal shipping, but we’ve got to have people on it, and what’s the biggest problem we have around the world? I recently had COVID and it meant that I had to sit and watch a little bit of television—the BBC, Fox, CNN, Al Jazeera—and it didn’t matter what you watched, you were actually watching the same thing in every country. Every country had exactly the same problem as we have now: shortages of people; supply lines.

In fact, it’s interesting. A friend of mine was on holiday in Hawaii recently and he had a chat with someone from Texas, and this person from Texas was telling him that they’ve got major problems in Texas and supply-line issues. They can’t get the people to work and they’ve got massive oil prices and inflation, so it doesn’t matter where you are, you have the same problem. So in that time, when we’re looking at that, it’s the countries that actually invest best now and invest best in their people that will be the ones that in the future will do well.

It is interesting. During this conversation, we’ve talked about those members opposite who talked about the folly of building any more rail. I said that, well, when Sir Julius Vogel was looking at putting our rail infrastructure in place in the 1890s, wasn’t it lucky we didn’t have an ACT Party then and wasn’t it lucky that we didn’t actually have a National Party then, because we were actually able to do it, and are we not benefiting from that today? The rail corridors that were laid out then are those very things that we are benefiting from today.

So when we balance and we look at the Investment Statement, these are the things that we look at to make sure that we look beyond just today, beyond the current electoral cycle, to ensure that we are leaving a better place for those who come after us. The best way we own our history is to ensure that the financials for the future are in good shape. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7 p.m.

SPEAKER: The House is resumed.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. We’ve become increasingly well versed in talking about the social determinants of mental and physical health—that is, the things that determine whether you are more or less likely to be healthy. We know that those determinants for poor mental and physical health include things like poverty, lack of access to opportunity, and lack of security in the likes of housing. However, we are far less familiar with the political determinants of those social determinants—that is, the reality that poverty is a political decision in a wealthy country like ours, where, on 2021 estimates, the top 10 percent hold 70 percent of the wealth, and the bottom half, that is 2½ million New Zealanders, are told to fight over the scraps of just 2 percent of that wealth. The economy that enables that unfairness, let alone that rewards land banking over hard work, is a political decision.

Today, we are talking about the Investment Statement. These are published by the Treasury every four years, so a debate like this is a pretty rare occasion. So the question is: what is an Investment Statement? Well, it is supposed to make, based on the legislative underpinning of it, the Government of the day do three things. The first is to formulate a fiscal strategy with regard to its interaction with monetary policy. This is the theme that I want to return to soon because it has been one of the key points of contention in the wonderful Finance and Expenditure Committee throughout this term. The second is to formulate fiscal strategy with regard to its likely impact on present and future generations. I’ll also expand on this requirement as weaved throughout the Investment State, particularly on the issue of climate change. The third legislative requirement is to ensure that the Crown’s resources are managed effectively and efficiently.

Now, here, of course, those words are open to interpretation, and for that, I think that we all need to recognise that they are open to that dirty word in this House, “ideology”, because economic theories are not value-neutral, they come with a vast range of assumptions. Since before I was born, successive Governments have imbedded deeply individualistic, conservative, and short-termed views, despite legislative frameworks like this. This is, again, despite an ostensible requirement to look long-term baked into the law that prompts these Investment Statements in the first place. Now, we have started to see this ship turning around, but it is simply currently not turning around anywhere near fast enough. That is, the iceberg is still in our view—a peculiar analogy, I guess, for climate change.

So let’s unpack these issues, and let’s talk about fiscal and monetary policy and their interaction. For those poor souls who are tuned in at home, monetary policy is the stuff of the Reserve Bank, our central bank. It’s the stuff that they do with an eye to their dual mandate as also outlined in law. The first of that dual mandate is financial stability, traditionally considered keeping inflation between the 1 and 3 percent mark. The second is maximum sustainability employment, something inserted in the last term of Parliament, a measure which has proven itself in many hearings in our Finance and Expenditure Committee—a great committee—to be rather vexed in its subjective application and interpretation. The Reserve Bank does this—that is, the dual mandate—through some pretty blunt instruments, like the setting of the official cash rate, which impacts interest rates that people get on their debt. In a nutshell, the Reserve Bank’s main way of doing their job of managing financial stability and that maximum sustainable employment is by influencing the cost of debt.

Fiscal policy, on the other hand, is the stuff that the Government does. Basically, it’s what the Government spends money on; where, what, and how much it taxes; and the amount of debt that it is willing to take on. These two tools, wielded, on the one hand, by the Government, and, the other hand, by the Reserve Bank, aren’t used in isolation of each other. Each impacts the effectiveness of the other and they both have different consequences, again as a reflected in this 2022 Investment Statement.

So in January 2020, echoing some of the international concerns about interest rates potentially, at some point, looking like they hit zero, the Reserve Bank prepared some advice for the Minister of Finance about unconventional monetary policy, which I know is not particularly unconventional any more. The Reserve Bank noted that one of the major components of this at the time unconventional monetary policy was large-scale asset purchases (LSAP), otherwise known as the LSAP programme the other speakers have referred to. The Reserve Bank, in this advice in January 2020, warned that the LSAP may, and I quote, “increase wealth inequality by more than conventional monetary policy by raising asset prices more directly.” It called these concerns about inflation, particularly house prices and spiking inequality, distributional impacts. The Reserve Bank called on the Government more than two years ago to consider how it would deal with these distributional impacts—that is, where LSAP would be deployed potentially, at some point. It noted, and I quote, “externalities can only be addressed by other policy areas, particularly fiscal policy.” That is, of course, the stuff that the Government does.

The Greens started raising concerns about the over-reliance on unconventional monetary policy when the Finance and Expenditure Committee returned at the beginning of the 53rd Parliament, after the election. I can point to dozens of hearings where I put these questions to the Minister of Finance, to the Reserve Bank Governor, and to Treasury, particularly to point out that the LSAP programme, the fiscal costs of which are estimated at around $7.2 billion, have occurred without the necessary intervention that the Greens would argue was necessary of the fiscal policy that, also, the Reserve Bank had warned would be necessary two years ago to deal with those distributional impacts or that inequality. This is, of course, why I’ve continued to fight for a year now for a proper review into the COVID-19 economic response. We in the Greens will continue to fight for it. Not only was the LSAP deployed with the Treasury, the Minister of Finance, and the Reserve Bank knowing full well that it was likely to turbocharge house prices and inequality, it actually did do those things, and it cost billions and billions of dollars.

Now, the Greens have never shied away from how we would have preferred the Government took the political responsibility that it has to utilise fiscal policy to not only minimise these so-called distributional impacts but to improve peoples’ lives and to invest in our incredibly underfunded infrastructure, whether that be in public housing, public transport, public education, public health, or otherwise. As Labour members have pointed out, they’ve done some of those things. And sure, they have. But unless they’re willing to tackle the tax bogeyman, that old wealth tax, deep inequality and under-investment in these necessary investments for our future will continue.

So let’s talk about infrastructure and another long-term trend identified in the Investment Statement. Well, estimates by the Infrastructure Commission, which other members have bandied about, set out in the Investment Statement, say that there is an historical infrastructure gap of $104 billion, and a future infrastructure gap of $106 billion. That is a total of $210 billion, and that is only for our built infrastructure. It is a fiscal strategy attached to the 2022 Budget, and the Government has started, with some good Green influence, to shift away from arbitrary debt targets which have meant that successive Governments have delayed these critical investments in infrastructure.

That said, we are still nowhere near where we need to be because there’s still, as outlined in that document attached to the Budget, a peculiarity in the way that the Treasury identifies and differentiates the blurry line between capital expenditure and operating expenditure, which means that it’s still more comfortable investing in carbon-intensive motorways than in nurses, teachers, and social workers. This is something that we must continue to scrutinise because it is not a natural phenomenon that we make these demarcations, but, again, the product of economic theories and the assumptions that underpin them.

Which brings us to the planet that we live on. Despite these long-term Investment Statements happening every four years, supposedly with a focus on future and present generations, the words “climate change” were not mentioned once in the debut 2014 Investment Statement. The word “climate regulation” was once, in passing. How times have changed, and, boy, how much work we have to catch up on. Just today, our Green Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw, launched the country’s first National Adaptation Plan grappling with the real-world impacts of climate change. Now, this Investment Statement has a whole section on the risks to the balance sheet from climate change. There are significant fiscal risks which we can see with the extreme weather events that we’ve experienced here in Aotearoa New Zealand in just the past few weeks, and, obviously, with Europe currently burning. Some of the investments that the Investment Statement talks about as necessary are, and I quote, “investing in Social assets such as public transportation infrastructure and energy-efficient buildings such as schools and hospitals.”, and “taking on additional debt to support climate mitigation or adaptation to redistribute anticipated costs in a more equitable manner between central government, local government, Iwi and Māori as Treaty Partner and the private sector.”

In the 21st century, poverty and anthropomorphic climate change are not natural phenomena, they are political consequences of political decisions. If some of the things that have be begun to be unpacked in this Investment Statement speak for anything, it is that there are still political choices to be made necessary to meet these challenges.

BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise tonight on behalf of the ACT Party to take a call on the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Investment Statement. I just want to give a quick shout out to the ACT Party member Damien Smith, who sits on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who couldn’t be here tonight—so you’ll have to bear with me as I go through the Investment Statement with a little less Irish charm. But I know that if he were here, he would love to be giving this speech.

The ACT Party welcomes the debate into the Government’s books, because I don’t think we talk enough about our operating budgets and our balance sheets and how much we earn, how much we spend, how many assets we have, and how many liabilities we have. I think for a lot of people it sounds a little dull, but it’s incredibly important because that is, essentially, how this Government operates, how everything happens in this country, how things are borrowed, how much debt we have, how much money we’ll have in the future, and, importantly, how much debt future generations will be paying for bad investments today. This debate only comes around once every four years, so having ten minutes every four years is really not enough and we should do this debate far more often, because we’re squeezing a very important topic into a short amount of time.

But if we look at 2018 to now, which was the last debate on this topic, my how things have changed. You could not predict how things would have changed. Back in 2018, Treasury forecast that net core Crown debt would track downwards. Well, that certainly hasn’t happened, because now debt is higher than it’s been in the early 1990s, closer to when I was born than now, and it is increasing. This is the chance we have to debate the state and value of significant assets and liabilities, how they’ve changed over time, how they’re forecast to change in at least the next two years, and how the changes have looked since the last statement. It’s a chance to take stock on the Government’s balance sheet. That is not how much money the Government is taking in, in tax; that happens in a different debate. And it’s not on how much we spend on health and education or on the wasteful spending that the ACT Party finds—there is $6.8 billion that we could cut, and if you’re more interested in that, please head along to the ACT Party’s alternative Budget on our website. This is a debate on what the Government owns and what the Government owes, so let’s take stock of where we are to date.

There has been a significant increase in debt. In 2017, 19 percent of GDP was debt, and now that’s gone up to 30 percent of GDP at the end of 2021. That’s also forecast to grow to 40 percent in the 2022-2023 fiscal year. Our assets have grown since 2017 by 40 percent and our liabilities have grown by 43 percent, but what the Government probably doesn’t wish to tell you is that of the growth in assets, most of this was in land prices. The biggest beneficiary of inflation and Government borrowing and spending has actually been the Government itself—the biggest beneficiary of the increase in land prices and asset inflation. And the biggest growth in liabilities, unfortunately, was Government debt and Government borrowing. I think we need to be more honest about the debt, because the Government is mortgaging our futures and mortgaging the futures of our children and grandchildren, because that’s money that needs to be paid back by somebody at a future date.

The Large Scale Asset Purchase (LSAP) programme that the Reserve Bank and the Government were running had the effect of converting fixed rates of debt to short-term floating debt and making debt-servicing costs more sensitive to changes in interest rates. What that really has meant is that it means that the future is riskier for us than it would have been if we had not done the LSAP programme. We moved from fixed to floating right when interest rates were about to rise, and that means, according to Treasury, that the loss on the balance sheet and the reduction in debt-servicing costs are no longer expected to cancel each other out or offset each other, and, based on the interest rate expectations, the net direct fiscal cost from the LSAP programme was expected to be $5.1 billion—and even that is out of date, and it’s now around $8 billion. The real question is then: why is it that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand kept doing LSAP despite our economic performances actually being strong by global standards? You know, they have set us up for future risk, much more risk than we should have had. And there is no such thing as a free lunch. People will have to pay that back, and it will be future generations.

So that’s debt. Now, let’s turn to some of the assets. The Government owns many, many, many assets, and I think we need to run a ruler over what we own and why. The Treasury secretary says the changes to the balance sheet underscore the need for effective investment discipline and careful consideration of ownership rationale, and I couldn’t agree more. You know, the Government currently has a portfolio of many company assets, unlisted companies, commercial assets, and they’ve underperformed at their cost of capital. They are far too comfy, because the only people that they are accountable to are the Government. That’s 10 percent of Government net worth that is not performing well, and what that really means is, essentially, we’re putting money into companies where we could have just invested that money somewhere else that was just as risky and maybe had a better return.

By contrast, some of the company assets that the Government does own that are mixed ownership models have done better, so the ACT Party says that we should really subject those same company assets to the same amount of transparency that we have under the mixed ownership model. That would significantly increase the performance, like we’ve seen with the electricity companies, so let’s list 49 percent of the shares of New Zealand Post, KiwiRail, Transpower, and use those funds to pay down that growing debt. At the same time, it would subject those companies to the transparency and accountability that other commercial entities have to be held accountable to. If you’re more interested in that, please go along to our alternative Budget and have a look in more detail as well.

For other assets: we also invest a lot in infrastructure but we don’t do a great job. There was the report from Treasury and it said that we actually do a pretty terrible job of investing in infrastructure. We have a historical infrastructure gap of $104 billion. I think the real problem here is that because decisions are being made by politicians, they are bad investment decisions. You just have to look at light rail. What a terrible, terrible project. You only have to cast your mind back to Bridges’ 10 bridges and all of the other political bribes that happen when it gets closer and closer to election time and politicians start pulling out what sort of infrastructure projects they can have in their own towns to get them re-elected, and realise that that is not a good model for investment in infrastructure. ACT says we need to do better. We have 30-year infrastructure partnership plans that would strengthen accountability by devolving revenue and responsibility to regional government, and allowing for accountability and monitoring to be held by central government. These 30-year plans would allow for that real gap in infrastructure to be closed in New Zealand. These are things that we need to have for a healthy balance sheet.

In closing, our debt is far, far too high. We can solve the problem by sharing some of those assets and companies through a mixed ownership model, and get a better dividend for the Government because those companies will perform better. We need to fund infrastructure better. And, most importantly, we need to get our balance sheets and our books in order. We deserve better as a country. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Associate Minister of Finance): Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak this afternoon and, also, I just want to acknowledge those that have been on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, who have produced this report, He Puna Hao Pātiki. It’s been a while since I did have the opportunity to sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, in the previous term, and we got to debate and, I guess, be stewards of some of the amendments that were required to be made and that we did make under the Public Finance Act.

Tonight, I will briefly touch on some of the points and some of the highlights that the select committee have made, but in particular I wouldn’t mind turning to He Puna Hao Pātiki, particularly with a focus on some of the measures that we’ve introduced—obviously, this is our fourth wellbeing Budget in a row—to look at how those have changed over time, what’s guiding them, what we’re hoping to achieve from that approach, and how we’re tracking.

In terms of where we’re at as a small Pacific nation in the context of a global world, we’re all acutely aware of the economic pressures and strains internationally. Inflation rates around the world are very significantly high. We’ve got supply chain issues. We’ve got a whole range of issues that are impacting on us. And our fiscal and economic position here domestically, as He Puna Hao Pātiki observed, is that we’ve had a significant increase in debt over the last year—19 percent. COVID-19 set the environment for that.

However, I guess one of the things I reflected on, and it’s come through in this report, is some of the challenges that we have been engaged in, as a consequence of COVID and, of course, the war in Ukraine is doing its fair dash as well—I think that one of the things that’s stood us in good stead, and this is highlighted in the report itself, is that our economic position, coming into the pandemic, was sound and it’s meant that our economy has come through COVID and the COVID shock almost better than anywhere else. The evidence for that is in the fact that we have received two triple A credit ratings from two leading agencies, and that’s in the middle of a pandemic. It’s not something that too many countries have the privilege of being able to say.

Our GDP is up. Our unemployment is at record low levels. We’re all well familiar with the 3.2 percent that we’re across nationally, but today we had some good results for the Māori unemployment rate specifically. I think it’s down to about 5.5 percent. I think I saw the Pasifika unemployment rate was down at about 5.4 percent. So these indicia are all, I guess, benchmarks of a sound economic position, despite the strong winds that have been in our face.

The next measure we can look at is wages. Our wages have outpaced inflation up until this recent inflation spike, and they are forecast to do so again in every year after 2022. So that means, obviously, that households will be better off and, in particular, better off under Labour. And of course our debt is set to peak at about half of Australia’s, around a third of that in the UK, and around about a fifth of the US’. That’s measured consistently as a percentage of GDP.

Probably because I’ve been knee deep in it for some time, I want to look at the impacts of the Living Standards Framework and the relatively newer framework He Ara Waiora. So a part of Treasury’s vision, and this was covered off in He Puna Hao Pātiki, has been to lift living standards for all New Zealanders and, to achieve that vision, the Living Standards Framework and He Ara Waiora have—well, they’ve both evolved over time. And as each Budget has come through over the past four years, we’ve seen a growth in terms of different iterations in how they’re measuring our wellbeing across the board, how they’re measuring the wellbeing of New Zealanders. The Living Standards Framework reflects the local and international developments in how we are conceptualising and how we are measuring wellbeing. Now, it’s slightly evolved since I sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee a little while ago, but the four—

Dr Duncan Webb: We’ve missed you.

Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Yeah, it’s gotten better, a lot better. I was like, huh! It’s a little more nuanced and you can tell that that’s growth, isn’t it! But the four wealths that underpin it—that’s the natural environment, that’s the social cohesion, the human capability, and the financial and physical capital—those spread out into a range of different measures by which we can assess how people are going.

One of the things that’s been really interesting over the past year or so is that we’ve been asking, from the Government side of things, agencies and asking Government departments to move beyond the silo, to move beyond the silo when it comes to achieving these wellbeing, move beyond the silo when it comes to setting—we’re requiring agencies to bring together cluster budgets so that they are, (1), prioritising across sectors, (2), working towards shared outcomes that are important across sector, and, (3), ultimately so that we can see the tangible outcomes in whether we use the Living Standards Framework, but through that holistic wellbeing lens.

I think that’s something that’s steered us really well as we went through our COVID recovery. I think it steered us really well in terms of where we invest money, how we look at the overarching—it wasn’t just bottom lines that steered our investments over that period. It’s not just those bottom lines that are how we assess where we are at as a nation. But I remember, when we were looking at things, it was: what does bring about wellbeing in those times of real challenge? People being able to come together as communities in various different ways was a part of it.

I remember one of the key things that we all decided collectively was that the arts were so fundamental to wellbeing across the board that that was one area that we didn’t want to see fall off—one of the things that often can fall off when we’re going through economically challenging times. I’ve just been over the weekend to the largest ever kapa haka festival, Te Matatini. We made decisions to invest in those types of communities, those types of performance—well, cultural bastions—because we decided that a pandemic shouldn’t obliterate those communities. And actually, if we encouraged those communities to come together, we would see benefits across health, housing, knowledge and skills, cultural capability, and belonging—all of those types of indicia that perhaps for some on the other side of the House aren’t as important, but, to us, it has been.

As I look across the country and have been able to see how this framework has driven our mind-set in terms of where we decided to support, I can see that it’s landed. Really, in my mind, we’ve been quite privileged to be able to see how communities have come together and that being manifest across a range of different wellbeings. I’m really proud of the fact that Minister Robertson did that for us as we were going through the pandemic.

One of the other key areas that the committee looked into was, obviously, the net worth across the board, but also the large-scale asset programme and whether or not that had had some successes. I’ll leave it to my other colleagues to pick up the ball on that one. But just again, thanks for the work that you did, team. It’s a good piece of work and it’s a great report.

SIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Well, it’s an absolute pleasure to get up and speak on the 2022 Investment Statement. I think the Minister—it sort of felt like she was doing a hospital pass across to her colleague to try and finish off that speech. But let’s bring it back to some of the key issues that the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC) had the pleasure of listening to, because, as much as that other side of the House paints this rosy picture of how everything is great, the reality, sadly, for the New Zealand public is not quite that. And I’m going to explain a little bit about the reality of where we are fiscally. When you start getting into the detail of the Government’s balance, actually, there is a large number of warning signs coming up already; and Kiwis across this country should be very, very concerned around that.

The first aspect is around the debt levels in this country: $162.5 billion. That’s a big number. People don’t quite know, well, what does that actually reflect and what does that look like. But if you get to the element around the cost of debt, people understand how big their mortgage is, but what they really understand is the repayments they make every month or every fortnight in order to pay that debt. This Government is paying $4.7 billion every single year—$4.7 billion—in interest costs alone in that debt. That is just below the entire budget for law and order for this country. It is one quarter of the budget for health services across this country.

When we talk about debt, the greater the debt the less that we have as a country and pay for public services. So there is a clear correlation. You can spend today but you have to pay it back tomorrow. The correlation in regards to the fact that the more that that debt level is, the less that we have to spend on public services. And as a reality of that, this country, as a result of the increasing debt, is continuing to go backwards. That interest cost alone is just over $2,000 per annum for every Kiwi household. That is a heck of a lot of money. And that amount is only going to increase with the increasing interest rates, because that’s based on an interest rate of around 2.8 percent. Well, I can tell you what, you can look in the back page of the Herald and the financial section and see what mortgage rates and interest rates are sitting at. Of course, the Government don’t pay what you pay in terms of a mortgage, but you’re absolutely going to see, probably, a 1, 2, potentially 3 percent increase in regards to that. That will all correlate in terms of pressure on the public purse, and it will all create pressure in terms of the affordability of paying for public services. That is what is coming down the track at the moment.

The other element talked about in the investment statement was around spending. The Treasury actually made some pretty key statements in regards to that. They obviously said that the most significant component of the Government’s liabilities is the borrowings that I’ve just articulated. They also said that net Crown debt has increased significantly, reflecting a large increase in spending. Right, there is a clear correlation. This is not money that is coming from some magic place. This is money that is being borrowed. This is funding and spending that is funded out of debt. As I’ve said before, there is a cost to that. And we’re seeing the sensitivity in terms of our balance sheet going to be heavily impacted by the changes of interest rates as well.

The question here is so who pays for that debt? Well, the reality is I think it’s morally wrong for us to expect future generations to fund that addiction to spending that we’re seeing today. But that is the reality of what is happening at the moment. And when you see lack of prudence around fiscal spend, examples like cycle bridges in Auckland, you’ve got examples all over the place—three waters—it gets to the heart of this money is money out of the pockets of hard-working Kiwis. It is taxpayer’s money that is being wasted. And Treasury has highlighted, as I’ve said, that the increase in debt reflects a large increase of Government spending.

I want to also touch on, in terms of the time, around what most Kiwis will understand as just Government money printing. It’s called quantitative easing. There’s a big, long word that they use for it in this paper, but it’s basically where the Government prints money. And the reality of this Government is that throughout the COVID dilemma, they jumped on the bandwagon with every other reserve bank around the world and said, “Well, let’s get into the pack. And everyone else is printing money so let’s print money as well. And let’s use that opportunity to sort of spend a little money on pet political projects.”, which they’ve done—well, they’ve announced. They haven’t actually necessarily delivered any of those, but that’s the reality.

The correlation between that Government printing of money has actually led to a decrease in interest rates, and that decrease of interest rates has correlated to an increase in house prices. They are all linked. And it was mentioned by a previous speaker that the Government obviously retains a huge amount of those assets. The Government, actually, has been a beneficiary in terms of the increase in house prices as a result. But the impact for hard-working Kiwis at home—those in the squeezed middle—the impact of that Government spending, which has reduced interest rates, which has led to higher housing prices, has meant they have been locked out of that housing market. And combined with a regulatory reform programme that has not been modified or changed, has led to that increase as well. One would hope, actually, that in most cases rent prices would decrease as well under those circumstances. The reality in New Zealand, because of the regulatory environment that we have in play that this Government has failed to fix, is rents have also held hard. So Kiwis at home have been squeezed as a result of that.

Infrastructure is a significant enabler of economic growth and productivity—the Treasury refers to the fact of some concerns around that. It says that there is evidence in New Zealand that infrastructure spend is not as effective as it could be in delivering on infrastructure plans. Well, that’s a pretty clear statement in regards to that. And the element that they say is that the Treasury informed us that under-investment in some infrastructure in many cases may lead to reduced wellbeing and productivity. The number one issue in this country over a period of time is poor productivity. That is because we have not invested capital in the areas in regards to per labour unit in order to make sure that—as a labour unit or as employees—we’re able to deliver productivity. We are one of the lowest compared to other OECD countries. So the need for targeted infrastructure investment that drives economic growth, that drives productivity, is absolutely essential. And when we see a Government that puts on hold key roading and infrastructure projects that are enablers of growth that opportunity cost of those projects being delayed for one, two, three, five years can never be recovered. As a result, we’re going to need to play catch-up with that infrastructure deficit, and that is going to hold and continue to hold Kiwis back.

The other element around infrastructure and linked to infrastructure is around the three waters reform, and the Investment Statement made a number of comments around that. It commented here that there is concern around the value for money going into the three waters programme. It referenced the fact that part of the $3 billion bribe fund by this Government given out to councils to try and buy their support—which has failed dismally. Well, in Auckland alone, the allocation of $127 million from that three waters fund that—I think most people at home would think, “Did that go into water pipes? Did that go into infrastructure under the ground?” No. It went to plug last year’s deficit in operating spending. That is unbelievable. That is unacceptable. That is taxpayer’s money. And the comment from the Minister in regards to that is, “Well, that’s not my responsibility.” And that is the culture that we’ve got around poor fiscal discipline, poor allocation of capital, and the cost of that is going to be felt by future generations in terms of lack of investment.

We also challenged, as part of the FEC, around the cost in order to deal with the infrastructure in the three waters space. We were given numbers between $120 billion and $185 billion. Well, it’s interesting that Treasury have assessed the total deficit of infrastructure in this country to be around $220 billion. So obviously the left hasn’t spoken to the right in regards to the total element, but there is an absolute lack of substantiation of these numbers.

The Investment Statement paints a picture of a Government addicted to spending, a Government that has debt levels that are unsustainable, and the reality is the wheels are falling off the Labour bicycle.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I’m not sure if the Opposition have got the same Investment Statement that we have on this side of the House, because it makes great reading, and it’s an impact Investment Statement which shows resilience in the New Zealand economy. That resilience is because of careful financial management from our Minister of Finance. It’s from responding appropriately with a health response to the COVID pandemic, and it is also, of course, because of the hard work and the pulling together of ordinary New Zealanders.

Now, the balance sheet shows what the Crown owns and what it owes, and the balance sheet is a good indicator of our ability to reach wellbeing outcomes. If we look at the numbers, GDP is up 5.1 percent from a year ago. The official unemployment has edged up to actually 3.3 percent, not 3.2 percent, in the three months to the end of June, and wages have lifted to 3.4 percent, which is what the Minister of Finance has predicted would happen. In fact, in the private sector it’s up to 7 percent, which is the largest increase in wages since 2008. House prices are dropping, and so all the indicators are showing that there is a market correction, and that’s from the past three decades where labour productivity growth has almost doubled wage growth.

Now, these are not my words. These are the words of the FIRST Union in Stuff today saying the tight market input is pushing employers a bit harder to attract and retain staff. That’s a good thing, and long overdue. The Capital Economics economist Marcel Thieliant reported in Stuff today that inflation has already peaked, so we are really heading into a period at the start of next year where inflation will either stabilise or fall and wages will trend upwards, and that is exactly what the Minister of Finance had said would happen.

Now, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t tough out there. We understand that it is tough for New Zealanders. We understand that it is tough for workers, and we like to call them workers over on this side of the House, rather than Mr Watts’ word, “labour units”. They are people, and we need to acknowledge that and understand that it’s really difficult for them. But we’re not the only country going through this. The inflationary effects of COVID and of the war on Ukraine have affected virtually every country in the world. And if I look at some research from the Pew Research Centre, it says that inflation rates have doubled in 37 out of 44 economies over the last two years.

Interesting and unfortunate fact: the highest inflation rate is in Turkey—54.8 percent. That’s incredible. Out of those 44 countries, New Zealand is 12th lowest. Now, the bottom three are China, Indonesia, and India. There are some question marks around their figures. Nevertheless, with their low inflation that doesn’t say anything about the deaths. We know in India, for example, they have a death rate from COVID of over 500,000. Now, the reason I’m saying this is because it’s all inter-related. The balance sheet, the COVID recovery, the response to COVID are all inter-related. Economies around the world have struggled with COVID, with supply chains, and we’ve seen what the war in Ukraine has done to petrol prices in New Zealand and around the world.

That’s why this Government has tried to ease some of that pain with the cost of living payment that’s going to 2.1 New Zealanders. It’ll be in their bank accounts about now—that squeezed group that haven’t been able to access the winter energy payment but are still feeling the inflationary effects on things like blocks of cheese. That’s why we have continued half-price transport till the end of January, and we’ve extended the fuel tax cut. And actually, we’ve extended half-price transport for community services card holders permanently. The winter energy payment: massively important for the people in Taieri where I have my electorate—very cold there at the moment. That is making the difference to my constituents, for many of them, of being able to have both a warm house and food on the table and not having to choose between them.

We have moved to disband the supermarket duopoly, an excellent piece of work by my good friend and colleague, Hon Dr David Clark. Lots of feedback coming in about how unfair the million dollars of excess profit per day the supermarkets have been making. That’s going to make a real difference to our constituents.

Free lunches in schools: more than 45 million lunches have been delivered to 921 schools. My son goes to Bathgate Park and it’s a decile 3 school. I’ve seen the huge difference that those lunches have made to many of my son’s friends. And we have also increased superannuation, benefits, minimum wage, and the winter energy payment. These are all some of the really good outcomes that we have been able to achieve by having a good balance sheet. I’d like to quote Dr Caralee McLiesh, who’s the Secretary to the Treasury. She said in evidence at the select committee that “New Zealand has fared really well throughout the pandemic and that’s supported by statements from some of the international organisations and rating agencies as well. So that gives us confidence, then, that both the health and economic response have delivered positive outcomes.”, and she is referring there, of course, to the two triple A ratings that my colleague Hon Kiritapu Allan referred to.

One of the other members raised the idea that perhaps our fiscal policy had not been done prudently. Well, I go on to quote Caralee McLiesh in saying, “One of the lessons from the pandemic is how powerful fiscal policy can be in providing targeted support where it’s needed to keep workers attached to jobs, to help businesses to keep operating and to provide confidence in the market.” If we had a high unemployment rate, those people would simply not be able to meet their mortgage payments. That would be the beginning of a spiralling effect of recession, of people not being able to keep their homes, and it would put us in a deep, dark place.

Now, if I go back to what the alternative reality might have been had National got in when COVID happened. If we look back at March 2020, the then leader Simon Bridges called for a complete border shutdown for non-residents. On 23 April 2020, The Spinoff said that one of the best case scenarios for unemployment was 8 percent. Now, we have seen today’s figures—3.3 percent, very low; 3.2 percent recently. The best case scenario back then was predicted to be 8 percent. It is this Government’s fiscal management which has been able to keep that all important indicator in the right place. May 2020, when the UK death toll was 30,000, Simon Bridges was asking for our borders to be reopened, and I hate to think what would have happened not only to our people but to our economy had that happened prior to the vaccine roll-out.

Now, of course, the rest is history. We had a change in leader in the National Party, then 53 days later, another one. We’re up to the fourth leader. The reason I raise that is we can’t have economic stability in a country that is led by a political party on the other side that cannot even keep its own house in order as far as leadership and political stability. They don’t have a plan. They complain about debt, but the only way that they want to tackle debt is to give tax cuts to the rich, so I’m not sure how that would help. So it’s a bit rich of them to be talking about fiscal prudence and financial management when the leadership has already changed so many times. There’s been a flip-flopping of ideas about whether to keep the borders open, whether to keep the borders closed. Have we got too many people coming in? Have we not got enough people coming in? These are all issues that are related to the financial stability, the balance sheet that needs to be managed prudently and carefully.

That is what our Minister of Finance has done. He knew that this year would be difficult. He has messaged that to people. We have targeted our support for those who need the most support from the most deprived communities, and we know that from 2023 onwards, the wage rise that we have seen in today’s figures will continue to go upwards and that is going to help close the inequality gap, and that is what most of the members on this side of the House came to do when we came into Parliament was to try to make New Zealand a fairer place. My colleague Kiritapu has referred to the fact that, in fact, inequality during COVID even—and the report says this, and I’ve got evidence here, again, from the Treasury. During COVID, it shone a light onto the inequalities in New Zealand, but actually it also helped to marginally close that gap. Now, time will tell, in due course, whether that’s going to be further closed, but I would feel very confident with the targeting that this Government has done, that we have done everything in our power to make sure that New Zealand has been in the best possible position to weather what has been a COVID storm and to weather what has been the really dramatic and unexpected war in Ukraine that has sent the world topsy-turvy. So this is a good statement and I would encourage the Opposition to read it properly. Thank you.

SPEAKER: Andrew Bayly—but just as I call the member, I’m just going to remind Mr Bishop, can he please keep his mask on. I know that he was eating something for a period of time, but he shouldn’t be eating stuff to the point where he has to have his mask off. If he’s chewing a lolly, keep the mask on.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, I think that speech just tells it all. Unfortunately, we are all part of a committee called the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and that speech just highlights the deficit in terms of the ability to actually talk to a report, which is what this session tonight in the House is about, rather than give a political rant about National and leadership and things like that.

Look, I just take issue with some of the stuff. The member talked a good game about equality, and, of course, what we do know is that we had 100,000 children in a poverty gap and that number has increased over the last five-and-a-bit years. We are seeing so much hardship and division in New Zealand at the moment at a financial, economic, and social issue that, personally, I find very concerning. Because not only does New Zealand have a huge economic challenge ahead of it but it has a huge social challenge in terms of how we bring people back together, how we actually create an environment that people want to live in in New Zealand and feel that they’re getting a fair shot, because certainly that’s not the case.

And to say that the Government is undertaking targeted support, which we all know in the most recent example has been an absolute disaster. Where if you’re a university student you cannot get access to the so called $300-odd that people have been given, but they’re those type of people who are not earning money, who want to earn money, but, and for some perverse reason, are not getting access to it, and yet people living overseas, as Mr Bishop talks about, lawyers overseas in London are suddenly finding they’re getting money from the New Zealand Government; it’s outrageous.

Anyway, this report is one of four, as no doubt you know having been here an exceptionally long time. So we’ve had a long-term financial statement—

SPEAKER: A lot longer than these reports have been around.

ANDREW BAYLY: Yes, I know. Yes. We’ve got the local long-term financial statement, which is published every four years. We’ve got the long-term insights briefing, which is something that Treasury does every three years. We’ve got the Wellbeing Report, which we debated not long ago, which is a document published every four years. And, of course, this is the Investment Statement, which I’d just remind, actually, what it’s about, which is: describes the state and value of significant assets and liabilities of the Government, how these have changed over the value over time, which is obviously a four-year cycle, and how they are forecast to change over the next two years, and the changes since the last statement.

So I think the first thing is there is an absolute enshrined principle—and it’s embedded in the Public Finance Act—which is we need to ensure that we have sustainable and resilient public finances that will bolster living standards for future generations. That’s a crucial pivot or tenant of what we should be discussing about in this report. Because obviously this report lays out the assets and liabilities of the Government, and I think what we’ve seen is, certainly there’s been an increase in the net worth of the Government. We’ve seen the value of assets now, it’s been quoted regularly before, about $440 billion, liabilities total about $281 billion, and now we’ve got a net equity of roughly about $160 billion.

Just as a side note, I wish we would be able to work out what the net equity of the water companies is going to be because no one can tell me what that is. They can tell me what the assets in the balance sheet—and the liabilities. But even the officials can’t. But at least at central government level we do know what the core value of that, which is about $160 billion.

Interesting, I note that if you look at all the balance sheets of the Government, the intellectual-property component has steadfastly remained at about $3 billion-$3.5 billion, and that’s been going in the balance sheet for quite some period of time. As the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs mistakenly said last night in the debate about the statistics and data bill or the Data and Statistics Bill, that in most cases public companies, a significant amount of their value, he said it was related to data. It’s not. It’s actually related to the intellectual property. I think one of the key things in the Government’s balance sheet is the huge undervaluation of its intellectual property. Something that I’ve regularly asked finance Ministers and the Treasury secretary, and for some reason it’s something that keeps slipping through, but I would imagine that if you looked at the intellectual property that resides in every Government agency, State-owned enterprise (SOE), whatever, if it was taken from a private-sector perspective that value would be significantly enhanced because of the embedded intellectual property that sits and resides in those balance sheets, in those operations.

I think my colleague Mr Simon Watts made a good point, current borrowings costs, if you go back a couple of years’ ago it was about $2 billion. It was about the cost of running the New Zealand Police force; now, about $4.7 billion. So, as he noted, about the total cost of the justice costs in New Zealand or just to put it in another perspective, it’s about the same cost as operating Vote Defence, about $4.8 billion-$4.9 billion. So what we’re doing is every year we’re taking what we could have spent on defence or justice and paying it to people, often located overseas, in terms of those who hold our Government debt, and as we all know, most of that Government debt is owned by foreigners. So what we’re doing is just taking that money, which could otherwise be spent on very useful projects and, in fact, taking it offshore.

So this is the central issue about this report, which is: what is a prudent level of debt, and how should you structure the balance sheet. There’s a challenge that, really, we’ve faced over the last couple of years between investing now and preserving our resilience for the future. I think the COVID situation over the last 2½ years has highlighted the infrastructure challenge we’ve got, you know, poor connectivity in rural areas is just one example where it’s just an absolute pressing need for substantial improvements in that service. I know there’s been some investment but it’s of a minor nature. There’s still huge restrictions. That deficit in infrastructure is really, really important.

But the resilience going forward and our ability to invest for the future has, to some extent, been diminished significantly by the increase in debt over the last 2½ years. If you look back 2½ years’ ago to March, our debt was sitting roughly at about $60 billion and now it’s sitting well over $120 billion. It’s doubled over the last 2½ years. Whilst some of that expenditure’s been useful—no doubt we would’ve done the wage subsidy and certain elements of that—there has been an incredible amount of money that literally has gone into the ether and no one can point to. It’s not like it’s been used to build new infrastructure. It has just vanished into the ether. Now what that means is that whilst our debt was a very low rate of 19 percent, it is now well over 30 percent, and likely to increase further over the next couple of Budget cycles. Or hopefully for the Budget cycle 2024 there will be change. But we are seeing our options for future investment seriously diminished as a result of Government expenditure and Government spending. Of course, we’ve had a Reserve Bank alongside that has just undertaken a mass amount of liquidity easing or buying of bonds, which now means that we’ve got $60 billion of additional debt taken on to account into the Reserve Bank, which means that, of course, because Adrian Orr, the Reserve Bank Governor, signed an indemnity with the Minister of Finance we’ve now got a mounting liability, was about $5 billion, was in this report about $7½ billion, now is well over $8 billion, and likely to increase further as interest rates rise. We have got a staggering amount of new debt that’s come into New Zealand. We have reduced our options to spend on good stuff in the future, whether it’s infrastructure, whether it’s social spending, and that is the wasted opportunity that we’ve seen.

HELEN WHITE (Labour): It’s a pleasure to rise to take a call and to debate what’s a very important snapshot of where we are in terms of our economy. I am relatively new to politics. I did about 25 to 30 years of law, and I came on to this committee. So what I thought I’d do is give the public at home a snapshot of what I learnt from this report, because it’s a very interesting snapshot indeed.

First of all, I learnt that the Treasury confirmed the overall health of the balance sheet in the face of what have been major challenges—and that is mainly COVID. But also it confirmed that in terms of our long-term challenges. What it did was it talked about what a solid foundation we have had, and that means that we actually have an overall—we owe $438,000 billion. But we have, sorry—sorry. Let’s just—we actually have done well in terms of what we owe versus what we have borrowed.

What we are also facing is a situation where, actually, the fact we went into the crisis as we did was really helped by the fact that we had a finance Minister who had kept a lid on the debt, and that had made a huge difference. What I also learnt was that we have a—sorry, I’m just having trouble with my glasses, and I can’t actually see the page. We have taken a very sound pathway, and that sound pathway that we have taken, in terms of the way we responded to the crisis, is one that involves actually really using the money that we were investing in the places that mattered. So we used it to actually do things that mattered long term. There’s a real confirmation in this report of just how wise that was, because we’ve heard a lot today from the Opposition about the issue over the investment in infrastructure, but actually there hadn’t been enough investment in infrastructure. And what was lost was the opportunity that that would have given New Zealanders. Now the money is going into those places that matter.

So, when we talk about things like three waters, we’re talking about investments in the very infrastructure that’s important, because there had been a real slide in that area. We have not had investment in the pipes and the pure water that we need. As a consequence, we’ve had some terrible crises. We’ve actually had people die; we’ve had people die of water quality. And so those things, when we invest in them, we actually invest forward into our future, because that is actually exactly what a Government is for.

We have got to do that, obviously, with housing as well. There is an acknowledgment in this report that that money needs to be spent in those areas, and it needs to be spent by Government. In fact, there is an encouragement to spend that money in areas that are about climate change, because that actually is a very progressive investment, because those are the risks we face and there’s an acknowledgment of those risks. In fact, the report writers warn that one of the things that we need to do is think very carefully about that climate change situation in terms of what it is putting at risk for us, because it is putting us at risk when we don’t acknowledge that we are going to face some real crises in that area—things like the water pipes that I was talking about. My understanding is that 4,000 of those water pipes will be at risk because of climate change, so we have to build robustly and we have to build things that actually don’t put our children at risk of future debt. And we’re doing that.

In fact, I was interested to hear several, what I would call, ideological comments come in from the other parties about what we should not be doing. There was the suggestion by ACT that we should be selling assets, and there was a suggestion by National that Government doesn’t do this well. What I would contrast that with is actually the report itself, where there is a part of the report that talks about the public investment in infrastructure, and it actually specifically talks about how the international experience is that it’s really important for Government to invest in those areas, because, if it does, actually other parties crowd in—they’re encouraged to actually innovate and to invest as well. So it’s very, very important that our Government takes that kind of role, and that’s exactly what it’s doing.

What they also talk about is the significant opportunities that come out of actually looking at the risks that we face in an area like climate change and responding to them as a Government, because, if we take them on as opportunities, we can do things that actually produce a lot more income for New Zealand. We can look at things like sustainable fuels. We can look at waste minimisation. These are all consistent with our climate goals, but they’re also ways of actually shoring up our economy.

One of the things that is very clear in this report is that there is a robust review process. There’s a discussion of this in the report, and there’s a discussion of this in the report that the Finance and Expenditure Committee made on it, where we talked about the kinds of things that are here at the moment in our system that really keep eyes on the kinds of responses that the Government are making. So Treasury does things like it reviews the economic response, it reviews wage subsidies, it reviews the Business Finance Guarantee Scheme, and it also intends to do a wellbeing report by the end of 2022, which is a very interesting concept, I think, because we’re getting at the heart of matters.

One of the things I’m most proud of, of this Government, is that there is a focus on employment, and that was true in this response. Let’s face it, this Government did spectacularly when it came to keeping people employed. And, while the Opposition likes to talk about self-reliance, what I know from my career in law is that the most important thing that people can have if they want to be self-reliant is a job. They don’t need any job; they need a well-paying job. Today, we had statistics come out that said that Māori unemployment was down to 5.5 percent; Pacific unemployment was down to 5.4 percent. That is extremely important, because that is taking a group that has been marginalised and unemployed in much higher numbers than Pākehā, and they are now working. That’s a sustainable future. That is a totally different thing that is going on when that happens, and it’s a very important thing that’s happened, and I’m very proud of it.

I’d just like to end by saying that, when I read this report, I didn’t feel despondent. I didn’t spend my time worrying too much about the things that have been mentioned by the other side, because it was an overwhelmingly positive report. It was quite a creative report, it pointed us in the right direction, and it talked about things like infrastructure, and some of that was a little devastating that we hadn’t done enough over a very long time over our infrastructure. But it pointed us absolutely in the right direction, and it seemed to me a very robust system of really robust reporting that was going to put us on the right track.

But, more importantly, I was proud of the Government that I’d come into for getting it right as much as they had—for actually making sure that, when the pressure was on to try and spend more, when it was not appropriate, it hadn’t. But, when it was a rainy day, it had spent the money that was required. And, consequently, we just have not had the awful forecasts we had—that people would be unemployed. We haven’t had that. What we have is tough times at the moment, but people have jobs, and that is so, so important to their dignity. It is so important to whether they can pay the mortgage. It is so important in terms of whether they can weather this storm. And that happened under this Government’s watch, and it is absolutely reflected in this report. So I am very pleased to commend this report to the House.

SPEAKER: The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on He Puna Hau Pātiki: 2022 Investment Statement.

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

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

Motion agreed to.

Report noted.

Bills

Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill

In Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members, the House is in committee on the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. It would be helpful, if members have questions, that they put them together for the member in charge during their call. Members, we now come to the debate on clause 1.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order, Mr Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that clauses 1 to 6 stand part.

Clauses 1 to 6, and the Schedule

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Chair. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to rise as the sponsor of this local bill, the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill, where the Palmerston North City Council is the promoter. I intend to make some comments for the benefit of the committee and to place on record, and then, obviously, very happy to take any questions. I have had an opportunity to look at contributions from members as part of the second reading on this local bill; noting, however, that the Environment Committee did report to the House with a recommendation that the bill be passed in its current form with no amendments. This is a discrete piece of land in Palmerston North. It’s located adjacent to and nearby a number of other recreational reserves within the city. Actually, I know that many colleagues who had the benefit of attending Palmerston North for the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) conference in the last couple of weeks became quite familiar with it, passing that particular space while they spent some time in the city.

I want to just refer back to some of the historical components of the land, because there are quite a number of Acts that touch on this piece of land. The Huia Street Reserve land, as it is colloquially known, is currently subject to three Acts: the Wellington Reserves Act of 1876 and the amendment Act of 1877, which applies to a 138-hectare area set aside in 1876 to be held in trust by the council for use as a public park, recreation ground, and botanical gardens. The Huia Street Reserve is part of that original parcel of 138 hectares, and the original trust requirement still sits and stands with that piece of land. The Palmerston North Reserves Act of 1922 also applies to this land, and it is this Act under which the land is currently held.

Now, the Council does currently have the power to build houses on the land if it chooses to, but it does not have the power to sell the land once the houses have been built. So it’s a situation where the council might invest some capital proceeds or an injection of capital resource but they don’t have an ability to actually sell the land that the houses would be built on. Also, the Reserves Act 1977 also applies to this piece as well. What this bill seeks to do is to remove the Huia Street land from under those three Acts and place it under the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Act of 1966. Of specific relevance is that Act, as it will enable the council, if it chooses to, to potentially do something with the land, with some freedom as well, subject to a consultation process of course. The select committee—and it’s in the Hansard, for members around the House—went through quite a detailed process, a fulsome process, and in their report they specifically note that they were satisfied that due process had been followed, and that was confirmed in their contribution.

I just want to touch on two members’ contributions as part of the second reading, because this is the first opportunity to do so. The Hon Eugenie Sage touched on the need for decision-making principles to be considered as part of the next steps and that many of the issues that were raised by submitters would, none the less, be subject to the normal public notification process, where there’s a time and place notified, 14 days’ notice, and the like. The Environment Committee didn’t delve into whether it was the right thing or the wrong thing to sell or develop the land, but rather whether it was appropriate that the council had the ability to go through a consultation process to do so. The other contribution was from Harete Hipango, who raised the possibility of whether the land should be gifted instead. Now, that still would be a matter for the council to determine, because Rangitāne, as you know, has mana whenua status in relation to this particular land.

The Environment Committee did spend some time and went into some detail looking at the specific relationship that Rangitāne has with the land but also with the Palmerston North City Council. The committee received specific advice that, effectively, confirms Rangitāne o Manawatū settled with the Crown in 2016 and that the Crown was not currently in any active negotiations with any other iwi groups with interests around the city. So there were no current Treaty settlement obligations in relation to this piece of land. However, if there were an opportunity for future settlements with any claimants who might assert that their rohe included the Huia Street Reserve, that would be a matter for the Crown to deal with in terms of other resources. So the relationship with Rangitāne is very strong. It’s a positive one. It’s one based on partnership, and I know that the member for Rangitīkei has noticed that—and, no doubt, those who were attending the LGNZ conference in the last couple of weeks in Palmerston North would have seen the strong relationship between Rangitāne and also the Palmerston North City Council.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well, thank you, Mr Chair. I wanted to thank the member who has been sponsoring this local bill, the member for Palmerston North, Tangi Utikere. He’s given a very fulsome historic analysis of this small but quite important piece of legislation amending legislation to the Palmerston North City Council. It should be noted at this stage in committee that there is, I think, unanimity across the House in support of this piece of legislation. It’s to the credit of the sponsoring member and the council that they’ve been able to achieve that, because that wasn’t the case some 15 years ago when a similar attempt to resolve this issue was brought before this House and was not completed, and actually withdrawn and failed finally. So credit is due to both the council and to the sponsoring member.

It’s a very small piece of legislation in terms of the number of words printed in the bill, and, indeed, if members and people who might be watching this at home are of a mind to, they could refer to the just three short pages. There are six clauses and one amended schedule. The first four clauses relate to the title, the commencement, the principal Act, and the purpose. It’s actually in clause 4(a) and (b) that the doing bit of this amending legislation is included. That clause 4(a) simply says that “The purpose of this Act is to—(a) vest in the Palmerston North City Council the land described in the Schedule”, and that land in the Schedule refers to the piece of land that the sponsoring member referred to in his contribution. So that’s very clear and precise.

But it’s in clause 4(b) that the meat of this amending legislation sits, and that clause 4(b) says, “enable the council to sell that land if the land becomes surplus to the Council’s requirements.” And, really, it became clear during the submissions that the Environment Committee heard from council and others that council actually does intend to sell this land. And so my question to the sponsoring member is: if it’s very clear that this land is to be sold and developed for medium-density, high-density housing that is needed in the city of Palmerston North, then why are we sort of dancing on the head of a pin with the pretext of words like “if the land becomes surplus”? It’s pretty clear I think to everybody that the purpose of this amending piece of legislation is to do exactly that, and I think, in terms of the drafting, we could have been perhaps a little bit more clear. But I do understand that, ultimately, what this piece of legislation does is give the power and authority of the council to make the final decision as to what will happen to the land to the elected representatives of the Palmerston North City Council.

So, on that note, I don’t want to make any further contribution. It’s a very minor matter, but I think it is worth the sponsoring member at least addressing it. But on this side of the House, we support this piece of legislation. We think it’s practical, it’s prudent. And in coming to our deliberations on this side of the House, we took considerable cognisance from the hard-working and diligent member for Rangitīkei, and his advice and guidance helped form our caucus’ opinion on this matter with clarity and distinction. So, on that note, I will sit down and look forward to a comment from the sponsoring member.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m happy to respond to the member’s questions, and I thank him for his contribution. It’s worth noting that, yes, this is something that the Environment Committee did return to the House with unanimous support across parties, and also again worth noting that this is not the first time that this piece of land has been subject to a parliamentary process—one in recent times has been successful in relation to the Palmerston North Girls’ High School, which the member will be aware of. The more recent opportunity, however, is where there were concerns about this piece of land not having gone through an appropriate process at a local level, and I’m delighted that the select committee did tease out some of those concerns to ensure that there was not a repeat when the bill came back to the Parliament this time round.

The member is also right in that the bill itself does enable the council to sell the land. Whilst that might be the intention of the Council—and what was placed before the select committee were some examples in terms of potential developments on that site, and that will be subject to a resource consent and other consenting process—none the less, the council has been quite clear in its view that there would still need to be some public consultation process. So whilst this frees up the land, it doesn’t necessarily direct the specific type of development that might follow. The position of the council is that that is a conversation that would still have to be taken with the local community. The meat, as I’m advised, is in clause 5 of the bill, and the amended section 3, which is the amending component to that 1966 Act, does the changeover from those three Acts to the 1966 Act—noting, however, that any subsequent decision of the council will be still subject to a consultative process.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Well, it was an unusual pleasure to sit through a bill in consideration at the Environment Committee, which resulted in unanimous recommendation that the bill proceed.

But some really interesting issues were raised during consideration. What struck me as being remarkable—and the member sponsoring the bill, Tangi Utikere, has already raised it—there are three separate pieces of legislation that need to be modified in order for a district council of, I think, a tier 2 metropolitan area. So not one of the big councils, but one that has a very important role to play in provincial New Zealand. Is it the capital of Rangitīkei? Rangitīkei District, is that right?

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Ha!

SIMON COURT: Well, why on earth should it take—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie):No.

SIMON COURT: —such—am I lost? Has Google Maps failed me?

Hon Scott Simpson: Should have taken an opportunity to visit the site.

SIMON COURT: No, I say—I’ll get to that.

Why on earth should it take an Act of Parliament to allow Palmerston North Council to make decisions about how it uses surplus land? Land that was set aside in 1876 for use as a public park, recreation ground, and botanic gardens.

I mean, in 1876, they wouldn’t have known what a telephone was in New Zealand, let alone facing the issues that we face now. With the need to build infrastructure, we recognise the need that we want to densify and intensify cities and have mixed residential and commercial districts. None of these things would have been understood in terms of the pressure on land required to deliver infrastructure and social and economic benefits back in 1876.

So, look, in my experience working at Auckland Council, there were many, many different types of reserve land that, in mix, all together contiguous, continuous pieces of land with this underlying reserve status that made it very, very difficult to change the use of that land—often doing nothing but growing thistles and weeds and not even suitable for active recreation—unless the status of the actual Reserve Act that it depended on permitted active recreation. Some of it could only be looked at.

So that’s not helpful in the 21st century. Local government needs to have flexibility as to how to repurpose the land that it needs to do other stuff with. It shouldn’t have to come to Parliament and take up hundreds and hundreds of hours of officials’ time, of members of Parliament’s time to present a case as to why they should be allowed to use their land to do something different than it was used for in 1876.

So while I’m pleased that the report has come back to the House with a unanimous recommendation that the bill proceed, I was shocked and disturbed by what I learnt through the process.

It must be time for a new look at the role of local government to give it the incentives that local government needs to actually succeed on behalf of their community. Incentives like sharing 50 percent of the GST on every new build that they sign off on, actually, so they can cash flow infrastructure. A real reform of the Resource Management Act so that they can make decisions about how they use their land without having every NGO and pressure group that wants to save a special grass or a snail or a frog turning up to padlock themselves to the gates and turn up in the Environment Court and say, “No, you shouldn’t be allowed to do it. We once had a game of hacky sack here and this reserve’s special to us.”

In fact, local government have one of the biggest challenges. How do we repurpose land so we can make our cities great again? How? How? This bill is one way, but what an awful palaver. So to the member, Tangi Utikere, congratulations on progressing the bill. All the best, Palmerston North. Make the most of it.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just have one question—not so much related to the substance of the bill, that I think is actually in very good shape, but in relation to why we’re here on a members’ day in the committee of the whole House considering this Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment bill. The reason I ask that is because for the better part of the last hundred-and-something years, this Parliament would pass a bill that since 1906 was an annual process and since about the 1930s was called the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Bill. And then in the 1980s, it happened every three or four years. Then we certainly hit quicksand under the Key-English Government because of a sticky issue that was part of a bill that was introduced in 2009. But my question to the member is: did he or the Palmerston North City Council pop along to the Minister for Land Information—and if he hadn’t, he could perhaps do that now; he’s not that far away from him—and find out why it is that it was necessary to use members’ day time to do what is a pretty straightforward thing, but which had in the past happened multiple times?

The reason I ask that is because if it becomes the sort of the precedent that a city or district council has to come to Parliament to free up land or otherwise dispose of it or do something different from what the reserve requirements had of it, then members’ day will become a bit crowded with local bills for that purpose. So I am quite interested—I can’t ask the Minister for Land Information because it’s not his bill, but I would be interested in hearing from the member in charge of this bill what the circumstances were that led to us being here talking about a local bill. I think that’s quite an important aspect of the framework we might be using in the future for bills of this type.

RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to start by following in the footsteps of my Environment Committee colleague the Hon Scott Simpson in congratulating the member for ushering this bill through the select committee process and this House. Now, on the Environment Committee, we didn’t visit the site, but we did get very good visual material of the site and we saw the different uses that the land is put to. One of those uses is a tennis court, and I believe there is a tennis club and it has a lease to use that land. So my question is, really, if we could have an explanation of what is going to happen to these existing leases. Thank you.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank members for their questions and I’ll endeavour to work through them. The first one from Mr Court, I’m surprised and disappointed that the member is unaware of the fact that Palmerston North is not even located within the Rangitīkei district; it’s within the Manawatū district. But, then again, that’s an example perhaps of a member not being on the ground in the regions. So that’s the first thing.

The second is that this is subject to a legislative process that goes back as far as 1876. The trust was created over the land, and, actually, what the Palmerston North Reserves Act 1922 did was exactly what the member was seeking to do, albeit a hundred years ago, to give effect to that suggestion. The Reserves Act component is captured because of the current usage and way in which the land is currently defined to ensure that there are recreational considerations around that. This, just to be clear, is only having a legislative change upon the 1966 Act, none of the other Acts that have been referred to in the time line are largely affected, except this adds a change through to the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Act 1966.

In response to the Hon Michael Woodhouse, Parliament specifically, at the time—and I take the point that there are a number of historical components and elements to this, but, none the less—determined that it was appropriate to have these different pieces of legislation. The whole process of bringing a local bill to the House, as we’ve already experienced today, is to effect change at a local level. So this is something that, no, I have not had a conversation with the Minister for Land Information about specifically related to this bill or this piece of land, but it is only able to be actioned as it stands currently by way of legislative change. The council gave effect to the process that’s outlined in the appendix to the Standing Orders in terms of all of the notifications being certified and the like, but no, I’ve not had any conversations with the Minister for Land Information. It does raise an interesting point that if there are a number of statutes on the statute book that relate a bit more specifically, that there might be a piece of work around that. I said, as my response as a local member, the Palmerston North City Council has done all the footwork around this, and I’ve shepherded it through the process.

In response to my colleague Rachel Brooking, a hard-working member of the Environment Committee, I know, she is correct. There is currently a lease on that land that falls or is drawn in favour of the tennis club. What this, effectively, would do, in terms of the legislative change, is the bill makes section 3 of the 1966 Act apply to this piece of land by vesting it in the 1966 Act. It removes the trust requirement of the 1877 Act and, therefore, how the 1922 and the 1953 or the 1977 Act—it’s a little bit confusing—is basically applicable. But it specifically leaves all current leases in place, such as the one for the tennis club—that would still be a contractual negotiation between the two parties, of course. But probably what’s also worth noting is that the encumbrances that are currently in place, and there are some that the member probably may recall from the drone footage and the maps, there were some that ran around the skirt of the carpark to Palmerston North Girls’ High School. So those access opportunities to any of the surrounding land are still preserved under this process.

Clauses 1 to 6 and the Schedule agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 29 June.

GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. Well, this is a good bill by my learned colleague Greg O’Connor. This bill, the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill, essentially extends the provisions already existing under the sex offender register that was passed under the previous Government.

It’s important to specify, I think, that we’ve picked up this debate since a period of time has passed, and to outline what the bill endeavours to achieve and how that will be laid out by amending legislation. A registrable offender, under current law, is a person who’s been convicted for a qualifying offence and has been sentenced to imprisonment or, in fact, has been sentenced to a non-custodial sentence, as sometimes is the case, and also anyone who has been made subject to a registration order. A person is not able to qualify if at the time they committed the offence, they were under 18. So to be clear, a qualifying offence is class 1, class 2, or class 3 offences as defined in the Crimes Act, and covers a full range of sexual offending as defined in that Act where the victim is under 16 years of age.

Of note is that there’s also corresponding legislation for offending that happens in a foreign jurisdiction. But what this bill essentially does is it provides for the activities that may be conducted that are illegal in New Zealand in another country and to have those brought under the same monitoring system that is currently provided for the movements of an offender in New Zealand. The register, as it now operates, imposes on offenders reporting obligations of a number of relevant pieces of personal information that are particularly around the offender’s address or addresses, importantly, where they’re residing, where they’re visiting, and, in particular, if there’s any children that reside at those places that they may be. And these provisions are quite clearly laid out in section 16 of the Act.

It’s really important to note that this is where Mr O’Connor’s bill makes an important change. The basis is that section 21 of the Act, that the recent offender must have been intending to be away from their registered residential address within New Zealand and 24 hours before travel, they need to provide to police all of those details—where they are going, the dates on which they will travel, which addresses, whether there will be a child likely or not likely to reside at those addresses, and also the date that the registered offender intends to return to their registered residential address that the police will be aware of and monitoring that. But under section 21(4) of that, the registered offender can leave New Zealand and provided that the dates of their travel and their date are provided to police and their intent to return, that’s where it stops.

So this bill provides a bit further. Unlike such travel in New Zealand currently under the law, the registered offender is not obliged to supply police any of those details of where they are intending to reside and whether there are likely to be children at those addresses. And so it’s very important, where we know that there is a sex tourist trade, particularly in countries close to New Zealand, like Thailand and Cambodia, South East Asia, where we know that people do travel for the explicit purpose for sexual offending on those who are under the legal age of consent, that this bill seeks to extend the provisions that already exist for the protection of New Zealand children to further overseas.

This bill requires that registered offenders must advise police of all of those countries that they intend to stay in, the date they intend to travel, and the country and the date they intend to leave that country. It provides further protections. And as chair of the Justice Committee, I look forward to this bill. I look forward to hearing submissions from a wide range of groups that no doubt will have a strong view in terms of how this bill should be progressed further.

I would like to thank Mr O’Connor for using his wealth of experience as a former police officer and undercover agent in this space to be able to provide a bill that provides further protection for children, not just in New Zealand but further afield as well. I commend it to the House.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Speaker—and just to compliment my colleague Ginny Andersen for the way she has summed up the bill down to its last detail. It will save me doing the job in this five minutes I have now. I’m extremely pleased with the level of support that I’ve received from across the House, with only one party opposing the bill. It’s not a huge bill, but the passion and support of each of the speakers, even those opposing, shows an appreciation of the need to be clever and strategic in our lawmaking in order to protect society, not just punitive. I’m very pleased that my colleague Nicole McKee, speaking on behalf of the ACT Party, said that they had no intention to push that the register be made public, which would actually be self-defeating. So I’m very pleased at that stance taken by that party; I know that hasn’t always been a consistent stance. That just takes it out of the punitive into the protective. It means the protective screening that is intended.

I’m convinced this amendment, as well as protecting potential victims of child abuse in overseas destinations where a person on the child sex offender register may contemplate visiting, will also help those offenders by ensuring they are less likely to be put in a position to offend. Most of these offenders are highly flawed individuals who often cannot trust themselves, let alone be trusted by society, when they are in the presence of potential victims. Corrections research shows that a characteristic of such offenders is compulsive behaviour over a lifetime. I’ve interviewed many of these offenders as a police detective, and even knowing the consequences of being in prison as a so-called child abuser doesn’t deter them from their offending, such is their determination and compulsion. They have relatively low recidivism rates, largely because they’re removed from situations where they are likely to offend by the fact that they are registered.

Most serious and dangerous offenders actually are on extended supervision orders and public protection orders monitored by Corrections. That is why having to provide police with the full details of their whereabouts, and especially where children may be present, is good law. It’s good law to protect New Zealand victims; it is also good law to protect those overseas as well. This type of offending destroys the lives not only of the victims but also the families of the victims and even the offenders’ families. It even takes an added toll on the lives of those in Police and other authorities who have to deal with the victims. So everyone—and I mean everyone—has an absolute interest in eliminating all risk of offending and reoffending.

As the bill now heads off to the Justice Committee, where I’m confident the combined efforts of all members of that committee will see it emerge at second reading as the best piece of legislation that can be—and I’m buoyed by the fact that my colleague Ginny Andersen is chair of that committee, because I know she has experience of this in her work in policy and Police. I recommend strongly to the committee that the Police be requested to advise on this bill, and also Corrections. My colleague across the House Erica Stanford has graciously agreed to use the provisions of a similar bill she has had drawn to place before the committee as a Supplementary Order Paper in lieu of her bill, in order to potentially strengthen the bill, and I commend her for this.

In summary, I’m grateful for the opportunity to bring this bill before the House to ensure this Parliament gives New Zealand Police and other authorities the powers they need to protect potential child sex abuse victims everywhere. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 108

New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 12

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

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is, That the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Justice Committee.

Instruction to Justice Committee

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Point of order. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate regarding Supplementary Order Paper 175 in my name.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

ERICA STANFORD: I move, That Supplementary Order Paper 175 in my name be considered by the Justice Committee alongside the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill, and that if it thinks fit the committee may recommend amendments to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill

First Reading

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Workforce Committee to consider the bill.

I’m really pleased to introduce this bill, and I know business owners throughout the country will be very happy at the moment, at least. This is a bill that is long overdue to ensure there is consistency as to when shops can trade, and the silly rules around the sale of alcohol can be made more grown up. The bill seeks to remove an extra burden on businesses by removing the restriction on trading and selling alcohol on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. On these days, businesses are prevented from opening or are unnecessarily restricted in their operations. These restrictions may have been necessary in the past, but they are not required in 2022.

The impact of this is felt most severely by small businesses, who generally have a smaller pool of cash reserves and tighter allowances. Small businesses make up 97 percent of all businesses and employ around 30 percent of the total New Zealand working population. By removing these restrictions, trading will be permitted throughout these days, allowing businesses to decide themselves which days they would like to open. The bill retains the existing employee protections under the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 that apply in respect of Easter Sunday, and extends these protections to Good Friday. Sections 8 to 13 of the bill set things out quite clearly regarding employees’ rights. An employee can choose whether they would like to work or not, and the rights and obligations of both employers and employees are very well-defined. I know some employees are happy with the time off; however, others are really happy to work and receive the benefits that working a stat holiday provides them—time and a half and a day in lieu to take off whenever it suits them.

We are slowly but surely coming out of an economic crisis that the world hasn’t seen for a very long time. Throughout the last 2½ years, businesses have tried very hard to stay afloat and to keep their staff employed while having a huge number of extra costs piled on to them. The old adage “If business was easy, everyone would be doing it” could not be more true. But everyone is doing it tough at the moment, and there should be choice for both the businesses to open and the employees to work. The experiment that began in 2006 to allow councils to decide the rules has failed. This bill is needed to take the burden away from the individual regions.

Currently, councils throughout the country have to decide whether their town or city is worthy of the status “tourist destination”. This has led to a huge inequity between regions that are quite ludicrous. For example, Carterton can open; Ashburton can’t. Marlborough can open; Christchurch can’t. Napier can open; Hastings can’t. Upper Hutt can open; Wellington, Porirua, and Hutt City can’t. Tasman can’t—unless you live in Golden Bay. Nelson shops cannot open unless Founders Park is open. Founders Park is as a heritage park featuring historical themes like buildings and transport.

Or how about this one in Auckland? Only these shops selling certain goods can legally trade on Easter Sunday: service stations, dairies, restaurants, cafes, takeaway food, duty-free stores, garden centres, or shops on Parnell Road between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. I’m sure the hard-working business owners in Queen Street will be asking why their MP doesn’t support them like the MP for Parnell does his constituents. Little wonder everyone’s confused. The rules have become so complicated and subjective no one understands them.

Retail New Zealand point out, quite correctly, that it is completely hypocritical of councils to try and ban shopping while their own services continue to operate. Across the country, there are swimming pools, leisure centres, landfills, and recycling shops that open at Easter. If it’s acceptable for local councils to open, why can’t retailers be given the choice?

Part 2 of the bill refers to amendments to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and gets rid of the quite silly rules and regulations that leave hospitality venues scratching their heads and patrons wondering what on earth is going on with archaic laws that don’t make any sense at all. This bill is about treating people like adults, and, currently, the rules around serving alcohol at bars and restaurants over Easter treat people like irresponsible schoolkids.

In my hospitality venue in Nelson, I’ve spent the last 12 years dreading Easter because I know that my staff will spend a lot of their time apologising and explaining to sometimes irate customers who just can’t understand the rules they are having to abide by. The stress this puts on staff is not fair. The fines for not following the silly rules are huge. Young wait staff have to tell middle-aged and elderly customers that they can’t just have a bowl of chips for lunch, even if they have a bowl of chips for lunch every weekend, because the rules say that that’s not a substantial meal. But, if they have a little salad with it, that’s OK! You really can’t make it up. Then staff have to tell them that, once they’ve had their lunch, they can only stay for another hour, enjoying the sun or reading their book, before they have to leave the area.

Here’s a quote from an esteemed member of the community: “There are businesses that are allowed to operate at the moment that have to go through this farce of policing what people are eating in order to be able to sell them alcohol.” He continues, “I think it’s a ridiculous situation where, if I went to a pub in an area which was allowed to operate on Easter Sunday and order a plate of chips, I might not be allowed to buy a pint. But if that plate of chips includes a piece of fish, I probably would be able to.”—from Kieran McAnulty.

Section 47 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol 2012 states on Good Friday and Easter Sunday a person cannot be on licensed premises to dine if he or she is there at a time “(i) more than an hour before he or she starts (or is due to start) eating a meal; or (ii) more than an hour after he or she finishes eating a meal.” Surely no one thinks this is acceptable. Tourists think we’re joking. The inconsistency between hospitality venues when upholding these rules is blatantly obvious and creates more inequity between those who follow the law to the letter and those who are inclined to interpret things a little bit differently. Police have much better things to do with their time than worry about these archaic laws, and I’d like to think that council alcohol licensing teams would prefer to be doing something else with their time.

This bill is needed to bring some consistency and common sense to the Easter trading laws. I do have some sympathy for those who will argue for the status quo, maybe because of religious beliefs or a belief that workers’ rights might be affected. They will just want to leave things as they are. But things are broken and they need fixing. I think it’s worth noting that 52 members of this 53rd Parliament took an affirmation when they took office; only 71 took an oath on the Bible. Times are changing. But more than two-thirds of councils have allowed Easter trading in their districts, and it’s time for a serious debate about the issue. Hear the pros and cons from submitters and consult with the very people this affects. This is all about choice. We live in a democracy, and I believe businesses should be allowed to open if they want to and employees should be allowed to work if they want to. I look forward to the select committee process. I’m proud to present this bill to the House. Thank you.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill from the Labour Party side. I’ll first talk about what the bill does and then I’ll talk a little bit about the Easter Sunday trading—Easter Friday, Easter Sunday—and then I’ll talk about the view on the bill from this side of the House.

First of all, I’d like to begin by acknowledging the member who had the good fortune of having his bill drawn. He certainly put a lot of thought into this bill and it comes from personal experiences that he has experienced. I have visited the member’s establishment in Nelson and it’s a very, very good establishment. I won’t mention the name of it. I won’t put the name of it on Hansard—I’ll leave it to others if they would like to. But I’d just like to acknowledge the member’s excellent establishment. He’s run it very well for 12 years.

What the bill does is it seeks to remove, as the member says, an extra burden on business by removing the restriction on trading and selling alcohol on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. The legislation is aimed at removing the restriction on selling of alcohol on the two statutory holidays at Easter time, so Good Friday and Easter Sunday. The member didn’t put Christmas in there. I’ll be interested in why he didn’t put it in there. He may give us a reply at the end on that. I see some nods over there, but certain members were focusing on Easter Friday and Easter Sunday, two very religious days. Christmas is also a very religious day, Christmas being the birth of Jesus and Good Friday being the death of Jesus, and then Easter Sunday being the resurrection of Jesus Christ. So the member, as he has already outlined as well—a little bit more information as to the reasoning why.

Just a brief history lesson, for the benefit of those here in the House and those watching at home, in terms of the restricted shop trading days. So currently, almost all shops must be closed under the Shop Trading Hours Act of 1990 on the following days: Christmas Day, which is a public holiday; Good Friday, also a public holiday; Anzac Day until 1 p.m. on 25 April, also a public holiday; and Easter Sunday, which is actually not a public holiday but they are closed on those times.

Look, if I was to summarise why we have those current rules in place, I think there’s an aspect around history, particularly linked to Anzac Day; it’s a way of honouring those soldiers who have fought and died for the ANZACs—the Australia and New Zealand Army Corps.

And aspects of a religious nature—personally, I’m a Christian and I hold those values really strongly. As a country, we are founded on Christian values and Christian principles. The member acknowledged that we certainly are more secular as a country now than we were, you know, going back years ago. And we do see that in the House when people give their oath. As he said, some say “So help me God.” and others leave that part out. So I acknowledge what the member is saying: we have become more secular, that is correct. But we must also acknowledge the fact that as a country we are founded on Judeo-Christian values.

And I think, by and large, they have served us well. Our legal system is based on Judeo-Christian values. We are part of other countries around the world who broadly subscribe to those Judeo-Christian values. Most of those countries make up the OECD countries, and we have very strong relationships with those countries. However, we probably are moving more towards a secular society, but it’s important we don’t lose sight of where we came from and what we have, what it’s based on.

So there are religious aspects, and there’s another aspect I’ll probably put in there, which is around family. It’s around having certain times of the year when the shops are closed and that people are really strongly incentivised to look at doing something else rather than the commerce aspect, and having time with family. Now, some would argue you can also be involved in commerce and have family time at the same time, which, yes, technically you can. But I think that there’s no harm in just having a breather for a while is sort of one way I would describe it in terms of that.

So before I move on to the next part, just to finish the history lesson. So Saturday trading was introduced in 1980; we didn’t have any Saturday trading before that. And when I look at the history of why that came in, in the 1960s and 1970s airline travel became a lot more prevalent. So New Zealanders would travel overseas more frequently and they saw overseas that other countries were open, they were having trading on a Saturday. They’d come back to New Zealand and they would start asking questions, “Oh, why don’t we have it?” And so there was some pressure put on the Government by various groups and people, and in 1980 Saturday trading was introduced.

Sunday trading was introduced in 1990. So 10 years later we had Sunday trading—quite strong restrictions, and those restrictions have changed. In fact, there was a protest for the Sunday trading in 1990, and one of the slogans read, “Don’t weaken the weekend.” And that was by the Shop Employees Union. And if I can interpret that correctly, they were saying that the weekend is a time to not engage in commerce, but to spend time with your family and focus on those strong family values.

As I said, I grew up going to church every Sunday morning, and then we’d have lunch together with either other members of the church or with our own family and then we’d do family activities in the afternoon. In fact, we didn’t have any Sunday sport then either. Some people will remember the All Black Michael Jones didn’t play rugby on a Sunday. So he played for the All Blacks—absolutely incredible player; I still remember his efforts in the 1987 Rugby World Cup—would not play on a Sunday, and that was from those religious values that he held.

So, I’d better move on to the next part—I’ve only got three minutes left. So in terms of the Labour Party, I am sorry to disappoint the member, but the Labour Party will not be supporting this bill. It’s primarily around supporting our workers; supporting our workers to have a balanced life, and in terms of time off. Now, I acknowledge the member said in his opening speech that some workers do want to work on that time, and that’s probably correct; I think that’s a fair statement. However, it’s not right that any workers could be pressured or forced into this. I’m sure other speakers will sort of touch on that point to, sort of, tease that out a little bit further in terms of those details.

But basically, I think there’s only a few days in our calendar—there’s really only a few days left—where we’re focused on spending time with families and not putting pressure on people to go out to work. Now it used to be, and as I said before, the Judeo-Christian values used to be: Sunday, didn’t work because that was church—that was the Sabbath, as you would often term that. And so every Sunday, people wouldn’t work unless you were in the emergency services or other aspects where you certainly had to—that’s gone. Saturday trading obviously went before that. What we have left is Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Easter Sunday—so there’s a religious aspect to that—but there’s only a few days left and we have to be very, very careful with these days. We lose that and, I think, personally, I think we’ll lose one of the key foundations of our country. So that’s from a religious aspect. And then in terms of the workers’ aspect, and as I mentioned, others will sort of touch on that a little bit more.

The reality is there is no business without workers—there is no business without workers. And the Labour Party has always stood for the rights of workers. That is the fundamental aspect that we stand on as the Labour Party. Now, if the member had brought a bill to the House where it was that shops that were already open and already trading and then they added in the alcohol, well that might have received a different response, but the aspect around shops that are now currently closed being allowed to open—that’s very different. Because what that means is those workers, instead of having those statutory days off, that time with their family, they will be working. They will be working in that time. As I said before, there’s only a few precious days—in fact we’re only talking about two days in this bill, but I’d add it to three with Christmas Day—we’re only talking about three precious days. Let’s not lose these days; let’s hold on to what we have as a country. Let’s hold on to the values, the history we have as a country, and let’s support and protect our workers as we do that.

Marja Lubeck: Weaken the weekend.

JAMIE STRANGE: Let’s not weaken the weekend.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to be taking a call on this bill. Kia orana, I should say. So we’re talking about the Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill by my colleague Chris Baillie.

First up, I would like to congratulate Chris Baillie on his good fortune of getting this bill drawn out of the ballot. But like my Labour colleague before me, Jamie Strange, has already said, we will not be able to support this bill.

As has been said already, this bill is aimed at removing the restriction on selling alcohol on the two statutory holidays around Easter time. Parliament has, in fact, dealt with this particular issue several times already. I did a little bit of digging into this issue and I believe that in the last 20 years, this is roughly the 12th time that this kind of bill considering Easter trading has come before the House.

Now, my colleague Jamie Strange spoke about Saturday trading commencing in, I believe, was it, 1980, and when I first came to New Zealand in 1989, I remember that most shops could not trade on Sundays. They were actually closed nine out of the 11 public holidays at the time. Now, of course, they can trade 51 out of 52 Sundays, and restricted shop trading applies to only 3½ days in the year—that’s all that there’s left. My colleague Jamie Strange already mentioned those days, so I won’t go over those again. Also, of course, some shops can open with some conditions attached if they have an area exemption or an Easter Sunday local policy.

Now, the explanatory note of the member’s bill reads, “The bill retains the existing employee protections under the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 that apply in respect of Easter Sunday and extends these protections to Good Friday.”

I also remember the member in charge of this bill stating that employees should be allowed to work. Now, if anything, that shows a total lack of understanding of the real world. Many workers in these retail shops are young, they’re in their first job, they’re on casualised jobs, they’re on minimum wage, and they’re often required to work seven days in any given week, days or nights, weekends, public holidays. It’s open slather.

These young, casualised workers often don’t have the knowledge about their employee rights. They will not know that they could say no to the boss for working on an Easter weekend. Even if they did, many of them would not feel empowered to do so. So, in reality, a vulnerable worker in these industries would fear, potentially, repercussions for their employment relationships if they were not to agree to work on any of these days.

Now, my colleague mentioned it before: Easter remains a significant holiday in New Zealand, and some workers would prefer not to work on these days. Since its origins, Easter has been a time of celebrating, of feasting, traditional Easter games, egg colouring, egg hunting—I’m sure all of us have participated in it with our whānau. Also, of course, many sporting events and social events take place over the Easter weekend. It is an opportunity for many of the workers to get together with the whānau and enjoy a bit of time off; take time out.

Apart from all of that, the employee’s right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday in the Shop Trading Hours Act—and that this bill would extend to Good Friday—creates also an inconsistency in the Holidays Act. I see I’m running out of time, so perhaps someone else can pick up that thread and explain a little bit more about that.

But the effects of this bill on our society are that it takes time away from our families, it takes time away from people to spend time with their children, and it takes time away from our communities. It does all that in the name of choice, self-determination; it, basically, places sales before any of the other important values in our communities.

I will be voting against this bill, and will be standing with workers employed in the approximately 2,500 off-licence holders in New Zealand who no doubt don’t want their guaranteed days off during Easter taken away. So I do not support this bill. Thank you.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for your time this evening. It’s a pleasure to stand and, as has already been said, just to congratulate Chris Baillie on his member’s bill being drawn from the ballot. And then, I guess, thank you: I appreciate the sympathy that you have made for me in your speech. I was one of the 51 who took my oath on the Bible. And I don’t come into this House as someone who—I believe that my faith is my engine, but it’s not something that I expect everyone or anyone to adhere to what I believe, and I have respect for that.

In this situation, I guess, it’s just reflecting on not necessarily what those days mean, because I think they’re actually—I’d say they’re far less than a religious holiday; they’re actually part of our cultural make up in Aotearoa. For example, Easter Sunday, it really isn’t empty tombs; it’s Easter eggs and chocolate. Christmas day isn’t about—

Marja Lubeck: Turkey.

GLEN BENNETT: Yeah, it’s about turkey and big roasts in 30-degree heat by the beach—it’s ridiculous—as opposed to celebrating the birth of Christ, but I digress.

What was said earlier was that there are silly rules, and I get there are lots of silly rules, and my household has a lot of them too. But as you get around the country and you look at different councils and jurisdictions, there are lots of differing rules, and that’s just how it operates.

For example, there are licensing trusts that still exist in New Zealand. If you go to west Auckland it’s different than if you go to South Auckland. For example, if you go to New Plymouth, where I’m the MP for, the hours of trade for liquor are different to if you go to central Wellington here. So there are differences, but I also think the mention of people being confused or it being infuriating for people—I think people just get it that things are different. In fact, in the last few years, if anything, people have become so much more flexible in terms of how life operates.

So it’s been said, for me, it’s very much about the ability to have some time off, as opposed to thinking about the actual liquor licensing or the trading days. And I look back to when I was a kid, when I remember Thursday night was late night shopping to go to 3 Guys in Mount Roskill in Auckland because shops were open until 7.30. It was quite exciting to go to 3 Guys on a Thursday night with mum and dad and get the groceries—so exciting! But the cool thing actually was that at the weekend there was no one in the supermarkets, and there were always a few trolleys left lying around, which we got to enjoy. I was the youngest of three, and for some reason I always ended up in the trolley. I was always the idiot that ended up in the trolley being pushed down the ramp, and then realising my fate and having to try to save myself. But obviously I survived—not too many head injuries. Don’t be the judge of that, please!

But this piece of legislation—and actually, I guess, looking back on it, as Marja Lubeck said before me, it’s been around for a long time. And I know for the ACT Party it’s been something that they’ve worked on for a long time. In fact, it was 20 years ago in 2002, Rodney Hide yet again had pushed around opening up trading on public holidays on Christmas and Easter.

I actually remember, back at that time, him talking about going to—I think he said Singapore or somewhere and everything was open on Christmas Day and we’re such a backward country, nothing’s open. But I think that’s part of the charm. And when I actually moved to New Plymouth in the year 2000, I was initially shocked actually because New Plymouth was pretty much shut down on Sundays, not for any religious reasons but I think because workers and families could get together and could actually have time together, which was a surprise to me. But then I realised the charm and beauty of it that families and people didn’t have the expectation of working.

And my concern with this piece of legislation is that there will be expectation for people to work. Like my previous two colleagues have said, there’s 3½ days left in the calendar; let’s keep it like that. Mr Speaker, I appreciate you listening to me this evening. Kia ora.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m not sure I’m being entirely representative by getting to speak again, because I too will be opposing this bill, though I do want to acknowledge the member Chris Baillie for bringing this forward. I did acknowledge his point, in his first speech, around the inconsistency in the country and some of the rules not making sense and the difficulty of explaining that.

For me, the answer to that would be to go back to simplifying that and actually locking in these holidays for the entire country without those inconsistencies. That’s kind of at the foundation of why I’m opposing this, and it happens that the Greens are all of one mind in terms of our opposition to this.

I would say that for myself and quite a few of my colleagues, it’s not on religious grounds, and, personally, I would love to see this bill renamed so that it wasn’t locking one religious belief into our systems. But, for me, it’s fundamentally about the sense of what we value as a country and what makes us happy. In reality—and all of the research tells us this—it’s not consumption and it’s not alcohol. It is family and friends and nature and connection. We need more opportunities to go back to those values, and this bill is taking it in exactly the wrong way. It’s just saying that, actually, the 3½ days a year that we have as a country to be able to have a high chance of being able to get together with other people we care about at the same time is too much—3½ days in a year is too much.

The Greens disagree with that, and I really think that the fact is that we need to consider our patterns of consumption and acknowledge that, globally, we’ve signed up to commit to more responsible consumption and production through the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and recognise that for decades, scientists have been explaining the ways in which humanity is driving the three planetary crises of climate—

Hon Member: Chris, what have you done?

JAN LOGIE: —biodiversity, and pollution. Whilst I’m hearing laughter from behind me while talking about the planet burning—it’s confusing for me—that’s about the fact that those things are connected to us being sold products all of the time. We’re being told that those things will make us happy and that we cannot even have 3½ days a year where we are not being sold things and told that they will make us happy—that that is too much to ask.

We need more spaces in our lives that are free from being sold, free from treating us as if the only reason we have value is by the work we provide for others, and free from being told that alcohol is more important than time with our families, in a country where 800 people a year die as a direct result of alcohol use and where we acknowledge we have a massive problem around alcohol use in this country.

So the Greens are quite keen to protect these two days and the 1½ more so that, actually, we can all just take a break. We can get back to those things that we care about, and recognise, as well, those patterns of consumption. I do just want to make the point that our country consumes resources at a rate of almost 32 times more than those people in lower-income countries. We are not separate islands, even though we are separate islands—it is all connected. The more we drive consumption, the more we drive the destruction of our planet. It is countries like ours that need to shift our patterns. This bill is taking us in the wrong direction, and the Greens—and myself—cannot support it.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you to our National colleagues for offering the opportunity for the ACT Party to have a second call on this bill.

Now, we’ve heard from the Labour Government members and the Green member why they oppose the bill. Apparently, they want to save us from ourselves. They want to make sure we don’t have too much fun on Easter Sunday or Good Friday. They want to make sure we don’t just have the pint, that fantastic stein of lager with a good inch-deep head on it. They don’t want us to have that with a bowl of chips. They want us to have the salad as well.

Anyway, it’s nice they’re thinking of our health, but, actually, what we want and what businesses want is to be able to make choices about whether they open, whether their staff have a choice to come to work and earn time and a half and get a day in lieu—because not everybody wants to take a holiday when the Government tells you to. Shock, horror!

Now, I’ve been to my colleague Mr Baillie’s pub. Fantastic food, great range of craft beers. Is it The Honest Lawyer? Is that what it’s called? The Honest Lawyer, in Nelson. Fantastic pub, The Honest Lawyer. But it’s not just The Honest Lawyer in Nelson that wants to be able to offer people a plate of chips on an Easter Sunday or a Good Friday; there are hospitality businesses and retailers up and down the country who want to be able to trade.

Now, if I was a tourist at Easter and I came to West Auckland—I know, people do it! They come to West Auckland as tourists at Easter. If we went out on Friday, we wouldn’t be able to go and pick up a bicycle tube if somebody had had a puncture. In fact, we wouldn’t be able to go to the bike park, even, because they’re not open. The Easter trading laws mean that I can’t go biking at my local bike park, because that’s a business and it has to close.

If tourists came to New Zealand like they came to West Auckland, where I live, the garden centre would be open, so maybe they could take a hydrangea or something back on the cruise ship with them as a memento of their trip—we’re not quite sure. Or maybe they could go to one of the duty-free stores and buy a Gucci handbag, or something. These exemptions are ridiculous.

This is not a new problem. Bands, all kinds of entertainers come to New Zealand, and they play shows at Easter. They play multiple-day shows sometimes. If you were a touring band—you’d been all around the world and came to New Zealand—and you played a show on, say, a Saturday night, and you decided you were going to go out on the Sunday and you found that you couldn’t have a beer if you got there an hour before lunch, you’d think, “What kind of country is this?”

Well, there was a band that had an experience like this—not in New Zealand, but in the UK, a long, long time ago, before they liberalised their trading laws. That was The Ramones, one of the best punk rock bands of all time. In fact, they wrote a song about it. It’s called “I Want to Be Sedated”. It was so boring when they woke up in England on Christmas Day, they sang, “24 hours to go, everything’s closed, I want to be sedated.” That’s how New Zealand businesses feel. That’s how Chris Baillie of The Honest Lawyer feels when he hears Labour and Green MPs telling him he’s not allowed to give people a beer unless they have salad with their chips. A lot of us just want to be sedated!

State control over business benefits big business, big corporates, because they can afford to carry the cost burden of being forced to remain closed. It’s small and medium enterprises that actually suffer—those people who do work in their businesses long hours and many days and have to choose when to take holidays. What they don’t want is the Government choosing when they open. They want to have that flexibility, and that’s what this bill provides for.

So I would urge my colleagues: you might have thought you were coming to this House to vote against this bill going to select committee. I hope I’ve given you a window not just into my world and the world of touring bands but the world of what it means to be a small-business person who has to find a way to generate the revenue to pay staff and pay suppliers. I urge you to support this bill at first reading.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The great thing about a mask—it hides a lot of things!

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to do a different take on being a small-business owner. When I was growing up back in the 1970s, one of my fondest memories was listening for the bus on a Friday night. As soon as I heard it go past, I’d be running down the road to meet my dad, who always worked a late Friday night in his souvenir shop in the New Plymouth mall. Back then, shopping was pretty much Monday to Friday, but you had the excitement of going downtown on a Friday night. For those that wanted to go and pick up that extra little bit of shopping, you had the ability to do so until 8.30 p.m.

The thing is, everything was closed at the weekends, and so what that meant is dad had heaps of time to be with us kids. So we had fantastic times going down to the beach, going to the park. He used to build us play forts. He used to build his chicken coops. He had a whole empire of self-sustainability in terms of the fruit trees and the veges in the garden.

Then the law changed and Saturday trading came in. I guess for him, it was a bit of a dilemma because while everybody else opened on Saturday morning, if he didn’t all his customers would go to his competitors. So what happened is Dad just extended his work hours. He still had to work Friday night, Monday to Friday, but he went in again on a Saturday, for his customers, to stay open.

I don’t think he actually earned any extra money, but basically, it was something where he wouldn’t lose money if he was there. So what happened is Sunday became the combination of our family day, but also him juggling all his church responsibilities as well.

Fortunately, what happened is by the time Sunday trading came about nine years later, all us kids had grown up and the business was no longer there. I think the thing for him, though, was that working on a Saturday and a Sunday really wasn’t a choice, because if your competitors are working, you don’t really have any other option otherwise you’re going to lose your business.

So, basically, now what we’ve got is a fact that small-business owners, if they wanted to, can stay open and work 24/7, seven days a week. I think the issue we’ve got now is everybody’s stressed, and we’ve got mindfulness and we’ve got meditation, and they’re a billion dollar business. So what happens is many of us look forward to our public holidays as having that little bit of time off. But as you’ve heard from my colleagues, we’ve got 11 public holidays we celebrate now as a country, but there’s only really four of them where workers can actually be guaranteed that bit of time off. That’s Christmas Day; then we’ve got Anzac Day up until 1 p.m., as my colleague Jamie Strange had talked about; then we’ve got Easter Friday; and we’ve got Easter Sunday.

I think of our other public holidays; so we’ve got Boxing Day, which is now synonymous with excess and with sales; then we’ve got the day after New Year’s Day, again where basically many of us are going out and catching up on the last of the bargains that came from the Boxing Day sales. So we’ve got very, very few days where somebody working in retail can actually say, “I’m going to have that holiday, spend it with my family and with my friends”, and basically don’t have to have the pressure of justifying why they want to do that to their employer. Also for many who are working in vulnerable conditions, the actual pressure to actually stump up and say, “No, I actually want to spend that time with my family and friends.” may well be incredibly difficult. So we’ve lost that whole protection and we’ve lost a lot of that ability for people to spend that time.

As, again, my colleague Jamie Strange said, for many, those particular days—Easter Friday and Easter Sunday—are not just holidays, they’re holy days. They’re where you go to church and you mark the death and the resurrection of Christ. For many of them, that’s a significant moment where you don’t want to be out there shopping.

So basically, for others, though, it’s actually just a time to spend with family and friends. So for me and for our side of the House, what we’re wanting to do is not to lose any more of those protections that our workers have. I’m proud, actually, of some of the protections we have put in place for workers since we’ve been in Government over the last four and a half years. I think about, you know, just the things like the increases to the minimum wage, reinstating meal breaks and rest breaks, and doubling the number of sick days that people have. So again, there’s not the pressure to come to work when you’re sick. Also, thinking about what we’re going to be doing in terms of fair pay agreements.

So this is not a bill that on this side of the House we can support, because I think we want to make sure that people can take that time off and be with family and friends on those limited extra days of the year. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take a call in relation to this bill this evening. Like some of my colleagues, I’ll just start by congratulating Chris Baillie for having his bill pulled from the tin; that’s not something that I have had the excitement to have happen to me as yet, but I do congratulate the member. But, as others have on this side of the House have spoken to this evening, it’s not a bill that I will be supporting this evening.

It’s a bill, of course, that seeks to remove restrictions on trading and selling of alcohol on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. A number of my colleagues have spoken about the fact that really what we’re trying to protect here is wellbeing. There are only 3½ days when people are not expected to sit in to many of the roles that they hold for the rest of the year. It is a very slim line, but it is so powerful for families and for individuals.

I wanted to speak about a particular group of workers we don’t always talk about, but who I have done a lot of work with. For about nine years of my life, I worked at YouthLaw Aotearoa. We were in the business of giving free legal advice to under-25-year-olds. One of the biggest areas of law we advised on was education law, and that’s perhaps something that you would expect. But what you might not expect is that about 50 percent of our work was related to employment law.

Often what the young people would come to us with were situations where they had felt really bullied into saying yes, saying yes to additional hours, saying yes to working at hours where they didn’t feel safe doing so, saying yes to working in conditions that they felt were unsafe. And that was only part of the problem. What we started to understand was that these were the young people who were coming to us, they knew a whole cohort of other young people who simply would never ask for help, they would just subject themselves to conditions that were not fair. And it wasn’t necessarily that they didn’t have those legal rights in play, they just wouldn’t call on them, and they were very aware of that sense of being almost bullied into having to say yes.

So I think, from this side of the House, there’s an acute awareness of what it is like to work with some parts of our community who are often subject to overt pressure to take on those extra duties, and they simply don’t feel empowered to be able to say no. Their mental wellbeing is worth protecting as well.

I do think that we’ve all just been through this unusual experience that is COVID for the last two years. Every time I think about that experience, I think of that beautiful T S Eliot quote where he talks about “the still point in a turning world … where past and future are gathered”. It was a time of extreme stress, yes, but was also a time that gave us the opportunity to reflect on what matters. New Zealand responded well, we put people first, but we also started to get an understanding that people’s wellbeing is complex—it is complex—and it needs active attention if we’re going to protect it. So we cannot support this bill, on this side of the House, this evening.

I also recall, just a couple of weeks ago, visiting the Salvation Army near my electorate office, where the lovely team there talked about the impacts of COVID on people’s wellbeing, and that sense of pressure, acute pressure, that they were under, which meant that one problem led to another problem, led to another problem. Sometimes there were addiction issues. Sometimes there was a need for food bank. And what they found was that as soon as they were connected to people, that they had active time to be connected, that wellbeing radar shifted.

It is worthwhile protecting those 3½ days when people can actively reconnect, where there is no pressure, overt or otherwise, for people to compromise their family lives, and their wellbeing, for work. I do not support this bill this evening.

Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. It’s getting late and I believe it might be time for a little bit of a bedtime story, as we put, I hope, this bill to bed. It’s an old story, but it appeals to me because it talks to the one remaining day of protected holiday that we would have left for workers in this country were this bill to pass.

Let’s see how long it takes my colleagues to pick up what we’re talking about: “At length, the hour of shutting up the counting house arrived. With an ill will, Scrooge, dismounted from his stool and tacitly admitted the fact to the expectant clerk. ‘You’ll want all day tomorrow, I suppose.’ ‘If quite convenient, sir.’ ‘It is not convenient and it’s not fair. If I was to stop half-a-crown for it, you’d think yourself mightily ill-used, I’ll be bound.’ ‘Yes, sir.’ ‘And yet you do not think me ill-used if I have to pay a day’s wages for no work.’ ‘It’s only once a year, sir.’ ”

That’s what we’re going to have. This perhaps should be renamed the “Scrooge Bill”, because it will put us back in the Dickensian position of having one day a year in which people can guarantee that they will have a day with their families without the pressure of work.

Because for all the fine rhetoric coming from the ACT Party as to the freedom to work, what we’re really talking about is people of extreme vulnerability—people like my colleague Ms Walters was describing, but also, going back over 150 years, the people that Mr Charles Dickens was discussing when he made this story about a clerk with a family to support, who felt almost unable to take that one day a year, who was begrudged it, who was only given it out of a strong sense of custom.

It is so little—it is so little to ask, really, for our families to preserve just a little bit of space within the year where they do not have to worry about disappointing employers upon whom they rely. Business is not just about profit; business is about people. Without the people, there is no profit and there is no business. It is not too much to ask of each other that we preserve a few small days in the year where vulnerable workers do not have to negotiate or worry about the time they take off.

I am not a Christian and, for me, the fact that these holidays that we have left are religious holidays is not an issue. I find it more of a cultural phenomenon, but it is one that even a non-Christian family like my own celebrated and found extremely precious. The fact that Easter was available to us—there are so many memories I have around the Easter holidays. There are so many memories, because there are so few opportunities for families to stop in the middle of things. I, too, remember how important and how special and, yes, how dull sometimes those Sundays were without shops, but how precious in retrospect that we had that time to stop, with our families, and spend that time together.

I don’t quite know, speaking of spending—I’m not quite sure how the anticipated profit is going to come, because the very fact of us having two less days of holiday doesn’t actually mean the money is going to increase. The people’s wages will stay the same. Their discretionary spending will stay the same. It’ll just be packed into—shock, horror—two less days in a full year. It doesn’t seem to be a problem. People will still be able to go out and they will be able to spend on the day after Easter is over.

So: “Mr Scrooge told his worker, ‘Oh, it’s a poor excuse for picking a man’s pockets every 25th of December, but I suppose you must have the whole day. Be there all the earlier the next morning, he said.’ ” Let’s not let ourselves become like Mr Scrooge with just that one day where families are protected. Good night, Mr Speaker.

NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand in an unanticipated ability to speak on this bill. I’ve got to start off by saying—I’ve already said this once in the House today, and I’ve just got to say it again—what a kookaburra’s codswallop that’s coming over from the Labour Party.

I mean, really, we’re talking about having a couple of days where small business can actually get out there and make a difference in their communities, and, perhaps, even do something novel like survive during a cost of living crisis that we have happening at the moment. What I’ve heard from the Labour Party is obviously from non-business owners because they’ve really got no idea about the struggles that they’ve put on small businesses. I don’t think they even realise that 97 percent of the businesses within New Zealand are small.

Hon Poto Williams: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Point of order. I’m afraid the time clock’s not going.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): My one’s working, luckily.

NICOLE McKEE: Shall I start off again with the kookaburra’s codswallop that I’ve been hearing from across the House? It’s very disappointing when we have a political party who complains in one speech about taking two public holidays away, yet this year they gave one.

We have to actually have a look at the effect that the laws have on small businesses—the cost of living crisis, the COVID mandates that had gone through under Parliament, closing down a lot of businesses and restricting some of them from being able to operate. We have a good reason for allowing businesses to open during the Good Friday and Easter Sunday trading days. While I’ve heard some arguments across the House suggesting that, well, people can’t go away on holidays, one might suggest that perhaps they had to work on the Saturday anyway, and that if they get the opportunity to work on the Friday and the Sunday as well they might actually be able to earn some more money for their family. I think that that’s an important consideration that is possibly being missed from the other side of the House.

What’s even more disappointing is the fact that we can’t even debate this bill at select committee. We can’t go through the pros and cons of it, and get advice from officials, because we are just being shut down by a Labour Party who is burying their head in the sand, like kookaburras might do, one might think.

It’s a disappointment that we are unable to actually go about having a debate where we can talk about the pros and the cons of opening up on statutory holidays. I think it’s really, really important, as do the ACT Party, that we look to support all of New Zealand. One of the things that is in Mr Chris Baillie’s bill is the fact that people don’t have to operate on those days. They can choose to open, that the workers that are employed by them do not have to work on those days. They are protected within this bill. They can choose. But we have a Labour Government from across the other side that don’t even want to engage in the debate, and they just end up putting their foot on the throats of small businesses once again, determining that they are not essential to the survival of our economy or our communities, and that is a failure on part of that party.

It’s a disappointment: disappointment for the families, disappointment for the communities—especially for those businesses that are struggling. I think that it would be a really great idea to be able to put this through to select committee. But as it’s obviously not going to happen, I’ll leave you with this final thought: another kookaburra’s codswallop. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): I call Chris Baillie—five minutes in reply.

CHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): I’m not going to “labour” on this for too much longer—I don’t like using that word—but thank you very much for everyone’s contribution. It was anticipated, if you listened to what I said at the start—I did say that people will argue for the status quo because of religious beliefs or a belief that workers’ rights might be affected. The bill well and truly covers that so they won’t be affected, and I’ll address that again shortly.

Just to look at some of the last contributors: Jamie Strange, he asked why not Christmas Day and Anzac Day, and I quite agree. I did not think that society is ready for those two days, unlike Kieran McAnulty, of course, who wanted to include Christmas Day and Anzac Day and open it right up in his bill, which has now been withdrawn. I accept that there is family time; however, if you work, as has been said, you get a day in lieu to take that day whenever you feel like it.

Since 1990, since the shop trading hours—you mentioned that—since 1990, workers had three weeks’ leave, and that was it. Since then, four weeks’ leave, 12 stat holidays, two weeks’ sick days, and numerous other holidays that they’re entitled to now. You’re probably aware, I’m not sure, that Rome—the great city of Rome—has no restrictions on trading or the sale of alcohol for Easter—just a bit of trivia there.

Glen Bennett—he mentioned 52 took the oath on the Bible; it was actually 52 took the affirmation and 71 took the Bible. I’m not sure where he got the thought that I wasn’t sympathetic to him, because I took the oath on the Bible as well, no problem at all.

Jan talked about as we expected: alcohol is bad—everything to do with alcohol is bad and everything to do with marijuana is good. So we won’t go down that track.

Liz Craig talked about stress and mindfulness, without actually acknowledging that that is part of a business owner’s remit now. They have to consider stress, mindfulness, and how workers are reacting and their mental health—everything. That didn’t happen before.

Vanushi Walters again talked about wellbeing, and I quite agree, quite agree, but I must remind Vanushi of last week during the electoral reform bill, when she said things should go to the select committee to be discussed. It just seems a little bit inconsistent.

Emily Henderson, protecting holidays—I think if my staff heard you refer to me as a Scrooge, you’d have them to answer to, because you obviously don’t understand what employers and business owners actually have to do for their staff these days. One of my cleaners just recently said, “What are Labour trying to do to us? Put us all on the dole?”

Hansard is an interesting tool, and I just had a quick look over some previous speeches. Grant Robertson, during the 2013 marriage amendment bill—oh, just carried on and on about personal choice, that people should be able to choose for themselves. It just seems except for business owners and employees.

There were lots of speeches from Labour members quite viciously attacking the Opposition for voting along the party lines, and rubbishing the Opposition for not having an opinion of their own. Just a lot of inconsistencies.

There’s a lot of talk about business owners and people being forced—and it just really shows the utter naivety and/or ignorance about what employers actually have to go through. This bill would not make employees work—it is written there; it’s quite clear. Really, to me, it just shows it’s lucky Labour and Greens don’t own businesses, because they would be awful employers. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Repeal of Good Friday and Easter Sunday as Restricted Trading Days (Shop Trading and Sale of Alcohol) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 37

New Zealand National 27 (Bayly, Brownlee, Collins, Dean, Doocey, Grigg, Hipango, Kuriger, Luxon, McClay, McKelvie, Mitchell, Mooney, Muller, Penk, Pugh, Reti, Simpson, Smith, Stanford, Uffindell, Upston, Watts, Willis); ACT New Zealand 10.

Noes 81

New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; New Zealand National 6 (Brown, Goldsmith, Lee, Simmonds, van de Molen, Woodhouse).

Motion not agreed to.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.